REVIEW OF “THE COUNTERFEIT SELF THE DECEPTIVE COSTS OF FAKING IT.”

REVIEWOF “THECOUNTERFEIT SELF: THE DECEPTIVE COSTS OF FAKING IT.”

Author’sName

Reviewof “TheCounterfeit Self: The Deceptive Costs of Faking It.”

TheCounterfeit Self: The Deceptive Costs of Faking isthe article that was authored by Dan Ariely, Michael Norton, andFrancesca Gino. The article entails the experiments that regard theimplications of the products, which are counterfeit. A myriad ofpersons often purchase these commodities and on purchasing them theyusually get the view that such items will enable them to feel, lookand act in a better manner (Norton,Gino, &amp Ariely, 2011).The conducted experiments in the paper portray that such products ina real sense, have the contrary outcome. The experiment’shypothesis is that if the individuals put on the counterfeitcommodities, they will feel bogus and act in a manner that is notethical. The sunglasses are the independent variables, and they(sunglasses) can either be counterfeit ones or real ones. Thedependent variable is the level of unethical behavior and dishonest.The independent variable operationalization was to determine ifindividuals perceive the sunglasses to be fake or real. The dependentvariable operationalization was the degree to which people thoughtthat individuals failed to act ethically, and the level to which theyfailed to act ethically, as well as to the extent to which theparticipants lied (Norton,Gino, &amp Ariely, 2011).The null hypothesis is that fake products make people cheat and thinkthat other people are unethical. The alternative hypothesis is thatpeople with fake sunglasses cheat more across manifold tasks.

Theresults and findings of the research were that the counterfeitproducts impair self-image since the person who uses them becomeinauthentic, hence, acting more in an inauthentic manner. Individualswearing counterfeit sunglasses cheated more across the various taskscompared to those with genuine sunglasses when they both believed tohave a preference for commodities that are counterfeit (Experiment1A). Nonetheless, both groups depicted an increase in cheating where(F[3,249]=54.05,prep&gt.99) with the mean of M=12.78 (Norton, Gino, &amp Ariely,2011) for control condition and F[1,83]=18.77, prep&gt.99) with themean of M=10.53 for experimental condition thus, giving a meandifference of 2.22 (Experiment 1A).

Toconclude, the experiment 1A results can be said to be ironic sincebuying fake products makes people attempt to make themselves appearbetter and make others think that they feel better. However, thisstudy reveals the opposite. Having shared these results, I also feellike conducting the same research to people and find out the resultssince the study is quite significant both the researchers and thepublic.

Reference

Gino,F., Norton, M. I., &amp Ariely, D. (2010). The counterfeit self thedeceptive costs of faking it.&nbspPsychologicalscience.