See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/355142285

"Not tested on animals": How consumers react to cruelty-free cosmetics

proposed by manufacturers and retailers?

Article in International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management · October 2021

DOI: 10.1108/IJRDM-12-2020-0489

CITATIONS READS

18 3,819

4 authors:

Cindy G. Grappe Cindy Lombart

University of Alberta Audencia Business School
11 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS 75 PUBLICATIONS 1,394 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Didier Louis Fabien Durif

University of Nantes Université du Québec à Montréal
45 PUBLICATIONS 994 CITATIONS 92 PUBLICATIONS 1,488 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Cindy Lombart on 19 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-0552.htm

IJRDM
49,11 “Not tested on animals”:
how consumers react to
cruelty-free cosmetics proposed by
1532 manufacturers and retailers?
Received 2 December 2020 Cindy G. Grappe
Revised 12 December 2020
25 February 2021 ESG, UQAM, Montr
eal, Canada
Accepted 22 April 2021
Cindy Lombart
Audencia Business School, Nantes, France
Didier Louis
IUT de Saint-Nazaire, Universit
e de Nantes, Saint-Nazaire, France, and
Fabien Durif
ESG, UQAM, Montr
eal, Canada

Abstract
Purpose – Animal welfare is increasingly favoured by consumers in their choice of food and cosmetic
products, proposed by manufacturers and retailers. This study aims to investigate the impact of the “not tested
on animals” claim on consumers’ attitude and behavioural intention towards a cosmetic product through an
enriched version of Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour.
Design/methodology/approach – A between-subjects design has been used. 450 participants were
recruited through the social network of a cosmetics and personal hygiene brand in Quebec, Canada, and
answered a questionnaire. They were randomly assigned to either a manipulation group (n 5 226) or a control
group (n 5 224). Data were analysed with partial least squares structural equation modelling.
Findings – This study shows that external (credibility and attitude towards marketing claims) and internal
psychological variables (subjective norms and altruistic concerns with animal welfare) influence attitude
towards and purchase intention of “not tested on animals” personal care products. More egotistic concerns,
such as personal appearance, also explain the formation of attitude towards cruelty-free cosmetics.
Research limitations/implications – This research supplements Ajzen’s original model with internal
psychological (individuals’ concerns with animal welfare and personal appearance) and external (general
credibility of cosmetic products claims, credibility of the “not tested on animals” claim and attitude towards this
claim) variables. These variables, as suggested by previous research on cosmetics and their claims, improve the
understanding of consumer attitude and purchase behaviour patterns.
Practical implications – The study’s findings point out the role of companies to increase consumers’
knowledge on the significance and transparency of their messages, notably the “not tested on animals” claim.
They also stress that policymakers in regions where regulation is unclear should at least punish untruthful
communication pertaining to animal testing in cosmetic and personal care products.
Originality/value – Prior studies on cosmetic products did not investigate the difference of consumer attitude
formation towards cruelty-free products compared to conventional cosmetic products. Consequently, this
research shows that the construction of attitude towards cruelty-free products highly differs from conventional
personal care.
Keywords Animal welfare, Cruelty-free, Cosmetics, Theory of planned behaviour, Credibility,
Marketing claims
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Retail &

Distribution Management Introduction
Vol. 49 No. 11, 2021
pp. 1532-1553
It is now obvious that consumers are increasingly aware of animal welfare in their daily
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-0552
choices. This tendency is observable all over the world. In the United States, 84% of citizens
DOI 10.1108/IJRDM-12-2020-0489 pay importance to better living conditions for animals [1]. In Canada, 47% consider “very
important” that companies treat animals humanly [2]. In the European Union, 82% believe How
that it is important to protect the welfare of farmed animals and that these animals should be consumers
better protected than they are currently [3]. The World Organization for Animal Health
defines animal welfare as the physical and mental state of an animal, in relation to the
react to cruelty-
conditions in which it lives and dies [4]. free cosmetics
To guarantee animal welfare, the food industry offers consumers a plethora of claims and
labels (Schr€oder 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 1533
move towards the adoption of “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals” claims. Indeed, these
messages appear as the major acquisition vector for 57% of Americans when selecting a
cosmetic product [5]. Retailers also commit to defend the animal cause, even if this pattern is
more observable in the food industry.
Meanwhile, governments tend to a reduction, if not a ban of tests on animals (Sreedhar
et al., 2020). In 2020, 39 countries (including the entirety of the European Union) have already
adopted laws banishing these tests in the cosmetics area. The rest of the world does not oblige
nor forbid them (e.g. in Canada and in most US states). Animal testing is only legally required
in China, whether a Chinese or a foreign brand wishes to market its products in mainland
China. This can lead consumers to question the essence of their purchases. For example, a
brand can be qualified as “cruelty-free” if it sells its products in the UE, but if it also
distributes them in mainland China, some clients might stop considering it as cruelty-free.
Prior research on cosmetics and personal care products suggested that certain values may
influence formation of consumers’ attitude and behaviour by encouraging them to look for
products that will satisfy their values (Grunert and Juhl, 1995). 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). The
latter has been enriched by internal psychological (individuals’ concerns with animal welfare
and personal appearance) and external (general credibility of cosmetic products claims,
credibility of the “not tested on animals” claim and attitude towards this claim) variables, as
suggested by previous research on cosmetics (Marcoux, 2000; Hamzaoui-Essoussi and Zahaf,
2008) and their claims (Wansink et al., 2004; Binninger, 2017).
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). Consequently, this research will
show that the construction of attitude towards cruelty-free products differs from
conventional cosmetics. It will apprehend attitudinal development through a cognitive
progression where beliefs define attitude, leading to the delineation of intention, which guides
behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). It will develop a linear model explaining attitude and purchase
intention of cruelty-free personal care products based on credibility granted to claims used on
cosmetics labels and ads in general as well as to cruelty-free claims credibility, leading to
attitude towards the “not tested on animal” claim.
IJRDM From a theoretical point of view, this research complements the founding work of Ajzen on
49,11 prediction of an individual’s intention to engage in a behaviour with variables both internal
and external to the psychology of the consumer (e.g. individuals’ concerns with animal
welfare and personal appearance, and perceived credibility of claims and associated
products). It also illustrates the differences in consumers’ attitude and purchasing behaviour
formation for cruelty-free products compared to conventional cosmetics. From a managerial
point of view, this research will point out the educational responsibility of brands to
1534 consumers to promote transparency, fluency and understanding ability regarding labels and
messages, notably the “not tested on animals” claim. Brands should also reach for official,
independent, third-party certifications and labelling systems to be perceived by consumers as
more socially responsible.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows. First, a literature review on animal
welfare and labelling referring to the “cruelty-free” notion is proposed. Then, the applied
theoretical framework, the posited hypotheses and the research model are discussed. The
executed data collection, the conducted experiment and the measurement scales used are
described. Lastly, the results, their theoretical and managerial contributions as well as the
limits of the research are considered. Future research avenues are also proposed.

Claims and labels about animal welfare

Animal welfare
Animal welfare has benefited from a lot of researchers’ attention, but principally in the food
industry. They pointed out that consumers were dissatisfied with breeding and animal well-
being standards (e.g. Fernqvist and Ekelund, 2014; Ortega and Wolf, 2018). Consumers require
brands that go beyond these norms (Te Velde et al., 2002) such as giving access to “natural”
living conditions, ensuring the health of the animals, respecting their biological functions
(Spooner et al., 2014) or prioritizing small family-scaled farming (Gracia and de-Magistris, 2016).
In order to encourage improved practices, some consumers declared to be ready to spend
more (e.g. from 19% to 23% according to Gracia et al., 2011). Animal welfare has indeed a
purchase leveraging effect for organic products (Honkanen et al., 2006; Zander and Hamm,
2010; Akaichi et al., 2019) and stands for quality and food well-being (Binninger, 2017).
However, a lack of knowledge subsists concerning animal welfare (Schr€oder and McEachern,
2004; Spooner et al., 2014). The concept is recurrently confused with organic, local perceptions
(Dahlhausen et al., 2018), good taste, health, pleasing sensations (Van Riemsdijk et al., 2017)
and naturality (Borkfelt et al., 2015).

