conditional statement hypothesis

Conditional Statement – Definition, Truth Table, Examples, FAQs

What is a conditional statement, how to write a conditional statement, what is a biconditional statement, solved examples on conditional statements, practice problems on conditional statements, frequently asked questions about conditional statements.

A conditional statement is a statement that is written in the “If p, then q” format. Here, the statement p is called the hypothesis and q is called the conclusion. It is a fundamental concept in logic and mathematics. 

Conditional statement symbol :  p → q

A conditional statement consists of two parts.

• The “if” clause, which presents a condition or hypothesis.
• The “then” clause, which indicates the consequence or result that follows if the condition is true. 

Example : If you brush your teeth, then you won’t get cavities.

Hypothesis (Condition): If you brush your teeth

Conclusion (Consequence): then you won’t get cavities 

Conditional Statement: Definition

A conditional statement is characterized by the presence of “if” as an antecedent and “then” as a consequent. A conditional statement, also known as an “if-then” statement consists of two parts:

• The “if” clause (hypothesis): This part presents a condition, situation, or assertion. It is the initial condition that is being considered.
• The “then” clause (conclusion): This part indicates the consequence, result, or action that will occur if the condition presented in the “if” clause is true or satisfied. 

Related Worksheets

Representation of Conditional Statement

The conditional statement of the form ‘If p, then q” is represented as p → q. 

It is pronounced as “p implies q.”

Different ways to express a conditional statement are:

• p implies q
• p is sufficient for q
• q is necessary for p

Parts of a Conditional Statement

There are two parts of conditional statements, hypothesis and conclusion. The hypothesis or condition will begin with the “if” part, and the conclusion or action will begin with the “then” part. A conditional statement is also called “implication.”

Conditional Statements Examples:

Example 1: If it is Sunday, then you can go to play. 

Hypothesis: If it is Sunday

Conclusion: then you can go to play. 

Example 2: If you eat all vegetables, then you can have the dessert.

Condition: If you eat all vegetables

Conclusion: then you can have the dessert 

To form a conditional statement, follow these concise steps:

Step 1 : Identify the condition (antecedent or “if” part) and the consequence (consequent or “then” part) of the statement.

Step 2 : Use the “if… then…” structure to connect the condition and consequence.

Step 3 : Ensure the statement expresses a logical relationship where the condition leads to the consequence.

Example 1 : “If you study (condition), then you will pass the exam (consequence).” 

This conditional statement asserts that studying leads to passing the exam. If you study (condition is true), then you will pass the exam (consequence is also true).

Example 2 : If you arrange the numbers from smallest to largest, then you will have an ascending order.

Hypothesis: If you arrange the numbers from smallest to largest

Conclusion: then you will have an ascending order

Truth Table for Conditional Statement

The truth table for a conditional statement is a table used in logic to explore the relationship between the truth values of two statements. It lists all possible combinations of truth values for “p” and “q” and determines whether the conditional statement is true or false for each combination. 

The truth value of p → q is false only when p is true and q is False. 

If the condition is false, the consequence doesn’t affect the truth of the conditional; it’s always true.

In all the other cases, it is true.

The truth table is helpful in the analysis of possible combinations of truth values for hypothesis or condition and conclusion or action. It is useful to understand the presence of truth or false statements. 

Converse, Inverse, and Contrapositive

The converse, inverse, and contrapositive are three related conditional statements that are derived from an original conditional statement “p → q.” 

Consider a conditional statement: If I run, then I feel great.

• Converse: 

The converse of “p → q” is “q → p.” It reverses the order of the original statement. While the original statement says “if p, then q,” the converse says “if q, then p.” 

Converse: If I feel great, then I run.

• Inverse: 

The inverse of “p → q” is “~p → ~q,” where “” denotes negation (opposite). It negates both the antecedent (p) and the consequent (q). So, if the original statement says “if p, then q,” the inverse says “if not p, then not q.”

Inverse : If I don’t run, then I don’t feel great.

• Contrapositive: 

The contrapositive of “p → q” is “~q → ~p.” It reverses the order and also negates both the statements. So, if the original statement says “if p, then q,” the contrapositive says “if not q, then not p.”

Contrapositive: If I don’t feel great, then I don’t run.

A biconditional statement is a type of compound statement in logic that expresses a bidirectional or two-way relationship between two statements. It asserts that “p” is true if and only if “q” is true, and vice versa. In symbolic notation, a biconditional statement is represented as “p ⟺ q.”

In simpler terms, a biconditional statement means that the truth of “p” and “q” are interdependent. 

If “p” is true, then “q” must also be true, and if “q” is true, then “p” must be true. Conversely, if “p” is false, then “q” must be false, and if “q” is false, then “p” must be false. 

Biconditional statements are often used to express equality, equivalence, or conditions where two statements are mutually dependent for their truth values. 

Examples : 

• I will stop my bike if and only if the traffic light is red.  
• I will stay if and only if you play my favorite song.

Facts about Conditional Statements

• The negation of a conditional statement “p → q” is expressed as “p and not q.” It is denoted as “𝑝 ∧ ∼𝑞.” 
• The conditional statement is not logically equivalent to its converse and inverse.
• The conditional statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. 
• Thus, we can write p → q ∼q → ∼p

In this article, we learned about the fundamentals of conditional statements in mathematical logic, including their structure, parts, truth tables, conditional logic examples, and various related concepts. Understanding conditional statements is key to logical reasoning and problem-solving. Now, let’s solve a few examples and practice MCQs for better comprehension.

Example 1: Identify the hypothesis and conclusion. 

If you sing, then I will dance.

Solution : 

Given statement: If you sing, then I will dance.

Here, the antecedent or the hypothesis is “if you sing.”

The conclusion is “then I will dance.”

Example 2: State the converse of the statement: “If the switch is off, then the machine won’t work.” 

Here, p: The switch is off

q: The machine won’t work.

The conditional statement can be denoted as p → q.

Converse of p → q is written by reversing the order of p and q in the original statement.

Converse of  p → q is q → p.

Converse of  p → q: q → p: If the machine won’t work, then the switch is off.

Example 3: What is the truth value of the given conditional statement? 

If 2+2=5 , then pigs can fly.

Solution:  

q: Pigs can fly.

The statement p is false. Now regardless of the truth value of statement q, the overall statement will be true. 

F → F = T

Hence, the truth value of the statement is true. 

Conditional Statement - Definition, Truth Table, Examples, FAQs

Attend this quiz & Test your knowledge.

What is the antecedent in the given conditional statement? If it’s sunny, then I’ll go to the beach.

A conditional statement can be expressed as, what is the converse of “a → b”, when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false, the conditional statement is.

What is the meaning of conditional statements?

Conditional statements, also known as “if-then” statements, express a cause-and-effect or logical relationship between two propositions.

When does the truth value of a conditional statement is F?

A conditional statement is considered false when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false.

What is the contrapositive of a conditional statement?

The contrapositive reverses the order of the statements and also negates both the statements. It is equivalent in truth value to the original statement.

RELATED POSTS

• Ordering Decimals: Definition, Types, Examples
• Decimal to Octal: Steps, Methods, Conversion Table
• Lattice Multiplication – Definition, Method, Examples, Facts, FAQs
• X Intercept – Definition, Formula, Graph, Examples
• Lateral Face – Definition With Examples

Math & ELA | PreK To Grade 5

Kids see fun., you see real learning outcomes..

Make study-time fun with 14,000+ games & activities, 450+ lesson plans, and more—free forever.

Parents, Try for Free Teachers, Use for Free

Calcworkshop

Conditional Statement If Then's Defined in Geometry - 15+ Examples!

// Last Updated: January 21, 2020 - Watch Video //

In today’s geometry lesson , you’re going to learn all about conditional statements!

Jenn, Founder Calcworkshop ® , 15+ Years Experience (Licensed & Certified Teacher)

We’re going to walk through several examples to ensure you know what you’re doing.

In addition, this lesson will prepare you for deductive reasoning and two column proofs later on.

Here we go!

What are Conditional Statements?

To better understand deductive reasoning, we must first learn about conditional statements.

A conditional statement has two parts: hypothesis ( if ) and conclusion ( then ).

In fact, conditional statements are nothing more than “If-Then” statements!

Sometimes a picture helps form our hypothesis or conclusion. Therefore, we sometimes use Venn Diagrams to visually represent our findings and aid us in creating conditional statements.

But to verify statements are correct, we take a deeper look at our if-then statements. This is why we form the converse , inverse , and contrapositive of our conditional statements.

What is the Converse of a Statement?

Well, the converse is when we switch or interchange our hypothesis and conclusion.

Conditional Statement : “If today is Wednesday, then yesterday was Tuesday.”

Hypothesis : “If today is Wednesday” so our conclusion must follow “Then yesterday was Tuesday.”

So the converse is found by rearranging the hypothesis and conclusion, as Math Planet accurately states.

Converse : “If yesterday was Tuesday, then today is Wednesday.”

What is the Inverse of a Statement?

Now the inverse of an If-Then statement is found by negating (making negative) both the hypothesis and conclusion of the conditional statement.

So using our current conditional statement, “If today is Wednesday, then yesterday was Tuesday”.

Inverse : “If today is not Wednesday, then yesterday was not Tuesday.”

What is a Contrapositive?

And the contrapositive is formed by interchanging the hypothesis and conclusion and then negating both.

Contrapositive : “If yesterday was not Tuesday, then today is not Wednesday”

What is a Biconditional Statement?

A statement written in “if and only if” form combines a reversible statement and its true converse. In other words the conditional statement and converse are both true.

Continuing with our initial condition, “If today is Wednesday, then yesterday was Tuesday.”

Biconditional : “Today is Wednesday if and only if yesterday was Tuesday.”

Examples of Conditional Statements

In the video below we will look at several harder examples of how to form a proper statement, converse, inverse, and contrapositive. And here’s a big hint…

Whenever you see “con” that means you switch! It’s like being a con-artist!

Moreover, we will detail the process for coming up with reasons for our conclusions using known postulates. We will review the ten postulates that we have learned so far, and add a few more problems dealing with perpendicular lines, planes, and perpendicular bisectors.

After this lesson, we will be ready to tackle deductive reasoning head-on, and feel confident as we march onward toward learning two-column proofs!

Conditional Statements – Lesson & Examples (Video)

• Introduction to conditional statements
• 00:00:25 – What are conditional statements, converses, and biconditional statements? (Examples #1-2)
• 00:05:21 – Understanding venn diagrams (Examples #3-4)
• 00:11:07 – Supply the missing venn diagram and conditional statement for each question (Examples #5-8)
• Exclusive Content for Member’s Only
• 00:17:48 – Write the statement and converse then determine if they are reversible (Examples #9-12)
• 00:29:17 – Understanding the inverse, contrapositive, and symbol notation
• 00:35:33 – Write the statement, converse, inverse, contrapositive, and biconditional statements for each question (Examples #13-14)
• 00:45:40 – Using geometry postulates to verify statements (Example #15)
• 00:53:23 – What are perpendicular lines, perpendicular planes and the perpendicular bisector?
• 00:56:26 – Using the figure, determine if the statement is true or false (Example #16)
• Practice Problems with Step-by-Step Solutions
• Chapter Tests with Video Solutions

Get access to all the courses and over 450 HD videos with your subscription

Monthly and Yearly Plans Available

Get My Subscription Now

Still wondering if CalcWorkshop is right for you? Take a Tour and find out how a membership can take the struggle out of learning math.

Conditional Statement

A conditional statement is a part of mathematical reasoning which is a critical skill that enables students to analyze a given hypothesis without any reference to a particular context or meaning. In layman words, when a scientific inquiry or statement is examined, the reasoning is not based on an individual's opinion. Derivations and proofs need a factual and scientific basis. 

Mathematical critical thinking and logical reasoning are important skills that are required to solve maths reasoning questions.

In this mini-lesson, we will explore the world of conditional statements. We will walk through the answers to the questions like what is meant by a conditional statement, what are the parts of a conditional statement, and how to create conditional statements along with solved examples and interactive questions.

Lesson Plan  

What Is Meant By a Conditional Statement?

A statement that is of the form "If p, then q" is a conditional statement. Here 'p' refers to 'hypothesis' and 'q' refers to 'conclusion'.

For example, "If Cliff is thirsty, then she drinks water."

This is a conditional statement. It is also called an implication.

'\(\rightarrow\)' is the symbol used to represent the relation between two statements. For example, A\(\rightarrow\)B. It is known as the logical connector. It can be read as A implies B. 

Here are two more conditional statement examples

Example 1: If a number is divisible by 4, then it is divisible by 2.

Example 2: If today is Monday, then yesterday was Sunday.

What Are the Parts of a Conditional Statement?

Hypothesis (if) and Conclusion (then) are the two main parts that form a conditional statement.

Let us consider the above-stated example to understand the parts of a conditional statement.

Conditional Statement : If today is Monday, then yesterday was Sunday.

Hypothesis : "If today is Monday."

Conclusion : "Then yesterday was Sunday."

On interchanging the form of statement the relationship gets changed.

To check whether the statement is true or false here, we have subsequent parts of a conditional statement. They are:

• Contrapositive

Biconditional Statement

Let us consider hypothesis as statement A and Conclusion as statement B.

Following are the observations made:

Converse of Statement

When hypothesis and conclusion are switched or interchanged, it is termed as converse statement . For example,

Conditional Statement : “If today is Monday, then yesterday was Sunday.”

Hypothesis : “If today is Monday”

Converse : “If yesterday was Sunday, then today is Monday.”

Here the conditional statement logic is, If B, then A (B → A)

Inverse of Statement

When both the hypothesis and conclusion of the conditional statement are negative, it is termed as an inverse of the statement. For example,

Conditional Statement: “If today is Monday, then yesterday was Sunday”.

Inverse : “If today is not Monday, then yesterday was not Sunday.”

Here the conditional statement logic is, If not A, then not B (~A → ~B)

Contrapositive Statement

When the hypothesis and conclusion are negative and simultaneously interchanged, then the statement is contrapositive. For example,

Contrapositive: “If yesterday was not Sunday, then today is not Monday”

Here the conditional statement logic is, if not B, then not A (~B → ~A)

The statement is a biconditional statement when a statement satisfies both the conditions as true, being conditional and converse at the same time. For example,

Biconditional : “Today is Monday if and only if yesterday was Sunday.”

Here the conditional statement logic is, A if and only if B (A ↔ B)

How to Create Conditional Statements?

Here, the point to be kept in mind is that the 'If' and 'then' part must be true.

If a number is a perfect square , then it is even.

• 'If' part is a number that is a perfect square.

Think of 4 which is a perfect square.

This has become true.

• The 'then' part is that the number should be even. 4 is even.

This has also become true. 

Thus, we have set up a conditional statement.

Let us hypothetically consider two statements, statement A and statement B. Observe the truth table for the statements:

According to the table, only if the hypothesis (A) is true and the conclusion (B) is false then, A → B will be false, or else A → B will be true for all other conditions.

• A sentence needs to be either true or false, but not both, to be considered as a mathematically accepted statement.
• Any sentence which is either imperative or interrogative or exclamatory cannot be considered a mathematically validated statement. 
• A sentence containing one or many variables is termed as an open statement. An open statement can become a statement if the variables present in the sentence are replaced by definite values.

Solved Examples

Let us have a look at a few solved examples on conditional statements.

Identify the types of conditional statements.

There are four types of conditional statements:

• If condition
• If-else condition
• Nested if-else
• If-else ladder.

Ray tells "If the perimeter of a rectangle is 14, then its area is 10."

