Research in the consumption of counterfeit products has examined market size, consumer perceptions, and buyer characteristics (Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2010; Wee, Tan, & Cheok, 1995). However, little is known about how different kinds of counterfeits are evaluated because the term counterfeit tends to be used as a catch all for “fakes”. By taking a more nuanced approach to defining counterfeits we investigate how consumer’s perceptions of counterfeit products can vary based on the details of the item and its production. Moreover, we demonstrate that perceptions and consumption of counterfeits is not universal across cultures. Drawing from cultural psychology research, we propose that differences in dialectical thinking styles can influence the evaluation of counterfeit products. Prior literature has demonstrated that East Asians are relatively more dialectical. While Caucasians (with European cultural background) adopt a relatively more polarized, less polarized, less dialectical belief system (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). This difference has important implications for our understanding of cultural differences in considering counterfeits. Consider, for example, a “ghost shift” Rolex watch (i.e. an unlicensed copy made in a licensed facility with authentic materials but on an unofficial third shift (Parloff, 2006); compare that with a replica made using slightly different materials in a different facility altogether. Both are classified as counterfeits but may be evaluated differently with respect to authenticity and, as a result, may differ in perceived value as well (e.g. likelihood to purchase). We investigate these issues through three experiments conducted with 406 American undergraduate students by asking them to evaluate a variety of counterfeit and ghost shift counterfeit products. The first study relies on culture (non-Asian vs. East Asian ethnicity) as a proxy for thinking style and investigates perceptions of counterfeit sunglasses and shoes. Our second study provides converging evidence for the role of thinking styles on evaluations of different types of counterfeit shoes and extends our research by moving beyond reductionist cultural explanations through a wholly non- Asian sample by measuring individual differences in dialectical reasoning (Dialectical Self Scale; Spencer-Rodgers, Boucher, Mori, Wang, & Peng, 2009). Our last study investigates counterfeit Rolex watches and, more importantly, manipulates participants’ tolerance for change and contradiction through an established priming task (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). All three experiments revealed consistent results: lower dialectical thinking (more representative of Europeans) resulted in a greater likelihood to purchase the third shift version over the replica version, while higher dialectical thinking (e.g. East-Asian) resulted in equivalent responses between the two types. In studies 2 and 3 perceived authenticity also differed for low dialectical thinkers, but not high dialectical thinkers.

목적: 이 연구의 목적은 한국과 중국 엘리트 수영선수들을 대상으로 시합결과에 대한 결과귀인 및 패배 귀인과 사후가정의 관계를 규명하는 것이다. 방법: 연구 대상은 2016 - 2017년도 한국과 중국 수영협회에 등록된 207명의 엘리트 수영선수들이다. 결과: 첫째, 결과귀인에서 한국과 중국 선수들 모두 상대실력을 낮게 귀인한 선수들이 상향적 사후가정을 더 많이 하는 것으로 나타났다. 반면, 한국선수들의 경우 자기 실력 귀인을 많이 할수록 상향적 사후가정이 많은 반면, 중국 선수들은 집단 간 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 한국과 중국 선수들 모두 자만심 패배귀인이 높을수록 더 상향적 사후가정을 하는 것으로 나타났다. 그러나, 한국 선수들의 경우 팀웍 귀인이 높을수록 타인관련 상향적 사후가정을 한 반면, 중국 선수들은 팀웍과 관련해서 집단 간 차이가 발생하지 않았다. 또한, 한국 선수들의 경우 컨디션 귀인을 할수록 하향적 사후가정을 한 반면, 중국 선수들은 타인관련 상향적 사후가정에 유의미한 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 상향적 사후가정에 유의한 영향력을 미치는 패배 귀인은 한국 선수들의 경우, 우리 실력 혹은 팀웍이고 중국 선수들의 경우 자만심과 컨디션으로 나타났다. 논의: 한국과 중국 선수들의 결과에 대한 공통점과 차이점을 비교문화적인 측면에서 논의했으며, 타당성 있는 척도 개발 및 비교문화 후속 연구를 제언했다.