Claims and labels

In the personal care area, few researchers reflected upon the question of animal welfare
(Liobikien_e et al., 2016; Photcharoen et al., 2020). However, brands offer consumers a myriad
of labels (e.g. logos with bunnies) and claims, including negatively framed messages
(e.g. “cruelty-free,” “not tested on animals”), shedding light on the absence of dangerous or
controversial ingredients or processes because of a public opprobrium (Darke and Ritchie,
2007). This aims to transform consumers’ emotional response into an actual act of purchasing
(Li and Chapman, 2012). Animal-friendly claims and labels elevate brands’ perceptions
(Sheehan and Lee, 2014). For instance, Lancendorfer et al. (2008) proved that a simple
iconography depicting a dog led consumers to have a positive brand image. Labels and
claims referring to the “cruelty-free” idea often call on emotional pondering, the same way do
products playing with pastoral visuals (Amos et al., 2014) or even with cuteness appeals via a
graphic dynamic (Wang et al., 2017). Yet, they may fail to provide tangible proofs (Carlson
et al., 1993).
 Some consumers are easily affected by animal-friendly claims and associated labels How
(Honkanen et al., 2006). The wording “cruelty-free” has been proved to be a “call-for-action” consumers
term. It acts as a powerful heuristic in consuming choices, and proves to be a purchasing
vector especially when egoistic attributes (price, familiarity, knowledge) are fulfilled
react to cruelty-
(Schuitema and De Groot, 2015). In general, consumers find these “negatively framed” free cosmetics
messages substantiated, instructive and important (Newburger, 2009). This is supported by
established typology of cosmetics (Fowler et al., 2015). Allegations referring to the absence of
tests conducted on animals (e.g. “not tested on animals”) are largely considered as acceptable 1535
from a semantic standpoint, and thus easily decryptable by consumers. These messages as
well as associated labels (e.g. logos with bunnies) hit an almost unanimous recognition rate
(Ormandy and Schuppli, 2014).

Theoretical framework, hypotheses and research model

Theory of planned behaviour
To grasp consumers’ attitude and behaviour towards the purchase of products with a “not
tested on animals” claim, the TPB (Ajzen, 1985) has been favoured. In this research, the
universally understood claim “not tested on animals” (Sheehan and Lee, 2014) has been
preferred to the “cruelty-free” wording. Although more popular in the industry, more often do
consumers perceive it as vague (Hastak and Mazis, 2011). The TBP is largely recognized as a
valuable tool to shed light on deciding factors of purchase intention in the cosmetic and
hygiene area for organic cosmetics (Kim and Chung, 2011; Photcharoen et al., 2020), green
skincare (Hsu et al., 2017) or even conventional products (Lu and Chen, 2017). Although prior
research has covered the understanding of some cosmetic claim trends, it is void of interest
towards cruelty-free products.
The TPB explains the adoption or non-adoption intention of a behaviour through the
attitude held towards this behaviour, perceived behavioural control and subjective norms.
This model allows the study of the influence of consumers’ attitude on their behavioural
intention as well as the influence of normative beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioural control. Moreover, Ajzen’s original model has been supplemented with both
internal psychological (individuals’ concerns with animal welfare and personal appearance)
and external (general credibility of cosmetic products claims, credibility of the “not tested on
animals” claim and attitude towards this claim) variables. These variables, suggested by
previous research on cosmetics (Marcoux, 2000; Hamzaoui-Essoussi and Zahaf, 2008) and
their claims (Wansink et al., 2004; Binninger, 2017), will improve the understanding of
consumers’ attitude and purchase behaviour.

Perceived behavioural control, subjective norms, attitude and purchase intention

Attitude towards a behaviour denotes “the level of favourable or unfavourable evaluation of a
certain behaviour” (Ajzen, 1991). Consumers’ attitude often acts as mediator in the link
between their values and their behaviour (Shim and Eastlick, 1998) and the more a person has
a positive attitude towards the adoption of a behaviour, the more he will be prone to adopt it
(Ajzen, 1985). As far as the cosmetic and personal hygiene industry is concerned, it has been
shown that attitude positively influences purchase intention of an organic cosmetic product
(Kim and Chung, 2011; Photcharoen et al., 2020), of green skincare (Hsu et al., 2017), of free
from parabens cosmetics (Hansen et al., 2012) and even conventional hygiene products
(Lu and Chen, 2017). Considering these previous works, this research posits the following
hypothesis:
H1. Consumers’ attitude towards a “not tested on animals” cosmetic product has a
positive influence on their purchase intention of this product.
IJRDM Behavioural control is “the perceived easiness or difficulty in adopting a behaviour.” The more a
49,11 person perceives a high level of personal control, the more he tends to reveal high behavioural
intention relating to the adoption of a given behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Previous research has
used different variables pertaining to situational factors when delineating perceived control
of cosmetics buying such as price (Kim and Chung, 2011), confidence and time (Hsu et al.,
2017), and convenience (Photcharoen et al., 2020). However, an important part of labelled
products choice making lacks thorough insight: level of involvement and trust brought by
1536 comprehension (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986; Chaiken et al., 1989). A high level of involvement in
the buying decision positively influences messages’ efficacy.
Strategies based on logic and sound demonstrations are the most efficient and influent
concerning purchase behaviour, especially when a consumer’s level of involvement is high,
and conversely, one with low levels of involvement will use peripheral signals and heuristics
(Chaiken et al., 1989). Some have tested such variables in cosmetics (Lu and Chen, 2017) or
green products buying contexts (Liobikien_e et al., 2016). In this research, perceived
behavioural control is thus envisioned as the level of reading and of comprehension of labels
and tags of cosmetic products (Roe et al., 1999), as well as the interest in reading deciphering
them (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986; Hsu et al., 2017). According to Ajzen (1991), it should
positively affect attitude and purchase intention of cruelty-free cosmetic products even if few
studies apprehend perceived behavioural control as inducing both positive attitude and
behavioural intention – only the latter has been scrutinized (Kim and Chung, 2011).
Accordingly, we hypothesize that:
H2. Perceived behavioural control has a positive influence on consumers’ attitude
towards a “not tested on animals” cosmetic product (a) and their purchase intention
of this product (b).
Finally, subjective norms reflect peer influence and characterize “the perceived social pressure
in the adoption or non-adoption of a behaviour” (Ajzen, 1991). Peer pressure and the desire to
be positively perceived by others have been proved as a valid influence of purchase intention
of organic (Kim and Chung, 2011; Photcharoen et al., 2020), free from parabens (Hansen et al.,
2012), green (Hsu et al., 2017), and conventional cosmetic products (Lu and Chen, 2017).
Indeed, psychosocial perspectives are significant reasons for positive attitude and purchase
intention of cosmetic products (Hillhouse et al., 2000). Still, previous research has mainly only
grasped subjective norms influence on behavioural intention and rarely on attitude as well.
However, we offer the following hypothesis:
H3. Subjective norms have a positive influence on consumers’ attitude towards a “not
tested on animals” cosmetic product (a) and their purchase intention of this
product (b).

