Counterfeits can benefit original products when people are caught using counterfeits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Existing literature has examined the influence of a counterfeit on the original brand in the prior or middle purchase phases. Our work aims to expand the literature by analyzing the post‐purchase phase of counterfeit consumption. In four studies, we examine the effects of product message appeal (symbolic vs. utilitarian) and self‐construal (interdependent vs. independent) on preference changes and purchase intentions of consumers toward original products when they are caught using counterfeits. Individuals with interdependent (vs. independent) self‐construal are more likely to increase their preference and purchase intention for original products after being caught using symbolic rather than utilitarian counterfeits. Moreover, face restoration mediates the interaction effect between product message appeal and self‐construal on the purchase intent of consumers in procuring original products. The patterns are consistent in both hypothetical scenarios and counterfeit consumption experience. Our work suggests that companies or brand, whose products are often copied or imitated should pay more attention to establishing their unique characteristics and the primary value of their product delivered to the consumers through product design and marketing mix strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".