| Literature DB >> 36248594 |
Saqib Ali1, Hasan Zahid2, Nadeem Khalid3, Petra Poulova4, Minhas Akbar1,4.
Abstract
Counterfeiting has become a prevalent business worldwide, resulting in high losses for many businesses. Considerable attention has been paid to research an individual attitude toward purchasing luxury counterfeit products in the offline context. However, there is currently lesser-known literature on the given phenomenon in the context of social commerce. Moreover, researchers observed that counterfeiting consumption is associated with consumer ethical values or beliefs. Practitioners and researchers are keen to find those factors that affect consumers' ethical consumption behavior to reduce pirated products' demand. However, the role of religion in shaping ethical behavior is less documented in the counterfeiting context. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of religiosity on the counterfeiting of luxury products in Pakistan. A five-dimensional Islamic religiosity model was adopted to understand the consumption phenomena. For quantitative research, cross-sectional data were collected from the generation M of Pakistan through self-administrative questionnaires. A total of 394 valid responses from active online users were collected to empirically examine the conceptual model by employing the partial least square structural equation model (PLS-SEM). The results reveal that all five dimensions of religiosity negatively affect the attitude of generation M. Moreover, it is found that knowledge has the highest negative effect on attitude, followed by orthopraxis, experience, central duties, and basic duties. The study also explains the theoretical and practical implications of the research. Finally, limitations and future research were also discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Pakistan; attitude; counterfeiting; generation M; religiosity
Year: 2022 PMID: 36248594 PMCID: PMC9559740 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.927697
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Characteristics of respondents.
| Characteristics | Frequency | Percentage | |
| Gender | Male | 227 | 57.61 |
| Female | 167 | 42.39 | |
| Age | 18–21 | 104 | 26.40 |
| 22–25 | 148 | 37.56 | |
| 26–29 | 89 | 22.59 | |
| 30–over | 53 | 13.45 | |
| Education | Undergraduate | 176 | 44.67 |
Measurement model.
| Constructs | Items | Loadings | AVE | CR |
|
| ||||
| BASR1 | 0.693 | 0.510 | 0.862 | |
| BASR2 | 0.759 | |||
| BASR3 | 0.712 | |||
| BASR4 | 0.716 | |||
| BASR5 | 0.667 | |||
| BASR6 | 0.736 | |||
|
| ||||
| CEND1 | 0.855 | 0.712 | 0.881 | |
| CEND2 | 0.863 | |||
| CEND3 | 0.813 | |||
|
| ||||
| EXPE1 | 0.934 | 0.640 | 0.839 | |
| EXPE2 | 0.789 | |||
| EXPE3 | 0.652 | |||
|
| ||||
| KNOW1 | 0.861 | 0.656 | 0.851 | |
| KNOW2 | 0.747 | |||
| KNOW3 | 0.818 | |||
|
| ||||
| ORTH1 | 0.828 | 0.614 | 0.823 | |
| ORTH2 | 0.887 | |||
| ORTH3 | 0.607 | |||
|
| ||||
| ATTI1 | 0.707 | 0.565 | 0.838 | |
| ATTI2 | 0.713 | |||
| ATTI3 | 0.788 | |||
| ATTI4 | 0.794 | |||
|
| ||||
| BASR1 | 0.693 | 0.510 | 0.862 | |
| BASR2 | 0.759 | |||
| BASR3 | 0.712 | |||
| BASR4 | 0.716 | |||
| BASR5 | 0.667 | |||
| BASR6 | 0.736 | |||
|
| ||||
| CEND1 | 0.855 | 0.712 | 0.881 | |
| CEND2 | 0.863 | |||
| CEND3 | 0.813 | |||
|
| ||||
| EXPE1 | 0.934 | 0.640 | 0.839 | |
| EXPE2 | 0.789 | |||
| EXPE3 | 0.652 | |||
|
| ||||
| KNOW1 | 0.861 | 0.656 | 0.851 | |
| KNOW2 | 0.747 | |||
| KNOW3 | 0.818 | |||
|
| ||||
| ORTH1 | 0.828 | 0.614 | 0.823 | |
| ORTH2 | 0.887 | |||
| ORTH3 | 0.607 | |||
|
| ||||
| ATTI1 | 0.707 | 0.565 | 0.838 | |
| ATTI2 | 0.713 | |||
| ATTI3 | 0.788 | |||
| ATTI4 | 0.794 |
FIGURE 1Theoretical framework.
Discriminant validity [Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) criterion].
| Attitude | Basic religiosity | Central duties | Experience | Knowledge | Orthopraxis | |
|
| ||||||
| Basic religiosity | 0.571 | |||||
| Central duties | 0.640 | 0.591 | ||||
| Experience | 0.223 | 0.121 | 0.178 | |||
| Knowledge | 0.889 | 0.585 | 0.694 | 0.095 | ||
| Orthopraxis | 0.673 | 0.407 | 0.626 | 0.161 | 0.593 | |
Hypotheses testing.
| Hypothesis | Relationship | Path-coefficient | Std. | Supported | f2 | R2 | Q2 | SRMR | ||
| H1 | BASRATTI | –0.071 | 0.034 | 1.982 | 0.018 | Yes | 0.008 | 0.524 | 0.204 | 0.076 |
| H2 | CENDATTI | –0.081 | 0.041 | 2.1051 | 0.024 | Yes | 0.010 | |||
| H3 | EXPEATTI | –0.132 | 0.035 | 3.810 | 0.000 | Yes | 0.026 | |||
| H4 | KNOWATTI | –0.477 | 0.040 | 11.885 | 0.000 | Yes | 0.302 | |||
| H5 | ORTHATTI | –0.194 | 0.039 | 4.981 | 0.000 | Yes | 0.057 |
FIGURE 2Structural model (bootstrapping results).