Personal concerns with animal welfare and appearance

In order to sharpen the understanding of attitude and purchase behaviour towards cosmetics
displaying claims, and especially the “not tested on animals” allegation, it has been
considered appropriate to include variables reflecting personal interests. Indeed, if consumers
purchase cosmetic products for hygiene purposes, they also do so to modify their appearance
(Marcoux, 2000) or/and because they aspire to be eco-friendly and respect animal welfare
(Hamzaoui-Essoussi and Zahaf, 2008).
Literature has often classified these motivations into two major categories: “egoistic”
concerns, based on individualism, appearance and personal health, and “altruistic” concerns,
referring to the protection of the environment or of animals (Padel and Foster, 2005).
Researchers have validated the influence of such values on attitude towards cosmetics,
specifically health concerns when choosing organic or natural products (Kim and Chung,
2011; Photcharoen et al., 2020), appearance consciousness and hedonism, materialism, How
self-identity and self-transcendence for free from cosmetics or environmental concerns and consumers
conservation values for organic, eco-friendly beauty products (Kim and Chung, 2011; Hansen
et al., 2012). However, none focuses on a value system effect on intention.
react to cruelty-
In regard to cruelty-free personal hygiene products, Sheehan and Lee (2014) have free cosmetics
preliminarily posited, by means of a qualitative research, that support of animal rights is
positively correlated with both attitude and purchase intention of cruelty-free brands.
Consequently, preoccupations about animal welfare (Honkanen et al., 2006; Nisbet et al., 2009) 1537
and personal appearance (Todd, 2004) have been incorporated in our research model. We
consider that these psychological variables, internal to consumers’ personal beliefs, can have
an influence on their appreciation and behaviour. According to Fishbein (1963), beliefs
influence the adoption intention of a behaviour as well as the adoption in itself. Thus, we posit
the following hypotheses:
H4. Concerns pertaining to animal welfare have a positive influence on consumers’
attitude towards a “not tested on animals” cosmetic product (a) and their purchase
intention of this product (b).
H5. Concerns pertaining to personal appearance have a positive influence on consumers’
attitude towards a “not tested on animals” cosmetic product (a) and their purchase
intention of this product (b).

Credibility and attitude towards the “not tested on animals” claim

Ajzen’s original model has also been enriched with external variables to the consumer’s
psychology envisioned as a linear model explaining attitude and purchase intention of
cruelty-free cosmetic products. This is substantiated by the exploration of the level of
credibility granted to claims used in personal care in general and to the “not tested on
animals” message specifically. Indeed, the credibility of a given message is considered as a
key factor in its own understanding (Heesacker et al., 1983).
Several factors are likely to influence beliefs accorded to claims, comprising familiarity
with the product or the brand. For instance, prior knowledge of a claim helps to simplify the
information and can lead to a fairer interpretation. MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) have tested
and validated the fact that perceived credibility of ads in general positively influenced
credibility of a particular advertising stimulus on a given exposition occasion as well as
consumers’ attitude towards this stimulus. A person not believing in the veracity of a
message will be less likely to adopt a positive attitude towards the product displaying it and
to embrace any kind of buying intention. This reasoning could be extrapolated to cosmetic
claims and, most specifically, to those referring to the lack of animal testing. Therefore, we
hypothesize that:
H6. General credibility of cosmetic products claims has a positive influence on credibility
of the “not tested on animals” claim (a) and consumers’ attitude towards this
claim (b).
For a label or a claim to be efficient and plausible, it is critical that it rapidly translates into a
personal relevant interest for the consumer, whether pertaining to his health, the quality of
the product or cost-effectiveness (Binninger, 2017). Since short and simple claims are
considered as more persuasive cues during purchase decision, it is because they often refer to
a particular attribute and not to the product in its entirety. Moreover, more concise and
straightforward claims reach out to all consumers whether they are concerned and interested
in the message or not (Wansink et al., 2004). Holbrook (1978) has also shown that perceived
credibility of a given message significantly contributes to the prediction of an attitude
towards a claim. Furthermore, a message credibility has a direct and significant positive
IJRDM impact on attitude towards this message (Choi and Rifon, 2002). Consequently, we propose
49,11 the following hypothesis:
H7. Credibility of the “not tested on animals” claim has a positive influence on
consumers’ attitude towards this claim.
Lastly, several studies indicated that consumers’ attitude towards a particular ad has a
positive and significant influence on their attitude towards the brand (Goldsmith et al., 2000;
1538 Choi and Rifon, 2002). Indeed, ad perception and favourable or unfavourable attitude have a
direct effect on attitude towards the brand related to the ad (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989).
Building upon this analogy, we conjecture that:
H8. Consumers’ attitude towards the claim “not tested on animals” has a positive
influence on their attitude towards the product displaying this claim.
Figure 1 offers a synthesis of the research hypotheses.

Methodology
Data collection
A cosmetics and personal hygiene brand in Quebec, Canada, allowed us to use its social
network to post a link with our questionnaire. We asked the brand’s customers to answer
questions on cosmetic/personal care products and their habits. With the help of a filter
question on their purchasing and consumption habits of cosmetics and personal care, only
users of this product category were allowed to answer the questionnaire. 450 actual buyers
and consumers of cosmetic/personal care products were integrated in our research (response
rate: 94%).
The respondents’ average age in our sample is 30.6 years old and most are women (82.6%),
which corresponds to the brand’s target. 50.7% are single and 48.5% common-law or married.
Both groups are homogeneous in terms of sex (χ 2 5 1.113; p-value 5 0.291), age (χ 2 5 0.127;
p-value 5 0.722) and status (χ 2 5 2.277; p-value 5 0.685). Table 1 presents the respondents’
socio-psychographic characteristics of the experimental groups formed.

Experimental design
A between-subjects design has been used. The 450 participants of our research were
randomly assigned to either a manipulation group (n 5 226) or a control group (n 5 224).

Perceived behavioural
control (level of reading
and comprehension of Subjective
claims) norms

H2a H2b H3a H3b

General Credibility Attitude Purchase

Attitude towards
credibility of H6a of the “not H7 towards the H8 a “not tested on H1 intention of a
cosmetic tested on “not tested “not tested on
on animals” animals” animals”
products claims animals”
claim cosmetic product cosmetic product
claim

H6b H4a H5a H5b

H4b
Figure 1.
Animal welfare Personal appearance
Research model concerns concerns
When answering our questionnaire, the participants of the manipulation group (n 5 226) had How
to consider a shampoo bottle with the claim “not tested on animals” added on it, whereas the consumers
participants of the control group (n 5 224) had to reflect on the same product, but without any
claim on the bottle.
react to cruelty-
A shampoo bottle had been chosen for its suitability for all kinds of consumers, free cosmetics
indiscriminately of sex, age or other characteristics. The penetration rate of hair products is
high worldwide (i.e. more than 80% in North America). The same shampoo bottle, without
reference to any brand to avoid introducing bias into the judgment of the cosmetic product 1539
proposed, was submitted to the respondents of the control group and manipulation group, except
that the bottle of the manipulation group had the claim “not tested on animals” added on it.

Measurement scales
Attitude towards the cosmetic product was measured by three items adapted from the brand
attitude measurement scale of Lombart and Louis (2012). Consumer purchase intention of the
cosmetic product was measured by four items taken from the behavioural-intentions battery
proposed by Zeithaml et al. (1996). Subjective norms and perceived behavioural control were
measured respectively by three and two items adapted from the scales of Redondo Palomo
et al. (2015) that measure these two variables towards green skincare products. Consumers’
concerns with animal welfare were measured by three items taken from the scale of Herzog
et al. (1991) developed to measure consumer attitudes towards the use of animals. Consumers’
concerns with personal appearance were measured by four items taken from the appearance
schemas inventory proposed by Cash and Labarge (1996).
The credibility of claims displayed on cosmetic products in general was measured by three
items adapted from the general advertising credibility scale proposed by MacKenzie and Lutz
(1989). The credibility of the studied claim was assessed through four items adapted from the
perceived credibility of a quality label developed by Moussa and Touzani (2008). The attitude
towards the “not tested on animals” claim was measured by four items adapted from the scale
introduced by Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990) to determine consumers’ attitude towards
the adoption of an advocated behaviour. Both groups answered to all our questionnaire’s items,
except to those related to the presence of claims on cosmetic products (in general or the one
studied) for the control set. The items used in this study are available in Table 2.