Which of the following could be the counterexamples? Justify your decision.

a) A rectangle with sides measuring 2 and 5

b) A rectangle with sides measuring 10 and 1

c) A rectangle with sides measuring 1 and 5

d) A rectangle with sides measuring 4 and 3

a) Rectangle with sides 2 and 5: Perimeter = 14 and area = 10

Both 'if' and 'then' are true.

b) Rectangle with sides 10 and 1: Perimeter = 22 and area = 10

'If' is false and 'then' is true.

c) Rectangle with sides 1 and 5: Perimeter = 12 and area = 5

Both 'if' and 'then' are false.

d) Rectangle with sides 4 and 3: Perimeter = 14 and area = 12

'If' is true and 'then' is false.

Joe examined the set of numbers {16, 27, 24} to check if they are the multiples of 3. He claimed that they are divisible by 9. Do you agree or disagree? Justify your answer.

Conditional statement : If a number is a multiple of 3, then it is divisible by 9.

Let us find whether the conditions are true or false.

a) 16 is not a multiple of 3. Thus, the condition is false. 

16 is not divisible by 9. Thus, the conclusion is false. 

b) 27 is a multiple of 3. Thus, the condition is true.

27 is divisible by 9. Thus, the conclusion is true. 

c) 24 is a multiple of 3. Thus the condition is true.

24 is not divisible by 9. Thus the conclusion is false.

Write the converse, inverse, and contrapositive statement for the following conditional statement. 

If you study well, then you will pass the exam.

The given statement is - If you study well, then you will pass the exam.

It is of the form, "If p, then q"

The converse statement is, "You will pass the exam if you study well" (if q, then p).

The inverse statement is, "If you do not study well then you will not pass the exam" (if not p, then not q).

The contrapositive statement is, "If you did not pass the exam, then you did not study well" (if not q, then not p).

Interactive Questions

Here are a few activities for you to practice. Select/Type your answer and click the "Check Answer" button to see the result.

Let's Summarize

The mini-lesson targeted the fascinating concept of the conditional statement. The math journey around conditional statements started with what a student already knew and went on to creatively crafting a fresh concept in the young minds. Done in a way that not only it is relatable and easy to grasp, but also will stay with them forever.

About Cuemath

At  Cuemath , our team of math experts is dedicated to making learning fun for our favorite readers, the students!

Through an interactive and engaging learning-teaching-learning approach, the teachers explore all angles of a topic.

Be it worksheets, online classes, doubt sessions, or any other form of relation, it’s the logical thinking and smart learning approach that we, at Cuemath, believe in.

FAQs on Conditional Statement

1. what is the most common conditional statement.

'If and then' is the most commonly used conditional statement.

2. When do you use a conditional statement?

Conditional statements are used to justify the given condition or two statements as true or false.

3. What is if and if-else statement?

If is used when a specified condition is true. If-else is used when a particular specified condition is not satisfying and is false.

4. What is the symbol for a conditional statement?

'\(\rightarrow\)' is the symbol used to represent the relation between two statements. For example, A\(\rightarrow\)B. It is known as the logical connector. It can be read as A implies B.

5. What is the Contrapositive of a conditional statement?

If not B, then not A (~B → ~A)

6. What is a universal conditional statement?

Conditional statements are those statements where a hypothesis is followed by a conclusion. It is also known as an " If-then" statement. If the hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false, then the conditional statement is false. Likewise, if the hypothesis is false the whole statement is false. Conditional statements are also termed as implications.

Conditional Statement: If today is Monday, then yesterday was Sunday

Hypothesis: "If today is Monday."

Conclusion: "Then yesterday was Sunday."

If A, then B (A → B)

• Live one on one classroom and doubt clearing
• Practice worksheets in and after class for conceptual clarity
• Personalized curriculum to keep up with school

• + ACCUPLACER Mathematics
• + ACT Mathematics
• + AFOQT Mathematics
• + ALEKS Tests
• + ASVAB Mathematics
• + ATI TEAS Math Tests
• + Common Core Math
• + DAT Math Tests
• + FSA Tests
• + FTCE Math
• + GED Mathematics
• + Georgia Milestones Assessment
• + GRE Quantitative Reasoning
• + HiSET Math Exam
• + HSPT Math
• + ISEE Mathematics
• + PARCC Tests
• + Praxis Math
• + PSAT Math Tests
• + PSSA Tests
• + SAT Math Tests
• + SBAC Tests
• + SIFT Math
• + SSAT Math Tests
• + STAAR Tests
• + TABE Tests
• + TASC Math
• + TSI Mathematics
• + ACT Math Worksheets
• + Accuplacer Math Worksheets
• + AFOQT Math Worksheets
• + ALEKS Math Worksheets
• + ASVAB Math Worksheets
• + ATI TEAS 6 Math Worksheets
• + FTCE General Math Worksheets
• + GED Math Worksheets
• + 3rd Grade Mathematics Worksheets
• + 4th Grade Mathematics Worksheets
• + 5th Grade Mathematics Worksheets
• + 6th Grade Math Worksheets
• + 7th Grade Mathematics Worksheets
• + 8th Grade Mathematics Worksheets
• + 9th Grade Math Worksheets
• + HiSET Math Worksheets
• + HSPT Math Worksheets
• + ISEE Middle-Level Math Worksheets
• + PERT Math Worksheets
• + Praxis Math Worksheets
• + PSAT Math Worksheets
• + SAT Math Worksheets
• + SIFT Math Worksheets
• + SSAT Middle Level Math Worksheets
• + 7th Grade STAAR Math Worksheets
• + 8th Grade STAAR Math Worksheets
• + THEA Math Worksheets
• + TABE Math Worksheets
• + TASC Math Worksheets
• + TSI Math Worksheets
• + AFOQT Math Course
• + ALEKS Math Course
• + ASVAB Math Course
• + ATI TEAS 6 Math Course
• + CHSPE Math Course
• + FTCE General Knowledge Course
• + GED Math Course
• + HiSET Math Course
• + HSPT Math Course
• + ISEE Upper Level Math Course
• + SHSAT Math Course
• + SSAT Upper-Level Math Course
• + PERT Math Course
• + Praxis Core Math Course
• + SIFT Math Course
• + 8th Grade STAAR Math Course
• + TABE Math Course
• + TASC Math Course
• + TSI Math Course
• + Number Properties Puzzles
• + Algebra Puzzles
• + Geometry Puzzles
• + Intelligent Math Puzzles
• + Ratio, Proportion & Percentages Puzzles
• + Other Math Puzzles

How to Understand ‘If-Then’ Conditional Statements: A Comprehensive Guide

In math, and even in everyday life, we often say 'if this, then that.' This is the essence of conditional statements. They set up a condition and then describe what happens if that condition is met. For instance, 'If it rains, then the ground gets wet.' These statements are foundational in math, helping us build logical arguments and solve problems. In this guide, we'll dive into the clear-cut world of conditional statements, breaking them down in both simple terms and their mathematical significance.

Step-by-step Guide: Conditional Statements

Defining Conditional Statements: A conditional statement is a logical statement that has two parts: a hypothesis (the ‘if’ part) and a conclusion (the ‘then’ part). Written symbolically, it takes the form: \( \text{If } p, \text{ then } q \) Where \( p \) is the hypothesis and \( q \) is the conclusion.

Truth Values: A conditional statement is either true or false. The only time a conditional statement is false is when the hypothesis is true, but the conclusion is false.

Converse, Inverse, and Contrapositive: 1. Converse: The converse of a conditional statement switches the hypothesis and the conclusion. For the statement “If \( p \), then \( q \)”, the converse is “If \( q \), then \( p \)”.

2. Inverse: The inverse of a conditional statement negates both the hypothesis and the conclusion. For the statement “If \( p \), then \( q \)”, the inverse is “If not \( p \), then not \( q \)”.

3. Contrapositive: The contrapositive of a conditional statement switches and negates both the hypothesis and the conclusion. For the statement “If \( p \), then \( q \)”, the contrapositive is “If not \( q \), then not \( p \)”.

Example 1: Simple Conditional Statement: “If it is raining, then the ground is wet.”

Solution: Hypothesis \(( p )\): It is raining. Conclusion \(( q )\): The ground is wet.

Example 2: Determining Truth Value Statement: “If a shape has four sides, then it is a rectangle.”

Solution: This statement is false because a shape with four sides could be a square, trapezoid, or other quadrilateral, not necessarily a rectangle.

Example 3: Converse, Inverse, and Contrapositive Statement: “If a number is even, then it is divisible by \(2\).”

Solution: Converse: If a number is divisible by \(2\), then it is even. Inverse: If a number is not even, then it is not divisible by \(2\). Contrapositive: If a number is not divisible by \(2\), then it is not even.

Practice Questions:

• Write the converse, inverse, and contrapositive for the statement: “If a bird is a penguin, then it cannot fly.”
• Determine the truth value of the statement: “If a shape has three sides, then it is a triangle.”
• For the statement “If an animal is a cat, then it is a mammal,” which of the following is its converse? a) If an animal is a mammal, then it is a cat. b) If an animal is not a cat, then it is not a mammal. c) If an animal is not a mammal, then it is not a cat.
• Converse: If a bird cannot fly, then it is a penguin. Inverse: If a bird is not a penguin, then it can fly. Contrapositive: If a bird can fly, then it is not a penguin.
• The statement is true. A shape with three sides is defined as a triangle.
• a) If an animal is a mammal, then it is a cat.

by: Effortless Math Team about 9 months ago (category: Articles )

What people say about "How to Understand ‘If-Then’ Conditional Statements: A Comprehensive Guide - Effortless Math: We Help Students Learn to LOVE Mathematics"?

No one replied yet.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Algebra I Study Guide A Comprehensive Review and Step-By-Step Guide to Preparing for Algebra I

Oar math study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the oar math, grade 8 math study guide 2021 – 2022 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for grade 8 math, shsat math study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the shsat math, hspt math study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the hspt math, act math study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the act math, aleks math study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the aleks math, pre-algebra study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the pre-algebra, hiset math study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the hiset math, astb math study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the astb math, tsi math study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the tsi math, tabe 11 & 12 math study guide 2020 – 2021 for level d a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the tabe math, ftce math study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the ftce general knowledge math, pert math study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the pert math, ged math study guide 2020 – 2021 a comprehensive review and step-by-step guide to preparing for the ged math.

• ATI TEAS 6 Math
• ISEE Upper Level Math
• SSAT Upper-Level Math
• Praxis Core Math
• 8th Grade STAAR Math

Limited time only!

Save Over 45 %

It was $89.99 now it is $49.99

Login and use all of our services.

Effortless Math services are waiting for you. login faster!

Register Fast!

Password will be generated automatically and sent to your email.

After registration you can change your password if you want.

• Math Worksheets
• Math Courses
• Math Topics
• Math Puzzles
• Math eBooks
• GED Math Books
• HiSET Math Books
• ACT Math Books
• ISEE Math Books
• ACCUPLACER Books
• Premium Membership
• Youtube Videos

Effortless Math provides unofficial test prep products for a variety of tests and exams. All trademarks are property of their respective trademark owners.

• Bulk Orders
• Refund Policy

Introduction to Proofs: An Active Exploration of Mathematical Language

Jennifer Firkins Nordstrom

Search Results:

Section 2.3 conditional statements, activity 2.3.1 . which type., activity 2.3.2 . relationship between universal and conditional., example 2.3.1 . universal conditional statement..

Translate the statement using quantifiers and variables, “If an integer is even then it is divisible by 2.” Answer . Let \(P(x)\) be “ \(x\) is even” and \(Q(x)\) be “ \(x\) is divisible by 2.” \(\forall x\in \mathbb{Z}, P(x)\rightarrow Q(x)\text{.}\)

Activity 2.3.3 . Translating to Universal Conditional.

Activity 2.3.4 . a geography conditional., activity 2.3.5 . a weather conditional., activity 2.3.6 . an argument conditional., activity 2.3.7 . a mathematical conditional., logical equivalences for conditionals..

• \(\displaystyle p\rightarrow q\equiv \neg p\ \vee q\)
• \(\displaystyle \neg(p\rightarrow q)\equiv p\ \wedge \neg q\)

Definition 2.3.2 .

• contrapositive : \(\neg q\rightarrow \neg p\text{;}\)
• converse : \(q\rightarrow p\text{;}\)
• inverse : \(\neg p\rightarrow \neg q\text{.}\)

Definition 2.3.3 .

Definition 2.3.4 ., activity 2.3.8 . writing contrapositives., activity 2.3.9 . more writing contrapositives., activity 2.3.10 . converse statements., converting an argument to a conditional statement..

Example 2.3.5 . Converting and Argument to a Conditional.

Example 2.3.6 . Converting and Argument to a Conditional.

Activity 2.3.11 . Checking Validity with Conditional.

Activity 2.3.12 . More Checking Validity with Conditional.

Exercises Exercises

• Given any positive real number \(r\text{,}\) the reciprocal of ___.
• For any real number \(r\text{,}\) if \(r\) is ___ then ___.
• If a real number \(r\) ___, then ___.
• Given any negative real number \(s\text{,}\) the cube root of ___.
• For any real number \(s\text{,}\) if \(s\) is ___, then ___.
• If a real number \(s\) ___, then ___.
• There are real numbers \(u\) and \(v\) with the property that \(u+v < v-u\text{.}\)
• There is a real number \(x\) such that \(x^2 < x\text{.}\)
• For all positive integers \(n\text{,}\) \(n^2\geq n\text{.}\)
• For all real numbers \(a\) and \(b\text{,}\) \(| a+b | \leq | a | + | b |\text{.}\)
• All nonzero real numbers ___.
• For all nonzero real numbers \(r\text{,}\) there is ___ for \(r\text{.}\)
• For all nonzero real numbers \(r\text{,}\) there is a real number \(s\) such that ___.
• \(\forall\) real numbers \(x\text{,}\) if \(x>3\) then \(x^2>9\text{.}\)
• \(\forall n\in \mathbb{Z}\text{,}\) if \(n\) is prime then \(n\) is odd or \(n=2\text{.}\)
• \(\forall\) integers \(n\text{,}\) if \(n\) is divisible by 6, then \(n\) is divisible by 2 and \(n\) is divisible by 3.

A free service from Mattecentrum

If-then statement

• Logical correct I
• Logical correct II

When we previously discussed inductive reasoning we based our reasoning on examples and on data from earlier events. If we instead use facts, rules and definitions then it's called deductive reasoning.

We will explain this by using an example.

If you get good grades then you will get into a good college.

The part after the "if": you get good grades - is called a hypotheses and the part after the "then" - you will get into a good college - is called a conclusion.

Hypotheses followed by a conclusion is called an If-then statement or a conditional statement.

This is noted as

$$p \to q$$

This is read - if p then q.

A conditional statement is false if hypothesis is true and the conclusion is false. The example above would be false if it said "if you get good grades then you will not get into a good college".

If we re-arrange a conditional statement or change parts of it then we have what is called a related conditional.

Our conditional statement is: if a population consists of 50% men then 50% of the population must be women.

If we exchange the position of the hypothesis and the conclusion we get a converse statemen t: if a population consists of 50% women then 50% of the population must be men.

$$q\rightarrow p$$

If both statements are true or if both statements are false then the converse is true. A conditional and its converse do not mean the same thing

If we negate both the hypothesis and the conclusion we get a inverse statemen t: if a population do not consist of 50% men then the population do not consist of 50% women.

$$\sim p\rightarrow \: \sim q$$

The inverse is not true juest because the conditional is true. The inverse always has the same truth value as the converse.

We could also negate a converse statement, this is called a contrapositive statemen t:  if a population do not consist of 50% women then the population do not consist of 50% men.

$$\sim q\rightarrow \: \sim p$$

The contrapositive does always have the same truth value as the conditional. If the conditional is true then the contrapositive is true.

A pattern of reaoning is a true assumption if it always lead to a true conclusion. The most common patterns of reasoning are detachment and syllogism.

If we turn of the water in the shower, then the water will stop pouring.

If we call the first part p and the second part q then we know that p results in q. This means that if p is true then q will also be true. This is called the law of detachment and is noted:

$$\left [ (p \to q)\wedge p \right ] \to q$$

The law of syllogism tells us that if p → q and q → r then p → r is also true.

