Cross-cultural effects of self-discrepancy on the consumption of counterfeit branded luxuries

Abstract

Purpose Consumers’ motivations for purchasing counterfeit branded luxuries are a topic of heated discussion amongst academics and practitioners. Drawing on self-discrepancy theory, the purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of actual-ideal self-discrepancy on consumers’ attitudes towards counterfeit branded luxuries. It investigates how self-monitoring and perceived social risk moderate this effect. Furthermore, it explores cross-cultural differences in the impact of actual-ideal self-discrepancy. Design/methodology/approach A pilot study provides preliminary evidence that highlights the importance of actual-ideal self-discrepancy in counterfeit consumption. Based upon a large-scale survey across Hong Kong, the USA and Australia, the principal study explores the moderating effect of self-monitoring and perceived social risk as well as cross-cultural differences. Findings The results indicate that self-discrepancy increases consumers’ tendency to engage in symbolic consumption, and that consumption of counterfeit branded luxuries can serve the social function of self-expression to reduce the discomfort induced by self-discrepancy. Self-monitoring and perceived social risk have significant moderating effects, with the former strengthening and the latter attenuating this effect. Moreover, the effect of self-discrepancy is more pronounced amongst individualistic consumers than collectivistic consumers. Originality/value This is the first study to highlight the significance of self-discrepancy in the consumption of counterfeit branded luxuries. It examines the important moderating effects of self-monitoring and perceived social risk. Consumers from collectivistic and individualistic cultures define their self-concept differently, thus the findings provide meaningful cross-cultural information on the impact of self-discrepancy in counterfeit consumption.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.