Data analysis
In this research, we used partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) and a
bootstrap procedure with 5,000 replications (Tenenhaus et al., 2005), to analyse our data.
We used PLS-SEM (with the software XLSTAT 2020), referred to as variance-based, instead

Total sample Control group Manipulation group

(n 5 450) (n 5 224) (n 5 226)

Sex Female 82.6% 85.7% 79.8%

Male 17.4% 14.3% 20.2%
Age group Under 24 26.1% 30.8% 31.3%
25–44 67.2% 62.6% 61.9%
Over 45 6.7% 6.6% 6.7%
Occupation Single 50.7% 51.6% 49.4% Table 1.
Common-law or 48.5% 47.2% 49.6% Socio-demographic
married characteristics of the
Separated or 0.8% 1.2% 1% control and
divorced manipulation groups
IJRDM Control group Manipulation group
49,11 (n 5 224) (n 5 226)
Loadings t Loadings t

Credibility of claims In general, I find claims displayed on cosmetic products. . .

on cosmetic products Convincing 0.884 7.711***
in general Credible 0.843 8.241***
1540 Honest 0.687 4.934***
Credibility of the After looking at this cosmetic product, I find the claim “not tested on animals”
claim displayed on its packaging . . .
Reliable 0.890 9.526***
Sincere 0.907 12.010***
Upstanding 0.935 10.835***
Trustworthy 0.934 9.806***
Attitude towards the After looking at this cosmetic product, I formed an opinion about the claim “not tested
claim on animals” and I find that this claim is . . .
Useful 0.913 8.978***
Important 0.942 10.907***
Relevant 0.914 8.670***
Interesting 0.907 11.207***
Attitude towards the Overall, . . .
cosmetic product I find this cosmetic product 0.922 11.362*** 0.957 11.669***
interesting
I appreciate this cosmetic product 0.963 13.105*** 0.974 12.631***
I have a favourable attitude 0.953 11.967*** 0.940 11.504***
towards this cosmetic product
Purchase intention After looking at this cosmetic product with the claim “not tested on animals”, I could, in
of the cosmetic the near future . . .
product Buy this cosmetic product with 0.917 7.254*** 0.847 11.794***
the claim “not tested on animals”
Recommend this cosmetic product 0.906 8.943*** 0.909 10.968***
with the claim “not tested on
animals” to my friends
Buy cosmetic products with the 0.928 7.991*** 0.905 12.207***
claim “not tested on animals”
Recommend cosmetic products 0.925 8.640*** 0.908 11.134***
with the claim “not tested on
animals” to my friends
Concerns with Basically, humans have the right 0.725 3.981*** 0.645 5.501***
animal welfare to use animals as we see fit
(reverse item)
Much of the scientific research 0.722 3.359*** 0.743 5.860***
done with animals for cosmetic
products is unnecessary and cruel
Too much fuss is made over the 0.703 2.976*** 0.859 8.126***
welfare of animals these days
when there are many human
problems that need to be solved
(reverse item)
Table 2.
Concerns with My appearance is an important 0.752 3.384*** 0.813 9.436***
Results of
confirmatory factor personal appearance part of who I am
analyses
(continued )
 Control group Manipulation group
How
(n 5 224) (n 5 226) consumers
Loadings t Loadings t react to cruelty-
I believe that by controlling my 0.817 3.120*** 0.868 8.649*** free cosmetics
appearance I can control many of
the social and emotional events in
my life 1541
I should do whatever I can to 0.863 3.250*** 0.882 11.720***
always look my best
I usually pay attention to my 0.800 4.059*** 0.786 7.591***
appearance
Perceived In general, . . .
behavioural control I read the claims on cosmetic 0.823 3.220*** 0.876 8.858***
products but I do not always
understand everything
I read the claims on cosmetic 0.950 3.560*** 0.882 8.784***
products and I understand almost
everything (reverse item)
Subjective norms After looking at this cosmetic product with the claim “not tested on animals”, I think
that . . .
Most others who are important to 0.968 13.677*** 0.953 12.845***
me would think I should use this
cosmetic product with the claim
“not tested on animals”
Most of the people I take into 0.991 13.134*** 0.976 13.641***
consideration would think I
should use this cosmetic product
with the claim “not tested on
animals”
My relatives (family, friends, . . .) 0.985 12.527*** 0.916 14.877***
would advise me to buy this
cosmetic product with the claim
“not tested on animals”
Note(s): Student’s t-test values greater than j2.575j indicate loadings significant at the 1% level (***) Table 2.

of covariance-based structural equation modelling (CB-SEM) (Hair et al., 2017), for two main
reasons stressed by Hair et al. (2012, 2014) in their meta-analyses on the use of PLS-SEM in
marketing research. PLS-SEM does not require the variables to follow a multivariate normal
distribution. Computed Mardia’s coefficient is superior to j3j in this research. PLS-SEM
allows working with small samples. The sample sizes are equal to 224 and 226 for the two
groups considered in this research (control and manipulation respectively) with a mean of
211.29 in the marketing field. PLS-SEM also allows working with models that include a large
number of latent variables; indeed, our research model contains nine variables with an
average number of 7.94 in the marketing field.
First, the measurement models were tested. Confirmatory factor analyses examined the
unidimensional factor structure of the measurement scales used. Their reliabilities
(Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951) and J€oreskog’s rh^o (J€oreskog, 1971) coefficients) as well
as their convergent (average variance extracted (AVE); Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and
discriminant (heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) method; Henseler et al., 2015) validities were
also assessed. Then, the structural models were tested. We followed the recommendation of
Hair et al. (2019) to report our results. To test the mediating effects postulated, the procedure
advocated by Cepeda et al. (2018), specifically developed for PLS-SEM, was used. The
significance of a direct effect (c’) and an indirect effect (a 3 b) were estimated.
IJRDM Results
49,11 Test of the measurement models
Confirmatory factor analyses established the unidimensional factor structure of the
measurement scales used. The loadings, that are greater than 0.5 and statistically
significant at the 1% level, are satisfactory (Table 2). Then, Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach,
1951) and J€oreskog’s rh^o (J€oreskog, 1971) coefficients indicated the reliability of the
measurement scales used. The coefficients calculated are above the threshold of 0.7 and thus
1542 satisfactory (Table 3). Lastly, the approach advocated by Fornell and Larcker (1981)
established the convergent validity of the measurement scales used. The AVE are above the
threshold of 0.5 (see Table 3). The discriminant validity of the measurement scales used was
established through the HTMT method, as recommended by Henseler et al. (2015) for
variance-based SEM. The values in Table 4 are below the 0.85 threshold.

Test of the structural models

The SEM method enables to estimate complex models with many variables and structural
paths. Linear independent-dependent relationships between several variables are examined
in a path model. The structural model path coefficients (PC) for the relationships between the
variables are thus derived from estimating a series of regression equations. The path
coefficients have standardized values approximately between 1 and þ1. Estimated path
coefficients close to þ1 represent strong positive relationships (and vice versa for negative
values) that are usually statistically significant. The closer the estimated coefficients are to 0,
the weaker are the relationships that are usually not statistically significant. Whether a
coefficient is significant depends on its t value. When a t value is larger than a critical value,
researchers can conclude that the coefficient is statistically significant at a certain error
probability, i.e. significance level (i.e. a t value greater than j2.575/1.96j indicate that the path
coefficient is significant at the 1/5 % level). The examination of the values of the path
coefficients and their significance level in Table 5 indicates the causal relationships between
the different variables considered.
Hereafter, we present the results related to the manipulation group (n 5 226) (Figure 2),
with the claim “not tested on animals” on the cosmetic product.

Control group (n 5 224) Manipulation group (n 5 226)

Cronbach J€oreskog Cronbach J€oreskog
alpha rh^o AVE alpha rh^o AVE

Credibility of claims on cosmetic 0.743 0.859 0.655

products in general
Credibility of the claim 0.934 0.954 0.840
Attitude towards the claim 0.938 0.956 0.845
Attitude towards the cosmetic 0.941 0.962 0.895 0.954 0.971 0.916
product
Purchase intention of the 0.939 0.956 0.845 0.915 0.941 0.796
cosmetic product
Concerns with animal welfare 0.777 0.747 0.513 0.730 0.814 0.569
Concerns with personal 0.835 0.893 0.655 0.837 0.907 0.703
appearance
Table 3. Perceived behavioural control 0.753 0.890 0.790 0.706 0.872 0.773
Tests of reliability and Subjective norms 0.981 0.988 0.963 0.944 0.964 0.900
convergent validity Note(s): AVE 5 Average Variance extracted
Control group (n 5 224) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
How
consumers
(1) Credibility of claims on react to cruelty-
cosmetic products in general
(2) Credibility of the claim free cosmetics
(3) Attitude towards the claim
(4) Attitude towards the 1
cosmetic product 1543
(5) Purchase intention of the 0.765 1
cosmetic product
(6) Concerns with animal 0.423 0.189 1
welfare
(7) Concerns with personal 0.046 0.183 0.018 1
appearance
(8) Perceived behavioural 0.081 0.044 0.178 0.266 1
control
(9) Subjective norms 0.789 0.836 0.220 0.207 0.120 1