This is noted:

$$\left [ (p \to q)\wedge (q \to r ) \right ] \to (p \to r)$$

If the following statements are true:

If we turn of the water (p), then the water will stop pouring (q). If the water stops pouring (q) then we don't get wet any more (r).

Then the law of syllogism tells us that if we turn of the water (p) then we don't get wet (r) must be true.

Video lesson

Write a converse, inverse and contrapositive to the conditional

"If you eat a whole pint of ice cream, then you won't be hungry"

• Angles, parallel lines and transversals
• Congruent triangles
• More about triangles
• Inequalities
• Mean and geometry
• The converse of the Pythagorean theorem and special triangles
• Properties of parallelograms
• Common types of transformation
• Transformation using matrices
• Basic information about circles
• Inscribed angles and polygons
• Advanced information about circles
• Parallelogram, triangles etc
• The surface area and the volume of pyramids, prisms, cylinders and cones
• SAT Overview
• ACT Overview

Conditional Statements

Andymath.com features free videos, notes, and practice problems with answers! Printable pages make math easy. Are you ready to be a mathmagician?

Practice Problems & Videos

\(\textbf{1)}\) “if a figure has 3 sides, then it is a triangle.” state the hypothesis. show answer the hypothesis is “a figure has 3 sides.”, \(\textbf{2)}\) “if a figure has 3 sides, then it is a triangle.” state the conclusion. show answer the conclusion is “a figure is a triangle.”, \(\textbf{3)}\) “if a figure has 3 sides, then it is a triangle.” state the converse. show answer the converse is “if a figure is a triangle, then it has 3 sides.”, \(\textbf{4)}\) “if a figure has 3 sides, then it is a triangle.” state the inverse. show answer the inverse is “if a figure does not have 3 sides, then it is not a triangle.”, \(\textbf{5)}\) “if a figure has 3 sides, then it is a triangle.” state the contrapositive. show answer the contrapositive is “if a figure is not a triangle, then it does not have 3 sides.”, \(\textbf{6)}\) “if a figure has 3 sides, then it is a triangle.” state the biconditional. show answer the biconditional is “a figure has 3 sides, if and only if, it is a triangle.”, challenge problems, \(\textbf{7)}\) create a venn diagram for “all circles are ellipses.” show answer one example below, \(\textbf{8)}\) create a venn diagram for “if you don’t have an ellipse, then you don’t have a circle.” show answer note it is the same answer as number 7. they are equivalent statements., \(\textbf{9)}\) write 2 conditional statements based on the venn diagram below. show answer “if a square, then a rectangle.” or “all squares are rectangles” and “if not a rectangle, not a square.” or “all non-rectangles are non-squares”, see related pages\(\), \(\bullet\text{ geometry homepage}\) \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\text{all the best topics…}\), \(\bullet\text{ law of syllogism}\) \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\text{if p then q,}\) \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\text{if q then r,}\) \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\text{if p then r…}\), \(\bullet\text{ law of detachment}\) \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\text{if p then q,}\) \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\text{p is true,}\) \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\text{q is true…}\), a conditional statement is a statement in the form “if p, then q,” where p and q are called the hypothesis and conclusion, respectively. the statement “if it is raining, then the ground is wet” is an example of a conditional statement. the converse of a conditional statement is formed by flipping the order in which the hypothesis and conclusion appear. for example, the converse of the statement “if it is raining, then the ground is wet” is “if the ground is wet, then it is raining.” the inverse of a conditional statement is formed by negating both the hypothesis and conclusion. for example, the inverse of the statement “if it is raining, then the ground is wet” is “if it is not raining, then the ground is not wet” the contrapositive of a conditional statement is formed by negating both the hypothesis and conclusion and flipping the order in which they appear. for example, the contrapositive of the statement “if it is raining, then the ground is wet” is “if the ground is not wet, then it is not raining.” a biconditional statement is a statement in the form “if and only if p, then q,” which is equivalent to the statement “p if and only if q.” this means that p and q are either both true or both false. for example, the statement “if and only if it is raining, the ground is wet” is a biconditional statement. in geometry class, students learn about conditional statements and their related concepts (inverse, converse, contrapositive, and biconditional) in order to make logical deductions about geometric figures and their properties. these concepts are often used to prove theorems and solve problems. andymath.com is a free math website with the mission of helping students, teachers and tutors find helpful notes, useful sample problems with answers including step by step solutions, and other related materials to supplement classroom learning. if you have any requests for additional content, please contact andy at [email protected] . he will promptly add the content. topics cover elementary math , middle school , algebra , geometry , algebra 2/pre-calculus/trig , calculus and probability/statistics . in the future, i hope to add physics and linear algebra content. visit me on youtube , tiktok , instagram and facebook . andymath content has a unique approach to presenting mathematics. the clear explanations, strong visuals mixed with dry humor regularly get millions of views. we are open to collaborations of all types, please contact andy at [email protected] for all enquiries. to offer financial support, visit my patreon page. let’s help students understand the math way of thinking thank you for visiting. how exciting.

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

• Conditional Statement

What Is A Conditional Statement?

In mathematics, we define statement as a declarative statement which may either be true or may be false. Often sentences that are mathematical in nature may not be a statement because we might not know what the variable represents. For example, 2x + 2 = 5. Now here we do not know what x represents thus if we substitute the value of x (let us consider that x = 3) i.e., 2 × 3 = 6. Therefore, it is a false statement. So, what is a conditional statement? In simple words, when through a statement we put a condition on something in return of something, we call it a conditional statement. For example, Mohan tells his friend that “if you do my homework, then I will pay you 50 dollars”. So what is happening here? Mohan is paying his friend 50 dollars but places a condition that if only he’s work will be completed by his friend. A conditional statement is made up of two parts. First, there is a hypothesis that is placed after “if” and before the comma and second is a conclusion that is placed after “then”. Here, the hypothesis will be “you do my homework” and the conclusion will be “I will pay you 50 dollars”. Now, this statement can either be true or may be false. We don’t know. 

A hypothesis is a part that is used after the 'if' and before the comma. This composes the first part of a conditional statement. For example, the statement, 'I help you get an A+ in math,' is a hypothesis because this phrase is coming in between the 'if' and the comma. So, now I hope you can spot the hypothesis in other examples of a conditional statement. Of course, you can. Here is a statement: 'If Miley gets a car, then Allie's dog will be trained,' the hypothesis here is, 'Miley gets a car.' For the statement, 'If Tom eats chocolate ice cream, then Luke eats double chocolate ice cream,' the hypothesis here is, 'Tom eats chocolate ice cream. Now it is time for you to try and locate the hypothesis for the statement, 'If the square is a rectangle, then the rectangle is a quadrilateral'?

A conclusion is a part that is used after “then”. This composes the second part of a conditional statement. For example, for the statement, “I help you get an A+ in math”, the conclusion will be “you will give me 50 dollars”. The next statement was “If Miley gets a car, then Allie's dog will be trained”, the conclusion here is Allie's dog will be trained. It is the same with the next statement and for every other conditional statement.   

How Do We Know If A Statement Is True or False? 

In mathematics, the best way we can know if a statement is true or false is by writing a mathematical proof. Before writing a proof, the mathematician must find if the statement is true or false that can be done with the help of exploration and then by finding the counterexample. Once the proof is discovered, the mathematician must communicate this discovery to those who speak the language of maths. 

Converse, Inverse, contrapositive, And Bi-conditional Statement

We usually use the term “converse” as a verb for talking and chatting and as a noun we use it to represent a brand of footwear. But in mathematics, we use it differently. Converse and inverse are the two terms that are a connected concept in the making of a conditional statement.

If we want to create the converse of a conditional statement, we just have to switch the hypothesis and the conclusion. To create the inverse of a conditional statement, we have to turn both the hypothesis and the conclusion to the negative. A contrapositive statement can be made if we first interchange the hypothesis and conclusion then make them both negative. In a bi-conditional statement, we use “if and only if” which means that the hypothesis is true only if the condition is true. For example, 

If you eat junk food, then you will gain weight is a conditional statement.

If you gained weight, then you ate junk food is a converse of a conditional statement.

If you do not eat junk food, then you will not gain weight is an inverse of a conditional statement.

If yesterday was not Monday, then today is not Tuesday is a contrapositive statement. 

Today is Tuesday if and only if yesterday was Monday is a bi-conventional statement.   

Image will be uploaded soon

A Conditional Statement Truth Table

In the table above, p→q will be false only if the hypothesis(p) will be true and the conclusion(q) will be false, or else p→q will be true. 

Conditional Statement Examples

Below, you can see some of the conditional statement examples.

Example 1) Given, P = I do my work; Q = I get the allowance

What does p→q represent?

Solution 1) In the sentence above, the hypothesis is “I do my work” and the conclusion is “ I get the allowance”. Therefore, the condition p→q represents the conditional statement, “If I do my work, then I get the allowance”. 

Example 2) Given, a = The sun is a ball of gas; b = 5 is a prime number. Write a→b in a sentence. 

Solution 2) The conditional statement a→b here is “if the sun is a ball of gas, then 5 is a prime number”.

FAQs on Conditional Statement

1. How many types of conditional statements are there?

There are basically 5 types of conditional statements.

If statement, if-else statement, nested if-else statement, if-else-if ladder, and switch statement are the basic types of conditional statements. If a function displays a statement or performs a function on the condition if the statement is true. If-else statement executes a block of code if the condition is true but if the condition is false, a new block of code is placed. The switch statement is a selection control mechanism that allows the value of a variable to change the control flow of a program. 

2. How are a conditional statement and a loop different from each other?

A conditional statement is sometimes used by a loop but a loop is of no use to a conditional statement. A conditional statement is basically a “yes” or a “no” i.e., if yes, then take the first path else take the second one. A loop is more like a cyclic chain starting from the start point i.e., if yes, then take path a, if no, take path b and it comes back to the start point. 

Conditional statement executes a statement based on a condition without causing any repetition. 

A loop executes a statement repeatedly. There are two loop variables i.e., for loop and while loop.

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Conditional Probability

Analysis: This problem describes a  conditional probability  since it asks us to find the probability that the second test was passed given that the first test was passed. In the last lesson, the notation for conditional probability was used in the statement of Multiplication Rule 2.

Multiplication Rule 2:  When two events, A and B, are dependent, the probability of both occurring is:

The formula for the Conditional Probability of an event can be derived from Multiplication Rule 2 as follows:

Now we can use this formula to solve the problem at the top of the page.

Problem: A math teacher gave her class two tests. 25% of the class passed both tests and 42% of the class passed the first test. What percent of those who passed the first test also passed the second test?

Let’s look at some other problems in which we are asked to find a conditional probability.

Example 1: A jar contains black and white marbles. Two marbles are chosen without replacement. The probability of selecting a black marble and then a white marble is 0.34, and the probability of selecting a black marble on the first draw is 0.47. What is the probability of selecting a white marble on the second draw, given that the first marble drawn was black?

Example 2: The probability that it is Friday and that a student is absent is 0.03. Since there are 5 school days in a week, the probability that it is Friday is 0.2. What is the probability that a student is absent given that today is Friday?

Example 3: At Kennedy Middle School, the probability that a student takes Technology and Spanish is 0.087. The probability that a student takes Technology is 0.68. What is the probability that a student takes Spanish given that the student is taking Technology?

Solution: 

Summary: The conditional probability of an event B in relationship to an event A is the probability that event B occurs given that event A has already occurred. The notation for conditional probability is P(B|A), read as  the probability of B given A . The formula for conditional probability is:

The Venn Diagram below illustrates P(A), P(B), and P(A and B). What two sections would have to be divided to find P(B|A)?    Answer

Directions: Read each question below. Select your answer by clicking on its button. Feedback to your answer is provided in the RESULTS BOX. If you make a mistake, choose a different button.  Answer choices have been rounded to the nearest percent.

• Math Article

Conditional Statement

In the study of logic, there are two types of statements, conditional statement and bi-conditional statement . These statements are formed by combining two statements, which are called compound statements . Suppose a statement is- if it rains, then we don’t play. This is a combination of two statements. These types of statements are mainly used in computer programming languages such as c, c++, etc. Let us learn more here with examples.

Conditional Statement Definition

A conditional statement is represented in the form of “if…then”. Let p and q are the two statements, then statements p and q can be written as per different conditions, such as;

• p implies q
• p is sufficient for q
• q is necessary for p

Points to remember:

• A conditional statement is also called implication .
• The sign of the logical connector conditional statement is →. Example P → Q pronouns as P implies Q.
• The state P → Q is false if the P is true and Q is false otherwise P → Q is true.

Truth Table for Conditional Statement

The truth table for any two inputs, say A and B is given by;

Example: We have a conditional statement If it is raining, we will not play. Let, A: It is raining and B: we will not play. Then;

• If A is true, that is, it is raining and B is false, that is, we played, then the statement A implies B is false.
• If A is false, that is, it is not raining and B is true, that is, we did not play, still the statement is true. A is the necessary condition for B but it is not sufficient.
• If A is true, B should be true but if A is false B may or may not be true.

What is a Bi-Conditional Statement?

A statement showing an “if and only if” relation is known as a biconditional statement. An event P will occur if and only if the event Q occurs, which means if P has occurred then it implies Q will occur and vice versa.

P: A number is divisible by 2.

Q: A number is even.

If P will occur then Q will occur and if Q will occur then P will occur.

Hence, P will occur if and only if Q will occur.

We can say that P↔Q.

Conditional Statement Examples

Q.1: If a > 0 is a positive number, then is a = 10 correct or not? Justify your answer.

Solution: Given, a > 0 and is a positive number

And it is given a = 10

So the first statement a > 0 is correct because any number greater than 0 is a positive number. But a = 10 is not a correct statement because it can be any number greater than 0.

Q.2: Justify P → Q, for the given table below.

Solution: Case 1: We can see, for the first row, in the given table,

If statement P is correct, then Q is incorrect and if Q is correct then P is incorrect. Both the statements contradict each other.

Hence, P → Q = False

Case 2: In the second row of the given table, if P is correct then Q is correct and if Q is correct then P is also correct. Hence, it satisfies the condition.

P → Q = True

Therefore, we can construct the table;

Put your understanding of this concept to test by answering a few MCQs. Click ‘Start Quiz’ to begin!

Select the correct answer and click on the “Finish” button Check your score and answers at the end of the quiz

Visit BYJU’S for all Maths related queries and study materials

Your result is as below

Request OTP on Voice Call

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Conditional Statements

Biconditional statement, converse, inverse, and contrapositive.

The conditional statement is the logical “If..Then..” statement. The conditional is the basic statement used in logical arguments and is defined as follows:

In symbolic logic the conditional symbol is \(\to\).

If \(P\) and \(Q\) are statements, then \(P\to Q\) (thought of as “If \(P\) then \(Q\)” or “\(P\) implies \(Q\)”) is the conditional statement with premise \(P\) and conclusion \(Q\).

The truth table for the conditional is

The conditional statement is equivalent to

So either \(P\) is false (\(\neg P\) is true) or \(Q\) is true.

The reason for the above truth table is so that the conditional statement is true whenever the truth of the premise forces the truth of the conclusion (top row), but if the premise is false the conclusion can be either true or false (bottom two rows).

For example consider the statement: “If \(x=3\), then \(x^2=9\).” This statement needs to be true for all values of \(x\):

If \(x\) is \(3\), then \(3=3\) is true and \(3^2 = 9\) is true, so the conditional is true (top row).

If \(x\) is \(2\), then \(2=3\) is false and \(2^2 = 9\) is also false, so the conditional is true (bottom row).

If \(x\) is \(-3\), then \(-3=3\) is false and \((-3)^2 = 9\) is true, so the conditional is true (third row).

In this example it is impossible for \(x=3\) to be true and \(x^2 = 9\) to be false.

