Journal of Consumer Marketing

Ethical decision making in counterfeit purchase situations: the influence of moral awareness and moral
emotions on moral judgment and purchase intentions
Luis F. Martinez Dorothea S. Jaeger
Article information:
To cite this document:
Luis F. Martinez Dorothea S. Jaeger , (2016),"Ethical decision making in counterfeit purchase situations: the influence of moral
awareness and moral emotions on moral judgment and purchase intentions ", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 Iss 3 pp.
213 - 223
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2015-1394
Downloaded on: 06 March 2017, At: 23:01 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1066 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"The customer is king: culture-based unintended consequences of modern marketing", Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 33 Iss 3 pp. 193-201 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2015-1273
(2016),"Guilt-free food consumption: one of your five ideologies a day", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 Iss 3 pp.
202-212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-05-2014-0967

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543799 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Ethical decision making in counterfeit
purchase situations: the influence of moral
awareness and moral emotions on moral
judgment and purchase intentions
Luis F. Martinez and Dorothea S. Jaeger
Nova School of Business and Economics, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose Counterfeiting is an increasingly global phenomenon that threatens the economy as a whole and also presents a risk for the consumers.
The purpose of this study is to explore moral emotions along with moral awareness and moral judgment with respect to their influence in the
consumption of counterfeits.
Design/methodology/approach An online questionnaire was distributed among participants (n 225) who were asked to respond to a
counterfeit purchase scenario.
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)

Findings Results highlight the importance of moral awareness as an essential element of moral decision-making. Also, moral emotions were found
to influence moral judgment as well as purchase intention.
Research limitations/implications A limitation refers to the fact that a scenario was used to evoke participants emotional responses. Although
the situation was realistic and the majority of the people could very well imagine experiencing the reported scenario, results might change in an
actual purchase situation.
Practical Implications This studys findings may be particularly relevant for authorities and educators who design campaigns to curtail
counterfeit consumption, thus seeking to encourage consumers to recognize the several negative consequences that result from counterfeiting
behavior.
Originality/value This is one of the few studies that examine the impact of cognitive and emotional influences in a counterfeit purchase decision.
Fighting this problem requires an in-depth understanding of consumers motivations and how they feel about engaging in this morally questionable
behavior.
Keywords Ethics, Consumer behavior, Counterfeiting, Moral awareness, Moral emotions, Moral judgment
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction often involve criminal groups who neglect labor and

Counterfeiting is a worldwide phenomenon that has been
growing tremendously in recent years. According to the
European Commission, the number of cases registered in the
EU has doubled since 2007, expanding from the luxury sector
to many other product categories such as cosmetics,
pharmaceuticals, electronic appliances and automobile parts
(European Commission, 2014). The negative consequences
are manifold, affecting not only licit businesses but also
consumers, job holders and the society at large. A survey
conducted by Ernst and Young (2008) in Western Europe
revealed that consumers:
seem to be aware of the possible risks associated with the
consumption of counterfeits (e.g. health risks); and
know that the manufacturing and distribution of counterfeits
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
environmental standards.
Despite these negative aspects, consumers demand for
counterfeits is high, as suggested by the latest figures from the
European Commissions annual report on enforcement of
intellectual property rights. For example, in 2013, 36 million
detained articles were registered by customs with the value of
the equivalent genuine products estimated around 768m
(European Commission, 2014). As demand is always a driving
force in a market (Bian and Moutinho, 2009), policymakers
are keen on finding out what drives consumers to buy fake
products. Researchers have identified various influences such
as personal character traits, product attributes or social and
cultural influences for an extensive review, see Eisend and
Schuchert-Gler (2006) and Staake et al. (2009). Although
these studies have provided valuable insights, the complexity
of the issue makes it rather difficult to generalize results and

The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers
for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Journal of Consumer Marketing
33/3 (2016) 213223 Received 10 April 2015
Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] Revised 6 August 2015
[DOI 10.1108/JCM-04-2015-1394] Accepted 9 September 2015

