The impact of self-construals on bicultural consumers’ counterfeit postpurchase regret
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Counterfeiting poses a growing threat to global luxury brands. While international marketing research has largely focused on the antecedents of counterfeit purchases and cross-cultural differences, the understanding of postpurchase regret remains limited. As a result, firms lack clear guidance on when to adopt specific anti-counterfeiting strategies. This study aims to address this research gap by examining how self-referential mechanisms, namely, cultural identity conflict and self-construals, shape postpurchase regret among bicultural consumers. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted two studies to test their hypotheses. Study 1, a survey, examines how cultural identity conflict moderates the relationship between bicultural consumers’ attitudes toward counterfeits and postpurchase regret. Study 2, an experiment, demonstrates how priming self-construals can shift the source of postpurchase regret, also moderated by cultural identity conflict. Findings The findings demonstrate that bicultural consumers’ self-construals can be primed to amplify either guilt-based or shame-based postpurchase regret. However, this priming effect is most effective among biculturals who experience low levels of bicultural conflict. In contrast, for biculturals with high levels of cultural conflict, the relationship between attitudes toward counterfeit goods and postpurchase regret is significantly weaker. Research limitations/implications The authors build on their findings to propose an integrative model of counterfeit purchasing, ranging from prepurchase antecedents to postpurchase regret. Practical implications The proposed model helps companies design actionable strategies, such as activating bicultural consumers’ guilt and shame emotions, subsequently increasing their postpurchase regret to deter unethical counterfeit purchases. Originality/value First, this paper challenges the common approach in the counterfeiting literature of examining only prepurchase motivations, which limits its utility for explaining whether a consumer will repeat counterfeit purchases over time. Second, it further dissects the two negative emotions, guilt and shame, that come along with postpurchase regret of counterfeit products. Third, it contributes to the cultural identity literature by examining the interaction between consumers’ self-construals and cultural identity conflict.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".