The above conditional statement is true for all possible values of \(x\). So even though the bottom two rows may seem strange, they are needed to make variable conditional statements in mathematics true.

The only case the conditional is false is if the premise \(P\) is true and the conclusion \(Q\) is false. This means that if the conditional statement \(P\to Q\) is true, that this case cannot happen. So if \(P\) is true, \(Q\) is forced to be true, which forms the basic statement in a logical argument.

A biconditional statement (\(P \leftrightarrow Q\)) is a statement in which the implication of the conditional goes in both directions (think of it as a two way arrow instead of a one way arrow). In English, the biconditional is “if and only if”. In short the biconditional, if true, means that both statements are the same, either both true or both false, as seen in the truth table below.

A biconditional statement is true in the case that both statements are true or both statements are false.

The biconditional is equivalent to having the conditional in both directions:

The biconditional is used in mathematics when two statements are considered the same, for example:

”\(x+3 = 5\) if and only if \(x=2\)”

In this case, either both statements \(x+3=5\) and \(x=2\) are true, or both are false, depending on the value of \(x\).

Given a conditional statement \(P\to Q\), the following are related conditional statements:

Converse: The converse of the above is \(Q\to P\) (reverse order).

Inverse: The inverse of the above is \(\neg P \to \neg Q\) (reverse truth values).

Contrapositive: The contrapositive of the above is \(\neg Q \to \neg P\) (reverse order and truth values).

For example consider the conditional statement:

The converse of this statement is: If \(x\leq 1\), then \(x<0\).

The inverse of this statement is: If \(x\geq 0\), then \(x>1\).

The contrapositive of this statement is: If \(x>1\), then \(x\geq 0\).

Logically the conditional is equivalent to the contrapositive, and the converse is equivalent to the inverse:

Creating truth tables for all four statements will prove the equivalencies.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Influence of cultural values and hierarchical social norms on buying counterfeits online: a 17-country study.

• 1 Department of Advertising and Public Relations, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States
• 2 Center for Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection (A-CAPP), Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States

Introduction: As a globally prevalent phenomenon, buying counterfeit products harms consumers, economies, societies, governments, and the environment. The study examined the hierarchy of injunctive normative influence (personal vs. societal) on counterfeit purchase intentions and trends in non-deceptive (known) counterfeit purchase behavior. The current research expands the hierarchical norms approach by examining how the cultural values of power distance and individualism–collectivism predict injunctive normative perceptions and counterfeit buying intention and behavior.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey (N = 13,053) of consumers from 17 nations, administered in seven languages, explored cross-country differences in perceived social norms about buying counterfeits.

Results: The findings of multilevel moderated mediation analyses showed that personal injunctive norms (perceived acceptance of buying counterfeits by close friends) mediated the relationship between societal injunctive norms (perceived acceptance for buying counterfeits by peers in the same country) and the outcome variables. Selected paths of the mediation model were moderated by the two cultural dimensions.

Discussion: Theoretical implications are discussed within the context of cultural orientations’ and social norms’ roles in informing risky behavior, and practically, within the context of awareness-raising and behavior-change interventions.

1 Introduction

Purchasing counterfeit products poses significant dangers to consumers, economies, governments, and the environment worldwide ( Grossman and Shapiro, 1988 ; Ferrell and Hartline, 2011 ; Wilson and Kinghorn, 2016 ; OECD and EUIPO, 2021 ). The Lanham Act defines trademark counterfeiting as the “reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark,” which is applied to “labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements” and “such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive” [Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1,114(1)]. Though legal definitions vary by country and within countries, along with the prevalence of counterfeit supply and demand, the most common attribute of counterfeit goods is that these goods or their packaging have an unauthorized or spurious trademark. The counterfeit market, spanning nearly all product categories, ballooned from $449 billion in 2021 ( OECD and EUIPO, 2022 ) to $3 trillion in 2022 due to the prevalence of e-commerce, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Handfield, 2021 ).

Using or consuming counterfeit products may injure consumers due to poor product quality, lack of safe ingredients, and lack of safe and regulated manufacturing ( United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2013 ). For example, the surge in substandard, falsified, and counterfeit (SFC) medications is particularly troublesome. An estimated 10% of all medications sold in middle- and lower-income countries and 50% of those sold online are SFC ( World Health Organization, 2017 ). The Pharmaceutical Security Institute ( PSI, 2023 ) documented 6,615 global incidents of pharmaceutical seizures in 2022 (half recorded in North America alone), a 10% increase from 2021 and a 50% increase from 2018 (4,405 incidents). Recent reports indicate that overdose deaths involving counterfeit drugs increased from 2 to 4.7% from 2019 to 2021 ( O’Donnell et al., 2023 ). Further, about 250,000 children die annually because of SFC medications ( Yadav and Rawal, 2015 ; World Health Organization, 2017 ; Sample, 2019 ).

While the direct harms of using SFC medications to consumers are clear, counterfeiting in other product categories also poses significant health and safety risks. American Apparel and Footwear Association (2022) study tested 47 counterfeit “clothing, footwear, and other accessories” and found that over a third of these products “failed to comply with U.S. product safety standards,” as they “contained dangerous levels of arsenic, cadmium, phthalates, lead, and more that have been shown to cause adverse health outcomes.” Counterfeiting of airbags, auto and airplane parts, food, and medical equipment has also become increasingly prevalent. Recently, Sarah Loughran, 34 years old, died in a fatal car crash, and upon inspection, it was determined that the airbag in her car was counterfeit ( Merwin, 2023 ).

Consumers are often deceived into buying counterfeits, thinking the product is authentic, but they also often buy fakes knowingly (non-deceptively). In the current study, non-deceptive counterfeit purchase is conceptualized as a planned behavior. We compare predictors of two behavioral outcomes: intentions to buy fake products in the future and past non-deceptive counterfeit purchasing.

There is a growing need to better understand the social and psychological mechanisms at play when purchasing and intending to purchase counterfeits. Though individually motivated, counterfeit purchase is influenced by social perceptions of counterfeit purchase prevalence and acceptance. Furthermore, such social influence may vary across cultures. The current study leverages a 17-country cross-sectional survey to examine the hierarchical nature of perceived social norms. The study extends the hierarchical norms approach by focusing on injunctive, rather than descriptive norms, whereby societal injunctive norms’ (e.g., among peers in the same country) influence on counterfeit purchase behavior is mediated by personal injunctive norms (e.g., among close friends). Given that counterfeit buying is a global phenomenon that affects many countries, we investigate how this hierarchical norms relationship ( Patrick et al., 2012 ) is moderated by country-level cultural values of power distance and individualism–collectivism ( Hofstede, 1979 ; Hofstede and Bond, 1984 , 1988 ; Hofstede et al., 2010 ). We considered the cultural attributes of power distance and individualism–collectivism to be directly relevant to social influences and counterfeit buying because the former deals with the importance of social relationships and the latter concerns perceptions of authority and status.

The study’s significant contribution lies first in examining the hierarchical norms hypothesis within the context of buying counterfeits. Second, we investigate the relationship between cultural dimensions and social norms of buying counterfeits using multilevel analyses. Finally, unlike past research focusing on a unidimensional aspect of counterfeit purchase, our study examines – in parallel – counterfeit purchase intentions and non-deceptive counterfeit purchase.

2 Literature review

2.1 buying counterfeits: intention and behavior.

In the current study, we examine two behavioral outcomes: counterfeit purchase intention and non-deceptive counterfeit purchase. Purchasing products and services is a planned behavior in most instances ( Bian and Veloutsou, 2007 ). This definition is especially relevant to studying counterfeit buying in which consumers engage knowingly. In the current study, we define such behavior as a non-deceptive counterfeit purchase (NDCP) and operationalize it by asking participants to report past instances of buying counterfeits knowing they were not authentic. Counterfeit purchase intentions (CPI) refer to the perceived probability that consumers will buy counterfeit products in the future.

While the plan to behave in a certain way does not always materialize, it is correlated with the actual behavior. Past research applying theories of reasoned action and planned behavior suggests that behavioral intention predicts behavior and, furthermore, reinforces future intentions and behaviors. In the context of our study, we suggest that counterfeit product purchase intention is associated with actual purchase of fakes (e.g., Gentry et al., 2006 ; Bian and Veloutsou, 2007 ; Kim and Karpova, 2010; Cheng et al., 2011 ; Chiu and Leng, 2015 ; Patiro and Sihombing, 2016; Garas et al., 2023). The hypotheses in the current study are informed by this positive relationship, thus, they have the same directionality for both behavioral outcomes. Yet, we use the two measures separately to grasp the differences between planned and actual behavior. As purchase behavior is intertwined with social norms, the present study examines injunctive norms - personal and societal - as predictors of the two behavioral outcomes.

2.2 The social norms of buying counterfeits

Social norms provide an understanding of acceptable vs. unacceptable behaviors in a society. They are defined as “rules and standards that are understood by members of a group and that guide and/or constrain social behavior without the force of laws” ( Cialdini and Trost, 1998 , p. 152). As inherently social beings, humans influence and are influenced by others’ behavior through social interaction ( Rimal and Lapinski, 2015 ; Myers and Twenge, 2019 ). Normative influence occurs when individuals feel the pressure to conform to social norms ( Yanovitzky and Rimal, 2006 ), which are negotiated and constructed within the group and serve as “standards for the individual’s perception and judgment” ( Sherif and Sherif, 1953 , p. 202). Humans adjust their attitudes and behaviors based on normative perceptions to fit in a reference group within their social environment.

There are two types of social norms, descriptive and injunctive ( Cialdini et al., 1991 , p. 203), also defined as subjective norms ( Manning, 2009 ). Descriptive norms are based on perceptions of “what most people do,” and injunctive norms refer to individual’s perceptions of “what most people approve or disapprove of” or what people should do. In contrast to descriptive norms that reflect beliefs of behavioral prevalence, injunctive norms often carry moral judgments by highlighting the anticipated social value of one’s actions, where unfavorable actions are socially sanctioned and favorable ones enhance perceived group belongingness ( Chung and Rimal, 2016 ). Injunctive norms can be further classified as personal and societal injunctive norms. Personal injunctive norms refer to behavior expected by close reference groups such as friends and family. Societal injunctive norms refer to behavior expected by distant reference groups such as peers in the same town or city (Melnyk et al., 2022; Yang, 2018 ). While we have provided an overview of descriptive norms for understanding injunctive norms, the focus of this paper is on the hierarchical influence of injunctive personal and societal norms on past purchases and purchase intention to purchase counterfeits.

The Theory of Normative Social Behavior [TNSB; see Chung and Rimal (2016) , for a review] proposes that injunctive norms moderate the relationship between descriptive norms and behavioral outcomes, which are sensitive to behavioral, individual, and contextual factors. When descriptive and injunctive norms are aligned, this has the strongest positive influence on environmental intentions ( Smith et al., 2012 ). It was found that descriptive and injunctive norms equally influence behavioral intention ( Manning, 2009 ); however, descriptive norms are stronger in predicting consumer behavior than injunctive norms ( Manning, 2009 ; Melnyk et al., 2021 ). The act of buying counterfeits cannot be understood exclusively from a consumer behavior perspective because it is qualitatively different than, for example, buying a new t-shirt or pack of gum. It entails elements of risk and potential for social disapproval. Such risks extend beyond legal risks to health and safety risks. As for social approval or disapproval, consuming to conspicuous trademarks (e.g., a luxury bag with a prominent logo) might be sensitive to social costs to one’s image. The focus on injunctive social norms in this study stems from an understanding that they “are universally viewed as one of the most important factors in human social life” ( Gavrilets, 2020 , p. 14). While descriptive norms reflect perceptions of behavioral prevalence (i.e., how many people are enacting the behavior), injunctive norms reflect perceptual expectations of how one should behave that stem for notions of social acceptance of that behavior, thus positioning injunctive norms as self-fulfilling prophecies for behaving in a particular way ( Gavrilets, 2020 ).

The literature on counterfeit-related topics suggests that social acceptance and peer influence are key determinants of counterfeit purchase behaviors ( Faria, 2013 ; Thaichon and Quach, 2016 ; Bhatia, 2018 ; Moon et al., 2018 ; Abdullah and Yu, 2019 ; Singh et al., 2021 ). In cultures and communities where buying fakes is common (descriptive norms) and accepted (injunctive norms), social norms increase the likelihood of counterfeit purchasing ( Kastanakis and Balabanis, 2012 , 2014 ; Swoboda et al., 2014 ). When injunctive normative influences are weakened, and individuals prioritize integrity and lawfulness, then consumers avoid counterfeit purchases due to ethical considerations, value consciousness, and personal gratification (e.g., Ang et al., 2001 ; Wang et al., 2005; Francis et al., 2015 ; Singh et al., 2021 ). In a study of Indian consumers, attitudes toward counterfeit behavior mediated the relationship between luxury counterfeit purchase injunctive personal (subjective) norms and purchase intentions ( Singh et al., 2021 ). However, a study of Generation Y consumers found no relationship between injunctive personal norms and counterfeit consumption ( Francis et al., 2015 ), which the authors attributed to the “rebellious attitude of counterfeit owners” (p. 597). Overall, these findings provide a blueprint for the potential of group and cultural variability to interfere with how norms impact counterfeit purchase behavior.

In the current study, we propose that the proliferation of e-commerce and social commerce facilitated the prevalence of counterfeit goods; thus, on a global level, consumers are aware of the availability of counterfeits and the potential purchase by their peers. Counterfeit prevalence is magnified when average users and influencers promote fake products to their audiences. For example, Amazon sued two influencers in 2020 for promoting counterfeit products through third-party sellers ( Palmer, 2020 ). Nike also recently filed a lawsuit against Nicholar Tuinberg and Eben “Cedaz” Fox for promoting and reviewing fake sneakers ( Falk, 2023 ). Anecdotally, users, influencers, and illicit sellers are flooding social media to promote, rate, and rank counterfeits. It is safe to surmise that knowledge of this behavior is commonplace in the digital environment. Accordingly, we predict that examining injunctive norms and variability in perceptions of the acceptance of buying counterfeits might be more influential in explaining counterfeit purchase behaviors. Such influences are context-dependent (Smith et al., 2012; Khan et al., 2023 ) and vary in the reference groups to which one attributes the normative influence.

2.3 The hierarchical norms of buying counterfeits

Social norms explain behavior and can be used to change it, especially when interventions adjust misconceptions about behavioral prevalence and acceptance within a group. The Social Norms Approach (SNA) ( Berkowitz, 2005 ) capitalizes on the norm-behavior relationship by enhancing behavioral compliance. It achieves this by contrasting one’s own perceptions about the prevalence (descriptive norms) and acceptance (injunctive norms) of the behavior to the actual prevalence and acceptance of the behavior within one’s reference group. Variability in normative perceptions of reference groups impacts the strength of norm-behavior association. The closeness of reference groups significantly influences both perceived descriptive and injunctive norms. Perceived norms within close (proximal) reference groups, like family and close friends (personal norms), influence counterfeit behavior more strongly than perceived norms about distal reference groups, like peers in the same town/city or country (societal norms) ( Larimer et al., 2009 ; Yang, 2018 ; Melnyk et al., 2021 ).

Previous literature examining the impact of normative influences on consumer behavior demonstrates that injunctive norms are particularly dependent on how close the reference groups are ( Cho, 2016 ; Yang, 2018 ). For example, Cho (2016) found that personal injunctive norms were strongly correlated with individuals’ alcohol consumption behavior, while the distal reference group’s approval was not related to the outcome. Moreover, Yang (2018) extended these findings by showing that expected approval from close friends positively predicted alcohol consumption; however, approval from distal peers negatively predicted this behavior. It was reasoned that people may disagree with less important groups to emphasize their identification with more significant referents ( Yang, 2018 ). Furthermore, the strength and immediacy of a source were shown to profoundly affect its societal influence ( Latané, 1981 ). Sources that are both proximate and immediate are more likely to shape behaviors, primarily because conforming to such norms usually garners social approval, enhancing an individual’s likability and social status ( Geber, 2019 ; Geber and Hefner, 2019 ). In line with these findings, as people are more likely to identify with proximal groups and perceive their behaviors as more pronounced ( Chung and Rimal, 2016 ), proximal relationships exert a greater influence on consumer behaviors than those with more distal relationships. Consequently, relationships with these closer groups substantially influence consumer behaviors more than those with more distant associations.