213
 Influence of moral awareness and moral emotions
Luis F. Martinez and Dorothea S. Jaeger
profile the typical counterfeit consumer (Bian and Moutinho,
2011).
Prior work has highlighted the ethical element of counterfeit
purchases (Chiou et al., 2005; Hilton et al., 2004). Much of
this work focused on cognitive aspects and applied ethical
decision-making models to explain consumer behavior
(Moores and Chang, 2006; Wagner and Sanders, 2001).
However, few researchers (Kim et al., 2009; Zampetakis,
2014) have called for more investigations of emotional
influences in moral decision-making concerning counterfeit
products, providing first evidence that emotions can have an
influence on consumers moral judgment and purchase
intention. Considering that counterfeiting can be linked to
poor labor and environmental conditions, the act of buying a
counterfeit product represents an ethical dilemma that may
indeed give rise to certain moral emotions, such as guilt, which
in turn may deter the intention to engage in this morally
questionable behavior.
Given the lack of empirical research concerning the
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)
influence of emotional components in the context of
counterfeit goods, the purpose of this study is to explore moral
emotions along with moral awareness and moral judgment
with respect to their influence in the consumption process of
counterfeits. Thus, our key research question is whether or not
moral emotions influence individuals moral judgment and
purchase intention regarding counterfeits. Building on prior
research, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of
both moral affect in ethical decision-making and consumers
motivations to engage in counterfeit consumption. New
insights will be especially valuable for policymakers and
consumer educators, helping them to design effective
campaigns to curtail counterfeit consumption.
1.1 Theoretical background and definition
This study refers to counterfeits as reproduced copies that
are identical to the legitimate articles including packaging,
trademarks, and labeling (Ang et al., 2001, p. 219). They are
usually sold at a much lower price than the original and are
often inferior in terms of quality (Lai and Zaichkowsky, 1999).
Counterfeiting appears in two different forms, as either
deceptive or non-deceptive counterfeiting (Grossmann and
Shapiro, 1988a, 1988b). Under deceptive counterfeiting, the
consumer does not know that the item that he/she is buying is
not the original. Non-deceptive counterfeiting occurs when
the consumer is fully aware that the product is not authentic
for instance, because of the low price, purchase location or
quality. This form of counterfeiting is said to be especially
prevalent in the luxury sector (Nia and Zaichkowsky, 2000).
From the original brand owners perspective, it is very
interesting to look at the group of non-deceptive consumers,
as their demand remains one of the main reasons why the
counterfeit industry has been flourishing (Ang et al., 2001).
Accordingly, the present study will deal with the
non-deceptive form of counterfeiting.
1.2 Key determinants of counterfeit purchase intention
and behavior
Given the scope of the issue, prior research investigating the
demand side of counterfeiting is very extensive (Eisend and
Schuchert-Gler, 2006; Staake et al., 2009). Many of the past
214
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 Number 3 2016 213223
studies focused on examining the relation between
consumer attitude and purchase intention and applied
attitude-behavioral models such as the theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1991) to explain consumers decision-
making (Jirotmontree, 2013; Peace et al., 2003; Penz and
Stttinger, 2005). Attitude has often been found to be a good
indicator for counterfeit purchase intention (Ang et al., 2001;
Michaelidou and Christodoulides, 2011; Phau et al., 2009).
Based on extensive literature review, Eisend and
Schuchert-Gler (2006) classified relevant antecedents of
attitude and intention into four categories, namely: person
characteristics, product aspects, social/cultural context and
purchase environment. Research involving demographic
variables has so far produced inconclusive results. For
instance, Bloch et al. (1993) found that neither age nor
household income were effective criteria in predicting US
consumers preference for counterfeits, whereas Tom et al.
(1998) claimed that those who were younger and had lower
disposable income were more prone to buy counterfeit
products. Wee et al. (1995) were able to show that education
as well as household income were negatively related to
counterfeit purchase intention for consumers in South East
Asia, but age did not have any explanatory power. Studies
analyzing psychographic traits suggest that counterfeit
consumers are more materialistic, value-conscious,
susceptible to opinions of others, but at the same time, they
lack ethical consideration (Ang et al., 2001; Fernandes, 2013;
Kozar and Marcketti, 2011; Penz and Stttinger, 2005).
When it comes to product features, price was found to be one
of the most relevant factors (Albers-Miller, 1999; Cordell
et al., 1996; Hamelin et al., 2013). The willingness to buy
counterfeits increases if consumers perceive the product to be
similar to the original with respect to features such as quality,
durability, look and functionality (Penz and Stttinger, 2008).
The social and cultural context surrounding an individual also
has an impact on whether he/she considers purchasing a
counterfeit. Albers-Miller (1999) found that people are more
likely to purchase counterfeits in the presence of friends who
had previously bought an illicit product. Also, people are
susceptible to the opinions of others and will strongly be
influenced by the approval or rejection of their peers when it
comes to the purchase of counterfeit goods (De Matos et al.,
2007; Prendergast et al., 2002). Although counterfeiting is
especially prominent in collectivistic cultures (e.g. China),
results from studies examining the direct effects of
collectivistic culture on individuals attitude toward
counterfeits are inconclusive. For example, Wang et al. (2005)
found collectivism to be an important factor in influencing
attitude toward pirated software, whereas Phau and Teah
(2009) did not find strong evidence among Chinese
consumers.
Some researchers went beyond specific factors and persons
characteristics and investigated individuals underlying
motives to buy counterfeits, such as the desire to create
identities and express themselves. Wilcox et al. (2009) found
that consumers propensity to buy counterfeits was linked to
social motivations underlying their attitudes toward luxury
brands. Based on the reasoning that attitudes serve important
social functions by enabling self-expression (value-expressive
function) and allowing self-presentation (social-adjustment
 Influence of moral awareness and moral emotions
Luis F. Martinez and Dorothea S. Jaeger
function), they found that when consumers attitudes served a
social-adjustment function rather than a value-expressive one,
their preference for counterfeits was higher. A qualitative
study by Perez et al. (2010) revealed that consumers attain
certain inner benefits through the purchase of counterfeits,
namely, optimizing resources, having fun and deceiving others
while expecting not to be caught. Through the achievement of
these goals, consumers build an identity in which they see
themselves as savvy individuals. This was also supported by
another qualitative study by Penz and Stttinger (2012),
which revealed that consumers see themselves as smart
shoppers, while they are shopping for counterfeits.
1.3 The role of consumer ethics in counterfeit
consumption
Although the purchase of a counterfeit is not a criminal act, an
individual who buys a counterfeit product indirectly supports
an illegal activity. Hence, the purchase or intention to
