The Effect of Identity Factor on Attitude and Behavioral Intentions Towards Counterfeit Products: A Structural Equation Modeling

Yıl 2024, , 541 - 563, 24.05.2024

Hilal Öztürk Küçük , İsmail Tamer Toklu

https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1428449

Öz

Turkey ranks 3rd in counterfeit product exports, after the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong. Therefore, it is important for all stakeholders to reveal the motivations of consumers in Turkey to purchase counterfeit products and the reasons for their purchasing behavior. In this study, the "identity" factor, one of the sources of motivation, was examined. In this context, there are three types of identity in the literature: moral, social, and collective identities. The study investigates the effects of social and collective identity and moral identity types on attitudes towards counterfeit products.
The data were analyzed with the SmartPLS program based on PLS (partial least squares) structural equation modeling. The survey form used in the research was prepared in the form of a five-point Likert for ease of understanding. A convenience sampling method was used. According to the results obtained from the analysis, while social identity and collective identity have no effect on the attitude towards counterfeit products, moral identity has an effect. In other words, as moral identity increases, attitude towards counterfeit products decreases.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Counterfeit Products, Identity, Turkey, SmartPLS

Kimlik Faktörünün Taklit Ürüne Yönelik Tutum ve Davranışsal Niyet Üzerine Etkisi: Bir Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi

Öz

Taklit ürün ihracatında Türkiye, Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti ve Hong Kong'un ardından 3'üncü sırada yer almaktadır. Bu nedenle Türkiye'deki tüketicilerin taklit ürün satın alma motivasyonlarını ve satın alma davranışlarının nedenlerini ortaya çıkarmak tüm paydaşlar açısından önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmada da motivasyon kaynaklarından biri olan “kimlik” faktörü incelenmiştir. Bu bağlamda, literatürde üç farklı kimlik tanımı yer almaktadır: ahlaki kimlik, sosyal kimlik ve kolektif kimlik. Çalışmada sosyal ve kolektif kimlik ile ahlaki kimlik türlerinin taklit ürünlere yönelik tutum üzerindeki etkileri araştırılmaktadır.
Veriler PLS (kısmi en küçük kareler) yapısal eşitlik modellemesine dayanan SmartPLS programı ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada kullanılan anket formu, anlaşılmasını kolaylaştırmak amacıyla beşli likert şeklinde hazırlanmıştır. Kolayda örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Analizden elde edilen sonuçlara göre, taklit ürünlere yönelik tutum üzerinde sosyal kimlik ve kolektif kimliğin etkisi bulunmazken, ahlaki kimliğin etkisi olduğu görülmektedir. Yani ahlaki kimlik düzeyi arttıkça taklit ürünlere yönelik tutum azalmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Taklit Ürün, Kimlik, Türkiye, SmartPLS