Patrick et al. (2012) suggested that normative influences on behavior are ordered hierarchically. Specifically, personal norms are embedded within societal norms, and collectively, they hierarchically influence behavior. Patrick et al. (2012) found that personal norms mediated the relationship between societal norms and alcohol consumption around one’s 21st birthday in the United States. While focusing on the difference between proximal and distant normative influences, the authors did not make a clear distinction between descriptive and injunctive norms, where subpopulation norms (societal, distant) were operationalized as descriptive and proximal norms included measures of both perceived approval (injunctive) and perceived behavior within close social circles ( Patrick et al., 2012 ). Alhabash et al. (2021) , on the contrary, focused on descriptive social norms, where descriptive personal norms mediated descriptive societal norms’ association with self-reported celebration drinking on Halloween. This relationship was also predicted by social media behaviors of posting and interacting with alcohol-related posts. A meta-analysis confirmed that social norms referencing a close (vs. abstract) group member are more effective (Melnyk et al., 2022). Therefore, the current study’s focus on injunctive norms extends the hierarchical norms approach.

The current study applies the hierarchical norms hypothesis to personal and societal injunctive normative influences to extend the existing literature that supports the hierarchical order for social and descriptive norms. However, as mentioned previously, the focus of this paper is on personal and societal injunctive norms, not descriptive norms. Based on the empirical evidence reviewed, we propose that perceptions of distant others’ acceptance of buying counterfeits might have a weaker association with individuals’ behavior than the association between perceived acceptance of this behavior among close (proximal) friends and family members. Developing this argument further, we argue that perceived acceptance among proximal others (personal injunctive norms) strengthens the relationship between societal injunctive norms (perceived approval of distant others) and counterfeit purchase intention and behaviors. Thus, we state the following hypotheses (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 . Model depicting the mediation effect of injunctive personal norms on the relationship between injunctive personal norms and counterfeit-related behavioral variables.

H1: Personal injunctive norms positively mediate the relationship between societal injunctive norms and counterfeit purchase intentions (CPI).

H2: Personal injunctive norms positively mediate the relationship between societal injunctive norms and non-deceptive counterfeit purchase (NDCP).

2.4 Cultural values and social norms

2.4.1 hofstede’s cultural values.

Social norms and cultural values are highly interconnected ( Liu and Lapinski, 2024 ). The cultural orientation of a group (e.g., national group, cultural subgroup) implies prevalent and subtle expressions of social normative attitudes and behaviors ( Lapinski et al., 2007 ; Gelfand et al., 2011 ; Saracevic et al., 2022 ). National culture can serve as the most common denominator for a country’s citizens, including their sub-group membership, and distinguish countries based on collective attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors. This common denominator emphasizes the importance of examining these processes at the individual and group (e.g., national) levels ( Schwartz, 1999 , 2006 ).

Extensive cross-cultural research has identified values and psychological dimensions that sketch a country’s national and cultural identity ( Vinken et al., 2004 ; Maleki and De Jong, 2013 ). Research on national cultural orientations pinpoints cultural dimensions as national attributes that express cultural values, attitudes, and behaviors that distinguish cultural and national groups ( Hofstede, 1979 ; Hofstede and Bond, 1984 ). Cultural dimensions “summarize the extent to which cultural groups are found empirically to differ from one another in terms of psychological attributes such as values, beliefs, self-construals, personality, and behaviors” ( Smith and Bond, 2020 , p. 971). Cultural orientation encompasses “normative cognitive (thoughts about life and the universe), conative or directional (inclination toward or selection of a particular course of action), and affective (what is felt as important and desirable) elements” ( Carter, 1991 , p. 165). At the group level, value orientations manifest themselves through aggregated “perceptions, thoughts, norms, attitudes, feelings, and motivational inclinations,” which translate into shared normative behaviors ( Carter, 1991 , p. 165). Such orientations and values become central to one’s group belonging. Cultural, normative, perceptual, and behavioral commonalities within a culture drive everyday behavior and represent common group-level inclinations, though not devoid of intra-cultural variability ( Schwartz, 2006 ).

Hofstede’s (1979) original work factor analyzed survey data from 40 countries to identify four major cultural dimensions: power distance (PD), individualism–collectivism (IDV), uncertainty avoidance (UA), and masculinity-femininity (MAS), which later was relabeled into “motivation towards achievement and success” ( Hofstede, 2023 ). Later studies proposed two additional dimensions: long- vs. short-term orientation (LTO) ( Hofstede and Bond, 1988 ) and indulgence vs. restraint (IND) ( Hofstede et al., 2010 ).

IDV, is a bipolar dimension, where cultures vary between being individualistic, “where people are supposed to look after themselves and their families,” and collectivistic. It is reflected by people’s belonging to in-groups and collectivities where they are supposed to look after others in exchange for loyalty ( Hofstede and Bond, 1984 , p. 419). PD deals with “the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations accept that power is distributed unequally.” In high PD cultures, people show a greater respect for authority and social status, compared with low OD cultures. UA, which reflects a society’s approach to coping with the unpredictability of the future ( Hofstede, 2023 ), refers to “the extent to which people feel threatened by ambiguous situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid” uncertain situations ( Hofstede and Bond, 1984 , p. 419). MAS relates to a culture’s orientation and motivation for achievement and success. A high MAS score reflects the focus on competition, achievement, and success. In contrast, a low MAS score indicates the priority for caring for others, where success is seen in terms of life quality ( Hofstede, 2023 ). LTO evaluates whether societies favor preserving traditional values (low score) or adapting pragmatically with a focus on education and thrift to prepare for the future (high score) ( Hofstede, 2023 ). The IND dimension is “the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses, based on how they were raised” ( Hofstede, 2023 ).

Hofstede’s cultural values have been linked to norm violations. For example, a 57-country study found that PD positively correlated with normative violation scenarios of physical confrontation, verbal confrontation, and social ostracism, yet the correlation was negative for gossip and non-action. Furthermore, more individualistic participants were less likely to endorse physical confrontation, verbal confrontation, and social ostracism, yet favored gossip and non-action ( Eriksson et al., 2021 ). While this latter study did not directly measure perceived social norms, it provides insights into how cultural orientations and values influence perceptions of social relations and behaviors. Research on the relationship between cultural dimensions (measured at the national and individual levels) and perceived social norms to predict behavior and behavioral compliance is evolving. Pei et al.’s (2020) three studies during the COVID-19 pandemic showed a strong positive relationship between collectivistic cultural orientation and perceived injunctive norms related to behavioral compliance with COVID-19 guidelines and protective health behaviors. Moreover, countries deemed more collectivistic “demonstrated lower growth rate in both COVID-19 confirmed cases and deaths,” where normative perceptions, which are sensitive to collectivistic cultural inclination, resulted in higher injunctive normative perceptions (e.g., most people’s approving of social distancing), which in turn resulted in higher behavioral compliance, and ultimately, lower COVID-19 cases (both prevalence and death) ( Pei et al., 2020 ).

Hofstede’s research routinely linked cultural dimensions (at the national level) to consumer behavior ( de Mooij and Hofstede, 2011 ). For example, past evidence suggests an inverse relationship between PD and impulse buying ( Zhang et al., 2010 ) and a positive relationship between IDV and impulse buying ( Kacen and Lee, 2002 ) and IDV and green consciousness ( Kim, 2011 ). High PD consumers prefer mass-market (vs. niche) brands ( Wang et al., 2022 ) and have less price sensitivity for purchasing products or services ( Lee et al., 2020 ). Similarly, consumers with individualistic values often make decisions autonomously, ignoring their social groups’ views largely because they are not accustomed to collective decision-making processes ( Wagner, 1995 ).

2.4.2 The case for power distance and individualism/collectivism

Though all of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions correlate with aspects of consumer behavior, the current study primarily focuses on PD and IDV for their potential strong relationship with normative perceptions. Unlike the other four dimensions, these two reflect attitudes toward social groups and have been primarily understood through people’s self-perception in social dynamics, known as self-construal. These dimensions make people more susceptible to others’ approval when they perceive themselves as interdependent with others (vs. independent) ( Markus and Kitayama, 2014 ; Cohen et al., 2021 ; Park et al., 2023 ). For example, individuals from collectivist backgrounds select brands that strengthen their ties to their group, thereby enhancing their collective identity ( Luna and Gupta, 2001 ). In contrast, those from individualistic societies prefer brands that highlight their uniqueness, thus distinguishing themselves from others. As expressions of a nation’s orientation toward group conformity, or lack thereof, IDV, we suggest, is parallel to normative perceptions and their influence on behavior.

On the other hand, PD has been shown to reflect how consumption is intertwined with expressions of social hierarchy (e.g., Kim and Zhang, 2011 ; Jiang et al., 2021 ). PD correlates with the consumption of luxury brands, explained by the need to enhance and express one’s social status and social approval ( Kim and Zhang, 2011 ; Bharti et al., 2021 ; Bizarrias et al., 2023). Therefore, we anticipate that PD will significantly correlate with personal and societal injunctive norms and counterfeit purchase behaviors and intentions.

Cultural values’ association with counterfeit purchases is stronger than economic factors such as income or price perceptions ( Franses and Lede, 2015 ). Past consumer behavior research documented that cultural values and perceived social norms influence behavioral tendencies and consumption patterns. Below, we review studies investigating the relationship between PD and IDV and consumer attitudes and behaviors toward counterfeits. The current study focuses on PD and IDV as indices of national cultural orientation, which includes indices of the overall country’s cultural orientation (group level) rather than at the individual level.

2.4.2.1 Power distance

Findings linking power distance (PD) to consumption patterns, including the purchase of counterfeit goods, are mixed. For example, in countries with lower PD — where society tends to be less accepting of unequal power distribution — there is a higher tendency for counterfeit product presence ( Santos and Ribeiro, 2006 ). However, Jiang et al. (2021) observed that people with low power distance beliefs, who typically downplay societal hierarchies, prefer less conspicuous luxury items, choosing them for their value expression rather than as status symbols. Countries with higher PD were found to have higher levels of piracy than more egalitarian societies ( Ronkainen and Guerrero-Cusumano, 2001 ), and conspicuous consumption and flaunting of wealth are shown to be more tolerated in high-PD cultures ( Wang et al., 2022 ). This juxtaposition of findings indicates that cultural beliefs about social status and perceived power distribution can influence consumer behavior in diverse ways. Furthermore, research on general and specialized patterns of consumer behavior, like buying luxury goods, showed significant correlations between PD – both as an individual-level and country-level factor – in predicting the purchase of luxury products in general and specific types of luxury products luxury products (e.g., Ronkainen and Guerrero-Cusumano, 2001 ; Santos and Ribeiro, 2006 ; Jiang et al., 2021 ; Wang et al., 2022 ).

Given that high PD countries accept differential social powers and hierarchies, individuals in those countries are keen on climbing the social ladder; thus, their consumption is leveraged to signal social status (actual and desired), and they are more inclined to buy counterfeit luxury products when financial resources are limited. Santos and Ribeiro’s (2006) findings suggest the reverse could also be true. Consumers in countries with low PD orientation might care about social hierarchy and status less and, thus, are willing to endure social costs to buy counterfeits, leading to higher purchases of fakes.

Based on the literature reviewed above, we predict that the mediation model proposed in H1 ( Figure 1 ) will vary across countries with different PD scores. Specifically, we posit the following.

H3: The relationships between injunctive societal norms, injunctive personal norms, and CPI (a-, b-, and c’-paths) will differ based on the power distance cultural attribute of a country.

H4: The relationships between injunctive societal norms, injunctive personal norms, and NDCP (a-, b-, and c’-paths) will differ based on the power distance cultural attribute of a country.

2.4.2.2 Individualism–collectivism

The culture-norm-behavior relationship is best articulated within the context of cultural orientations in a country or among sub-group members that influence the intensity of normative perceptions to enhance cooperative normative beliefs and behaviors. In collectivistic cultures (e.g., Mexico), the social value of a brand was found to be higher and more influential than in individualistic countries (e.g., United States). Moreover, the relationship between social norms and purchase intention was negative in the individualistic sample (i.e., United States) and positive in the collectivistic sample (i.e., Mexico) ( Yang, 2014 ).

Individualism–collectivism (IDV) correlates with consumer behaviors (e.g., Kacen and Lee, 2002 ) and explains variability in counterfeit purchase perceived social norms and behavioral intentions (e.g., Faria, 2013 ; Swoboda et al., 2014 ). Studies investigating the relationship between IDV demonstrate more consistent results than those focusing on power distance. For example, highly individualistic countries have less software piracy ( Marron and Steel, 2000 ; Ronkainen and Guerrero-Cusumano, 2001 ), and the positive effect of subjective norms on counterfeit purchase intentions is strengthened in collectivist countries ( Phau and Teah, 2009 ; Swoboda et al., 2014 ). Normative susceptibility, i.e., making purchase decisions based on expectations of what would impress others, was positively related to Chinese consumers’ perceptions of counterfeits and purchase intention; however, collectivism was not related to perceptions and purchase intention of counterfeits (Wang et al., 2005; Phau and Teah, 2009 ). Consumers from highly collectivist cultures are more influenced by social norms, perceiving buying counterfeits as socially acceptable, thus expressing greater purchase intentions. In contrast, those from individualistic cultures prioritize individual personal ethics and thus express lower purchase intentions ( Sharma et al., 2022 ). However, the influence of IDV might be transitory. Teah et al. (2015) found that the relationship between collectivism and counterfeit attitudes was positive and significant among mainland Chinese consumers, but not their Taiwanese counterparts. Teah et al. (2015) explained these findings by arguing that Taiwanese consumers are moving away from traditional, collectivistic values.

While several studies pinpointed a relationship between cultural values, social norms, and counterfeit behavior, Melnyk et al.’s (2022) meta-analysis of the effect of social norms on consumer behavior found no relationship between the interaction of individualism–collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and social approval of target behaviors. However, this study did not include counterfeit purchase behavior in their analysis. Only a few studies investigated the relationship between cultural values, social norms, and counterfeit purchase behavior. The associations between counterfeit buying, injunctive personal subjective norms, and attitudes were positive and significant only among participants from China, a collectivistic culture, but not in more individualistic Canada ( Faria, 2013 ). In a three-country comparative study of Chinese, Romanian, and German consumers, Swoboda et al. (2014) found that the relationship between counterfeit buying subjective norms and intentions was positive in all samples; yet, the association was stronger among Romanian and Chinese consumers (more collectivistic), respectively, compared to German consumers (more individualistic). Additionally, DiRienzo and Das (2020) found that people in individualistic countries were more structurally capable of confronting illicit trade than people in collectivistic nations. Collectivistic countries were suggested to lack the structural capacity to confront risks of illicit trade, including sales of counterfeit products.

Based on the existing empirical evidence reviewed above, we hypothesized the following.

H5: The relationships between injunctive societal norms, injunctive personal norms, and CPI (a-, b-, and c’-paths) will differ based on the IDV cultural attribute of a country, where higher collectivism is associated with higher injunctive norms and CPI.

H6: The relationships between injunctive societal norms, injunctive personal norms, and NDCP (a-, b-, and c’-paths) will differ based on the IDV cultural attribute of a country, where higher collectivism is associated with higher injunctive norms and NDCP.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 survey design and participants.