purchase a counterfeit product can be regarded as consumer
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)
misbehavior (Penz and Stttinger, 2005) [. . .] which violates
the generally accepted norms of conduct in exchange and is
therefore held in disrepute by marketers and by most
consumers (Fullerton and Punj, 1993, p. 570). Researchers
have highlighted the ethical dimension of counterfeit
purchases (Chiou et al., 2005; Hilton et al., 2004). In
particular, those interested in the ethical aspect of counterfeit
purchases have incorporated factors such as ethical obligation
(Michaelidou and Christodoulides, 2011), ethical judgment
(Fernandes, 2013) and personal integrity (De Matos et al.,
2007) into their research models. Overall, research suggests
that consumer ethics that is, the moral rules, principles and
standards guiding the behavior of an individual (Norum and
Cuno, 2011, p. 29) influences consumers willingness to buy
counterfeits (Michaelidou and Christodoulides, 2011).
Consumers who attribute more integrity to themselves and
have higher levels of respect toward lawfulness are less likely to
engage in counterfeit buying (Cordell et al., 1996; De Matos
et al., 2007).
Moreover, some researchers applied ethical theories to
explain consumers moral decision-making (Moores and
Chang, 2006; Wagner and Sanders, 2001). The
four-component model by Rest is one of the most frequently
referenced ethical decision-making models (Jordan, 2007).
Rest proposed a model where an individual first needs to:
recognize the moral issue in the situation (moral
awareness);
decide what is morally right or wrong (moral judgment);
prioritize moral concerns over other concerns (moral
intent); and
engage in moral action (moral behavior) (as cited in Jones,
1991).
1.3.1 Moral awareness
Moral awareness is a critical first step in the moral
decision-making process and is defined as an individuals
ability to recognize that a situation contains a moral issue
(Lincoln and Holmes, 2011, p. 56). It involves being aware of
different possible alternatives of action, as well as recognizing
how each of these responses will affect others (Bebeau et al.,
1999). As researchers have elaborated on Rests definition,
there are several different definitions and interpretations of
215
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 Number 3 2016 213223
moral awareness (Jordan, 2007). This study will refer to moral
awareness as the cognitive ability to recognize the moral issue
within a situation and adopt Reynolds (2006, p. 233) broad
definition of moral awareness as [. . .] a persons
determination that a situation contains moral content and
legitimately can be considered from a moral point of view.
Scholars have recognized the importance of moral awareness,
suggesting that without recognizing the ethical aspect of a
situation it is impossible to solve any moral problem
(Clarkeburn, 2002, p. 439). If an individual is not aware that
a situation contains a moral issue, then he/she is unlikely to
take it into account when making a decision and will instead
decide based on other schemata for example, based on
economic rationality (Jones, 1991). Peoples ethic-related
shortcomings can stem from any stage in the decision-making
process. Thus, it is worthwhile to explore moral awareness
along with moral judgment in the moral decision-making
process (Jordan, 2007).
To our knowledge, only one study has explored the
relationship between moral awareness and moral judgment in
the context of counterfeit purchases. Moores and Chang
(2006) tested the entire four-component model by Rest in the
context of software piracy in Hong Kong. Their findings
supported that Rests model can be seen as a sequential causal
model, although they could not find evidence for a causal
relationship between moral awareness and judgment.
Interestingly, people were very aware of the moral issues in the
situation. As a possible explanation, the authors suggest that
when people perceive piracy as something normal, the illegal
aspect of the act does not evoke any moral outrage. Thus, the
decision-making process starts with an individuals judgment
and not with the recognition of the ethicality of the act itself
(Moores and Chang, 2006, p. 175). Given these ambiguous
results and the lack of empirical research of moral awareness
within the context of counterfeiting, this study examines the
influence of moral awareness on moral judgment. Based on
this theoretical background, when people are aware of the
moral issues involved in purchasing a counterfeit product,
they will more likely perceive the act as morally wrong. Thus,
the following is hypothesized:
H1. The higher the individuals level of moral awareness,
the higher her/his level of moral judgment concerning
the purchase of a counterfeit product.
1.3.2 Moral judgment
Moral judgment is defined as an individuals prescriptive
assessment of what is right or wrong (Trevino, 1986, p. 604).
It involves evaluating which courses of action to a moral
problem are morally justified (Lincoln and Holmes, 2011). In
contrast to moral awareness, the construct of moral judgment
has received a lot of attention in academic research often
being used in ethical decision-making models to explain moral
behavior (Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Jones, 1991). Prior research
has shown that an individuals moral judgment influences an
individuals moral behavior or moral intention in counterfeit
consumption situations: for example, Moores and Chang
(2006), Tan (2002) and Wagner and Sanders (2001) all found
that the higher the moral judgment of an individual, the lower
their intention to purchase pirated software. The same
conclusion was drawn from a study by Ha and Lennon
 Influence of moral awareness and moral emotions
Luis F. Martinez and Dorothea S. Jaeger
(2006), who investigated consumers ethical judgment
regarding fashion counterfeit products. Accordingly, a person
who assesses the act of buying a fake product as morally wrong
is unlikely to purchase that product. Based on these previous
findings, the following is hypothesized:
H2. The greater the individuals level of moral judgment,
the lower his/her intent to purchase a counterfeit
product.
1.4 Emotional aspects of buying counterfeits
Emotions are important in their role as motivators of
subsequent actions (Penz and Stttinger, 2012). Emotions
activate peoples goals and, thus, evoke certain behavioral
responses that help them achieve these goals (Zeelenberg
et al., 2007). Although researchers have examined the role of
emotions in consumer decision-making in retail environments
(Chang et al., 2014; Eroglu et al., 2003; Fiore et al., 2005; Kim
and Johnson, 2013), studies investigating emotional aspects
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)
during counterfeit purchase situations are still scarce. Eisend
and Schuchert-Gler (2006) were among the first to
emphasize the need for more research in this area. In their
qualitative study, respondents mentioned that they often
bought counterfeits during their vacations in a foreign
country, where they felt more open to new experiences. Gistri
et al. (2009), who examined consumers counterfeit
consumption habits, reported that their respondents had
mixed feelings toward luxury counterfeits. On the one hand,
they felt upset about not being able to buy the original. On the
other hand, if their fake was of good quality, their happiness
level rose, as the risk of being detected was decreased. Penz
and Stttinger (2012), who investigated emotional and
motivational aspects of buying counterfeits versus originals,
revealed that emotions are especially relevant when the
purchasing environment is considered. Counterfeits are often
bought spontaneously on holidays, where people enjoy the fun
and excitement of bargaining and the relaxed atmosphere of
street markets. Interestingly, the biggest disadvantage that the
consumers of fakes often mention is the fear of being detected
