The basis for your research is that people adopt counterfeit products in a bid to improve their self-image. However you ultimately show that counterfeits actually have the potential to harm self-image and that this self-created, “counterfeit self” prompts less ethical behaviour. Cost saving aside, what is it that draws these people to counterfeits in the first place; inherent weak moral fibre or deep-seated feelings of insecurity? Are people who buy counterfeits potentially less secure and confident people than those who don’t?

We were interested in examining what happens to self-image and behavior when you wear counterfeit products. Examining the motives for acquiring counterfeits is indeed an interesting question, but not one that I can answer based on this study. My research focuses on how decision making can be influenced without our knowledge.

Do you believe that the ‘bad’ character traits in the participants who thought they were wearing counterfeit sunglasses were a subliminal reaction to the inauthenticity of their experience, or are these traits inherent to these people in the first place? Are less-honest people more likely to buy counterfeits than honest people or does their moral fibre just slip once they have taken the step of buying a counterfeit?

What fascinates me is that our research showed that wearing counterfeit products is likely to make anyone feel more inauthentic than the average person and, as a result, be more likely to cheat. I think everyone wants to make a value judgment about the ethical standards of those who purchase counterfeit products, that would make things easier to understand. What's really important about this is that regardless of your standards they will relax a bit once you believe you are wearing counterfeit products. When you wear counterfeit products you are likely to feel inauthentic and, as a result, your standards for ethical decision making are lowered.

A reward system was applied during the experiment and, although the amounts of money in question were very small nonetheless seemed to have a great influence over the behaviour of the participants. Bearing in mind that people often claim they buy counterfeits as a cost-cutting measure, was this monetary reward system introduced in order to have some idea whether these participants were more concerned about money?

No, we wanted to give all participants an opportunity to make an ethically charged question, something we could measure in the lab. We commonly use these types of reward systems in our research studies. Participants had to cross ethical boundaries to make more money. When presented with such a dilemma what we find is that participants were more likely to cheat when they thought they were wearing fake rather than authentic sunglasses. The key is that an external, seemingly benign factor like wearing sunglasses labeled "fake" was enough to unconsciously change our ethical standards.

In your experiments you only used sunglasses and in some ways it seems ironic that the participants’ outlook was so obviously affected by the experience; they literally ‘saw’ things differently. (The saying about rose-tinted glasses comes to mind here, only in reverse!) Do you think that the participants responses and reactions were a direct result of the fact that sunglasses were the focal point, or would you now expect the same result if you were to carry out the experiment again with say, a Dior handbag or Jimmy Choo shoes; in fact anything that wasn’t what it claimed to be?

These are great ideas for further research, but they are slightly different from my focus. I'd be interested to see someone extend this research as you're suggesting. My focus is on ethics and decision making, specifically situations where our standards change without our knowledge. We have not tried our experiments using other products but I imagine that you would find similar effects.

How do you feel that brand owners might be able to use the knowledge obtained in your research to help discourage people from buying counterfeits? If the inauthenticity of the products they purchase is a reflection of their inauthenticity of character, how could say an anti-counterfeiting campaign tap into the minds of these types of consumers and potentially dissuade them from choosing to buy fakes?

Our research shows that ethical standards are lower when wearing fake products, not that purchasing a fake item is a reflection of a pre-existing character flaw. It would be totally fair for a brand owner to show a side-by-side comparison of a person's life with and without the use of a counterfeit item wherein the fake would lead to a less ethically minded lifestyle. That would fit the results of our study and illustrate the potential dangers of less ethical decision making. Although it wasn't our intention to influence buying behaviors at the onset of this experiment we hope our research will discourage people from buying illegal goods such as counterfeits in the future or at least make them aware of the unexpected consequences counterfeits will have. We hope the research leads to more ethically minded people in daily life.

There is currently great interest in the social and behavioural impulses behind buying of counterfeit goods. In January No to Fakes interviewed Professor Renée Richardson Gosline from MIT Sloan on her research which found that buying a counterfeit item may actually encourage the consumer to go on to purchase the real thing. And last year we also spoke to Professor Maman who is currently researching what drives consumers to knowingly buy counterfeits. Do you have any views on either of these strands of research and, if one were trying to form an overview of the consumer/counterfeit relationship, could you see a way of fitting your research findings into Gosline or Maman’s?

I think these streams of research are complementary to one another. We did not focus on the decision to buy since all our participants received the product from the experimenter. We focused on the behavioral consequences, potentially unexpected ones, of wearing counterfeits. What is interesting and novel about this work is that it focuses on the impact on a buyer post-acquisition rather than on the process someone takes pre-acquisition. Equally interesting is that in our studies we simply handed out sunglasses with different labels. The effect wasn't caused by different quality products or the result of some change that happens during the decision making process while considering a fake product, it simply happened due to a label. There are many pieces to this psychological puzzle that have a very large business impact. I agree that both the decision making process when buying counterfeits and the behavioral consequences of wearing counterfeits warrant further investigation.

Finally, what are your personal views about buying counterfeit goods and have you ever knowingly bought any?

The estimated losses for the retail industry alone raise the question of whether designers and their organizations may end up going out of business because of the growth of counterfeit goods. From fake DVDs to fake sunglasses the financial impact on business is real and now, thanks to this research, we know that there is a psychological impact on those who purchase counterfeit goods which may also have an impact on society. Such monetary and societal costs add up quickly. For me, I enjoy wearing authentic products.

Download a pdf of the full report entitled The Counterfeit Self: The Deceptive Costs of Faking it