The current study looks at how PD and IDV cultural dimensions moderate the relationship between injunctive societal and personal norms on counterfeit-related behavioral outcomes.

This study used an online global cross-sectional survey of consumers from 17 countries ( N  = 13,053). Participants were recruited from Argentina ( n  = 769), Australia ( n  = 760), Brazil ( n  = 769), Canada ( n  = 770), China ( n  = 776), Egypt ( n  = 761), India ( n  = 770), Italy ( n  = 769), Kenya ( n  = 770), Mexico ( n  = 781), Nigeria ( n  = 765), Peru ( n  = 756), South Korea ( n  = 771), Spain ( n  = 760), United Arab Emirates ( n  = 770), United Kingdom ( n  = 766), and the United States ( n  = 770). The countries were selected to represent six of the seven continents (except Antarctica). We also selected countries known for high counterfeit seizures, e.g., U.S., Brazil, Nigeria ( OECD and EUIPO, 2022 ) and high sources of counterfeit product origin (e.g., China, India). Countries with low counterfeit trade (e.g., Australia, South Korea) were also included in our sample for greater variability ( Global Organized Crime Index, 2023 ).

The survey was administered in Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Korean, Portuguese, and Spanish (two versions were used for Spain and Spanish-speaking Latin American countries). Non-English versions of the survey were translated and back translated to English by a professional translation firm and were validated by a panel of industry experts who are native speakers of each language. In each country, we used three even-split sampling quotas for gender, generational groups, and income levels (lower, middle, upper).

Participants’ gender was evenly split: females (49.64%), males (49.63%), and “Other” (0.73%). The mean age of the sample was 38.46 years old ( SD  = 14.05, Range  = 18 to 85). Most participants were employed (65.29%), college-educated (attended college or attained an associate/bachelor’s degree; 58.57%), married (63.11%), with at least one child living with them (63.64%). Participants reported that three others lived with them in the same household ( M  = 2.99, SD  = 1.71). Most participants (97.92%) have shopped online at least once in the past 12 months.

3.2 Survey procedure

The study was determined exempt by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Michigan State University in the United States due to the anonymous and low-risk nature of participation. The survey was administered through www.Qualtrics.com , and participants were recruited by Qualtrics Panels through partnering with country-based third-party vendors. The English version of the survey was designed on Qualtrics. Upon back-translation and validation of different translations, we used the “Languages” function on Qualtrics to input question translations to other languages. Using metadata, the survey administration language was programmed to correspond with each participant’s country where they took the survey, however, participants could choose any language from a drop-down menu to accommodate multilingual countries. Upon recruitment, participants read and indicated approval of the informed consent form and agreed to the General Data Protection Regulation [GDPR] guidelines statement regarding the protection of their personal data. To ensure meeting quotas, participants reported demographic information in the beginning of the questionnaire. Participants were asked to indicate the frequency of their counterfeit purchase. Relevant to this study, participants evaluated items corresponding with societal and personal injunctive norms followed by items for counterfeit purchase intentions. Participants were provided with incentives in accordance with the panel vendor in each country. Upon data collection, Qualtrics Panels assessed data quality and eliminated unreliable responses (with replacement to reach sampling quotas per country). On average, participants completed the survey in about 19 min (this manuscript is part of a larger study).

3.3 Measures

The current study used multilevel analysis with survey measures as level-1 (individual) variables. Country and publicly available country averages for cultural dimensions were used as level-2 (group) predictors ( Hofstede, 2023 ) (see Table 1 ).

Table 1 . Power distance and individualism/collectivism scores for countries included in the study ( Hofstede, 2023 ).

3.3.1 Injunctive social norms measures

We used three items ( Park and Smith, 2007 ) to measure perceived injunctive societal and personal norms: (1) “approve of me buying counterfeit products;” (2) “endorse my buying of counterfeit products;” and (3) “would support that I buy counterfeit products.” The reference group for societal norms was “peers in the same country,” and that for personal norms was “close friends.” Items were rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale anchored by “Strongly Disagree” and “Strongly Agree.” Upon satisfactory factor and reliability analyses, items were averaged per participant for societal injunctive norms ( Eigenvalue  = 2.65, % of Var iance Explained  = 88.25%, Cronbach’s α  = 0.933) and personal injunctive norms ( Eigenvalue  = 2.76, % of Variance Explained  = 91.88%, Cronbach’s α  = 0.956).

3.3.2 Counterfeit purchase intentions

Counterfeit purchase intentions (CPI) were measured using three seven-point Likert-type items ( Park and Smith, 2007 ): “I intend to buy counterfeit products,” “I will likely buy counterfeit products,” and “It is possible that I will buy counterfeit products.” Upon satisfactory factor analysis ( Eigenvalue  = 2.61, % of Variance Explained  = 86.96%) and reliability analysis ( Cronbach’s α  = 0.925), the three items were averaged per participant.

We performed multi-group CFA in R with the study data to ensure measurement invariance at several levels. We used three latent variables in the model, Injunctive Social Norms (3 items), Injunctive Personal Norms (3 items), and Counterfeit Purchase Intention (CPI) (3 items). The results of testing for configural, metric, and scalar invariance indicated that the model did not significantly change at each level of constraint. CFI indices changed by less than 0.01; and TLI, RMSEA, and SRMS values were within acceptable ranges at each level ( Appendix 1 ).

Country-level scalar validity and reliability for injunctive societal norms, injunctive personal norms, and CPI were satisfactory (see Appendix 2 ).

3.3.3 Non-deceptive counterfeit purchase

Participants indicated the frequency of non-deceptive counterfeit purchase (NDCP) within the past 12 months using seven-category ordinal scales ranging from “Never” to “Daily or almost daily.”

3.4 Data analysis

To test hypotheses, we performed multilevel modeling, using MLmed computational macro for SPSS ( Rockwood, 2019 ). This software allows testing for the relationships between variables at different levels (e.g., properties of individuals vs. properties of countries). Because we conducted the survey in multiple countries, we expected that the variance in dependent measures would be explained not only by individual-level (within-group) factors, such as individual responses, but also country-level (between-group) predictors derived from attributes of each nation. This means that both respondents’ perceptions of counterfeit and related phenomena and their belonging to certain groups (e.g., nation states) will account for changes in the dependent variables (DVs). In our analysis, country was used as a cluster, 2-level variable to test if country (group) means and individual averages would be significantly correlated with the DVs. Other 2-level variables represented two cultural attributes: power distance (PD) and individualism–collectivism (IDV). The independent and dependent variables included in the model were 1-level variables. Injunctive societal norms was the main predictor, and counterfeit purchase intention and non-deceptive counterfeit purchase were entered in the model as criterion variables.

The advantage of the MLmed macro is that it makes it possible to perform multilevel mediation, moderation, and conditional analyses. Specifically, it allows up to three individual-level mediators and up to three country-level moderators (one for a path , one for b path , and one for c’ path ), along with 1- and 2-level covariates. In the proposed model, in accordance with the hierarchical norms framework ( Patrick et al., 2012 ), we used injunctive personal norms as a 1-level mediator.

IDV and PD were included as 2-level moderators. The limitation of the MLmed macro is that it allows testing for the conditional effects of a moderator on only one path at a time. Thus, we ran three models to test for the moderation of the direct effects of (1) injunctive societal norms on a DV ( c’ path ), (2) injunctive societal norms on injunctive personal norms ( a path ), and (3) injunctive personal norms on a DV ( b path ).

In summary, we ran 12 models using MLmed macro to test for the conditional effects of two 2-level moderators (PD and IDV) on paths a, b, and c’ (one model per path) with two DVs (CPI and NDCP) entered in models one at a time. Injunctive societal norms and injunctive personal norms were used in all models as an IV and mediator, respectively. Three 1-level covariates: age, gender, and religiosity were included in all analyses as the strongest and significant demographic predictors of each DV.

4.1 Hierarchical norms

Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that personal injunctive norms would positively mediate the relationship between societal injunctive norms, on one hand, and CPI and NDCP, respectively, on the other.

4.1.1 Path a (injunctive societal norms → injunctive personal norms)

As shown in Figures 2 – 5 , all moderated mediation multilevel models consistently showed injunctive societal norms as a significant positive predictor of injunctive personal norms at within-group levels (CPI: wth. Coeff. = 0.765–0.929, LL = 0.746–0.889, UL = 0.787–0.968; NDCP: wth. Coeff. = 0.767–0.928, LL = 0.746–0.889, UL = 0.787–0.968). An increase in the total sample’s belief and country-specific sample averages related to the acceptance of counterfeit buying behavior in the society was associated with the increase in the belief about the acceptance of this behavior in close social circles.

Figure 2 . Power distance moderating the relationship between injunctive societal norms and counterfeit purchase intentions, mediated by injunctive personal norms.

Figure 3 . Individualism/collectivism moderating the relationship between injunctive societal norms and counterfeit purchase intentions, mediated by injunctive personal norms.

Figure 4 . Power distance moderating the relationship between injunctive societal norms and non-deceptive counterfeit purchase, mediated by injunctive personal norms.

Figure 5 . Individualism/collectivism moderating the relationship between injunctive societal norms and non-deceptive counterfeit purchase, mediated by injunctive personal norms.

4.1.2 Path b (injunctive personal norms → CPI/NDCP)

Path-b positive relationships between injunctive personal norms and each DV were significant in all models, as well (CPI: wth. Coeff. = 0.511–0.518, LL = 0.483–0.498, UL = 0.538–0.539; NDCP: wth. Coeff. = 0.323–0.448, LL = 0.272–0.418, UL = 0.374–0.478). The more respondents believed that their close friends and family approved of buying counterfeit goods, the higher their reported CPI and NDCP were.

4.1.3 Path c’ (injunctive societal norms → CPI/NDCP; direct effect)

Within-group direct relationship between injunctive societal norms and the two DVs in all models were significant. In the total sample, belief about the acceptance of counterfeit buying by distant peers (societal norms) was positively associated with the CPI and NDCP (CPI: wth. Coeff. = 0.192–0.196 LL = 0.165–0.174, UL = 0.215-0.220; NDCP: wth. Coeff. = 0.098–0.192, LL = 0.046–0.162, UL = 0.151–0.222, Figures 2 – 5 ). Interestingly, injunctive societal norms negatively predicted CPI at the between-group level, meaning that as the country group means for societal norms increased, the country’s average CPI decreased (CPI: btw. Coeff. = −2.132- -2.211, LL = –3.573 – –3.095, UL = –1.254 – –0.694 Figures 2 , 3 ). In other words, countries’ aggregated beliefs about the acceptance of counterfeit buying in society translated into lower country-average intentions to buy counterfeits. Such significant and negative between-subjects effects repeated in the models with IDV as a moderator for NDCP (btw. Coeff. = −0.894 – –0.884, LL = –1.817 – –1.563, UL = –0.259 – –0.205, Figure 5 ). However, they were not significant in the models with power distance as a moderator ( Figure 4 ).

4.1.4 Path ab (injunctive societal norms → CPI/NDCP; indirect effect through injunctive personal norms)

Within-group indirect effects in all models with PD as a moderator were significant (CPI: coeff. = 0.393–0.482, LL = 0.353–0.454, UL = 0.430–0.509, Figure 2 ; NDCP: coeff. = 0.266–0.372, LL = 0.224–0.347, UL = 0.307–0.397, Figure 4 ), where injunctive personal norms mediated the relationship between injunctive societal norms and CPI. The tests of within-group indirect effects in the models with IDV as a moderator revealed similar significant mediation results (CPI: coeff. = 0.297–0.428, LL = 0.379–0.441, UL = 0.415–0.445, Figure 3 ; NDCP: coeff. = 0.307–0.370, LL = 0.288–0.348, UL = 0.325–0.395, Figure 5 ). These findings suggest that injunctive societal norms are strengthened by injunctive personal norms when explaining variance in the two DVs. H1 and H2 were supported.

To examine the associations between injunctive norms and the two DVs, we ran an additional mediation model in R (lavaan 0.6.17 package) with both CPI and NDCP included in the model at the same time. Both outcome variables were highly correlated (coef. = 0.87, SE = 0.07, p  < 0.001). All model paths were found to be significant ( p  = <0.005), with b, ab, and c paths producing higher coefficients for CPI than NDCP (b-path coeff. = 0.57 CPI vs. 0.45 NDCP ; ab = path coef. = 0.48 CPI vs. 0.38 NDCP ; c-total effect coef. = 0.66 CPI vs. 0.55 NDCP ). The direct effect of injunctive societal norms on the two DVs was almost identical (c’-path coeff. = 0.179 CPI vs. 0.176 NDC ), suggesting that it is the injunctive personal norms that drove the predictive differences between behavioral intention and past behavior outcomes.

4.2 PD as a 2-level moderator

Hypotheses 3 and 4 stated that the relationships between injunctive societal norms, injunctive personal norms, and CPI (H3) and NDCP (H4) (a-, b-, and c’-paths) would differ based on the power distance cultural attribute of a country.

First, we present model fit findings for PD ( Table 2 ) moderation models. For each group of models, between- and within-group variance percent values were obtained by calculating intraclass coefficients (ICC). Specifically, ICC was derived by dividing random effects estimates by the total estimates of random effects and level-1 residuals. Second, we present findings pertaining to the study’s hypotheses and research questions.

Table 2 . Individual (Level-1 Residual) and group (Random effects) estimates for the model with power distance as a moderator and (A) counterfeit purchase intentions and (B) non-deceptive purchase as DVs.

The PD moderation models with CPI as a DV indicated an overall good fit for variables at both levels predicting injunctive personal norms and counterfeit purchase intention (level-1 Wald Z s = 78.2; level-2 Wald Z s = 2.06–2.32). About 2.4% of the variance in injunctive personal norms and 3.8% of variance in intention was explained by country ( Table 2A ). The PD moderation models with NDCP indicated good fits at both levels (level-1 Wald Z s = 78.2; level-2 Wald Z s = 1.95–2.32). About 2.4% of the variance in injunctive personal norms and 1.4% of variance in non-deceptive purchase was explained by country ( Table 2B ).

The within-group conditional effect of PD on the association between injunctive societal and personal norms (a-path) was significant and negative (wth coeff. = −0.002, LL/UL = –0.002- –0.001). In high PD countries, the link between societal and personal injunctive norms was weaker than in low PD countries ( Figures 2 , 4 ).

The within-group conditional effect of PD on the relationship between injunctive personal norms and CPI (b-path) was also significant (wth coeff. = 0.001, LL/UL = 0.0001–0.001). In countries with high PD index, greater injunctive personal norms were positively associated with increased CPI ( Figure 2 , significant path moderation is highlighted by green arrows). Thus, H3 was partially supported by indicating the significant PD moderation of paths a and b with CPI as a DV.

All conditional effects of PD were significant in the models with NDCP as the DV. As reported above, PD negatively moderated the relationship between injunctive societal and personal norms. The relationships between injunctive societal norms and NDCP (c’ = path) (wth coeff. = 0.001, LL/UL = 0.0002–0.002) as well as injunctive personal norms and NDCP (b-path) (wth coeff. = 0.001, LL/UL = 0.001–0.002) were stronger in high than low PD countries ( Figure 4 , significant path moderation is highlighted by green arrows). H4 was supported with PD moderating paths a, b, and c’ with NDCP as a DV.

No direct between-group relationship between PD and injunctive personal norms and CPI and NDCP were significant. Additional mixed-models analysis also indicated no significant relationships between PD and injunctive societal norms.

4.3 IDV as a 2-level moderator

Hypotheses 5 and 6 stated that the relationships between injunctive societal norms, injunctive personal norms, and CPI (H5) and NDCP (H6) (a-, b-, and c’-paths) would differ based on the individualism–collectivism cultural attribute of a country.