and the shame associated with it. Accordingly, counterfeit
consumption gives rise to mixed (and complex) emotional
reactions. This reasoning was supported by Zampetakis
(2014), who examined Greek consumers past emotions when
purchasing counterfeits. Many participants in his study
reported feeling both happy and distressed while buying a
counterfeit.
Given the ethical dimension regarding counterfeit
purchases, researchers have recently started to examine the
influence of moral emotions on consumers moral judgment
and behavioral intent (Kim et al., 2009; Kim and Johnson,
2014). Moral emotions are those emotions that are linked to
the interests or welfare either of society as a whole or at least
of persons other than the judge or agent (Haidt, 2003,
p. 276). They differ from basic emotions (e.g. sadness,
happiness, surprise), as they are related to something external,
such as the welfare of the society (Haidt, 2003). Thus, they
motivate people to focus on others and see how ones own
actions influence the welfare of others (De Hooge et al., 2007).
Researchers have highlighted moral emotions as an important
element of moral decision-making (Haidt, 2001; Monin et al.,
216
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 Number 3 2016 213223
2007; Greene and Haidt, 2002). According to Haidt (2003),
four different categories of moral emotions can be identified:
shame, guilt, embarrassment and (to a lesser extent) pride, all
belonging to the category of self-conscious emotions
(Tangney et al., 2007), which are evoked by self-reflection or
self-evaluation. Anger, contempt and disgust are considered to
be other-condemning emotions, as they all imply negative
feelings about the actions or character of others (Haidt,
2003, p. 856). Other-suffering moral emotions (i.e.
empathy) are evoked in response to the suffering of others.
Other-praising emotions (i.e. gratitude, awe, elevation)
function both as response and motivator of moral behavior, as
they make people engage in socially respectful behavior
(Haidt, 2003; Tangney et al., 2007).
Haidt (2001) claims that when it comes to morality
emotions play a primary causal role. Also, moral judgments
are made automatically and effortlessly as a result of moral
intuition (i.e. peoples instant, unintentional and affect-laden
feelings of approval or disapproval). These instant feelings are
separate from the cognitive process of searching, weighing
evidence, or inferring a conclusion (Haidt, 2001, p. 818).
Kim et al. (2009), who studied the influence of individuals
proneness to shame and guilt on moral judgment and
purchase intention of three types of illicit products, found that
people who were more prone to experience guilt were also
more likely to judge the purchase of illicit products as morally
wrong. Moreover, they found that guilt had a negative
influence on the purchase intention for grey-market products.
In her dissertation, Kim (2009) investigated how cultural
orientation influences moral emotions for two different
consumption situations (counterfeit product vs socially
responsible product). She found that Korean consumers
associated more anger and contempt with the purchase of
counterfeits than US consumers. Also, moral emotions were
found to influence moral judgment as well as purchase
intention for both purchase scenarios. In a later study
involving a fashion counterfeit product, Kim and Johnson
(2014) examined the moderating role of consumers self-view
in the relationship between moral emotions and moral
judgment. They also found that undergraduate students make
moral judgments based on their feelings, as they found
significant effects for shame and pride on moral judgment.
Accordingly, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H3. Moral emotions will decrease purchase intention for a
counterfeit product.
H4. Moral emotions will increase moral judgment
concerning the purchase of a counterfeit product.
As outlined before, moral emotions were found to play an
important role in consumption situations involving illicit
products. Particularly, guilt and shame are the most frequently
and intensely felt emotions during the consumption of
counterfeits (Zampetakis, 2014). Thus, a question instantly
arises: Why people tend to associate certain feelings with the
purchase of counterfeits? It may well be that the recognition of
moral issues in the situation (i.e. moral awareness) elicits a
negative affective response such as guilt, shame or even
anger for instance, the consciousness of causing harm to the
licit brand owners and to the society as a whole. Also,
 Influence of moral awareness and moral emotions
Luis F. Martinez and Dorothea S. Jaeger
Penz and Stttinger (2005) included ethical predisposition
(i.e. the awareness of ethical aspects of buying counterfeits)
into their research model to explain counterfeit purchase
behavior. They found that if consumers have a stronger
awareness of the ethical aspects related to counterfeit
purchases, they will most likely feel embarrassed when
detected buying counterfeits. Accordingly, one could suspect
that when an individual is not at all aware that the situation of
purchasing a counterfeit product contains moral issues and
thus believes he/she is doing the right thing negative
feelings are less likely to be associated with the purchase.
Based on this logic, the following is hypothesized (Figure 1):
H5. Moral awareness will increase moral emotions.
2. Method
2.1 Sample and procedure
Data were collected from a convenience sample via an online
survey created with Qualtrics Survey Software. Personal
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)
messages were disseminated via e-mail, asking potential
respondents to participate in a study about counterfeiting.
Online surveys are nowadays very popular research
instruments, as they permit a quick and efficient diffusion and
also offer substantial cost advantages (Ilieva et al., 2002;
Wilson and Laskey, 2003). The survey was available in
German as well as in English. No incentive was offered for
completing it.
A total of 225 individuals (97 females and 128 males)
participated in this research. The majority of them were
German (76.4 per cent). The remaining respondents came
from other European countries, including Portugal (4.4 per
cent), Finland (4.4 per cent), UK (3.6 per cent) and France
(2.2 per cent). Most participants mentioned that they had
purchased counterfeit products before (69.8 per cent). Table I
depicts a detailed overview on sample characterization.
2.2 Questionnaire
To test the hypotheses, we used the scenario method, as it is
widely used and accepted in consumer and emotion
research it is also effective for triggering a persons
Figure 1 Overview of hypothesized relationships
H1+
Moral awareness
H5+ H4+
Moral emotions
Notes: + Positive relationship; negative relationship; hypothesis supported;
hypothesis partially supported
Table I Sample characterization
Gender (%)
Male Female 15-25
56.9 43.1 56.9
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 Number 3 2016 213223
experience of a moral dilemma (Moores and Chang, 2006;
Kim and Johnson, 2013; Zeelenberg et al., 2007). We
developed a scenario based on the study by Kim and Johnson
(2014), which described a situation where consumers had the
chance to buy a pair of counterfeit sunglasses. Sunglasses were
selected as a stimulus product, as they are gender neutral and
belong to one of the most popular counterfeit items among
consumers in Europe. Participants were asked to imagine
themselves in this scenario. Next, they were asked to indicate
how likely they would purchase the counterfeit sunglasses,
how strongly they would feel each one of the moral emotions
listed and they responded to the listed measures for moral
awareness and moral judgment. Finally, participants provided
some demographic variables and were asked to indicate how
far the scenario described in the questionnaire seemed realistic
to them and if they could imagine themselves to be in that
