Research Memorandum 77 March 2008

The Role of Product Involvement, Knowledge, and Perceptions in Explaining Consumer Purchase Behaviour of Counterfeits: Direct and Indirect Effects

XUEMEI BIAN Centre for Marketing, Communications and International Strategy Business School, University of Hull Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, the UK Email: x.bian@hull.ac.uk LUIZ MOUTINHO University of Glasgow

ISBN 978-1-906422-05-9

 2008 X Bian, L Moutinho All intellectual property rights, including copyright in this publication, except for those attributed to named sources, are owned by the author(s) of this research memorandum. No part of this publication may be copied or transmitted in any form without the prior written consent from the author(s) whose contact address is given on the title page of the research memorandum.

Abstract This research examines the direct and indirect relationships (mediator and moderator effects) between product involvement, product knowledge, and perception on purchase intention of counterfeits in the context of nondeceptive counterfeiting. Results suggest that (1) perception is not a mediator of the effects of involvement/knowledge on purchase intention, (2) evidence of involvement as a moderator does not exist, (3) involvement/knowledge has no significant influence on counterfeit purchase intention, and (4) three out of seven dimensions of counterfeit perception are significantly influential on counterfeit purchase intention, with brand personality dimension appearing to have more explanatory power than the other two dimensions.

Keywords Counterfeit; product involvement; product knowledge; purchase intention; mediator effect; moderator effect

INTRODUCTION Counterfeit products are those bearing a trademark that is identical to, or indistinguishable from, a trademark registered to another party and infringe the rights of the holder of the trademark (Chaudhry and Walsh, 1996; Kapferer, 1995; Grossman and Shapiro, 1988a,b; Bamossy and Scammon, 1985). The International Chamber of Commerce states that counterfeits account for 8 percent of world trade (Freedman, 1999). Globally, the sales of counterfeit products are estimated to be about $300 billion (Gentry, Putrevu, Shultz and Commuri, 2001). It is estimated that the value of counterfeit goods in the global market grew by 1100% between 1984 and 1994 (Carty, 1994; Blatt, 1993). Clearly, counterfeiting has become a significant economic phenomenon in the last two decades (Bian and Veloutsou, 2007). Despite that fact that selling and manufacturing counterfeits are considered to be crimes in some countries, for example, the U.S. and the U.K (Hopkins, Kontnic and Trunage, 2003; Bush, Bloch and Dawson, 1989), past research suggests that about one-third of consumers would knowingly purchase counterfeit goods (e.g. Phau, Prendergast and Chuen, 2001; Tom, Garibaldi, Zeng and Pilcher, 1998) regardless of the potential consequences associated with counterfeits. Researchers argue that consumer demand for counterfeits is one of the leading causes of the existence and upsurge in growth of the counterfeiting phenomenon (Gentry, Putrevu, Shultz and Commuri, 2001; Bamossy and Scammon, 1985), given that demand is always the key drive of a market. A number of researchers (e.g. Penz and Stttinger, 2003; Wee, Tan and Cheok, 1995; Bloch, Bush and Campbell, 1993) have called for investigation of consumer behaviour and counterfeits. Nevertheless, the academic literature displays a strong focus on the supply side, while that on the demand side - why consumers knowingly buy counterfeits - still appears to be scarce (Penz and Stttinger, 2005). Within this paper, we attempt to take a fresh look at the demand side of counterfeiting. The current research aims to investigate the effects of selfassessed product knowledge, product involvement, and consumers perceptions of counterfeit branded products (CBP), as well as the interaction between these variables on consumer purchase intention of CBP. We wish to highlight at this juncture that, in contrast to previous research, for example, Wee, Tan and Cheok (1995) and Nia and Zaichkowsky (2000) who examined counterfeit from a product perspective only, this research is one of the few studies which brings brand dimensions into the investigation of counterfeits. Inclusion of brand dimensions in the current study is considered to be a significant contribution to the literature, given that, if branded products did not attract consumers, counterfeiting would not be an issue (Cordell et al., 1996; Bloch, Bush and Campbell, 1993). Therefore, this research is to measure consumers perceptions of CBP as a product, and also as a brand - a counterfeit one. This research clearly does not address the need for research on the relationship differences between counterfeit models and their counterparts, the original brand models, but is nevertheless a useful first step in that direction. 4

Counterfeiting appears in different forms, as deceptive, non-deceptive and blur counterfeiting (Bian and Mouthinho, 2007). With deceptive or blur counterfeiting, the consumer is either not aware or unsure of the fact that he/she is purchasing a counterfeit rather than the original product and cannot be held accountable for this behaviour. This work limits its scope to nondeceptive counterfeiting, where consumers intentionally purchase counterfeits (Grossman and Shapiro, 1988a). The choice of the non-deceptive counterfeit context is considered as important, as only under this circumstance might consumers perceptions of counterfeits reflect their demand for these products. We develop hypotheses for and test the model presented in Figure I. In developing our model, we begin with a discussion of selected variables that contribute to consumer purchase intention, and within this context, explain how these variables may directly associate with each other. We also attempt to show that consumers perceptions may serve as a mediating link between product involvement/product knowledge and purchase intention, and that product involvement may be a moderator that affects the relationship between perceptions and purchase intention in the context of non-deceptive counterfeiting.

Product involveme nt

Consumer perception

Purchase intention

Product knowledge

Figure 1. Hypothesized Relationships between Product Involvement, Product Knowledge, Perception of CBP and Purchase Intention of CBP

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES Product Involvement Product involvement is commonly defined as a consumers enduring perceptions of the importance of the product category based on the consumers inherent needs, values, and interests (e.g. De Wulf, OdekerkenSchrder and Lacobucci, 2001; Mittal, 1995; Zaichkowsky, 1985). Since it was first introduced to marketing, the concept of involvement has been extensively used as a moderating or explanatory variable in consumer behaviour (Dholakia, 1997; 1998). It is regarded as a central framework, vital to understanding consumer decision-making behaviour and associated communications (Chakravarti and Janiszewski, 2003; Fill, 1999). Research shows that under high involvement conditions, buyer decision processes are thought to proceed through extended decision-making, a series of sequential stages involving information search and evaluation of criteria (Browne and Kaldenberg, 1997). Celsi and Olson (1988) report that the extent to which a product is viewed as personally relevant, in that it is perceived in some way to be instrumental in achieving their personal goals and values, makes the consumer more likely to be motivated to process information about it. Consumers neither wish nor are able to exert a great deal of effort to process information in a low involvement situation (Chung and Zhao, 2003). Based on the above research findings, it is rational to assume that under high involvement conditions consumers are more likely to put more effort into and are more capable of evaluating CBP as opposed to its counterpart, the original branded product (BP), in the context of non-deceptive counterfeiting. Deliberative information processing involves the scrutiny of available information and an analysis of positive and negative features, of costs and benefits (Fazio, 1990). Given that CBP is a low grade of BP (Nia and Zaichkowsky, 2000; Penz and Stttinger, 2003), consumers with a higher level of product involvement are more likely to be able to distinguish the difference between CBP and BP, and hence develop less positive perceptions of CBP and show less preference for the CBP. On the other hand, the differences between CBP and BP might not be easily recognised, if the level of product involvement is low, due to consumers lack of motivation, effort and even capability in relation to processing information. Consequently, consumers perceptions of CBP and BP might not differ significantly under these circumstances, which will lead to more favourable perceptions of CBP. Therefore, existing research, as well as applied findings, leads to the first hypothesis regarding the effects of product involvement on consumers perceptions of CBP. H 1 : There is a negative relationship between product involvement and consumers perceptions of CBP. Consumers look for more personal, experimental and symbolic gain, other than maximising product functionality, in a high involvement situation than in a low involvement one (Solomon, Surprenant, Czepiel and Guttman, 1985). Given that consumers in a higher product involvement situation are more 6