The IDV moderation models with CPI as a DV indicated an overall good fit for variables at both levels predicting injunctive personal norms and intention (level-1 Wald Zs = 78.2; level-2 Wald Z s = 2.10–2.32). About 2.5% of the variance in injunctive personal norms and 4% of the variance in CPI were attributed to country (see Table 3A ). The IDV moderation models with NDCP as a DV. Good model fits were found at both levels predicting injunctive personal norms and non-deceptive purchase (level-1 Wald Z s = 78.2; level-2 Wald Z s = 1.93–2.32). About 2.4% of the variance in injunctive personal norms and 1.4% of variance in NDCP was explained by country (see Table 3B ).

Table 3 . Individual (Level-1 Residual) and group (Random effects) estimates for the model with individualism/collectivism as a moderator and (A) counterfeit purchase intentions and (B) non-deceptive purchase as DVs.

The conditional effect of IDV on a-path was significant, such that IDV positively moderated the relationship between injunctive societal norms and injunctive personal norms. As the individualism score increased from country to country, the influence of societal on personal norms also increased (wth coeff. = 0.002, LL/UL = 0.001–0.002, Figures 3 , 5 ). No additional significant conditional effects were found in the model with IDV as a moderator and CPI as a DV ( Figure 3 , significant path moderation is highlighted by blue arrows). H5 was partially supported by indicated differences by IDV in a-path.

The conditional effects of IDV on paths a, b, and c’ were significant in the model with this cultural dimension as a moderator and NDCP as a DV. The interaction effects of IDV and (a) injunctive societal norms and (b) injunctive personal norms on NDCP were negative. In more individualistic countries, higher perceptions of injunctive norms, both societal (wth coeff. = −0.001, LL/UL = –0.001 – –0.0003) and personal (wth coeff. = −0.001, LL/UL = –0.0017 – –0.0007), were associated with lower instances of NDCP compared to more collectivistic countries ( Figure 5 , significant path moderation is highlighted by blue arrows). H6 was supported with IDV moderating paths a, b, and c’ with NDCP as a DV.

No direct between-group effects of IDV on injunctive personal norms and CPI and NDCP were significant. Additional mixed-models analysis also indicated no significant effects of IDV on injunctive societal norms.

4.4 PD and IDV interaction relationships

The interaction between PD and IDV did not significantly predict the relationships among injunctive societal and personal norms and each of the two DVs. Significant within-group three-way interactions of PD, IDV, and injunctive social norms on both outcome variables were significant (all p -values <0.001). Figure 6 demonstrates the differences in associations between injunctive societal and personal norms (a-path), injunctive personal norms and CPI/NDCP (b-path), and injunctive societal norms and CPI/NDCP (c’-path). In summary, higher levels of IDV and PD were associated with a stronger relationship between societal and personal injunctive norms. With the increase of IDV, the differences in CPI across PD levels decreased when injunctive personal norms perceptions of counterfeit buying were high. These differences were more pronounced in low and medium IDV countries. Similarly, more pronounced associations were found in high IDV countries with injunctive social norms as an IV. Finally, it is at the level of high IDV that the differences among the levels of PD were more pronounced in moderating the relationships between injunctive norms (both personal and societal) and NDCP.

Figure 6 . Three-way interactions of individualism/collectivism, power distance, and injunctive norms on counterfeit purchase intentions and non-deceptive counterfeit purchase.

5 Discussion

Using the hierarchical norms ( Patrick et al., 2012 ) and cultural dimensions theoretical frameworks ( Hofstede, 1979 ; Hofstede and Bond, 1984 ; Hofstede et al., 2010 ), the present 17-country study focused on individual- and country-level predictors of counterfeit purchase intentions and past behaviors. Two types of injunctive norms, societal and personal, were used as individual-level serial predictors of counterfeit-related outcomes, where respondents’ perceptions of counterfeit buying approval were measured in distant and close social circles. We also proposed that country-specific characteristics, such as cultural dimensions, would predict norms and counterfeit-related variables and moderate their relationships. We focused on two cultural dimensions of individualism/collectivism and power distance, which we theorized would be most relevant to the social norms approach.

5.1 Summary of findings

Study analyses consistently indicated the significance of injunctive personal norms that positively mediated the relationships between injunctive societal norms and counterfeit purchase and intentions. This relationship emerged both at the individual and country level. Thinking that buying counterfeits is accepted by distant peers (societal) strengthened the perceptions that this behavior is approved by proximal peers (personal), which increased the expression of CPI and was associated with a higher frequency of buying counterfeits. Moreover, this mediation relationship held significance at the country level, where country averages for the outcome variables were higher through the effect of country-averaged injunctive societal norms mediated by injunctive personal norms. The results suggest that injunctive personal norms positively predict counterfeit buying behavioral outcomes in this study. When analyzing the direct relationship between injunctive societal norms and the outcome variables, the within-group effects were positive and significant; yet they were weaker than the indirect relationships and the relationships of injunctive personal norms. An interesting finding of the study was that the between-group effects of injunctive societal norms on counterfeit behavioral outcomes were either negative or non-significant. This means that greater perceptions of social approval of counterfeit buying, averaged for each country sample, were associated with lower levels of counterfeit behaviors and intentions.

Our findings generally supported past evidence (e.g., Patrick et al., 2012 ; Alhabash et al., 2021 ), though the context is different. Both Patrick et al. (2012) and Alhabash et al. (2021) examined risky alcohol use, whereas the current study looked at buying counterfeits. These scholars also did not focus on injunctive norms that was central to our study. The extension of the hierarchical norms approach to studying counterfeit buying behavior further supports the importance of, first, examining normative perceptions at various reference group levels, and, second, understanding how personal norms, though they directly predict behavior, are strengthened when they are aligned with societal norms.

Although cultural dimensions did not predict injunctive societal and personal norms or counterfeit-related behaviors and intentions, both PD and IDV moderated the injunctive societal-personal norms relationship. The moderation was positive for IDV and negative for PD. The influence of injunctive societal norms on injunctive personal norms was stronger in individualistic than collectivistic countries. This relationship was the opposite when moderated by PD. The association between societal and personal injunctive norms was weaker in higher than lower PD countries. In other words, in individualistic countries and countries with low power distance index, perceptions of social approval of counterfeit buying worked in conjunction with the beliefs about close friends and families approving of such behaviors. This interesting finding adds to the body of empirical evidence that suggests mixed relationships between culture and counterfeit-related phenomena (e.g., Santos and Ribeiro, 2006 ).

IDV negatively moderated the relationship between injunctive personal norms and knowingly buying counterfeits (NDCP). In collectivistic countries, the beliefs about close friends’ and family’s acceptance of counterfeit buying were strongly associated with past purchase of counterfeit products. In individualistic countries, such beliefs have a weaker influence on this behavior. Furthermore, in countries with high PD, injunctive personal norms led to a greater increase in NDCP and CPI than in countries with low PD scores. This suggests that injunctive personal norms, or the perceptions of proximal social circles accepting counterfeit purchasing, play a much greater role in predicting counterfeit purchase behaviors than injunctive societal norms. In general, this result echoes the existing evidence related to cultural differences, social norms, and counterfeit attitudes and behavior ( Ronkainen and Guerrero-Cusumano, 2001 ; Phau and Teah, 2009 ; Faria, 2013 ; Swoboda et al., 2014 ; Sharma et al., 2022 ). Our study also suggests a larger disconnect between societal and personal injunctive norms in collectivistic and high PD countries than in individualistic and low PD countries.

Moderation effects of the two cultural dimensions on the relationship between injunctive societal norms and the DVs indicated that in individualistic and low PD countries, the relationship between injunctive societal norms and NDCP was weaker than in collectivist and high PD countries. In other words, in collectivistic and high PD nations, consumer perceptions of counterfeit buying acceptance by distant others led to greater past purchases of counterfeits. This relationship was significant only for NDCP as the DV. It is plausible that in low PD nations, consumers attribute their actions to individual values rather than conformity with the social norms, whereas in high PD countries, consumers are more likely to explain buying counterfeits as an expression of being part of a national orientation that is more accepting of buying counterfeits. Furthermore, three-way interactions of IDV, PD, and injunctive norms on the outcome variables showed that in more individualistic countries that scored high on power distance, the relationships between injunctive societal norms and past counterfeit buying were the strongest. This finding calls for further investigation.

5.2 Theoretical and practical implications

The theoretical implications of the present study are related to the complex relationships among culture, injunctive societal and personal norms, and counterfeit buying phenomena. Our findings indicate that personal norms play a stronger role in predicting counterfeit purchase intention and behavior than societal norms. As expected, this relationship is stronger in collectivistic and high PD countries than in individualistic and low PD societies. Societal norms also have a stronger direct impact on buying counterfeits knowingly in collectivistic and high PD than individualistic and low PD countries.

The study results indicated that injunctive societal norms had a stronger associations with injunctive personal norms in individualistic and low PD countries than in collectivistic and high PD nations. This finding changes the prior perceptions of the linear and positive relationships between collectivism and the influence of social norms. Perhaps the disconnect between societal and personal norms is larger in collectivistic and high PD societies, with the perceptions of close friends and family as having a much stronger influence on consumer decisions and intentions than abstract distant others. At the same time, societal and personal norms seem to be working in unison in individualistic and low PD countries where the influence of personal norms on consumer behaviors is weaker.

Taken together, our findings offer a set of practical implications for developing awareness and behavior change interventions and campaigns tailored to different countries based on their cultural orientations. Adjusting normative misperceptions about proximal social circles in collectivistic countries could be beneficial to changing consumers’ attitudes and behaviors toward buying counterfeit products. Highlighting the misperceptions related to the acceptance of buying counterfeits among close social groups could lead consumers to reconsider buying counterfeits as it pertains to showcasing the harmony between oneself, embedded into a close social setting that is also harmonious with the larger national group. On the other hand, it is beneficial to pay equal attention to distant and proximal social relationships when applying the social norms approach ( Berkowitz, 2005 ) to individualistic countries. Based on the study findings, in communities that are more collectivistic, messages that amplify social disapproval of buying counterfeits among closer friends and family might alter individual expectations more than depicting the disapproval of distant others, thus influencing behavioral compliance of refraining from buying counterfeits. In more individualistic societies, messages can embed references to distant and proximal social circles. For example, a public service announcement (PSA) targeting collectivistic communities could be set in a friends-and-family setting, stressing respect for social relations and familial values. A PSA targeting individualistic countries could depict multiple groups – from close to distant others – and connections among them to emphasize behavior disapproval at different social levels. Furthermore, message strategies should vary on the basis of power distance, where they do not always work in unison with individualism–collectivism. For example, messages emphasizing social status when buying genuine products can be most effective in individualist countries with high power distance scores.

5.3 Limitations and future research directions

A few limitations are worth noting. First, despite the fact that our quota-based sampling aimed at recruiting representative samples from the 17 countries, ours was a convenience sample, thus generalizability to the entire population within each country is limited. Future research should seek to collect data from randomly selected samples. At the same time, the convenience sample allowed us to recruit demographically similar groups of consumers that could explain low between-group variability. Second, our survey was cross-sectional, which limits causality inferences assumed when conducting mediation analyses. Given that our theoretical model replicates prior work on hierarchical norms and is based on interpretations of atemporal nature of cross-sectional variables (see Winer et al., 2016 ), we were able to implement mediation analysis as a statistical technique to estimate the hierarchical structure of social norms. Additionally, the very nature of the two levels of reference groups (distal vs. proximal) implies that close friend norms are embedded within societal norms. However, it is important to note the limitation of cross-sectional data in interpreting the results of the mediation analysis. Future research should further examine whether hierarchical norms are ordered temporally or atemporally. Third, our study did not measure power distance and individualism–collectivism at the individual level and rather leveraged country-level data that were included as a second-level variable in our multilevel analysis. Future research should strive to measure cultural values at the individual country levels. Finally, it is important to highlight that cultural values, as country-level variables, are averages of the entire population, thus the interpretation of our findings, both theoretically and practically, should consider within-country variability on these cultural values, hence the need for individual-level measurement of cultural values.

6 Conclusion

The current study showed that cultural differences are associated with normative influences on individual behavior. As individuals in collectivistic and high power distance cultures value social connections and respect social hierarchy, perceiving the act of buying counterfeits as acceptable at proximal levels facilitated enacting risky behaviors of buying counterfeits. On the other hand, individualism and low power distance facilitated stronger connections between normative perceptions of both distal and proximal.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by Michigan State University Institutional Review Board. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

AK: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PH: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors declare that this study received partial funding from Underwriter Laboratories Standards & Engagement through an unrestricted research gift to the Center for Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection (A-CAPP). The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Kari Kammel, Esq., Carrie Feeheley, Esq., and Sara Heeg for their help with managing logistical aspects of this project.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abdullah, Q. A., and Yu, J. (2019). Attitudes and purchase intention towards counterfeiting luxurious fashion products among Yemeni students in China. Am. J. Econ. 9, 53–64. doi: 10.5923/j.economics.20190902.03

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alhabash, S., Kanver, D., Lou, C., Smith, S. W., and Tan, P. (2021). Trick or drink: offline and social media hierarchical normative influences on Halloween celebration drinking. Health Commun. 36, 1942–1948. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1808406

American Apparel and Footwear Association. (2022). Fashion industry study reveals dangerous chemicals and heavy metals in counterfeit products. Available at: https://www.aafaglobal.org/AAFA/AAFA_News/2022_Press_Releases/Fashion_Industry_Study_Reveals_Dangerous_Chemicals_Heavy_Metals_Counterfeits.aspx

Google Scholar

Ang, S. H., Cheng, P. S., Lim, E. C. H., and Tambyah, S. K. (2001). Spot the difference: consumer responses towards counterfeits. J. Consum. Mark. 18, 219–235. doi: 10.1108/07363760110392967

Berkowitz, A. D. (2005). “An overview of the social norms approach” in Changing the culture of college drinking: A socially situated health communication campaign . eds. L. Lederman and L P (New York, NY: Hampton Press), 193–214.

Bharti, M., Suneja, V., and Chauhan, A. K. (2021). The role of socio-psychological and personality antecedents in luxury consumption: a meta-analytic review. Int. Mark. Rev. 39, 269–308. doi: 10.1108/imr-02-2021-0096

Bhatia, V. (2018). Examining consumers’ attitude towards purchase of counterfeit fashion products. J. Indian Bus. Res. 10, 193–207. doi: 10.1108/jibr-10-2017-0177

Bian, X., and Veloutsou, C. (2007). Consumers’ attitudes regarding non-deceptive counterfeit brands in the UK and China. J. Brand Manag. 14, 211–222. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550046

Bizarrias, F. S., Cucato, J. D. S. T., Strehlau, V. I., and Strehlau, S. (2023). Can Individuals with Power Distance Consume Luxury? A Model for Inclusion Through Social Capital and Social Approval. Global Busines. Revi . 1–9. doi: 10.1177/09721509221145830

Carter, R. T. (1991). Cultural values: a review of empirical research and implications for counseling. J. Couns. Dev. 70, 164–173. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991.tb01579.x

Cheng, S. I., Fu, H. H., and Tu, L. C. (2011). Examining customer purchase intentions for counterfeit products based on a modified theory of planned behavior. Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 1, 278–284.

Chiu, W., and Leng, H. K. (2015). Consumers’ intention to purchase counterfeit sporting goods in Singapore and Taiwan. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 28, 23–36. doi: 10.1108/apjml-02-2015-0031

Cho, H. (2016). Influences of norm proximity and norm types on binge and non-binge drinkers: examining the under-examined aspects of social norms interventions on college campuses. J. Subst. Abus. 11, 417–429. doi: 10.1080/14659890600738982

Chung, A., and Rimal, R. N. (2016). Social norms: a review. Rev. Commun. Res. 4, 1–28. doi: 10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2016.04.01.008

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., and Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 24, 201–234. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60330-5

Cialdini, R. B., and Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. Available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-07091-021

Cohen, D., Liu, X., and Shin, F. (2021). “Cultural systems: attunement, tension, and Lewinian social psychology,” In Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles , ed. P. A. M. LangeVan, E. T. Higgins, and A. W. Kruglanski. New York: The Guilford Press, 318–336.