situation. These last questions were used as a manipulation
check. Particularly, participants were able to identify
themselves with the purchase situation, indicating that the
situation seemed realistic to them (M 5.99; SD 1.37) and
they could imagine themselves in such a situation (M 5.31;
SD 1.84) both responses on a seven-point Likert-type
scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely well).
2.3 Measures
To measure moral emotions, guilt, anger and gratitude were
chosen, as they represent different categories of Haidts
(2003) moral emotions all applicable to a counterfeit
purchase situation. Guilt is a self-conscious emotion that is
experienced as a result of ones belief that ones own behavior
has caused harm, loss or distress to others (Haidt, 2003).
Anger belongs to the category of other-condemning
emotions. Although anger is less often considered in morally
relevant situations, it is valuable to explore its presence in the
context of a counterfeit purchase scenario, as this emotion
may arise not only as a result of experienced self-harm but also
in response to certain events in which the perpetrators
behavior represents a violation of moral standards (Tangney
et al., 2007, p. 361). Accordingly, this negative evaluation of
others could motivate people to take a corrective moral action.
H2-
Moral judgment Purchase intention
H3-
Counterfeit purchase
Age group (%) experience (%)
26-35 36-50 50 Yes No
23.6 6.7 12.9 69.8 30.2
217
 Influence of moral awareness and moral emotions
Luis F. Martinez and Dorothea S. Jaeger
Finally, gratitude an other-praising emotion is a pleasant
affective state that is often felt as a response to certain benefits
received by others. Also, two other emotions (pride and
shame) were included in the questionnaire as a manipulation
check for participants. Respondents were asked to indicate
how strongly they would feel each of the listed emotions on a
six-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (would not
experience it at all) to 6 (would experience it very much).
Scale items used to measure each emotion were taken from
different emotional scales by Aaker and Williams (1998),
Richins (1997) and Holbrook and Batra (1987). Three items
were used to measure each emotion: guilt (guilty,
blameworthy and remorseful); anger (frustrated, angry and
irritated); gratitude (grateful, thankful and appreciative); pride
(proud, confident and excited); and shame (shameful,
embarrassed and awkward).
Purchase intention was measured on a seven-point
Likert-type scale adopted from Kim and Johnson (2013),
ranging from 1 (very unlikely/impossible) to 7 (very likely/
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)
possible). To measure moral awareness, participants were
asked to indicate their agreement with three statements
developed by Reynolds (2006) and three statements
developed by ourselves. The six items were:
1 There are important ethical aspects to this situation.
2 This situation clearly does not involve ethics or moral
issues (reversed).
3 This situation could be described as a moral issue.
4 I am aware that the purchase of the counterfeit sunglasses
could harm the original manufacturer.
5 I am aware that the purchase of the counterfeit sunglasses
could indirectly support organized criminal activities.
6 I am aware that the production and distribution of
counterfeits often neglect labor and environmental
standards.
Finally, the measures of moral judgment were taken from the
study by Kim and Johnson (2014). Participants were asked to
indicate their agreement with three statements, namely:
1 I consider the purchase of the counterfeit sunglasses in
this scenario to be morally acceptable (reversed).
2 The act of buying the counterfeit sunglasses rather than
the original product is wrong.
3 It is morally wrong to buy the counterfeit sunglasses.
Both moral awareness and judgment were measured on
Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree).
3. Results
3.1 Preliminary data analysis
The basic assumptions to use multiple regression analysis were
confirmed (e.g. the residuals were normally distributed and
homoscedastic, and there were no problems with
multicollinearity) (Hair et al., 1995). Residuals statistics were
also examined to identify potential outliers as no outliers
were found, no items were deleted from the data set.
Moreover, the reliabilities of all measures were checked by
calculating their Cronbachs alpha: 0.94 for purchase
intention, 0.72 for moral judgment, 0.81 for moral awareness,
0.89 for guilt, 0.76 for anger and 0.87 for gratitude.
218
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 Number 3 2016 213223
3.2 Main data analysis
Table II presents the means, standard deviations and
correlations between variables. The results suggest that
participants were morally aware and judged the scenario as
morally wrong. Because participants had to imagine how they
would feel if they were in the scenario described, the mean
values of moral emotions were relatively low. Two multiple
regression models were run to test:
1 the influence of both moral awareness and moral emotions
on moral judgment; and
2 the effect of both moral judgment and moral emotions on
purchase intention. Purchase experience was used as a
control variable in both models.
Table III shows the main results of the multiple regressions.
The F statistics for both regression models revealed that they
were significant (p 0.001). The adjusted R2 were 0.65 for
moral judgment as a dependent variable and 0.42 for purchase
intention as a dependent variable.
H1 hypothesized that the higher participants would score on
moral awareness, the higher their level of moral judgment. This
hypothesis was supported, as the multiple regression model with
moral judgment as dependent variable revealed a significant
positive effect for moral awareness on moral judgment ( 0.51,
p 0.001). H2 postulated a negative effect of moral judgment on
purchase intention. The analysis of the regression model with
purchase intention as a dependent variable revealed a negative
influence ( 0.13, p 0.06), which is marginally significant;
thus, H2 was also supported. H3 suggested that moral emotions
influence purchase intention. The regression model with
purchase intention as a dependent variable showed a significant
negative effect for anger ( 0.21, p 0.001) and a positive
effect for gratitude ( 0.38, p 0.001) on purchase intention;
thus, H3 was again supported.
Moral emotions were also hypothesized to influence moral
judgment (H4). Results revealed significant effects for guilt
( 0.32, p 0.001) and gratitude ( 0.18, p 0.001) on
moral judgment. However, the proneness to feel anger had no
effect on moral judgment. Thus, H4 was partially supported.
Additionally, the control variable purchase experience had a
significant effect on purchase intention ( 0.21, p 0.001).
This result is in line with previous research, which also found that
the intentions to buy illicit products were higher for people who
had incurred in that kind of behavior before (Kim et al., 2009;
Tan, 2002; Tom et al., 1998).
Finally, to test the effect of moral awareness on moral
emotions, three simple linear regressions were run, with moral
awareness being the explanatory variable and entering first anger,
then guilt and finally gratitude, as the dependent variables into
the model (Table IV). The analyses revealed that the higher
participants scored on moral awareness, the more they associated
the feeling of guilt ( 0.51, p 0.001) and anger ( 0.27,
p 0.001) with the purchase of the counterfeit product. Also,
moral awareness had a negative effect on gratitude ( 0.16,
p 0.014). Hence, H5 was supported.
4. Discussion
4.1 Main contributions
The study at hand contributes to the existing literature on
counterfeiting, as it is one of the very few studies that
 Influence of moral awareness and moral emotions Journal of Consumer Marketing
Luis F. Martinez and Dorothea S. Jaeger Volume 33 Number 3 2016 213223