likely to regard CBP as a product of low price and low quality, consumers are less likely to consider that CBP will satisfy the personal treat, excitement and status they desire. Therefore, they will have a lower level of purchase intention of CBP. Based on this, we predict the following. H 2 : There is a negative relationship between product involvement and consumer purchase intention of CBP. Product Knowledge Consumer product knowledge has been studied in a variety of different ways in recent years (e.g. Baker, Hunt and Scribner, 2002; Alba and Hutchinson, 2000; Brucks, 1986; Park, Mothersbaugh and Feick, 1994; Raju, Lonial and Mangold, 1995; Rao and Monroe, 1988). It has been recognised as a characteristic in consumer research that influences all phases in the decision process (Bettman and Park, 1980). Consumers with various levels of product knowledge differ in their perceptions of product attributes (Laroche, Bergeron and Goutaland 2003; Baker, Hunt and Scribner 2002; Blair and Innis 1996). Marks and Olson (1981) propose that consumers with higher levels of product knowledge have better developed and more complex schemata, with well-formulated decision criteria. In the same vein, Kempf and Smith (1998) suggest that consumers with higher levels of product knowledge are more diagnostic and better informed than those who have lower levels of product knowledge. Therefore, the higher the level of product knowledge a consumer possesses, the less chance there is that he/she will generate evaluation bias. Given these findings, this research argues that, in the context of non-deceptive counterfeiting, consumers with higher levels of product knowledge are more likely to be able to evaluate CBP more accurately, due to higher cognitive capacity. As a result, they should have less favourable perceptions of CBP. This argument is reflected in hypothesis 3. H 3 : There is a negative relationship between product knowledge and consumers perceptions of CBP. Past research results also show that self-perceived knowledge operates as a direct positive influencer of purchase intentions for original branded durable products (Berger, Ratchford and Haines 1994). Nevertheless, in the context of non-deceptive counterfeiting, the present study has established that consumers with a higher level of product knowledge are more capable of identifying the flaws of CBP. Thus, they should give less approval to the grade of CBP. This research tests for negative effects of product knowledge on purchase intention of CBP. H 4 : There is a negative relationship between product knowledge and consumer purchase intention of CBP.

Consumer Perception Past research asserts that it does not go without saying that the information from the sender (marketer) will definitely get through to the receiver (consumer) (Aaker and Myers 1987), since correct decoding of marketing information hinges on the consumers perception of the communication content (Koekmoer 1991). The study of perceptions is crucially important to the marketers, as it can provide marketers with a more detailed picture about how their brand is perceived by consumers (Puth, Mostert and Ewing 1999). In addition, people respond on the basis of their perception of reality, not the reality per se (Puth, Mostert and Ewing 1999; Lewin 1936). It has been argued that consumer behaviour is, at root, driven by perceptions of a brand even if they are misconceptions of actual events (Porter and Claycomb 1997; Biel 1992; Porter 1976). Previous research suggests that it is perception that provides the grounds for purchasing decisions (Friedmann and Zimmer 1988; Borgers and Timmermans 1987). Analysis of consumer perceptions and decision-making processes is therefore extremely important in order to understand consumer behaviour, since it can help marketers to determine more readily what influences consumers buying behaviour (Puth, Mostert and Ewing 1999; Schiffman and Kanuk 1991). In the context of non-deceptive counterfeiting, we predict that consumers with more positive perceptions of CBP are more likely to purchase the counterfeit version. While this seems to be a somewhat obvious prediction, a model of purchase intention of CBP would be incomplete without its inclusion. Meanwhile, it will be extremely valuable to explore what dimension of perception weighs more in explaining purchase intention of CBP. This prediction is reflected in Hypothesis 5. H 5 : There is a positive relationship between consumers perceptions of CBP and purchase intention of CBP. Mediation and Moderator Effects While the main effects proposed above may exist, in this study, we predict that indirect effects (mediation effect and moderator effect) between these variables exist as well. Mediation effects occur when an independent variable influences the dependent through its effects on or as a result of a mediator variable (Baron and Kenny 1986). In this case, product involvement and product knowledge are the independent variables and perception serves as the mediator variable. Specifically, we predict that product involvement/ knowledge affects consumers perceptions of CBP, which in turn affects purchase intention. That is, the ways in which product involvement/product knowledge affect individual purchase tendency of CBP depend on how consumers perceive CBP. Following this reasoning, we propose that the relationship between product involvement/knowledge and purchase intention is mediated by consumers perception of CBP. These predictions are reflected in hypothesis 6 and hypothesis 7. H 6 : The relationship between product involvement and purchase intention of CBP is mediated by consumers perception of CBP. 8

H 7 : The relationship between product knowledge and purchase intention of CBP is mediated by consumers perception of CBP.

In addition to the proposed mediation effects, we also test for moderator effects of product involvement. A moderated relationship occurs when a relationship is found to hold for some categories of a sample but not others (Bryman and Cramer 1999). The search for moderated relationships is important as it allows research to avoid inferring that a set of findings pertains to a sample as a whole, when in fact it only really applies to a portion of that sample (Bryman and Cramer 1999; Baron and Kenny 1986). In this case, it is rational to assume that consumers may have low purchase tendency of CBP given a perceived high level of product involvement regardless of their perceptions of CBP; in contrast, consumers may be more likely to have a high purchase tendency of CBP if they perceive a low level of product involvement and have more positive perceptions of CBP. That is, the ways in which consumers apply the influence of their perceptions of CBP to their purchase intention of CBP will depend on the consumers level of product involvement. This proposition is reflected in hypothesis 8. H 8 : Product involvement moderates the relationship between consumers perceptions of CBP and purchase intention of CBP. METHODOLOGY Selected Brand Counterfeit Rolex watches were investigated in this research. The reasons for this choice are that this brand figures in the list of the most counterfeited brands (Poulter 2006) and the counterfeits of this brand are available (provided by Trading Standards of Glasgow from counterfeits they had confiscated) for the use as stimuli. Given that only one brand of one product category (watches) was examined in the current study, the findings of this research should be viewed with caution, as they may not be generalisable to other product categories. Sample Characteristics This study was conducted in Glasgow, UK. This is because the UK is perceived to be one of the main recipients of counterfeits in the world (Kay 1990), and counterfeits are widespread in Glasgow according to the Trading Standards officials. The sample in present study consists of 430 consumers aged 18 years old and above. The analysis reported here is based on 321 usable observations. A total of 56.4% are male and 43.6% are female. Some 58.8% of the participants having an educational attainment lower than degree level, with 26.8% having a Bachelors degree and 14.4% having a Masters degree or higher. The age breakdown of the sample is: 21.2% under 20 years old, 24.3% between 21 and 30, 19.6% between 31 and 40, 20.2% between 41 and 50, and 14.6% 51 and above. 9