Manipulation group
(n 5 226) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(1) Credibility of claims 1

on cosmetic products
in general
(2) Credibility of the 0.123 1
claim
(3) Attitude towards the 0.409 0.294 1
claim
(4) Attitude towards the 0.162 0.534 0.572 1
cosmetic product
(5) Purchase intention of 0.361 0.241 0.671 0.702 1
the cosmetic product
(6) Concerns with animal 0.197 0.091 0.474 0.158 0.509 1
welfare
(7) Concerns with 0.232 0.173 0.087 0.145 0.113 0.202 1
personal appearance
(8) Perceived 0.235 0.096 0.075 0.033 0.019 0.078 0.023 1 Table 4.
behavioural control Test of discriminant
(9) Subjective norms 0.143 0.197 0.537 0.590 0.725 0.431 0.184 0.038 1 validity

Firstly, the credibility of claims on cosmetic products in general has a positive and significant
impact on consumers’ attitude towards this claim (PC 5 0.373; t 5 3.792; p < 0.01). Hypothesis
H6b is supported by our data. The credibility of the studied claim has also positive and
significant impact on consumers’ attitude towards this claim, but to a lesser extent
(PC 5 0.230; t 5 2.365; p < 0.05). Hypothesis H7 is validated. By contrast, the credibility of
claims on cosmetic products in general does not have a significant impact on the credibility of
the studied claim (PC 5 0.179; non-significant (ns)). Hypothesis H6a is not supported by our
data. In this research, the impact of the credibility of claims displayed on cosmetic products in
general on consumers’ attitude towards the studied claim (i.e. “not tested on animals”) is
direct. It is not mediated, partially or fully, by the credibility of the studied claim, as
MacKenzie and Lutz’s (1989) seminal work might have suggested.
In essence, the credibility of claims on cosmetic products in general and the credibility of
the studied claim (i.e. “not tested on animals”) explain 21.3% of consumers’ attitude towards
this claim.
IJRDM Manipulation group
49,11 Control group (n 5 224) (n 5 226)
PC t R2 PC t R2

Credibility of claims on cosmetic products in 0.179 ns 0.024

general → Credibility of the claim
Credibility of the claim → Attitude towards the 0.230 2.365** 0.213
1544 claim
Credibility of claims on cosmetic products in 0.373 3.792***
general → Attitude towards the claim
Attitude towards the claim → Attitude towards 0.356 3.747*** 0.426
the cosmetic product
Concerns about animal welfare → Attitude 0.145 ns 0.424 0.314 3.343***
towards the cosmetic product
Concerns about personal appearance → 0.077 ns 0.281 3.330***
Attitude towards the cosmetic product
Perceived behavioural control → Attitude 0.041 ns 0.001 ns
towards the cosmetic product
Subjective norms → Attitude towards the 0.748 10.969*** 0.387 3.852***
cosmetic product
Concerns about animal welfare → Purchase 0.028 ns 0.260 3.663***
intention of the cosmetic product
Concerns about personal appearance → 0.011 ns 0.691 0.028 ns 0.632
Purchase intention of the cosmetic product
Perceived behavioural control → Purchase 0.103 ns 0.029 ns
intention of the cosmetic product
Subjective norms → Purchase intention of the 0.596 6.184*** 0.360 4.253***
cosmetic product
Attitude towards the cosmetic product → 0.289 2.862*** 0.406 5.202***
Table 5. Purchase intention of the cosmetic product
Results of structural Note(s): PC 5 path coefficient. Ns 5 non-significant. Student’s t-test values greater than j2.575/1.96j indicate
equation model path coefficient significant at the 1/5 % level (***/**)

General H6b
credibility of 0.373 Subjective
cosmetic norms
H3a
products claims 0.387 H3b
0.360

Attitude
Credibility H7 towards the Attitude towards a H1 Purchase
H8 0.406
of the “not 0.230 “not tested 0.356
“not tested on intention of a “not
tested on animals” cosmetic tested on animals”
on animals”
animals” product cosmetic product
claim
claim (R2 = 0.213) (R2 = 0.426) (R2 = 0.632)

H4a H4b H5a

0.314 0.260 0.281
Figure 2.
“Not tested on animals” Animal welfare Personal appearance
claim model concerns concerns
 Secondly, consumers’ attitude towards the “not tested on animals” claim has a positive How
and significant impact on their attitude towards the cosmetic product with this claim consumers
(PC 5 0.356; t 5 3.747; p < 0.01). Hypothesis H8 is supported by our data. Subjective norms
have also a positive and significant impact on consumers’ attitude towards the cosmetic
react to cruelty-
product with the claim “not tested on animals” (PC 5 0.387; t 5 3.852; p < 0.01). Hypothesis free cosmetics
H3a is validated. Although it can be assumed that shampoo is a product used in a private,
intimate setting, the sample’s young age could eventually lead to a group purchase context
and explain these results. Finally, consumers’ concerns with animal welfare have a positive 1545
and significant impact on consumers’ attitude towards the cosmetic product with the claim
“not tested on animals” (PC 5 0.314; t 5 3.343; p < 0.01). Hypothesis H4a is supported by our
data. Similarly, consumers’ concerns with personal appearance (PC 5 0.281; t 5 3.330;
p < 0.01) have also a positive and significant impact on consumers’ attitude towards a
cosmetic product displaying the claim “not tested on animals”. Hypothesis H5a is validated.
Our study confirms the founding work of Todd (2004). By contrast, perceived behavioural
control does not have an impact on consumers’ attitude towards the cosmetic product with
the claim “not tested on animals” (PC 5 0.001; ns). Hypothesis H2a is not supported by
our data.
Fundamentally, consumers’ attitude towards the “not tested on animals” claim, subjective
norms and consumers’ concerns with animal welfare and personal appearance explain 42.6%
of consumers’ attitude towards the cosmetic product with the claim “not tested on animals”.
According to computed path coefficients, the impacts of these four variables on consumers’
attitude towards the cosmetic product with the claim “not tested on animals” seem similar.
Thirdly, consumers’ attitude towards the cosmetic product with the claim “not tested on
animals” has a positive and significant impact on their purchase intention of this product
(PC 5 0.406; t 5 5.202; p < 0.01). Hypothesis H1 is validated. This finding is consistent with
previous conclusions relating to conventional hygiene products (Lu and Chen, 2017), green
skincare (Hsu et al., 2017), organic cosmetics (Kim and Chung, 2011; Photcharoen et al., 2020)
or free-from parabens personal care products (Hansen et al., 2012) while broadening them to
cruelty-free cosmetics. Subjective norms have also a positive and significant impact on
consumers’ purchase intention of a “not tested on animals” cosmetic product (PC 5 0.360;
t 5 4.253; p < 0.01). This finding supports hypotheses H3b while confirming and extending to
cruelty-free cosmetics the previous relations formulated in the works of Lu and Chen (2017)
on conventional and green cosmetics, Kim and Chung (2011) and Photcharoen et al. (2020) on
organic personal care products, and Hansen et al. (2012) on free-from parabens products.
Finally, consumers’ concerns with animal welfare have a positive and significant impact on
consumers’ purchase intention of a “not tested on animals” cosmetic product (PC 5 0.260;
t 5 3.663 p < 0.01), supporting hypotheses H4b.
Conversely, consumers’ concerns with personal appearance does not have an impact on
consumers’ purchase intention of this cosmetic product (PC 5 0.028; ns), rejecting
hypothesis H5b. This impact is fully mediated by consumer attitude. This significant
mediating effect has been confirmed by the procedure developed by the Cepeda et al. (2018).
Preoccupations regarding personal appearance, as suggested by Marcoux (2000) for
conventional cosmetics, have only an indirect impact in our study, mediated by the concept of
attitude. Similarly, perceived behavioural control does not have a significant impact on
consumers’ purchase intention of a “not tested on animals” cosmetic product (PC 5 0.029;
ns). Hypotheses H2b is not supported by our data. Recall that in this research, perceived
behavioural control was envisioned as the level of reading and comprehension of labels and
tags of cosmetic and personal care products (Roe et al., 1999), as well as the interest in
deciphering them (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986; Hsu et al., 2017). Low levels of involvement could
explain this outcome (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986; Chaiken et al., 1989). According to Anderson
IJRDM and Lavallee (2008) and Hansen et al. (2012), consumers’ involvement level in their choice of
49,11 cosmetic and hygiene products is oftentimes low.
Essentially, consumers’ attitude towards the cosmetic product with the claim “not tested
on animals”, subjective norms and consumers’ concerns with animal welfare explain 63.2% of
consumers’ purchase intention of a “not tested on animals” cosmetic product. According to
computed path coefficients, consumers’ attitude towards the cosmetic product with the claim
“not tested on animals” and subjective norms have the strongest impacts. The impact of
1546 consumers’ concerns with animal welfare is significant but seems less important.
For the control group (n 5 224) (Figure 3), the analyses performed indicate that subjective
norms have a strong positive and significant impact on consumers’ attitude towards the
claim-free conventional cosmetic product (PC 5 0.748; t 5 10.969 p < 0.01) and on their
purchase intention of this product (PC 5 0.596; t 5 6.184; p < 0.01). Then, to a lesser extent,
consumers’ attitude towards the cosmetic product without a specific claim has a positive and
significant impact (PC 5 0.289; t 5 2.862; p < 0.01) on their intention to buy it. The model
tested explains 62.9% of consumers’ attitude towards the claim-free conventional cosmetic
product and 62.1% of their purchase intention of this product.