Table II Descriptive statistics and correlations

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Purchase intent 3.92 1.99
2. Moral judgment 4.56 1.39 0.45
3. Moral awareness 4.95 1.21 0.27 0.72
4. Anger 1.74 0.99 0.34 0.35 0.27
5. Guilt 2.82 1.38 0.39 0.63 0.51 0.55
6. Gratitude 1.97 1.06 0.52 0.35 0.16 0.10 0.19

Notes: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

Table III Results from multiple regression

Dependent variable Explanatory variables Standardized coefficient () p-value

1. Moral judgment Moral awareness 0.51 0.001
Moral emotions
Anger 0.02 0.76
Guilt 0.32 0.001
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)

Gratitude 0.18 0.001

Control variable
Purchase experience 0.08 0.06
2. Purchase intention Moral judgment 0.13 0.06

Moral emotions
Anger 0.21 0.001
Guilt 0.09 0.24
Gratitude 0.38 0.001

Control variable
Purchase experience 0.21 0.001
Notes: Adjusted R2 0.65; F(5.219) 84.8; p 0.001;
adjusted R2 0.42; F(5,219) 33.6; p 0.001

Table IV Results from three simple linear regressions

Dependent variable Explanatory variable Standardized coefficient () p-value R2
Moral emotions
1. Anger Moral awareness 0.27 0.001 0.07
2. Guilt Moral awareness 0.51 0.001 0.26
3. Gratitude Moral awareness 0.16 0.014 0.03

examined cognitive and affective components influence in the
counterfeit consumption process. The research built on
previous work from Kim et al. (2009), who called for more
investigations into other types of moral emotions that might
play a role in counterfeit purchase situations. In addition, the
influence of moral awareness on moral judgment was
examined a very important but rarely studied component of
Rests ethical decision-making process (Jordan, 2007).
First, this studys findings showed that the higher the
respondents level of moral awareness, the more likely they
were to judge the purchase of the counterfeit sunglasses in the
scenario as morally wrong (H1). This finding contradicts
Moores and Changs (2006) results, who found that moral
recognition did not have any effect on moral judgment. The
difference in this result might be explained by the fact that this
study focused on a fashion counterfeit product, whereas
Moores and Chang (2006) investigated software piracy. Their
study revealed that although participants recognized software
piracy as an infringement of intellectual property rights, this
fact had no influence on their judgment of the morality of the
act itself. Nowadays, buying and using pirated software might
be perceived as a commonplace behavior thus, although
people recognize there is a moral issue involved, this does not
affect whether they judge it as morally wrong. However, the
findings of this study suggest that this process is different for
counterfeit fashion products in this case, people who are very
aware of the diversity of moral issues involved in the
production and distribution of counterfeits are also more likely
to perceive these behaviors as morally wrong.
Moreover, it was found that moral judgment had a negative
effect on purchase intention (H2). Although significant only if
p 0.1, this finding supported previous studies which found that
individuals who perceived the act of buying counterfeits as
morally wrong were less likely to buy those products (Ha and
Lennon, 2006; Kim et al., 2009). When confronted with an
ethical dilemma, consumers count on their cognitive moral