Procedure The first author contacted 20 randomly selected supermarkets from a list of supermarkets located in Glasgow by mail, and then followed with a phone call to request help in studying consumer perceptions of CBP and purchase decision. Four supermarkets gave permission and provided full support to the researcher for data collection. Two of them are relatively small and located in residential areas. The other two are medium-sized stores with minimum daily sales of over 35,000. One is located in a shopping centre and perceived as a relatively expensive supermarket, with another one, located at the edge of the city, being well known for its low price strategy. Survey data was collected using a stimulus approach in November and December of 2006 by the first author. Specifically, counterfeit Rolex watches were presented to respondents. Every 10th shopper aged 18 years old or above was invited to participate in this research at the exit of the supermarkets. The incentive method (a box of chocolates worth around 2.50) recommended by previous researchers (e.g. Aaker, Kumar and Day 1997; Wiseman, Schafer and Schafer 1983), and the gaze and touch method suggested by Hornik and Ellis (1988), as well as the appealing expression recommended by Hornik (1982) were adopted to improve the response rate. Measures The explanatory constructs in our model of purchase intention of CBP include product involvement, product knowledge, and perception. All involved constructs were measured using five-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Apart from the measure of perception which was developed by the first author of this paper, the rest of the scales utilised to measure involved constructs were all adopted from existing research with necessary adaptation. The items for all model constructs were listed in Appendix 1. Purchase intention was assessed using a 5-item scale developed by Spears and Singh (2004). Cronbachs alpha (a) for this scale equals 0.95. Product involvement was measured using 10-item scale developed by McQuarrie and Munson (1992), with a Cronbachs a of 0.90. There are three distinct but related ways in which consumer knowledge is conceptualised and measured: objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, and experience (Flynn and Goldsmith 1999). Here our product knowledge construct is a 4-item scale developed by Smith and Park (1992) that measures an individuals self assessed ratings of knowledge. The choice of measuring self-assessed knowledge is supported by Meeds (2004) who finds that self-assessed knowledge is a better predictor of participants cognitive responses and general attitudinal evaluation in comparison to other kinds of knowledge. Cronbachs a for this scale is 0.77, which is just short of the 0.80 criterion of Bryman and Cramer (1999). The average scores of the items related to product involvement and product knowledge were calculated for the use of further analysis. Table 1 presents the description of these constructs, including means and standard deviations. 10

The scale development of the perception construct went through two stages. In the first stage, a master list of items related to consumer perceptions of CBP was generated. The master list is a combination of items of consumers perceptions of CBP as a product and items of consumers perceptions of CBP as a brand. The items concerning CBP as a product were generated from past research in the study of counterfeiting, packages, adverting and consumer reports of the original branded product. To operationalise CBP as a brand, Aakers (1997) brand personality scale was adopted to form the main part of the item pool. In addition, the adjectival expressions in relation to personality, which were generated from product packages, advertising, and consumer reports, were also included in the list. To ensure the master list was complete, a free-association task was conducted. Subjects (n = 13, 46% male, mean age = 42) were asked to write down the items that first came to mind when thinking about counterfeit Rolex watches. The items resulting from this task were added to the master list of perception items, which resulted in a total of 89 items. The perception items were reduced to a more manageable number in the second stage. Subjects (n = 12, 50% male, mean age = 39) were asked to rate how important and relevant the items were in terms of evaluating the studied counterfeit Rolex watches (1 = not at all important/relevant, 5 = extremely important/relevant). To isolate the most relevant/important items, the cut-off for the final list of perception items was a scale rating of 4, thereby leaving 28 items for further study. Dimensions of Consumers Perceptions of CBP Principal component analysis was used to condense the information obtained in relation to consumers perceptions of counterfeit Rolex watches. Varimax rotation revealed 7 factors (all eigenvalues are greater than one) which account for 64.71 percent of the overall variance. The 7 factors were labelled as excitement personality (2 items), competence personality (9 items), general product attribute (5 items), functional attribute (3 items), satisfaction benefit (3 items), image benefit (4 items), and functional benefit (2 items) (See Appendix 2 for detailed factor analysis results.). Factor scores were calculated for the use at the modelling stage. A measure of internal consistency of the extracted factors (Cronbachs a, and Pearsons correlation if appropriate) is provided in Table 1. The Cronbachs a coefficients are all above .70 with the exception of the satisfactory benefit factor, which has a Cronbachs a of .66. However, the lower value of the Cronbachs a might be caused by the small number of items involved (3 items); it is therefore considered acceptable. The Pearsons correlations are all higher than .25, and so are significant at the .01 level.

11

Table 1. Description of Indicators Used to Measure Independent, Mediator and Dependent Variables
Counterfeit Rolex No of items Independent variables Product knowledge Product involvement Mediating variables Excitement Competence Product attribute Functional attribute Satisfaction benefit Image benefit Functional benefit Dependent variable Purchase intention 5 0.95 1.48 0.87 2 9 5 3 3 4 2 0.57* 0.92 0.79 0.70 0.66 0.75 0.31* n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4 10 0.77 0.90 2.58 3.05 0.87 0.84 Cronbachs a Mean SD

* Pearsons Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level ( n = 321)

RESULTS The direct effects and proposed mediation effects are assessed simultaneously. Hypotheses are tested with a series of hierarchical regression analyses. Results are presented in Table 2 and Table 3. In both tables, the first group of models (a) examine the relationship between the independent variable and the mediators. A separate regression equation is used for each perception factor. The second group of regression models ( ) examine the relationship between the proposed mediators and the outcome variable. The third group of regression models () look at the relationships between the independent variables and the outcome variable. Hypothesis 1 proposed that product involvement would be negatively related to consumers perceptions of counterfeits. The results in Table 2 suggest no support for this hypothesis. None of the coefficients on consumer perception related factors is statistically significant at the level of p < .05. Hypothesis 2 posited a negative relationship between product involvement and consumer purchase intention of CBP. The results reject this hypothesis ( = .08, p >

12

.05), suggesting that product involvement has no significant effect on consumer purchase intention of CBP.

Table 2. Regression Analysis of Relationships between Product Involvement, Perception, and Purchase intention
Estimate a (Sig) Mediators Competence Product attribute Image benefit Satisfaction benefit Functional attribute Excitement Functional benefit Outcome variable Purchase intention * P < 0.05 n/a n/a .08 (.152) .008 (.880) -.058 (.300) .016 (.766) .092 (.098) -.017 (.759) -.005 (.930) -.035 (.527) .342 (.000)* .079 (.158) .053 (.349) .131 (.018)* .118 (.034)* .064 (.255) -.105 (.060) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Estimate (Sig) Estimate (Sig)