Discussion
The research’s main goal was to explain attitude and behaviour towards cruelty-free
products, compared to conventional products, through the theory of planned behaviour
(Ajzen, 1985), enriched with external variables to the consumer’s psychology such as
credibility and attitude towards the “not tested on animals” claim, both linked to the brand’s
manipulation of the claim, as well as variables internal to the reasoning process, in our case,
concerns with animal welfare and personal appearance.
Firstly, our study illustrates that when consumers disclose a positive perception of
credibility of cosmetics claims in general and specifically the “not tested on animals” one,
their attitude towards the cosmetic product with this claim will increase. This research thus
confirms and extends to cosmetic claims and, most specifically, to those referring to the lack
of animal testing, the founding work of MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) who indicated that
perceived credibility of ads in general positively influenced credibility of a particular
advertising stimulus on a given exposition occasion as well as consumers’ attitude towards
this stimulus. Similarly, it confirms and extends to personal care labelling, and most
specifically to the claim “not tested on animals”, the works of Holbrook (1978) and Choi and
Rifon (2002). These authors highlighted that perceived credibility of a given message has a
direct and significant positive impact on attitude towards this message. Further, our results
establish an alikeness between a claim and a product in the relationship between attitude
towards a stimulus (i.e. an ad) and the positive attitude towards the related brand it creates, as
illustrated by Goldsmith et al. (2000).

Attitude towards H1 Purchase

0.289
the product intention
(R2 = 0.424) (R2 = 0.691)

H3a
0.748 H3b
0.596

Figure 3. Subjective
Control group model norms
 Our results also indicate that when consumers unveil psychosocial internal values for How
animal well-being and personal appearance, it will have a positive impact on their attitude consumers
towards a cosmetic product with a cruelty-free message, and subsequently on their purchase
intention (directly or mediated by attitude.) This research thus quantitatively confirms
react to cruelty-
Sheehan and Lee’s (2014) preliminary conclusions about cruelty-free personal care products free cosmetics
supporting that endorsing animal rights is positively correlated with both attitude and
purchase intention of cruelty-free brands. In essence, consumers have the intention to
purchase “not tested on animals” cosmetics because of concerns pertaining to animal welfare, 1547
as suggested by Hamzaoui-Essoussi and Zahaf (2008). Preoccupations regarding personal
appearance, as suggested by Marcoux (2000) for conventional cosmetics, have only an
indirect impact in our study, mediated by the concept of attitude.
Finally, in addition to substantiating the impact of external (situational) and internal
(individual) variables to the consumer’s psychology, this research also shed light on
consumers’ willingness to consider others’ opinion, measured through Ajzen’s subjective
norms. This study thus enriches previous research as the latter has mainly considered the
influence of subjective norms on behavioural intention and rarely on attitude (Kim and
Chung, 2011; Hansen et al., 2012; Hsu et al., 2017; Lu and Chen, 2017; Photcharoen et al., 2020).
This research also reveals that consumer evaluation of cruelty-free vs. conventional cosmetic
products differs in terms of social and personal values. Thus, it supplements prior studies on
cosmetic products as the difference of consumer attitude formation towards cruelty-free
products compared to conventional cosmetic products has not been examined (Schuitema
and De Groot, 2015).

Theoretical implications
Initially, this research highlights the difference of consumer attitude and buying behaviour
formation when encountering cruelty-free products compared to conventional cosmetics.
While consumer attitude and purchase intention are only based on subjective norms (i.e.
peers’ opinions) for personal care free from logos or credence claims, their constructions are
far more complex as far as cruelty-free products are concerned. It aligns with the literature
that underperforms in explaining attitude and behaviour towards general cosmetics (Lu and
Chen, 2017).
In addition, this work supplements Ajzen’s original model with internal psychological
(individuals’ concerns with animal welfare and personal appearance) and external (general
credibility of cosmetic products claims, credibility of the “not tested on animals” claim and
attitude towards this claim) variables. These variables, as suggested by previous research on
cosmetics (Marcoux, 2000; Hamzaoui-Essoussi and Zahaf, 2008) and their claims (Wansink
et al., 2004; Binninger, 2017), improve the understanding of consumer attitude and purchase
behaviour patterns. Consistent with previous research, our study supports the idea that
certain value systems are explanatory factors of attitude in the cosmetics area (Grunert and
Juhl, 1995; Kim and Chung, 2011; Hansen et al., 2012), and that altruistic and egoistic
considerations are not necessarily at odds. Alongside this system, credibility granted to
cosmetics claims plays a substantial role in attitudinal development (MacKenzie and Lutz,
1989), proving that message manipulation and situational circumstances can indirectly
influence purchase intention and potentially behaviour of cruelty-free personal care. Even
though subjective norms also explain a significant part of attitude and buying intention of
claim-free cosmetics, importance given to the animal cause, positive attitude towards the “not
tested on animals” claim and credibility given to the latest also delineate attitude towards
cruelty-free products, on top of peer opinion. Seeking others’ acceptance reveals a certain
social pressure in the consumption of cruelty-free cosmetic products (Sheehan and Lee, 2014;
Schuitema and De Groot, 2015). Alternatively, our results could suggest that pursuing
IJRDM consumerism promoting animal welfare is also based on feelings of morality as dictated by
€
the social group (ThØgersen and Olander, 2003).
49,11
Lastly, this study points out that behavioural control, or consistency in reading and the
level of understanding labels and claims, has no impact whatsoever on choice of our tested
products, unveiling a lack of consumer knowledge pertaining to the meaning of claims and
graphic labels used by the industry (Hansen et al., 2012). According to the theory of
information economics, we can hypothesize that consumers are imperfectly informed about
1548 properties, claims, labels and ingredients of a cosmetic product (Ford et al., 1990). Since
personal care is a fast-moving consumer good, it seldom reflects high involvement levels from
consumers (Shamsher and Chowdhury, 2012). Consequently, when involvement levels are
low, consumers oftentimes use peripherical signals and heuristics, which cruelty-free claims
have proved to be (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986; Sheehan and Lee, 2014).