219
 Influence of moral awareness and moral emotions
Luis F. Martinez and Dorothea S. Jaeger
judgment to decide whether they should engage or not in a
certain behavior (Tan, 2002). Additionally, as hypothesized,
moral emotions influenced purchase intention (H3) and moral
judgment (H4). These findings are in line with other researchers
who found that moral emotions influenced purchase intention
and moral judgment (Kim et al., 2009; Kim and Johnson, 2014).
Gratitude was found to influence both purchase intention and
moral judgment, although the effect on purchase intention was
higher ( 0.38). Guilt had a significant influence on moral
judgment but not on purchase intention. On the other hand,
anger significantly influenced purchase intention, although it had
no impact on moral judgment. This finding is in line with that of
Kim (2009), who reported that for the counterfeit purchase
scenario, gratitude and anger significantly influenced purchase
intention. But when the dependent variable was moral judgment,
guilt was found to have a significant influence on it. In line with
findings from Kim (2009), it could thus be suggested that some
emotions might differ in their impact, depending on the outcome
variable.
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)
Also, H5 hypothesized that moral awareness would influence
moral emotions. This hypothesis was supported. The higher
participants scored on moral awareness, the more they indicated
feelings of guilt and anger. On the other hand, individuals with
very low awareness were more likely to report feelings of
gratitude. Although the linear regression models could only
explain a modest fraction of the variance, the results were still
meaningful, as they showed that up to a certain extent, the
feelings that people associate with the purchase of a counterfeit
were influenced by the extent to which they were aware that the
situation contains moral content.
Regarding the practical contributions of this study,
policymakers might use these findings to combat counterfeiting.
One important contribution of this research is that it highlighted
moral awareness as an important component of ethical
decision-making. Authorities who design education campaigns
should take this into account and try to create campaigns that
make consumers recognize the various negative consequences
resulting from the counterfeit industry. The more specific their
knowledge about the harms caused by the counterfeit industry is,
the more they will recognize that purchasing counterfeits is
wrong. Also, while raising awareness for this phenomenon, licit
brand owners should focus on showing that legally run brand
factories actually differ from counterfeit factories, specifically in
terms of labor conditions and environmental regulation.
Particularly in current times, when some original brand
manufacturers experience a lot of criticism for their business
practices themselves (e.g. child labor, animal testing), it is crucial
that they point out their corporate citizenship practices and prove
to consumers that their practices are actually different from what
is commonplace in illegal factories.
When it comes to the influence of emotions, our findings
did not provide evidence that guilt is a direct influencer of
purchase intention. Accordingly, although people are prone to
feel guilty in a counterfeit purchase situation, this does not
necessarily imply that they would not purchase the counterfeit
product. On the other hand, the results clearly showed that
proneness to feel guilt influences moral judgment. For
policymakers, this finding emphasizes that it may indeed be
useful to develop anti-counterfeiting ads directed at
consumers, which highlight the moral issues related to
220
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 Number 3 2016 213223
counterfeiting, especially as the knowledge of causing harm
makes people feel guilty. Also, this study revealed that anger
decreased the purchase intention of counterfeits. Anger could
be evoked in response to a certain event when moral standards
are violated. People who have very strong moral beliefs may
feel righteous anger toward those who sell fake products or
even toward authorities that allow this to happen. Moreover,
people who have a special attachment to certain brands might
feel this kind of anger because they want to defend the original
manufacturers from the illegal producers who destroy the
exclusive image of the original brands. The reasons why anger
can be felt are manifold and worth exploring. Given that anger
has been identified as an important moral emotion that
directly influences purchase intention, policymakers should
aim more often at creating advertising campaigns which
provoke feelings of anger. For instance, this could be carried
out by showing who really benefits from this illegal business
and who are the people suffering from poor labor conditions
that are prevalent in illegally run factories.
4.2 Limitations and directions for future research
As any research, this study has some limitations. The first
limitation concerns the sample a convenience sample recruited
online, highlighting the weaknesses of non-probability sampling.
Moreover, although the aim was to base this study on a diverse
population, the sample was skewed toward German young
consumers. Hence, the results cannot be generalized. Future
research should draw on diverse probability samples applying a
combination of online and offline data collection techniques to
get a more representative number of people from different
nationalities, age and income groups. This would enable
researchers to compare for possible differences among them.
A second limitation refers to the fact that the scenario
method was used to evoke participants emotional responses.
Although this situation was realistic and the majority of the
people could very well imagine being in such a situation, the
low mean values for the felt moral emotions indicated that
the respondents did not feel those emotions very strongly, as
they only had to assume that they were in the described
purchase situation. The results might well differ in an actual
purchase situation where real emotions are experienced. Thus,
future researchers are encouraged to design field studies to
observe how people actually feel and act in a counterfeit
purchase situation. Also, it would be interesting to conduct
field studies in different purchase environments (e.g. national
vs foreign countries) to see how peoples emotional reactions
differ. Finally, given the increasing amount of counterfeits that
are being purchased through the Internet (European
Commission, 2014), it might also be relevant to explore the
impact of emotions focusing in online counterfeit behavior.
Moreover, this study was limited to one fashion product
sunglasses. But peoples emotional reactions and moral
judgments might differ depending on the product type. Thus,
future research should aim to compare different products when
examining peoples moral emotions and ethical decision-making
process regarding counterfeiting. For instance, symbolic
products (e.g. handbags), health products (e.g. medication) or
FMCG and low-involvement products (e.g. shampoos) could be
examined in this context. Additionally, this study showed that
moral emotions play a role in counterfeit purchase behavior.
 Influence of moral awareness and moral emotions
Luis F. Martinez and Dorothea S. Jaeger
Future researchers are encouraged to further investigate whether
other types of emotions differ in their role of motivators (or not)
of counterfeit purchase behavior.
Finally, this study focused on examining the role of
emotions during a purchase situation. As a new direction for
future research, it could also be relevant to examine
post-purchase emotions that occur long after the purchase
for instance, feelings of regret and how these feelings affect the
purchase intention in the long run. In this context, anger,
frustration and disappointment could also be relevant, as these
emotions might be elicited after the purchase of a counterfeit,
because of the bad quality of the product. Thus, this potential
self-harm might evoke negative feelings, which may deter
people from buying counterfeits in the future.
References
Aaker, J. and Williams, P. (1998), Empathy versus pride: the
influence of emotional appeals across cultures, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 241-261.
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)
Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior,
Organizational Behavior Human Decision Process, Vol. 50
No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Albers-Miller, N. (1999), Consumer misbehaviour: why
people buy illicit goods, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 273-287.
Ang, S.H., Cheng, P.S., Lim, E.A.C. and Tambyah, S.K.
(2001), Spot the difference: consumer responses towards
counterfeits, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 219-235.
Bebeau, M.J., Rest, J.R. and Narvaez, D. (1999), Beyond the
promise: a perspective on research in moral education,
Educational Researcher, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 18-26.
Bian, X. and Moutinho, L. (2009), An investigation of
determinants of counterfeit purchase consideration,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 368-378.
Bian, X. and Moutinho, L. (2011), Counterfeits and
branded products: effects of counterfeit ownership, Journal
of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 379-393.
Bloch, P.H., Bush, R.F. and Campbell, L. (1993),
Consumer accomplices in product counterfeiting,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 27-36.
Chang, H.J., Yan, R.N. and Eckman, M. (2014),
Moderating effects of situational characteristics on impulse
buying, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 298-314.
Chiou, J.S., Huang, C.Y. and Lee, H.H. (2005), The
antecedents of music piracy attitudes and intentions,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 161-174.
Clarkeburn, H. (2002), A test for ethical sensitivity in
science, Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 440-453.
Cordell, V.V., Wongtada, N. and Kieschnick, R.L. (1996),
Counterfeit purchase intentions: role of lawfulness
attitudes and product traits as determinants, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 41-53.
De Hooge, I.E., Zeelenberg, M. and Breugelmans, S.M.
(2007), Moral sentiments and cooperation: differential
influences of shame and guilt, Cognition & Emotion,
Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 1025-1042.
221
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 Number 3 2016 213223
De Matos, C.A., Trindade, C. and Vargas, C.A. (2007),
Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits: a review and
extension, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 36-47.
Eisend, M. and Schuchert-Gler, P. (2006), Explaining
counterfeit purchase: a review and preview, Academy of
Marketing Science Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Ernst & Young (2008), Piraten des 21 Jahrhunderst
Angriffe auf die Konsumgter-industrie [Pirates of the 21st
century Attacks on the consumer goods industry],
available at: www.markenverband.de/publikationen/studien
(accessed 10 December 2014).
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A. and Davis, L.M. (2003),
Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics
and shopper responses, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 139-150.
European Commission (2014), Report on EU customs
enforcement of intellectual property rights: results at the EU
border 2013, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_
customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/
statistics/index_en.htm (accessed 10 December 2014).