Hypothesis 3 proposed a negative relationship between product knowledge and consumers perceptions of CBP. Table 3 reveals a partial support for this hypothesis. Product knowledge is negatively associated with consumers perceptions of product attribute ( = -.110, p < .05), but is unrelated to other perception factors. Hypothesis 4 proposed that product knowledge would be negatively related to consumer purchase tendency of CBP. The coefficient suggests a rejection for this hypothesis ( = .086, p > .05) (see Table 3 ). Hypothesis 5 proposed that consumers perceptions of CBP would be positively associated with purchase intention. In this case, Table 2 reveals partial support for this hypothesis. Consumer purchase intention of CBP is not influenced by their perceptions of product attribute, image benefit, excitement personality and functional benefits, but is positively and significantly influenced by their perceived competence personality ( = .342, p < .05), satisfaction benefit ( = .131, p < .05) and functional attribute ( = .118, p < .05) of counterfeit Rolex. A mediator variable is one that is both a product of the independent variable and a cause of the dependent variable. The search for mediator variables is often referred to as explanation and it is easy to see why. Bryman and Cramer (1999) assert that one is able to gain some explanatory leverage on the bivariate relationship, if it is found that a test variable acts as a mediator variable. According to MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002) and Baron and Kenny (1986), four conditions are needed to show evidence of mediation. First, the independent variable is related to the outcome variable (). Second, the independent variable has a

13

statistically significant effect on the presumed mediator (a). Third, the hypothesized mediator is associated with the outcome variables (). Finally, when the proposed mediator is entered into a regression equation after the independent variable, the mediated effect (a) is statistically significant, but the regression weight for the independent variable should be reduced either significantly or to zero. In the case of mediation effects related to the independent variable of product involvement, since the research results demonstrate that the independent variable is not significantly related to the outcome variable, or to any of the proposed mediators (Table 2), as a result, the first two conditions necessary for mediation effect are not met. Therefore, there is no need to conduct further mediation effect tests. The mediation hypothesis 6 is not supported. Although product knowledge is significantly associated with one of the proposed mediators (product attribute, = -.110, p < .05), nevertheless, this mediator does not appear to have a significant influence on the outcome variable. In addition, product knowledge is not significantly associated with the outcome variable either (see Table 3 ). Thus, the first and the third conditions of mediator effect are not met. Consequently, the mediation hypothesis 7 is rejected.

Table 3. Regression Analysis of Relationship between Product Knowledge, Perceptions, and Purchase Intention
Estimate a (Sig) Mediators Competence Product attribute Image benefit Satisfaction benefit Functional attribute Excitement Functional benefit Outcome variable Purchase intention * P < 0.05 n/a n/a 0.086 (0.123) -0.049 (0.380) -0.110 (0.049)* -0.009 (0.875) -0.007 (0.894) 0.028 (0.618) -0.058 (0.303) -0.002 (0.975) 0.342 (0.000)* 0.079 (0.158) 0.053 (0.349) 0.131 (0.018)* 0.118 (0.034)* 0.064 (0.255) -0.105 (0.060) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Estimate (Sig) Estimate (Sig)

To test the moderating effects of product involvement, we dichotomized the moderator at the neutral point of the 5-point scale. The results of the moderating effects of product involvement are shown in the regression presented in Table 4. None of the interactions of low involvement with perception related factors is significant (p < .05), which means that the effect of consumers perceptions of CBP on CBP purchase intention for low involvement consumers are no different than they are for high involvement ones. Therefore, the results show no evidence that product involvement can moderate the effects of consumers perceptions of CBP on their purchase intention. These findings rejected hypothesis 8.

14

TABLE 4: Regression Model of Purchase Intention of CBP

Variable (Constant) Competence Product attribute Image benefit Satisfaction benefit Functional attribute Excitement Functional benefit Low involvement Low involvement x competence Low involvement x product attribute Low involvement x image benefit Low involvement x satisfactory benefit Low involvement x functional attribute Low involvement x excitement Low involvement x functional benefit
a

Std. e .063 .062 .063 .068 .062 .063 .063 .062 .090 .093 .090 .091 .090 .091 .089 .091

Std.

T 23.638 .414 -.001 .039 .059 .078 .153 -.167 -.036 -.107 .128 -.007 .093 .032 -.111 .100 5.839 -.017 .498 .824 1.072 2.110 -2.349 -.688 -1.501 1.750 -.090 1.303 .436 -1.532 1.403

Sig. .000 .000 .987 .619 .411 .285 .036 .019 .492 .134 .081 .928 .194 .663 .126 .162

Dependent Variable: Counterfeit Rolex intention

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The major objective of this study is to investigate direct relations between the three most exploratory constructs of consumer behaviour (product involvement, product knowledge and perception) and purchase intention in the context of non-deceptive counterfeiting. We also investigate indirect effects, namely whether relations between product involvement/product knowledge and purchase intention of CBP are mediated by consumers perceptions of CBP, and whether effects of consumers perceptions of CBP on purchase intention are moderated by product involvement. The results of this study reject the proposed relationship between product involvement and perceptions of CBP, and the relationship between product involvement and purchase intention of CBP.

15

These findings imply that consumers who have a high level of product involvement may also purchase counterfeits willingly. At the same time, it is unnecessary to add that they have more negative perceptions of CBP. One possible explanation for these results could be that consumer purchase behaviour of CBP may vary according to different usage situations. For example, they might buy CBP for the use at home, but buy BP for use in public places. In the future, it would be interesting to investigate whether usage situations moderate the relationship between product involvement and purchase intention of CBP. The findings related to product involvement and consumers perceptions of CBP are more than a little surprising. We have to admit that we failed to find any sound explanation from any existing theoretical framework that we are aware of. In view of this, a premise we would like to make here is that the counterfeiting phenomenon might provide fresh challenges to existing literature developed without presence of counterfeits. It may be worthwhile replicating the current research design in other product categories and further exploring the underlying reasons for product involvement effect on purchase behaviour. The results of this study provide no support to the proposition that product knowledge influences purchase intention of CBP, but partial support to the proposed relationship between product knowledge and perceptions of CBP. Specifically, it is difficult, to draw conclusions about the direction of causality here, particularly in the relationship between self-assessed product knowledge and reported purchase intention. There is evidence that more knowledgeable consumers are more likely to have less favourable perceptions of general product attributes of CBP. Nevertheless, the support appears to be marginal. In addition, it is important to note that despite evidence of statistical significance, the regression coefficient is relatively small and thus the magnitude of the effects reported here are small. Product knowledge does not appear to have significant influence on other perception related factors. These results can be interpreted in the light of the fact that with advancements in watch technology, the accurate time-telling function of watches is no longer difficult to achieve. In other words, in terms of telling the time, counterfeit watches can be similar to their counterpart original branded watches. The more knowledgeable the person is about watches, the more he or she is aware of this fact. As a result, although more knowledgeable consumers can judge the differences between the two versions of one brand, and therefore perceive less positive perceptions of product attributes of CBP, their purchase tendency of counterfeit watches is not significantly affected by these perceptions. Perception is the only explanatory variable out of three that shows a direct effect on consumer purchase intention of CBP. However, our findings suggest that only three out of 7 dimensions of the perception construct appear to be significantly influential, with the personality related dimension having the largest coefficient, which indicates the greatest explanatory power on consumer purchase tendency of CBP. For the first time in the literature on 16