Managerial and public policy implications

First, our results point to a strong need for companies’ education duty related to the
significance and transparency of their messages as a consequence of the lack of client
recognition and understanding ability regarding claims and existing communication on
labels. This is all the more preoccupying as certain “conventional” brands are establishing
themselves in the natural and animal well-being market (e.g. by offering vegan formulations)
while still testing their products on laboratory animals in places where law compels it or does
not forbid testing, creating a double standard that becomes difficult to apprehend from the
consumer’s point of view. The use of credence claims leads consumers to encounter hardship
and hazard when judging the veracity and authenticity of messages and to mix different
information pertaining to animal welfare (i.e. vegan (referring to the absence of animal
products) vs cruelty-free (referring to the lack of testing on animals)). However, some brands
and retailers have surpassed the “label only” concept by adopting a branding strategy fully
integrative of their vision and their attachment to animal welfare (e.g. The Body Shop).
Another pertinent strategy, as suggested by previous research, is to collaborate with relevant
stakeholders, such as animal-interest organizations, in order to gain additional trust on the
product in general (Schuitema and De Groot, 2015).
Second, the stronger a consumer believes a brand or retailer is engaged in sustainable
manufacturing or retailing, such as fighting animal testing and promoting animal welfare,
through TV spots or in-store digital displays (Van Giesen and Leenheer, 2019), with or without
underlying proofs and regardless of their interpretation of the claim, the stronger he agrees that
this brand or retailer is safer and more socially responsible (Sheehan and Lee, 2014). In the same
vein, whether retailers pertain to grocery stores or more specialized channels, offering
consumers “responsible” products such as cruelty-free cosmetics and personal care would
permit them to enhance their ethical image (Bezençon and Etemad-Sajadi, 2015) to the most
committed clients in the first place. Subsequently, referencing and putting forward cruelty-free
products on shelfs would enable retailers to attract and create a relationship with these
proactive consumers in order to develop trust, raise their satisfaction levels and retain them
provoking loyalty to all their sales points (Lombart and Louis, 2014; Louis et al., 2019).
Third, in terms of public policies, there exist as many regulations as countries.
Consequently, no universal formula can be applied. To sum up, in the European Union,
animal testing for cosmetics has been banned in 2013 and the use of claims or logos referring
to the absence of thereof has been prohibited in 2019 [6] for remedying the proliferation of
misleading cruelty-free claims. Brands have thus an education responsibility and should
reach for official, independent, third-party certifications and labelling systems (e.g. Leaping
Bunny, PETA, CCF Rabbit) that set a universal standard and combat misleading messages.
The latest solution should also be envisioned by companies marketing in countries that do
not forbid nor require animal testing of cosmetic products, such as the United States or
Canada, as they represent the only truthful engagement and assurance for consumers. How
Brands have a real interest in putting additional efforts in terms of animal well-being given consumers
the power of the “not tested on animals” allegation. Indeed, the terms “cruelty-free” and “not
tested on animals” are so highly motivating that consumers use it as a valuable heuristic,
react to cruelty-
even with evidence that the terms may be meaningless (Sheehan and Lee, 2014). Also, free cosmetics
policymakers in regions where regulation is unclear should at least punish untruthful
communication pertaining to animal testing in cosmetic and personal care products.
1549
Limitations and research avenues
To begin with, only behavioural intention has been scrutinized in this research. The study of
effective behaviour in a retail context or online could lead future research to refine our results,
especially in terms of possible differences between intention and adoption, as observed in the
responsible consumption literature pertaining to consumers’ contradictions, or “green gap”
(ElHaffar et al., 2020).
Then, it would be relevant to repeat the experiment with other subjects to reach an age
mean and level of education that are more representative of the Quebec (Canada) population,
but also in other countries than Canada, with different legislation and regulatory
backgrounds. Larger sub-sample sizes would also allow testing of moderation effects,
regarding sex (Herzog et al., 1991) and age (Spooner et al., 2014). Further studies could also
investigate the respective impacts of the “cruelty-free” and “not tested on animals” claims,
and even graphic labels such as homemade bunny logos or official labelling systems, on the
enriched model of attitude and purchase intention formation proposed in this research.
Ultimately, additional work could also focus on other external variables such as those
linked to the store’s environment (merchandising, price, atmosphere, etc.) or to the
transactional website’s (user experience, price, etc.). This would provide more specific
recommendations for retailers and brands. In the same vein, in terms of social influence, it is
possible that the apprehension of cosmetic products use in a private sphere could relativize
our results. For the purposes of exploring this hypothesis, a group purchase experiment, with
or without the presence of accompanying people, could accurately measure the influence of
subjective norms for cruelty-free cosmetics in different contexts.
Notes
1. Opinion Research Corporation. (2016). Natural Food Labels Survey. Consumer Reports National
Research Centre.
2. The Hartman Group. (2015). Sustainability practices: Animal welfare. Sustainability – Transparency.
3. TNS Opinion and Social. (2015). Attitudes of Europeans toward Animal Welfare. Special
Eurobarometer 442.
4. World Organisation for Animal Health. (2019). Terrestrial Animal Health Code.
5. Nielsen. (2015). Package this: Beauty consumers favour “cruelty free” and “natural” product claims.
6. European Council. (2014). Official Journal of the European Union No L 107(5), 5–9.