Fernandes, C. (2013), Analysis of counterfeit fashion
purchase behaviour in UAE, Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 85-97.
Fiore, A.M., Jin, H.J. and Kim, J. (2005), For fun and profit:
Hedonic value from image interactivity and responses
toward an online store, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22
No. 8, pp. 669-694.
Fullerton, R.A. and Punj, G. (1993), Choosing to
misbehave: a structural model of aberrant consumer
behavior, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 570-574.
Gistri, G., Romani, S., Pace, S., Gabrielli, V. and Grappi, S.
(2009), Consumption practices of counterfeit luxury
goods in the Italian context, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 16 Nos 5/6, pp. 364-374.
Greene, J. and Haidt, J. (2002), How (and where) does
moral judgment work?, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 6
No. 12, pp. 517-523.
Grossmann, G.M. and Shapiro, C. (1988a), Counterfeit-
product trade, American Economic Review, Vol. 78 No. 1,
pp. 59-75.
Grossmann, G.M. and Shapiro, C. (1988b), Foreign
counterfeiting of status goods, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 79-100.
Ha, S. and Lennon, S. (2006), Purchase intent for fashion
counterfeit products: ethical ideologies, ethical judgments,
and perceived risks, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 297-315.
Haidt, J. (2001), The emotional dog and its rational tail,
Psychological Review, Vol. 108 No. 4, pp. 814-834.
Haidt, J. (2003), The moral emotions, in Davidson, R.J.,
Scherer, K.R. and Goldsmith, H.H. (Eds), Handbook of
Affective Sciences, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 852-870.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C.
(1995), Multivariate Data Analysis, 3rd ed., Macmillan,
New York, NY.
 Influence of moral awareness and moral emotions
Luis F. Martinez and Dorothea S. Jaeger
Hamelin, N., Nwankwo, S. and El Hadouchi, R. (2013),
Faking brands: consumer responses to counterfeiting,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 159-170.
Hilton, B., Choi, C.J. and Chen, S. (2004), The ethics of
counterfeiting in the fashion industry: quality, credence and
profit issues, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 55 No. 4,
pp. 343-352.
Holbrook, M.B. and Batra, R. (1987), Assessing the role of
emotions as mediators of consumer responses to
advertising, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 404-420.
Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S. (1986), A general theory of
marketing ethics, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 5-16.
Ilieva, J., Bacon, S. and Healeay, N.M. (2002), Online
surveys in marketing research: pros and cons, International
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 440-453.
Jirotmontree, A. (2013), Business ethics and counterfeit
purchase intention: a comparative study on Thais and
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)
Singaporeans, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 281-288.
Jones, T.M. (1991), Ethical decision making by individuals
in organizations: an issue-contingent model, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 366-395.
Jordan, J. (2007), Taking the first step toward a moral action:
a review of moral sensitivity measurement across domains,
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, Vol. 168 No. 3,
pp. 323-359.
Kim, J.E. (2009), The influence of moral emotions in young
adults moral decision making: a cross-cultural
examination, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Faculty
of the Graduate School, University of Minnesota,
Minnesota, 30 May.
Kim, J.E., Cho, H.J. and Johnson, K.K.P. (2009), Influence
of moral affect, judgment, and intensity on decision making
concerning counterfeit, gray-market, and imitation
products, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 211-226.
Kim, J.E. and Johnson, K.K.P. (2013), The impact of moral
emotions on cause-related marketing campaigns: a
cross-cultural examination, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 79-90.
Kim, J.E. and Johnson, K.K.P. (2014), Shame or pride?,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Nos 7/8,
pp. 1431-1450.
Kozar, J.M. and Marcketti, S.B. (2011), Examining ethics
and materialism with purchase of counterfeits, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 393-404.
Lai, K.K.Y. and Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1999), Brand imitation:
do the Chinese have different views?, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 179-192.
Lincoln, S.H. and Holmes, E.K. (2011), Ethical decision
making: a process influenced by moral intensity, Journal of
Healthcare, Science and the Humanities, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 55-69.
Michaelidou, N. and Christodoulides, G. (2011),
Antecedents of attitude and intention towards counterfeit
symbolic and experiential products, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 27 Nos 9/10, pp. 976-991.
222
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 Number 3 2016 213223
Monin, B., Pizarro, D. and Beer, J.S. (2007), Deciding
versus reacting: conceptions of moral judgment and the
reason-affect debate, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 99-111.
Moores, T.T. and Chang, J.C.J. (2006), Ethical decision
making in software piracy: initial development and test of a
four-component model, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 167-180.
Nia, A. and Zaichkowsky, J.L. (2000), Do counterfeits
devalue the ownership of luxury brands?, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 7, pp. 485-497.
Norum, P.S. and Cuno, A. (2011), Analysis of the demand
of counterfeit goods, Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 27-40.
Peace, G.A., Galletta, D.F. and Thong, J.Y.L. (2003),
Software piracy in the workplace: a model and empirical
test, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 153-177.
Penz, E. and Stttinger, B. (2005), Forget the real thing
take the copy! An explanatory model for the volitional
purchase of counterfeit products, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 568-576.
Penz, E. and Stttinger, B. (2008), Corporate image and
product similarity: assessing major demand drivers for
counterfeits in a multi-country study, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 352-381.
Penz, E. and Stttinger, B. (2012), A comparison of the
emotional and motivational aspects in the purchase of
luxury products versus counterfeits, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 581-594.
Perez, M.E., Castano, R. and Quintanilla, C. (2010),
Constructing identity through the consumption of
counterfeit luxury goods, Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 219-235.
Phau, I. and Teah, M. (2009), Devil wears (counterfeit)
Prada: a study of antecedents and outcomes of attitudes
towards counterfeits of luxury brands, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Phau, I., Teah, M. and Lee, A. (2009), Targeting buyers of
counterfeits of luxury brands: a study on attitudes of
Singaporean consumers, Journal of Targeting, Measurement
and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Prendergast, G., Chuen, L.H. and Phau, I. (2002),
Understanding consumer demand for non-deceptive
pirated brands, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 20
No. 7, pp. 405-416.
Reynolds, S.J. (2006), Moral awareness and ethical
predispositions: investigating the role of individual
differences in the recognition of moral issues, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 233-243.
Richins, M.L. (1997), Measuring emotions in the
consumption experience, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 127-146.
Staake, T., Thiesse, F. and Fleisch, E. (2009), The
emergence of counterfeit trade: a literature review,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Nos 3/4,
pp. 320-349.
Tan, B. (2002), Understanding consumer ethical decision
making with respect to purchase of pirated software,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 96-111.
 Influence of moral awareness and moral emotions
Luis F. Martinez and Dorothea S. Jaeger
Tangney, J.P., Stuewig, J. and Mashek, D.J. (2007), Moral
emotions and moral behavior, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 345-372.
Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y. and Pilcher, J. (1998),
Consumer demand for counterfeit goods, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 405-421.
Trevino, L.K. (1986), Ethical decision making in
organizations: a person-situation interactionist model,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 601-617.
Wagner, S.C. and Sanders, G.L. (2001), Considerations in
ethical decision making and software piracy, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 29 Nos 1/2, pp. 161-167.
Wang, F., Zhang, H., Zang, H. and Ouyang, M. (2005),
Purchasing pirated software: an initial examination of
Chinese consumers, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 340-351.
Wee, C.H., Tan, S.J. and Cheok, K.H. (1995), Non-price
determinants of intention to purchase counterfeit goods: an
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)
exploratory study, International Marketing Review, Vol. 12
No. 6, pp. 19-46.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H.M. and Sen, S. (2009), Why do
consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands?, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 247-259.
Wilson, A. and Laskey, N. (2003), Internet based marketing
research: a serious alternative to traditional research
methods?, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 79-84.
Zampetakis, L.A. (2014), The emotional dimension of the
consumption of luxury counterfeit goods: an empirical
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
223
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 33 Number 3 2016 213223
taxonomy, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Zeelenberg, M., Nelissen, R.M.A. and Pieters, R. (2007),
Emotion, motivation and decision making: a feeling is for
doing approach, in Plessner, H., Betsch, C. and Betsch, T.
(Eds), Intuition in Judgment and Decision Making, Erlbaum,
Mahway, NJ, pp. 173-189.
About the authors
Luis F. Martinez is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at
Nova School of Business and Economics (Lisboa, Portugal).
He earned his PhD in Social and Behavioral Sciences from
Tilburg University, and he held a Visiting Scholar position at
the MIT Sloan School of Management. His research interests
include emotion and decision-making, consumer behavior and
health at work. His research work has appeared in journals
such as Decision, Harvard Business Review, Cognition and
Emotion, Journal of Economic Psychology, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Journal of
Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance and Stress
and Health. Luis F. Martinez is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: luis.martinez@novasbe.pt
Dorothea S. Jaeger is a Researcher at Nova School of
Business and Economics (Lisboa, Portugal) and a Consultant
at HPP Strategy & Marketing Consulting (Frankfurt,
Germany). She received her Masters degree in Management
from Nova School of Business and Economics and her
Bachelors degree in Business Administration from the
University of Mannheim.
 This article has been cited by:

1. YangLifeng Lifeng Yang lyang3ui@yahoo.com VitellScott Scott Vitell svitell@bus.olemiss.edu BushVictoria D. Victoria D. Bush
vbush@bus.olemiss.edu Department of Marketing, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi, USA . 2017. Unethically
keeping the change while demeaning the act. Journal of Consumer Marketing 34:1, 11-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by HAZARA UNIVERSITY At 23:01 06 March 2017 (PT)