counterfeits, our findings provide empirical evidence to support the commonly accepted notion that CPB-prone consumers are seeking the positive brand personality associated with BP. More importantly, this research is also the first to establish that perceived brand personality plays a more dominant role in explaining consumers purchase intention of CBP than other influential factors (e.g. benefit and product attribute). Nia and Zeicksey (2000) report that both counterfeit owners and non CBP owners perceive satisfactory benefit related to CBP. This research moves one step forward by suggesting that there is more chance that non CBP owners will knowingly purchase CBP in the future if they perceive the CBP to be satisfactory. The results of this study provide no support to the premises related to mediation effect and moderator effect. Given these results, we can conclude that product involvement does not moderate the effects of consumers perceptions of CBP on consumer purchase intention. There is no evidence that perceptions of CBP mediate the effects of both product involvement and product knowledge on purchase tendency of CBP. For marketers of BP, the findings offer two main practical implications. First, regardless of it having been reported that improving consumers knowledge of BP is a means commonly adopted by BP owners to hamper CBP (Green and Smith 2002), this studys findings advise against devoting resources to improving consumers knowledge of a product with an aim to curb demand for CBP. This is because, while it is not necessary to say that consumers who are more knowledgeable are less CBP- prone, at the same time they do not process less favourable perceptions of CBP than less knowledgeable consumers. Secondly, one course of action that firms can take to address counterfeiting is to conduct marketing campaigns to stress brand personality differences between CBP and BP. Marketing campaigns could meet with remarkable success if they took the approach of highlighting the negative personality of the typical users, brand endorsers, company employees and CEO of the company of CBP, as these people are regarded as the directly influential factors on consumer perceived brand personality (Aaker 1997). Surprisingly and interestingly, the research results of the current study reject the majority of our research hypotheses. Rejections of the proposed hypotheses which were developed based on previous literature might be an indication of serious challenges to existing theoretical work established over years in the context of lack of CBP presence. Clearly, there is still a long way to go before we achieve any sound understanding of counterfeit related behaviour. Considering the important role played by perception on purchase tendency of CBP, what have yet to be explored are the antecedents of perception of CBP, and differences between perceptions of CBP and BP. Future research should replicate the current study with other widely counterfeited brands, in an effort to test the applicability of the current research findings in other contexts. Given that it is still not quite clear whether the overall consumers perceptions of BP are affected or not after the entry of CBP, a before-after experimental design with control would enable researchers to observe the potential change in perceptions of BP as a result of the entry of CBP. This type of design has been used by a number of 17

previous studies in the study of brand extension (e.g. Diamantopoulos et al. 2005; Morrin 1999) due to its high level of control in accounting for extraneous factors which can assist in enhancing the internal validity of the research (Calder et al. 1981). In addition, future research could test more brands (for example, around ten brands in one product category), including generic brands, using both similarity judgement and attribute-based multidimensional scaling techniques to explore where CBP and BP are located in the spatial map. This is consistent with Malhotra (1999), who suggested that eight brands or stimuli should be included to obtain a well-defined spatial map. Direct similarity judgement may be used for obtaining the spatial map, and attribute ratings may be used as an aid to interpret the dimensions of the perceptual map. Similar procedures can be used for preference data. These efforts will assist marketers to obtain a clear view as to where their brands stand in the market place where the counterfeits exist.

18

REFERENCES: Aaker J. L. (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (August), pp. 347-356. Aaker, D.A. and Myers, J.G. (1987) Advertising Management, 4th Edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V. and Day, G.S. (1997) Marketing Research, 6th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York. Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (2000) Knowledge Calibration: What Consumers Know and What They Think They Know, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), pp. 123-157. Baker, T., Hunt, J.B. and Scribner, L.L. (2002) The Effect of Introducing A New Brand on consumer Perceptions of Current Brand Similarity: The Roles of Product Knowledge and Involvement, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(4), Fall, pp. 45-57. Bamossy, G. and Scammon, D. (1985) Product Counterfeiting: Consumers and Manufacturers Beware, Advances in Consumer Research, 12(1), pp. 334-340. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), pp. 1173-1182. Berger, I.E., Ratchford, B.T. and Haines Jr., G.H. (1994) Subjective Product Knowledge as A Moderator of the Relationship between Attitudes and Purchase Intentions for a Durable Product, Journal of Economic Psychology, 15(2), June, pp. 301-314. Bettman, J.A. and Park, C.W. (1980). Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Making Processes: A Protocol Analysis, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7, Issue 3, December, pp. 234-248. Bian, X. Moutinho, L. (2007). Which Factors Determine Formation of Consideration set in the Context of Non-Deceptive Counterfeiting. Thought Leaders International Conference on Brand Management, UK. Bian, X. and Veloutsou, C. (2007) Consumers Attitudes Regarding NonDeceptive Counterfeit Brands in the UK and China, Journal of Brand Management, 14(3), pp. 211-222. Biel, A. (1992) How Brand Image Drives Brand Equity, Journal of Advertising Research, 32(6), November/December, pRC6-RC12. Blair, M. E. and Innis, D.E. (1996) The Effects of Product Knowledge on the Evaluation of Warranted Brands, Psychology and Marketing, 13(5), pp. 445-456. Blatt, J. (1993) Battling Counterfeit Products on the US Side of the Pacific Rim, The International Computer lawyer, 1(13), pp. 32-33.

19

Bloch, P., Bush, R. and Campbell, L. (1993) Consumer Accomplices in Product Counterfeiting, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(4), pp. 2736. Borgers, A. and Timmermans, H. (1987) Choice Model Specification, Substitution and Spatial Structure Effects: A Simulation Experiment, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 17, pp. 29-47. Browne, B.A. and Kaldenberg, D.O. (1997) Conceptualizing Self-monitoring: Links to Materialism and Product Involvement, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(1), pp. 31-44. Brucks, M. (1986) A Typology of Consumer Knowledge Content, Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), pp. 58-63. Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (1999) Quantitative Data Analysis: with SPSS Release 8 for Windows A Guide for Social Scientists, Routledge: London and New York. Bush, R., Bloch, P. and Dawson, S. (1989) Remedies for Product Counterfeiting, Business Horizon, 32(1), January February, pp. 59-65. Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W. and Tybout, A.M. (1981) Designing research for application, Journal of Consumer Research, 8(9), pp. 197-207. Carty, P. (1994) Fakes Progress, Accountancy, 114(1216), December, pp. 44-46. Celsi, R.L. and Olson, J.C. (1988) The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes, Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), September, pp. 210-224. Chakravarti, A. and Janiszewski, C. (2003) The Influence of Macro-Level Motives on Consideration Set Composition in Novel Purchase Situations, Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), September, pp. 244-258. Chaudhry, P.E. and Walsh, M.G. (1996) An Assessment of the Impact of Counterfeiting in International Markets: the Piracy Paradox Persists, Columbia Journal of World Business, 31(3), Fall, pp. 34-49. Chung, H. and Zhao, X. (2003) Humour Effect on Memory and Attitude: Moderating Role of Product Involvement, International Journal of Advertising, 22(1), pp. 117-144. Cordell, V., Wongtada, N. and Kieschnick, L. (1996). Counterfeit Purchase Intentions: Role of Lawfulness Attitudes and Product Traits as Determinants, Journal of Business Research, 35(1), January, pp. 41-53. De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schrder, G. and Lacobucci, D. (2001) Investments in Consumer Relationships: a Cross-Country and Cross-Industry Exploration, Journal of Marketing, 65(4), October, pp. 33-51. Dholakia, U.M. (1997) An Investigation of the Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Product Involvement, Advances in Consumer Research, 24(1), pp. 159-167. Dholakia, U.M. (1998) Involvement-Response Models of Joint Effects: An Empirical Test and Extension, Advances in Consumer Research, 25(1), pp. 499-506. 20

Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G. and Grime, I. (2005) The Impact of Brand Extensions on Brand Personality: Experimental Evidence, European Journal of Marketing, 39(1-2), pp. 129-149. Fazio, R.H. (1990) Multiple Processes by Which Attitude Guide Behavior: the Mode Model as an Integrative Framework, in M.P. Zabba (eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, Academic Press, New York, pp. 75-109. Fill, C. (1999) Marketing Communications: Contexts, Contents and Strategies, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall Europe, London. Flynn, Leisa, R. and Goldsmith, Ronald E. (1999) A Short, Reliable Measure of Subjective Knowledge, Journal of Business Research, 46 (September), pp: 57-66. Freedman, H. (1999). Chinese Copycat Are Leaving International Brands Fit to be Tied, Forbes, 163, (April), pp. 48-54. Friedmann, R. and Zimmer, M. (1988) The Role of Psychological Meaning in Advertising, Journal of Advertising, 17(1), pp. 31-40. Gentry J.W., Putrevu, S., Shultz, C.J. and Commuri, S. (2001) How Now Ralph Lauren? The Separation of Brand and Product in a Counterfeit Culture, Advances in Consumer Research, 27(1), pp. 258-265. Green, R.T. and Smith, T. (2002). Executive Insights: Countering Brand Counterfeiters, Journal of International Marketing, 10(4), pp. 89-106. Grossman, G. and Shapiro, C. (1988a) Foreign Counterfeiting of Status Goods, Journal of Economics, 103(1), February, pp. 79-100. Grossman, G. and Shapiro, C. (1988b) Counterfeit-Product Trade, American Economic Review, 78(1), March, pp. 59-75. Hopkins, D., Kontnik, L., and Trunage, M. (2003) Counterfeiting ExposedProtecting Your Brand and Customers, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Hornik, J. (1982) Impact of pre-call request form and gender interaction on response to the mail survey, Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1), pp. 144-151. Hornik, J. and Ellis, S. (1988) Strategies to Secure Compliance for A Mall Intercept Interview, Public Opinion Quarterly, 52(4), Winter, pp. 539-551. Kapferer, J-N. (1995) Brand Confusion: Empirical Study of a Legal Concept, Psychology & Marketing, 12(6), pp. 551-569. Kay, H. (1990) Fakes Progress, Management Today, July, pp. 54-59. Kempf, D.S. and Smith, R.E. (1998) Consumer Processing of Product Trial and the Influence of Prior Advertising: A Structural Modelling Approach, Journal of Marketing Research, 35(3), August, pp. 325-338. Koekemoer, L. (1991) Marketing Communication Management: A South African Perspective, Butterworths, Durban.

21

Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. and Goutaland, C. (2003) How Intangibility Affects Perceive Risk: the Moderating Role of Knowledge and Involvement, Journal of Services Marketing, 17(2), pp. 122-140. Lewin, K. (1936) Principles of Topological Psychology, McGraw-Hill, New York. Malhotra, N.K. (1999) Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall International, Inc., London. Marks, L.J. and Olson, J.C. (1981) Toward a Cognitive Structure Conceptualization of Product Familiarity, Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), pp. 145-150. McQuarrie, E.F. and Munson, J.M. (1992) A Revised Product Involvement Inventory: Improved Usability and Validity, Advances in Consumer Research, 19(1), pp. 108-115. Meeds, R. (2004) Cognitive and Attitudinal Effects of Technical Advertising Copying: the Roles of Gender, Self-assessed and Objective Consumer Knowledge, International Journal of Advertising, 23(3), pp. 309-335. Mittal, B. (1995) Comparative Analysis of Four Scales of Consumer Involvement, Psychology & Marketing, 12(7), pp. 663-682. Morrin, M. (1999) The Impact of Brand Extensions on Parent Brand Memory Structures and Retrieval Processes, Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), pp. 517-525. Nia, A. and Zaichowsky, J. (2000) Do counterfeit Devalue the Ownership of Luxury Brands?, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(7), pp. 485-497. Nia, A. and Zaichowsky, J. (2000). Do Counterfeit Devalue the Ownership of Luxury Brands?, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(7), pp. 485497. Park, C.W., Mothersbaugh, D.L. and Feick, L. (1994) Consumer Knowledge Assessment, Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), June, pp. 71-82. Penz, E. and Stttinger, B. (2003, May) Brands and Counterfeits What Do they Have in Common?, Paper presented at the European Marketing Academy Conference, UK. 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, 32(1), pp. 568-575. Phau, I., Prendergast, G. and Chuen, L.H. (2001) Profiling Brand-PiracyProne Consumers: An Exploratory Study in Hong Kongs Clothing Industry, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 5(1), pp. 4555. Porter, L.W. (1976) Organizations a Political Animals, Washington, DC, Presidential Address, Division of Industrial-Organizational Psychology, 84th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association.

22

Porter, S.S., and Claycomb, C. (1997) The influence of brand recognition on retail store image, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(6), pp.373-398. Poulter, S. (2006) Cheap and chic fakes snapped up by the smart set, Daily Mail, April 28th, p. 28. Puth, G., Mostert, P. and Ewing, M. (1999) Consumer Perceptions of Mentioned Product and Brand Attributes in Magazine Advertising, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(1), pp. 38-49. Raju, P.S., Lonial, S.C. and Mangold, W.G. (1995) Differential Effects of Subjective Knowledge, Objective Knowledge, and Usage Experience on Decision Making: An Exploratory Investigation, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(2), pp. 152-180. Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1988) The Moderating Effect of Prior Knowledge on Cue Utilization in Product Evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), September, pp. 253-264. Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (1991) Consumer Behavior, 4th Edition, Prentice-Hall International, London. Smith, D.C. and Park, C.W. (1992) The Effects of Brand Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency, Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), August, pp. 296-313. Soloman, Michael R., Surprenant, C., Czepiel, John A. and Guttman, Evelyn G. (1985), A Role Theory Perspective on Dyadic Interactions: The Service Encounter, Journal of Marketing, 49(1), pp. 99-111. Spears, N. and Singh, S. (2004) Measuring Attitude toward the Brand and Purchase Intentions, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(2), pp. 53-66. Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y., and Pilcher, J. (1998) Consumer Demand for Counterfeit Goods, Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), August, pp. 405-421. Wee. C., Tan, S-J. and Cheok, K-H. (1995) Non-price Determinants of Intention to purchase Counterfeit Goods, International Marketing Review, 12(6), pp. 19-47. Wiseman, F., Schafer, M. and Schafer, R. (1983) An Experimental Test of the Effects of a Monetary Incentive on Cooperation Rates and Data Collection Costs in Central-Location Interviewing, Journal of Marketing Research, 20(4), November, pp. 439-442. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985) Measuring the Involvement Construct, Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), December, pp. 341-352.

23

APPENDIX 1 Consumer Purchase Intention of CBP Survey Variables How interested are you in watches?
Please Tick one appropriate number (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: neutral, 4: agree, 5: strongly agree) to express your level of agreement.
Strongly disagree 1 Neutral Strongly agree 2 3 4 5

Watches are important to me.

I get bored when people talk to me about watches.

Watches mean a lot to me.