De Mooij, M., and Hofstede, G. (2011). Cross-cultural consumer behavior: a review of research findings. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 23, 181–192. doi: 10.1080/08961530.2011.578057

DiRienzo, C., and Das, J. (2020). Illicit trade and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Econ. Cult. 17, 63–74. doi: 10.2478/jec-2020-0021

Eriksson, K., Strimling, P., Gelfand, M. J., Wu, J., Abernathy, J., Akotia, C. S., et al. (2021). Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies. Nat. Commun. 12:1481. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21602-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Falk, A. (2023). Nike files lawsuit against social media influencer for allegedly endorsing counterfeit products. Mooresville, NC: Loss Prevention Media. Available at: https://losspreventionmedia.com/nike-files-lawsuit-against-social-media-influencer-for-endorsing-counterfeit-products/

Faria, A. A. (2013). Consumer attitudes towards counterfeit goods: the case of Canadian and Chinese consumers. Available at: https://atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/handle/10214/7235

Ferrell, O. C., and Hartline, M. D. (2011). Marketing management . USA: Cengage Learning.

Francis, J. E., Burgess, L., and Lu, M. (2015). Hip to be cool: a gen Y view of counterfeit luxury products. J. Brand Manag. 22, 588–602. doi: 10.1057/bm.2015.31

Franses, P. H., and Lede, M. (2015). Cultural norms and values and purchases of counterfeits. Appl. Econ. 47, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2015.1058915

Garas, S. R. R., Mahran, A. F. A., and Mohamed, H. M. H. (2023). Do you consider buying a counterfeit? New evidence from the theory of planned behaviour and cognitive dissonance theory. Journal of Product & Brand Management . 32, 544–565.

Gavrilets, S. (2020). The dynamics of injunctive social norms. Evol. Hum. Sci. 2, 1–20. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2020.58

Geber, S. (2019). Exploring normative leadership: an egocentric network approach to friends’ norm-signaling relevance. Int. J. Commun. 13:21.

Geber, S., and Hefner, D. (2019). Social norms as communicative phenomena: a communication perspective on the theory of normative social behavior. Stud. Commun. Media 8, 6–28. doi: 10.5771/2192-4007-2019-1-6

Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., Leslie, L. A., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., et al. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science 332, 1100–1104. doi: 10.1126/science.1197754

Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S., and Shultz, C. J. (2006). The effects of counterfeiting on consumer search. J. Consum. Behav. 5, 245–256. doi: 10.1002/cb.176

Global Organized Crime Index (2023) A fractured world. Global Initiative against organized crime. Available at: https://ocindex.net/report/2023/0-3-contents.html

Grossman, G. M., and Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. Q. J. Econ. 103, 79–100. doi: 10.2307/1882643

Handfield, R. (2021). Counterfeiting is on the rise, and projected to exceed $3 trillion in 2022. Supply Chain Resource Cooperative. Available at: https://scm.ncsu.edu/scmarticles/article/counterfeiting-is-on-the-rise-projected-to-exceed-3-trillion-in-2022

Hofstede, G. (1979). Value systems in forty countries: interpretation, validation and consequences for theory (Lisse, Netherlands: Swets an Zeitlinger).

Hofstede, G. (2023). Country comparison tool. The Culture Factor Group. Available at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison-tool

Hofstede, G., and Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede's culture dimensions: an independent validation using Rokeach's value survey. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 15, 417–433. doi: 10.1177/0022002184015004003

Hofstede, G., and Bond, M. H. (1988). The confucian connection: from cultural roots to economic growth. Organ. Dyn. 16, 5–21. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(88)90009-5

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., and Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind . 3rd Edn. New York: McGraw Hill Professional.

Jiang, L., Gao, H., and Shi, L. H. (2021). The effect of power distance beliefs on the inconspicuous versus conspicuous consumption of luxury accessories in China and the USA. J. Mark. Manag. 37, 1459–1489. doi: 10.1080/0267257x.2021.1913214

Kacen, J. J., and Lee, J. (2002). The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 12, 163–176. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1202_08

Kastanakis, M. N., and Balabanis, G. (2012). Between the mass and the class: antecedents of the “bandwagon” luxury consumption behavior. J. Bus. Res. 65, 1399–1407. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.005

Kastanakis, M. N., and Balabanis, G. (2014). Explaining variation in conspicuous luxury consumption: an individual differences’ perspective. J. Bus. Res. 67, 2147–2154. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.024

Khan, S., Fazili, A. I., and Bashir, I. (2023). Signaling norm salience through perceived peer counterfeit consumption. J. Product Brand Manag. 32, 812–827. doi: 10.1108/jpbm-02-2022-3859

Kim, Y. (2011). Understanding green purchase: the influence of collectivism, personal values and environmental attitudes, and the moderating effect of perceived consumer effectiveness. Seoul J. Bus. 17, 65–92. doi: 10.35152/snusjb.2011.17.1.003

Kim, H., and Karpova, E. (2010). Consumer attitudes toward fashion counterfeits: Application of the theory of planned behavior. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 28, 79–94.

Kim, Y., and Zhang, Y. (2011). Does power-distance influence consumers preference for luxury status brands? Adv. Consum. Res. 39, 511–512.

Lanham Act (2011). LII/Legal Information Institute. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act

Lapinski, M. K., Rimal, R. N., DeVries, R., and Lee, E. L. (2007). The role of group orientation and descriptive norms on water conservation attitudes and behaviors. Health Commun. 22, 133–142. doi: 10.1080/10410230701454049

Larimer, M. E., Kaysen, D., Lee, C. M., Kilmer, J. R., Lewis, M. A., Dillworth, T., et al. (2009). Evaluating level of specificity of normative referents in relation to personal drinking behavior. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs . 16, 115–121. doi: 10.15288/jsads.2009.s16.115

Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. Am. Psychol. 36, 343–356. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.36.4.343

Lee, H.-J., Lalwani, A. K., and Wang, J. J. (2020). Price no object!: the impact of power distance belief on consumers’ price sensitivity. J. Mark. 84, 113–129. doi: 10.1177/0022242920929718

Liu, R. W., and Lapinski, M. K. (2024). Cultural influences on the effects of social norm appeals. Philos. Transac. 379:20230036. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2023.0036

Luna, D., and Gupta, S. F. (2001). An integrative framework for cross-cultural consumer behavior. Int. Mark. Rev. 18, 45–69. doi: 10.1108/02651330110381998

Maleki, A., and De Jong, M. (2013). A proposal for clustering the dimensions of national culture. Cross-Cult. Res. 48, 107–143. doi: 10.1177/1069397113510268

Manning, M. (2009). The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 48, 649–705. doi: 10.1348/014466608X393136

Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. (2014). Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation, In College student development and academic life eds. K. Arnold, P. G. Altbach, and I. C. King (Routledge), 264–293.

Marron, D. B., and Steel, D. G. (2000). Which countries protect intellectual property? The case of software piracy. Econ. Inq. 38, 159–174. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2000.tb00011.x

Melnyk, V., Carrillat, F. A., and Melnyk, V. (2021). The influence of social norms on consumer behavior: a Meta-analysis. J. Mark. 86, 98–120. doi: 10.1177/00222429211029199

Merwin, R. (2023). Counterfeit airbags: a deadly public health hazard and industry challenge. MOTOR. Available at: https://www.motor.com/2023/10/counterfeit-airbags-a-deadly-public-health-hazard-and-industry-challenge/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=counterfeit-airbags-a-deadly-public-health-hazard-and-industry-challenge (Accessed January 25, 2024)

Moon, M. A., Javaid, B., Kiran, M., Awan, H. M., and Farooq, A. (2018). Consumer perceptions of counterfeit clothing and apparel products attributes. Mark. Intell. Plan. 36, 794–808. doi: 10.1108/mip-11-2017-0272

Myers, D. G., and Twenge, J. M. (2019). Social psychology. 13th Ed , New York: McGraw-Hill.

O’Donnell, J., Tanz, L. J., Miller, K. D., Dinwiddie, A. T., Wolff, J., Mital, S., et al. (2023). Drug overdose deaths with evidence of counterfeit pill use – United States, July 2019-December 2021. Morbidity and mortality weekly report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7235a3.htm?s_cid=mm7235a3_w

OECD and EUIPO (2021). Global trade in fakes: A worrying threat . Paris: OECD: Illicit Trade.

OECD and EUIPO (2022). Dangerous fakes: Trade in counterfeit goods that pose health, safety and environmental risks . Paris, France: Illicit Trade.

Palmer, A. (2020). Amazon sues two influencers for peddling counterfeit goods on Instagram and TikTok. CNBC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/12/amazon-sues-influencers-for-allegedly-marketing-counterfeits.html (Accessed January 25, 2024)

Park, S. M., Kim, C., and Park, J. (2023). How power distance belief, self-construal, and relationship norms impact conspicuous consumption. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 75:103518. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103518

Park, H. S., and Smith, S. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: a case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Hum. Commun. Res. 33, 194–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00296.x

Patiro, S. P. S., and Sihombing, S. (2016). Predicting intention to purchase counterfeit products: extending the theory of planned behavior. Inter. Res. J. Busi. Studi 7, 109–120.

Patrick, M. E., Neighbors, C., and Lee, C. M. (2012). A hierarchy of 21st birthday drinking norms. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 53, 581–585. doi: 10.1353/csd.2012.0060

Pei, R., Cosme, D., Andrews, M. E., Mattan, B. D., and Falk, E. (2020). Cultural influence on COVID-19 cognitions and growth speed: the role of cultural collectivism. PsyArXiv. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/fet6z

Phau, I., and Teah, M. (2009). Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: a study of antecedents and outcomes of attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury brands. J. Consum. Mark. 26, 15–27. doi: 10.1108/07363760910927019

PSI. (2023). Counterfeit incidents concerning pharmaceuticals worldwide in 2022, by region [Graph]. Available at: https://www-statista-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/statistics/253152/share-of-worldwide-counterfeiting-incidents-in-by-region/ (Accessed January 29, 2024)

Rimal, R. N., and Lapinski, M. K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Commun. Theory 25, 393–409. doi: 10.1111/comt.12080

Rockwood, N. J. (2019). MLMED User Guide: Beta Version 2.0 .

Ronkainen, I. A., and Guerrero-Cusumano, J. (2001). Correlates of intellectual property violation. Multinational Bus. Rev. 9:59.

Sample, I. (2019). Fake drugs kill more than 250,000 children a year, doctors warn. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/11/fake-drugs-kill-more-than-250000-children-a-year-doctors-warn

Santos, J. F., and Ribeiro, J. C. (2006). An exploratory study of the relationship between counterfeiting and culture. Tékhne Revista Estudos Politécnicos 3, 227–243.

Saracevic, S., Schlegelmilch, B. B., and Wu, T. (2022). How normative appeals influence pro-environmental behavior: the role of individualism and collectivism. J. Clean. Prod. 344:131086. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131086

Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Appl. Psychol. 48, 23–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications. Comp. Sociol. 5, 137–182. doi: 10.1163/156913306778667357

Sharma, P., Chan, R. Y. K., Davcik, N. S., and Ueno, A. (2022). Cultural differences in deliberate counterfeit purchase behavior. Mark. Intell. Plan. 40, 121–137. doi: 10.1108/mip-10-2020-0460

Sherif, M., and Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension: An integration of studies on intergroup relations . Harper & Brothers.

Singh, D., Kastanakis, M. N., Paul, J., and Felix, R. (2021). Non-deceptive counterfeit purchase behavior of luxury fashion products. J. Consum. Behav. 20, 1078–1091. doi: 10.1002/cb.1917

Smith, P. B., and Bond, M. H. (2020). “Cultural dimensions theory” in Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences . eds. V. Zeigler-Hill and T. K. Shackelford (Cham: Springer), 970–976.

Smith, J. R., Louis, W. R., Terry, D. J., Greenaway, K. H., Clarke, M. R., and Cheng, X. (2012). Congruent or conflicted? The impact of injunctive and descriptive norms on environmental intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 32, 353–361. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.06.001

Swoboda, B., Pennemann, K., and Taube, M. (2014). Purchasing the counterfeit: antecedences and consequences from culturally diverse countries. Eur. Retail Res. 27, 23–41. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-05313-0_2

Teah, M., Phau, I., and Huang, Y. A. (2015). Devil continues to wear “counterfeit” Prada: a tale of two cities. J. Consum. Mark. 32, 176–189. doi: 10.1108/jcm-03-2014-0908

Thaichon, P., and Quach, S. (2016). Dark motives-counterfeit purchase framework: internal and external motives behind counterfeit purchase via digital platforms. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 33, 82–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.08.003

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2013). Focus on: the illicit trafficking of counterfeit goods and transnational organized crime. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/counterfeit/FocusSheet/Counterfeit_focussheet_EN_HIRES.pdf (Accessed February 10, 2024)

Vinken, H., Soeters, J., and Ester, P. (2004). “Cultures and dimensions: classic perspectives and new opportunities in ‘dimensionalist’ cross-cultural studies” in Comparing cultures . eds. H. Vinken, J. Soeters, and P. Ester (Brill), 5–27.

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups. Acad. Manag. J. 38, 152–173. doi: 10.5465/256731

Wang, J. J., Lalwani, A. K., and DelVecchio, D. (2022). The impact of power distance belief on consumers’ brand preferences. Int. J. Res. Mark. 39, 804–823. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.11.004

Wang, F., Zhang, H., Zang, H., and Ouyang, M. (2005). Purchasing pirated software: an initial examination of Chinese consumers. J. Cons. Mark . 22, 340–351.

Wilson, J. M., and Kinghorn, R. (2016). A total business approach to the global risk of product counterfeiting. Glob. Edge Bus. Rev. 10, 1–6.

Winer, E. S., Cervone, D., Bryant, J., McKinney, C., Liu, R. T., and Nadoroff, M. R. (2016). Distinguishing mediational models and analyses in clinical psychology: Atemporal associations do not imply causation. J. Clin. Psychol. 72, 947–955. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22298

World Health Organization (2017). 1 in 10 medical products in developing countries is substandard or falsified. World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/28-11-2017-1-in-10-medical-products-in-developinG-countries-is-substandard-or-falsified

Yadav, S., and Rawal, G. (2015). Counterfeit drugs: problem of developing and developed countries. Int. J. Pharmaceut. Chem. 2, 46–50.

Yang, S. (2014). The role of social norms in consumers’ evaluations of brands from emerging countries. Open Access Theses Dissertations. Available at: https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd/1761/

Yang, B. (2018). The moderating role of close versus distal peer injunctive norms and interdependent self-construal in the effects of descriptive norms on college drinking. Health Commun. 33, 762–770. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1312202

Yanovitzky, I., and Rimal, R. N. (2006). Communication and normative influence: an introduction to the special issue. Commun. Theory 16, 1–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00002.x

Zhang, Y., Winterich, K. P., and Mittal, V. (2010). Power distance belief and impulsive buying. J. Mark. Res. 47, 945–954. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.47.5.945

TABLE A1 Latent variable* Model fit statistics based on multi-group confirmatory factor analysis.

TABLE A2 Factor and reliability analysis results by country.

Keywords: counterfeit purchase, cultural dimensions, hierarchical social norms, injunctive norms, online shopping, individualism/collectivism, power distance

Citation: Kononova A, Huddleston P, Moldagaliyeva M, Lee H and Alhabash S (2024) Influence of cultural values and hierarchical social norms on buying counterfeits online: a 17-country study. Front. Psychol . 15:1394660. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1394660

Received: 01 March 2024; Accepted: 01 July 2024; Published: 19 July 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Kononova, Huddleston, Moldagaliyeva, Lee and Alhabash. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Saleem Alhabash, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.