References
Ajzen, I. (1985), “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior”, in Kuhl, J. and Beckmann,
J. (Eds), Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 11-39.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Akaichi, F., Glenk, K. and Revoredo-Giha, C. (2019), “Could animal welfare claims and nutritional
information boost the demand for organic meat? Evidence from non-hypothetical experimental
auctions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 207, pp. 961-970.
IJRDM Amos, C., Pentina, I., Hawkins, T.G. and Davis, N. (2014), “‘Natural’ labeling and consumers’ sentimental
pastoral notion”, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 23 Nos 4/5, pp. 268-281.
49,11
Anderson, A.G. and Lavallee, D. (2008), “Applying the theories of reasoned action and planned
behavior to athlete training adherence behavior”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 304-312.
Bezençon, V. and Etemad-Sajadi, R. (2015), “The effect of a sustainable label portfolio on consumer
perception of ethicality and retail patronage”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, Vol. 43 Nos 4/5, pp. 314-328.
1550
Binninger, A.S. (2017), “Perception of naturalness of food packaging and its role in consumer product
evaluation”, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 251-266.
Borkfelt, S., Kondrup, S., R€ocklinsberg, H., Bjørkdahl, K. and Gjerris, M. (2015), “Closer to nature? A
critical discussion of the marketing of ‘ethical’ animal products”, Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 1053-1073.
Carlson, L., Grove, S.J. and Kangun, N. (1993), “A content analysis of environmental advertising
claims: a matrix method approach”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 27-39.
Cash, T.F. and Labarge, A.S. (1996), “Development of the Appearance Schemas Inventory: a new
cognitive body-image assessment”, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Cepeda, G., Nitzl, C. and Rold
an, J.L. (2018), “Mediation analyses in partial least squares structural
equation modeling: guidelines and empirical examples”, in Hengky, L. and Noonan, R. (Eds),
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Basic Concepts, Methodological Issues and
Applications, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 173-195.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A. and Eagly, A.H. (1989), “Heuristic and systematic information processing
within and beyond the persuasion context”, in Uleman, J.S. and Bargh, J.A. (Eds), Unintended
Thought: Limits of Awareness, Intention, and Control, Guilford Press, New York, pp. 212-252.
Choi, S.M. and Rifon, N.J. (2002), “Antecedents and consequences of web advertising credibility: a
study of consumer response to banner ads”, Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 12-24.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrica, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 297-334.
Dahlhausen, J.L., Rungie, C. and Roosen, J. (2018), “Value of labeling credence attributes-common
structures and individual preferences”, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 741-751.
Darke, P.R. and Ritchie, R.J. (2007), “The defensive consumer: advertising deception, defensive
processing, and distrust”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 114-127.
ElHaffar, G., Durif, F. and Dub
e, L. (2020), “Towards closing the attitude-intention-behavior gap in
green consumption: a narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research
directions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 275, p. 122556.
Fernqvist, F. and Ekelund, L. (2014), “Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food-A review”,
Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 32, pp. 340-353.
Fishbein, M. (1963), “An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the
attitude toward that object”, Human Relations, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 233-239.
Ford, G.T., Smith, D.B. and Swasy, J.L. (1990), “Consumer skepticism of advertising claims: testing
hypotheses from economics of information”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 433-441.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fowler, J.G., Reisenwitz, T.H. and Carlson, L. (2015), “Analyzing deceptiveness of cosmetics claims in
fashion ads”, Annual Macromarketing Conference, p. 368.
Goldsmith, R.E., Lafferty, B.A. and Newell, S.J. (2000), “The impact of corporate credibility and
celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 43-54.
Gracia, A. and de-Magistris, T. (2016), “Consumer preferences for food labeling: what ranks first?”, How
Food Control, Vol. 61, pp. 39-46.
consumers
Gracia, A., Loureiro, M.L. and Nayga, R.M. Jr (2011), “Valuing an EU animal welfare label using
experimental auctions”, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 669-677.
react to cruelty-
Grunert, S.C. and Juhl, H.J. (1995), “Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods”,
free cosmetics
Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 39-62.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least 1551
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 2-24.
Hamzaoui-Essoussi, L. and Zahaf, M. (2008), “Decision making process of community organic food
consumers: an exploratory study”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 95-104.
Hansen, T., Risborg, M.S. and Steen, C.D. (2012), “Understanding consumer purchase of free-of cosmetics:
a value-driven TRA approach”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 477-486.
Hastak, M. and Mazis, M.B. (2011), “Deception by implication: a typology of truthful but misleading
advertising and labeling claims”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 157-167.
Heesacker, M., Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1983), “Field dependence and attitude change: source
credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking”, Journal of Personality,
Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 653-666.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Herzog, H.A., Betchart, N.S. and Pittman, R.B. (1991), “Gender, sex role orientation, and attitudes
toward animals”, Anthrozo€os, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 184-191.
Hillhouse, J.J., Turrisi, R. and Kastner, M. (2000), “Modeling tanning salon behavioral tendencies using
appearance motivation, self-monitoring and the theory of planned behavior”, Health Education
Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 405-414.
Holbrook, M.B. (1978), “Beyond attitude structure: toward the informational determinants of attitude”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 545-556.
Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B. and Olsen, S.O. (2006), “Ethical values and motives driving organic food
choice”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour: International Research and Review, Vol. 5 No. 5,
pp. 420-430.
Hsu, C.L., Chang, C.Y. and Yansritakul, C. (2017), “Exploring purchase intention of green skincare
products using the theory of planned behavior: testing the moderating effects of country of
origin and price sensitivity”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 34, pp. 145-152.
J€oreskog, K. (1971), “Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests”, Psychometrica, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 109-133.
Kim, H. and Chung, J.E. (2011), “Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 40-47.
Lancendorfer, K.M., Atkin, J.L. and Reece, B.B. (2008), “Animals in advertising: love dogs? Love the
ad!”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 384-391.
IJRDM Li, M. and Chapman, G.B. (2012), “Why do people like natural? Instrumental and ideational bases for
the naturalness preference”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 12, pp. 2859-2878.
49,11
Liobikien_e, G., Mandravickait_e, J. and Bernatonien_e, J. (2016), “Theory of planned behavior approach
to understand the green purchasing behavior in the EU: a cross-cultural study”, Ecological
Economics, Vol. 125, pp. 38-46.
Lombart, C. and Louis, D. (2012), “Consumer satisfaction and loyalty: two main consequences of
retailer personality”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 644-652.
1552
Lombart, C. and Louis, D. (2014), “A study of the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility and price
image on retailer personality and consumers’ reactions (satisfaction, trust and loyalty to the
retailer)”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 630-642.
Louis, D., Lombart, C. and Durif, F. (2019), “Impact of a retailer’s CSR activities on consumers’
loyalty”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 793-816.
Lu, Y.C. and Chen, K.N. (2017), “Consumer knowledge, brand image, openness to experience and
involvement: a case in cosmetic consumption”, Journal of Cosmetics, Dermatological Sciences
and Applications, Vol. 7, pp. 349-361.
MacKenzie, S.B. and Lutz, R.J. (1989), “An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of
attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 48-65.
Maheswaran, D. and Meyers-Levy, J. (1990), “The influence of message framing and issue
involvement”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 361-367.
Marcoux, D. (2000), “Appearance, cosmetics, and body art in adolescents”, Dermatologic Clinics,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 667-673.
Moussa, S. and Touzani, M. (2008), “The perceived credibility of quality labels: a scale validation with
refinement”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 526-533.
Newburger, A.E. (2009), “Cosmeceuticals: myths and misconceptions”, Clinics in Dermatology, Vol. 27
No. 5, pp. 446-452.
Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M. and Murphy, S.A. (2009), “The nature relatedness scale: linking individuals’
connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior”, Environment and Behavior,
Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 715-740.
Ormandy, E. and Schuppli, C. (2014), “Public attitudes toward animal research: a review”, Animals,
Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 391-408.
Ortega, D.L. and Wolf, C.A. (2018), “Demand for farm animal welfare and producer implications:
results from a field experiment in Michigan”, Food Policy, Vol. 74, pp. 74-81.
Padel, S. and Foster, C. (2005), “Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 107 No. 8, pp. 606-625.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to
Attitude Change, Springer, New York.
Photcharoen, C., Chung, R. and Sann, R. (2020), “Modelling Theory of Planned Behavior on health
concern and health knowledge toward purchase intention on organic products”, International
Business Research, Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 100-116.
Redondo Palomo, R., Valor Mart
ınez, C. and Carrero Bosch, I. (2015), “The influence of social and
environmental labels on purchasing: an information and systematic-heuristic processing
approach”, Innovar, Vol. 25 No. 57, pp. 121-132.
Roe, B., Levy, A.S. and Derby, B.M. (1999), “The impact of health claims on consumer search and
product evaluation outcomes: results from FDA experimental data”, Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 89-105.
Schr€oder, M.J. and McEachern, M.G. (2004), “Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food
purchase decisions: a focus on animal welfare”, International Journal of Consumer Studies,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 168-177.
Schuitema, G. and De Groot, J.I. (2015), “Green consumerism: the influence of product attributes and How
values on purchasing intentions”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-69.
consumers
Shamsher, R. and Chowdhury, R.A. (2012), “Relationship of demographic characteristics with
purchasing decision involvement: a study on FMCG laundry soaps”, Journal of Business and
react to cruelty-
Retail Management Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 78-89. free cosmetics
Sheehan, K.B. and Lee, J. (2014), “What’s cruel about cruelty free: an exploration of consumers, moral
heuristics, and public policy”, Journal of Animal Ethics, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
1553
Shim, S. and Eastlick, M.A. (1998), “The hierarchical influence of personal values on mall shopping
attitute and behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 139-160.
Spooner, J.M., Schuppli, C.A. and Fraser, D. (2014), “Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal
welfare: a qualitative study”, Livestock Science, Vol. 163, pp. 150-158.
Sreedhar, D., Manjula, N., Ajay Pise, S.P. and Ligade, V.S. (2020), “Ban of cosmetic testing on animals:
a brief overview”, International Journal of Current Research and Review, Vol. 12 No. 14, p. 113.
Te Velde, H., Aarts, N. and Van Woerkum, C. (2002), “Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and
consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding”, Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 203-219.
Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modeling”,
Computational Statistics Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205.
€
Thøgersen, J. and Olander, F. (2003), “Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour”, Journal
of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 225-236.
Todd, A.M. (2004), “The aesthetic turn in green marketing: environmental consumer ethics of natural
personal care products”, Ethics and the Environment, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 86-102.
Van Giesen, R. and Leenheer, J. (2019), “Towards more interactive and sustainable food retailing. An
empirical case study of the supermarket of the future”, International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 55-75.
Van Riemsdijk, L., Ingenbleek, P., Van Trijp, H. and Van der Veen, G. (2017), “Marketing animal-
friendly products: addressing the consumer social dilemma with reinforcement positioning
strategies”, Animals, Vol. 7 No. 12, p. 98.
Wang, T., Mukhopadhyay, A. and Patrick, V.M. (2017), “Getting consumers to recycle NOW! when
and why cuteness appeals influence prosocial and sustainable behavior”, Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 269-283.
Wansink, B., Sonka, S.T. and Hasler, C.M. (2004), “Front-label health claims: when less is more”, Food
Policy, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 659-667.
Zander, K. and Hamm, U. (2010), “Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic
food”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 495-503.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.

Corresponding author
Cindy Lombart can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

View publication stats