I perceive watches as exciting products.

I like watches.

Watches matter to me.

Watches are interesting products.

Watches are great fun.

Watches are appealing to me.

10

I care about the watches I buy.

24

How knowledgeable are you about watches?

Please Tick one appropriate number (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: neutral, 4: agree, 5: strongly agree) to express your level of agreement.
Strongly disagree 1 Neutral Strongly agree 2 3 4 5

I feel very knowledgeable about watches.

I can give people advice about different brands of watches.

I only need to gather very little information in order to make a wise decision.

I feel very confident about my ability to tell the difference in quality between different brands of watches.

25

What are your views about the presented counterfeit Rolex watches?
Please Tick one appropriate number (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: neutral, 4: agree, 5: strongly agree) to express your level of agreement.
Strongly disagree 1 Neutral Strongly agree 2 3 4 5

I can get the size I want.

It is expensive.

The packaging is good.

The watch is waterproof.

It is Swiss made.

The materials are good.

They have the style I like.

The product is practical.

This product is a statement of your self-image.

10

This product can bring you fun.

11

The quality of the product merits the price.

12

In buying this product, you get value for money for the status it brings you. You can throw it away after a while.

13

14

This product brings you exclusivity.

15

This product can make you attract other peoples attention.

16

This product can bring you prestige.

17

This product may not function well.

26

What characteristics would the counterfeit Rolex watches have if they were people?
We would like you to think of counterfeit Rolex watches as if they were persons. Think of the set of human characteristics associated with them.. for example, you might think that the human characteristics associated with Mercedes Benz are smart, successful, and prestigious. Please Tick one appropriate number (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: neutral, 4: agree, 5: strongly agree) to indicate the level of descriptive of the adjectives provided.

Strongly disagree 1

Neutral

Strongly agree

Young

Independent

Reliable

Hardworking

Secure

Successful

For leader

Confident

Glamorous

10

Classic

27

Do you intend to buy these watches?

Please Tick one appropriate number (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: neutral, 4: agree, 5: strongly agree) to express your level of agreement.
Strongly disagree 1 Neutral Strongly agree 2 3 4 5

I have intention to buy these watches.

I intend to buy these watches.

I have high purchase interest of these watches.

I buy these watches.

I probably buy these watches.

28

APPENDIX 2 Factor Analysis Results

No Items Counterfeit Rolex 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KMO Cumulated variance explained % Eigenvalue % of variance Cronbach Alpha % of non-redundant residuals with absolute values greater than 0.05. * Pearson Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
8.16 29.12 0.92 2.70 9.63 0.79 2.38 8.50 0.75

5 .690

I can get the size I want. CR It is expensive. CR The packing is good. CR The watch is waterproof. CR It is Swiss-made. CR The materials are good. CR They have the style I like. CR The product is practical. CR The product is a statement of your self-image. This product can bring you fun The quality of the product merits the price. In buying this product, you get value for money for the status it brings you. You can throw it away after a while. This product brings you exclusivity. This product can make you attract other people's attention. This product can bring you prestige. This product may not function well. Cheerful Young Independent Reliable Hardworking Secure Successful For leader Confident Glamorous Classic .572 .789 .800 .808 .847 .811 .709 .603 .794 0.89 64.71
1.49 5.33 0.66

.625 .652 .776 .807 .672 .716 .720 .476 .604 .690 .673 .845 .581 .762 .815 .674 .781 .868 .402

1.24 4.41 0.70

1.13 4.05 0.57*

1.03 3.66 0.31*

23

29

The Business School Research Memorandum Series

Please note that MANY of these are available at: http://www.hull.ac.uk/hubs/05/research/rm.htm

76 75 74 73 72

71 70 69 68 67

66 65 64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57

A Lindgreen (2008) Do Different Marketing Practices Require Different Leadership Styles? An Exploratory Study S J Armstrong (2007) Rethinking Management Education: From Cognition, To Action, To Learning J Simon (2007) Concept Maps and Accounting Curriculum Development J Atkins, K Bhattarai and S Trotter (2007) Modelling the Impact of LowCarbon Electricity T Campbell and S J Armstrong (2007) An Empirical Study of the Relationship between Organisational Learning and Organisational Effectiveness using Causal Cogitive Mapping M Antioco, R K Moeneart and A Lindgreen (2007) Reducing On-going Product Design Decision-Making Bias F Maon, V Swaen, A Lindgreen (2007) Corporate Social Responsibility at Ikea: commitment and communication P Drake, S Clarke (2007) Embedding a Systems/Lifeworld Approach in Information Security (Risk) Management and Broadening its Application A Lindgreen, V Swaen, W S Johnston (2007) Corporate Social Responsibility: an empirical investigation of US organisations J Headlam-Wells, J Craig, J Gosland, J Holdsworth (2007) Mentoring for Management Development: An evaluation of new communication models for E-mentoring A Dobele, A Lindgreen, M. Beverland, J Vanhamme, R van Wijk (2007) Why Pass on Viral Messages? Because they connect emotionally M Beverland, J Napoli, A Lindgreen (2007) Industrial Global Brand Leadership: a capabilities view K R Bhattarai (2007) Capital Accumulation, Growth and Redistribution: General equilibrium impacts of energy and pollution taxes in the UK A Rashid Malik (2007) The WTO Agreement on Textile and Clothing (ATC): An Impact Analysis with Reference to Pakistan L Han (2007) Signalling Process and Self-Selection Mechanism in Entrepreneurial Finance K R Bhattarai (2007) Is There Any Evidence on Unemployment-Inflation Trade-off in OECD Countries in Recent Years? J B Simon (2006) A Framework for Business Research: Using the Knowledge Vee G Mengesha and R Common (2006) Civil Service Reform in Ethiopia: Success in Two Ministries D Kumala (2006) The Achievements and Challenges of the New East African Community Cooperation T Butcher (2006) The Socio-technical Impact of RFID Technologies in Supply Chain Management

