What’s Cruel About Cruelty Free: An Exploration of Consumers, Moral Heuristics, and Public Policy

Abstract

In his book Reveille for Radicals, Saul Alinsky writes, "Most people are eagerly groping for . . . some way in which they can bridge the gap between their morals and their practices" (p. 94). Today, many consumers try to bridge that gap by participating in what has been termed ethical consumption: the intentional purchase of products and services that the customer considers to be ethically produced. But what happens if consumer perceptions do not match reality? This study investigates one aspect of ethical consumption by examining consumer perceptions of the term cruelty free. Various definitions of this term exist, and companies can (and do) use the term when the product or its ingredients were indeed tested on animals. This exploratory study suggests that many consumers use this term as a moral heuristic in decision-making. As a result, the use of the term creates a halo effect that elevates brand perceptions. When provided with information suggesting the heuristic is flawed, consumers slightly alter perceptions but attitudes remain relatively strong. While some countries have implemented regulation regarding the use of the phrase in some contexts, results suggest that a broader policy is necessary to correct misperceptions and avoid misleading consumers.

“Not tested on animals”: how consumers react to cruelty-free cosmetics proposed by manufacturers and retailers?

“…To guarantee animal welfare, the food industry offers consumers a plethora of claims and labels (Schröder and McEachern, 2004). This move has been closely followed by efforts in the hygiene and cosmetics sphere (Sheehan and Lee, 2014). A good amount of manufacturers move towards the adoption of “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals” claims.…”

“…For instance, health, environmental and appearance concerns may explain attitude towards buying organic cosmetics (Kim and Chung, 2011; Photcharoen et al , 2020). Regarding cruelty-free cosmetics, they benefit very high attitudinal and behavioural evaluations, and concerns for animal rights and animal well-being may play a central role in these preferences (Sheehan and Lee, 2014).…”

“…However, prior studies on cruelty-free cosmetics lack reliable and sufficient explanation of the attitude and purchase intention towards products that have not been tested on animals (Sheehan and Lee, 2014). Consequently, the objective of this research is to investigate the impact of the “not tested on animals” claim on consumers' attitude and behavioural intention towards a cosmetic product through Ajzen's (1985) theory of planned behaviour (TPB).…”

“…While altruistic and egoistic values have rarely been put together as explanatory cues of attitudinal formation of cosmetics preferences (Kim and Chung, 2011), this research will consider both concerns for animal welfare and personal appearance as potential and plausible influences in the development of positive attitude towards cruelty-free cosmetics (Sheehan and Lee, 2014). Moreover, prior studies in this field of research did not investigate the difference of consumer attitude formation towards cruelty-free products compared to conventional personal care (Schuitema and De Groot, 2015).…”

The Ethical Issues of Animal Testing in Cosmetics Industry

“…This has given rise to ethical consumers who are arguably distancing themselves from product that have been tested on animals. Ethical consumers, according to Sheehan and Lee [11], are trying to bridge the gap their morals and practices by practicing that has been termed as ethical consumption. This means that ethical consumers will only purchase products and use services that have been produced in an ethical way.…”