Kaynakça

• Albarq, A. N. (2015). Counterfeit Products and the Role of The Consumer in Saudi Arabia. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 5(12), 819.
• Amaral, N. B. & Loken, B. (2016). Viewing Usage of Counterfeit Luxury Goods: Social Identity and Social Hierarchy Effects on Dilution and Enhancement of Genuine Luxury Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(4), 483-495.
• Aquino, K. & Reed II, A. (2002). The Self-importance of Moral Identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423.
• Augusto de Matos, C., Ituassu, T. C. & Rossi, V C. A. (2007). Consumer Attitudes toward Counterfeits: A Review and Extension. Journal of consumer Marketing, 24(1), 36-47.
• Baron, R. M., & 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), 1173- 1182.
• Baruönü Latif, Ö., Kaytaz Yiğit, M. & Kirezli, Ö. (2018). A Review of Counterfeiting Research on Demand Side: Analyzing Prior Progress and Identifying Future Directions. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 21(5-6), 458-480.
• Basu, M. M., Basu, S. & Lee, J. (2015). Factors Influencing Consumer's Intention to Buy Counterfeit Products. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 15(6), 50-65.
• Bian, X. & Moutinho, L. (2009). An Investigation of Determinants of Counterfeit Purchase Consideration. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 368-378.
• Bian, X. & Veloutsou, C. (2007). Consumers' Attitudes Regarding Non-deceptive Counterfeit Brands in the UK and China. Journal of Brand Management, 14, 211-222.
• Chaudhry, P. E. & Stumpf, S. A. (2011). Consumer Complicity with Counterfeit Products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(2), 139-151.
• Chaudhry, P. E. & Walsh, M. G. (1996). An Assessment of the Impact of Counterfeiting in International Markets: The Piracy Paradox Persists. The Columbia Journal of World Business, 31(3), 34-48.
• Cheek, J. M., Smith, S. M. & Tropp, L. R. (2002, February). Relational Identity Orientation: A fourth Scale for the AIQ. Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, GA.
• Coşkun, H. (2004). Kimlik Ölçeği’nin bir Türk Örnekleminde Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları. 7(14), 49-60.
• Eisend, M. (2019). Morality Effects and Consumer Responses to Counterfeit and Pirated Products: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 301-323.
• Eisend, M. & Schuchert-Güler, P. (2006). Explaining Counterfeit Purchases: A Review and Preview. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2006, 1.
• Elsantil, Y. G. & Hamza, E. G. A. (2021). A Review of Internal and External Factors Underlying the Purchase of Counterfeit Products. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 1-13.
• Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Models with Unobservables Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
• Furnham, A. & Valgeirsson, H. (2007). The Effect of Life Values and Materialism on Buying Counterfeit Products. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(5), 677-685.
• Ha, S. & Lennon, S. J. (2006). Purchase Intent for Fashion Counterfeit Products: Ethical Ideologies, Ethical Judgments, and Perceived Risks. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24(4), 297-315.
• Hofstede Insights. (2010). Country Comparison Tool, What About Turkey. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison-tool?countries=turkey (09.06.2023)
• Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2307-0919.
• Hoyer, Wayne, D.; Maclnnis, Deborah J.& Pieters, Rik (2013). Consumer Behavior. 6th Edition, South Western Cengage Learning, United States of America.
• Khan, S., Fazili, A. I. & Bashir, I. (2022). Constructing Generational Identity Through Counterfeit Luxury Consumption. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 31(3), 415-437.
• Kılıç, S. & Nafiz, T. O. K. (2003). Çevrecilikte Yeni Bir Kimlik: Ekolojizm. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 8(2), 223-250.
• Li, J., Ghaffari, M. & Su, L. (2020). Counterfeit Luxury Consumption Strategies in a Collectivistic Culture: The Case of China. Journal of Brand Management, 27, 546-560.
• Mavlanova, T., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2010). Counterfeit Poducts on the Internet: The Role of Seller-level and Product-level Information. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(2), 79-104.
• OECD iLibrary. Global Trade in Fakes: A Worrying Threat. https://www.oecdilibrary.org/sites/771e7a68en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/771e7a68en#:~:text=From%202017%2D19%2C%20these%20economies,copy%20the%20linklink%20copied!&tex=Source%3A%20OECD%2FEUIPO%20database (28.09.2023)
• Penz, E. & Stottinger, B. (2005). Forget the “Real” Thing-Take the Copy! An Explanatory Model for the Volitional Purchase of Counterfeit Products. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 568-575.
• Phau, I., Sequeira, M. & Dix, S. (2009). Consumers' Willingness to Knowingly Purchase Counterfeit Products. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(4), 262-281.
• Quoquab, F., Pahlevan, S., Mohammad, J., & Thurasamy, R. (2017). Factors Affecting Consumers’ Intention to Purchase Counterfeit Product: Empirical Study in the Malaysian Market. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 29(4), 837-853.
• Sandlin, J. A. & Walther, C. S. (2009). Complicated Simplicity: Moral Identity Formation and Social Movement Learning in the Voluntary Simplicity Movement. Adult Education Quarterly, 59(4), 298-317.
• Sharma, P. & Chan, R. Y. K. (2011) Counterfeit Proneness: Conceptualisation and Scale Development. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(5-6), 602-626.
• Staake, T., Thiesse, F., & Fleisch, E. (2009). The emergence of counterfeit trade: a literature review. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 320-349.
• Toklu, İ.T. & Ustaahmetoğlu, E. (2016). Tüketicilerin Organik Çaya Yönelik Tutumlarını ve Satın Alma Niyetlerini Etkileyen Faktörler: Bir Alan Araştırması. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 12(29), 41-61.
• Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C. & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod Probes of Individualism and Collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 1006.
• Wu, B. & Yang, Z. (2018). The Impact of Moral Identity on Consumers’ Green Consumption Tendency: The Role of Perceived Responsibility For Environmental Damage. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 59, 74-84.
• Yaprak, A. & Prince, M. (2019). Consumer Morality and Moral Consumption Behavior: Literature Domains, Current Contributions, and Future Research Questions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36(3), 349-355.
• Yavuz, N. & Zavalsız, Y. S. (2015). Postmodern Dönemde Kimliğin Belirleyicisi Olarak Tüketim. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 4(4), 126-152.
• Yılmaz, F. & Yılmaz, F. (2016). Ahlaki Kimlik Ölçeği Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(4). 111-134.