30

56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36

35 34 33 32

31

J G Cegarro, J R Crdoba-Pachn (2006) Assessing and Developing egovernment use by SMEs R Common (2006) Globalisation and the Governance of Hong Kong C Hammond (2006) Technical Efficiency and Organisational Change in UK Public Library Systems: A Stochastic Distance Function Approach K R Bhattarai, E Okyere (2005) Welfare and Growth Impacts of Taxes: Applied General Equilibrium Models of Ghana K. R. Bhattarai, M K Armah (2005) The Effects of Exchange Rate on the Trade Balance on Ghana: Evidence from Cointegration Analysis A. Aritzeta, S. Swailes, B. Senior (2005) Team Roles: Psychometric Evidence, Construct Validity and Team Building G F Lanzara, M Morner (2005) Making and Sharing Knowledge at Electronic Crossroads: The Evolutionary Ecology of Open Source W Robson, J R Crdoba-Pachn (2005) What Research Methodology Suits Collaborative Research K R Bhattarai (2005) Economic Growth: Models and Global Evidence P Mould, T Boczko (2004) Standard-setting and the Myth of Neutrality: Boundaries, Discourse and the Exercise of Power P Murray (2005) Learning with Complexity: Metaphors from the New Sciences D Kamala (2004) The Voices of the Poor and Poverty Eradication Strategies in Tanzania M R Ryan (2003) Vertical Integration Results and Applications to the Regulation of Supermarket Activity M A Nolan, F R Fitzroy (2003) Inactivity, Sickness and Unemployment in Great Britain: Early Analysis at the Level of Local Authorities K R Bhattarai (2003) An Analysis of Interest Rate Determination in the UK and Four Major Leading Economies K R Bhattarai (2004) Macroeconomic Impacts of Consumption and Income Taxes: A General Equilibrium Analysis J Paez-Farrell (2003) Business Cycles in the United Kingdom: An Update on the Stylised Facts J Paez-Farrell (2003) Endogenous Capital in New Keynesian Models P Kitchen, L Eagle, L Rose, B Moyle (2003) The Impact of Gray Marketing and Parallel Importing on Brand Equity and Brand Value M Afanassieva (2003) Managerial Responses to Transition in the Russian Defence Industry J R Crdoba-Pachn, G Midgley (2003) Addressing Organisational and Societal Concerns: An Application of Critical Systems Thinking to Information Systems Planning in Colombia J Evans, R Green (2003) Why Did British Electricity Prices Fall After 1998? C Hemingway (2002) An Exploratory Analysis of Corporate Social Responsibility: Definitions, Motives and Values P Murray (2002) Constructing Futures in New Attractors S Armstrong, C Allinson, J Hayes (2002) An Investigation of Cognitive Style as a Determinant of Successful Mentor-Protg Relationships in Formal Mentoring Systems N O'Neill (2001) Education and the Local Labour Market

31

30

29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8

7 6 5 4 3

A Zakaria, Z Osemy, B Prodhan (2001) The Role of Accounting Information Systems in Rationalising Investment Decisions in Manufacturing Companies in Egypt A Meja (2001) The Problem of Knowledge Imposition: Paulo Freire and Critical Systems Thinking P Maclagan (2001) Reflections on the Integration of Ethics Teaching into the BA Management Degree Programme at The University of Hull N R Romm (2001) Considering Our Responsibilities as Systemic Thinkers: A Trusting Constructivist Argument L Hajek, J Hynek, V Janecek, F Lefley, F Wharton (2001) Manufacturing Investment in the Czech Republic: An International Comparison Gerald M, J F Gu, D Campbell (2001) Dealing with Human Relations in Chinese Systems Practice Z Zhu (2000) Dealing with a Differentiated Whole: The Philosophy of the WSR Approach W J Gregory, G Midgley (1999) Planning for Disaster: Developing a MultiAgency Counselling Service L Pinzn, G Midgley (1999) Developing a Systemic Model for the Evaluation of Conflicts G Midgley, A E Ochoa Arias (1999) Unfolding a Theory of Systemic Intervention M Brown, R Packham (1999) Organisational Learning, Critical Systems Thinking and Systemic Learning G Midgley (1999) Rethinking the Unity of Science P Keys (1998) Creativity, Design and Style in MS/OR G Midgley, A E Ochoa Arias (1998) Visions of Community for Community OR G Midgley, I Munlo, M Brown (1998) The Theory and Practice of Boundary Critique: Developing Housing Services for Older People J Clayton, W Gregory (1997) Total Systems Intervention or Total Systems Failure: Reflections of an Application of TSI in a Prison L Pinzon, N Valero-Silva (1996) A Proposal for a Critique of Contemporary Mediation Techniques - The Satisfaction Story R L. Flood (1996) Total Systems Intervention: Local Systemic Intervention R L. Flood (1996) Holism and Social Action Problem Solving P Dudley, S Pustylnik (1996) Modern Systems Science: Variations on the Theme? W Ulrich (1996) Critical Systems Thinking for Citizens: A Research Proposal G Midgley (1995) Mixing Methods: Developing Systems Intervention J Thompson (1995) User Involvement in Mental Health Services: The Limits of Consumerism, the Risks of Marginalisation and the Need for a Critical Systems Approach P Dudley, S Pustylnik (1995) Reading the Tektology: Provisional Findings, Postulates and Research Directions W Gregory, N R Romm (1994) Developing Multi-Agency Dialogue: The Role(s) of Facilitation N R Romm (1994) Continuing Tensions between Soft Systems Methodology and Critical Systems Heuristics P Dudley (1994) Neon God: Systems Thinking and Signification M C Jackson (1993) Beyond the Fads: Systems Thinking for Managers

32

2 1

S M Green (1993) Systems Thinking and the Management of a Public Service Organisation M C Jackson and R L Flood (1993) Opening of the Centre for Systems Studies

33

Centre for Economic Policy Research Papers

(prior to merging with the Business School in August 2002)

283 Naveed Naqvi, Tapan Biswas and Christer Ljungwall (2002) Evolution of Wages and Technological Progress in Chinas Industrial Sector 282 Tapan Biswas, Jolian P McHardy (2002) Productivity Changes with Monopoly Trade Unions in a Duopoly Market 281 Christopher Tsoukis (2001) Productivity Externalities Tobins Q and Endogenous Growth 280 Christopher J Hammond, Geraint Johnes and Terry Robinson (2000) Technical Efficiency under Alternative Regulatory Regimes: Evidence from the Inter-War British Gas Industry 279 Christopher J Hammond (2000) Efficiency in the Provision of Public Services: A Data Envelopment Analysis of UK Public Library Systems 278 Keshab Bhattarai (2000) Efficiency and Factor Reallocation Effects and Marginal Excess Burden of Taxes in the UK Economy 277 Keshab Bhattarai, Tomasz Wisniewski (2000) Determinants of Wages and Labour Supply in the UK 276 Taradas Bandyopadhay, Tapan Biswas (2000) The Relation between Commodity Prices and Factor Rewards 275 Emmanuel V Pikoulakis (2000) A Market Clearing Model of the International Business Cycle that Explains the 1980s 274 Jolian P McHardy (2000) Miscalculations of Monopoly and Oligopoly Welfare Losses with Linear Demand 273 Jolian P McHardy (2000) The Importance of Demand Complementarities in the Calculation of Dead-Weight Welfare Losses 272 Jolian P McHardy (2000) Complementary Monopoly and Welfare Loss 271 Christopher Tsoukis, Ahmed Alyousha (2000) A Re-Examination of Saving Investment Relationships: Cointegration, Causality and International Capital Mobility 270 Christopher Tsoukis, Nigel Miller (2000) A Dynamic Analysis of Endogenous Growth with Public Services 269 Keshab Bhattarai (1999) A Forward-Looking Dynamic Multisectoral GeneralEquilibrium Tax Model of the UK Economy 268 Peter Dawson, Stephen Dobson and Bill Gerrad (1999) Managerial Efficiency in English Soccer: A Comparison of Stochastic Frontier Methods 267 Iona E Tarrant (1999) An Analysis of J S Mills Notion of Utility as a Hierarchical Utility Framework and the Implications for the Paretian Liberal Paradox 266 Simon Vicary (1999) Public Good Provision with an Individual Cost of Donations 265 Nigel Miller, Chris Tsoukis (1999) On the Optimality of Public Capital for LongRun Economic Growth: Evidence from Panel Data 264 Michael J Ryan (1999) Data Envelopment Analysis, Cost Efficiency and Performance Targeting 263 Michael J Ryan (1999) Missing Factors, Managerial Effort and the Allocation of Common

34