Cruelty-free consumption behavior: The influence of
advertising appeals and motivation types on
advertisement responses for cruelty-free personal care
products
Lily Meulblok
10770194
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s program Communication Science
Master’s track: Persuasive Communication
Supervisor: Hilde Voorveld
1 February 2019
1
Abstract
The aim of this experimental study was to examine how people respond to different types of advertising appeals for cruelty-free personal care products. Four advertising appeals were researched: an abstract appeal, a descriptive appeal, an injunctive appeal, and a benefit appeal. It was expected that the effectiveness of each of these appeals depended on whether or not participants expressed certain types of motivations or concerns. The result of an experiment (N = 109) showed that the level of concern for animal welfare, self-orientation motivations, and conformity motivations directly affected participants’ responses towards the
advertisements. Results showed that a high level of self-orientation motivations increased participants’ purchase intention, attitude towards the brand, and attitude towards the advertisement. A high level of concern for animal welfare also directly increased purchase intention, and a high level of conformity motivations increased participants’ attitudes towards the brand and advertisements.
Introduction
Living a vegan lifestyle becomes more culturally accepted in Europe, and the number of vegans worldwide is on the rise (Key, Appleby & Rosell, 2006). In the Netherlands, about 70,000 people report to live a vegan lifestyle in 2016, which makes up about 0,4% of the population. While this may not seem like a lot, the amount has actually tripled over the last couple of years (Dagevos et al., 2012). According to Google (2017), searches for vegan skincare products increased by 83% each year between 2011 and 2016. This increase can be explained by the development of socially conscious consumption (Atkinson, 2012; SCP, 2016). This means that consumers are becoming more aware of the impact their lifestyle and purchases could have on the environment (Micheletti & Stolle, 2012). For instance, more people in the Netherlands are buying fair trade or organic products, and recycling waste is also an increasing habit among the Dutch population (Monitor Duurzaam Voedsel, 2016; Eurobarometer, 2014).
According to the Vegan Society, veganism is “a way of living which seeks to exclude,
as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing of any other purpose” (www.vegansociety.com). According to this definition,
committing to living a vegan lifestyle is not only limited to not eating animal products, but it also means avoiding products tested on animals in the clothes you wear and the products you use (Cherry, 2015).
2
Purchasing cruelty free products is not limited to consumers who committed themselves to living a vegan lifestyle though. According to a study performed by the Coalition of Consumer Information on Cosmetics, the majority of consumers prefers to use personal care products that have not been tested on animals over products that are not cruelty free (LeapingBunny.org, 2011). Other reasons people are willing to buy cruelty free products could be because they are interested in preserving animal’s rights, or because they feel like these products are less damaging to the environment and because they believe cruelty free products to be more healthy (Alvaro, 2017; Sheehan & Lee, 2014). Either way, the main motivations for buying cruelty-free products are based on people’s ethical beliefs.
Buying products that are not harmful for animals in production can be seen as a form of ethical consumerism. Ethical consumerism concerns the intentional purchase of products and services that the consumer perceives to be ethically produced (Ethical Consumer, 2007). Ethical consumers are considering environmental issues, animal issues, and ethical issues when deciding which products to buy. The consumption behavior of these ethical consumers is based on their personal beliefs about what is right and what is wrong (Mintel, 1994; Kurland, 1995). This trend has become increasingly prevalent in consumer behavior over the past decades, for instance with people buying less animal produced products like meat, eggs, and milk (Flatters & Willmott, 2009; Hughes, 2012). This trend of living a vegan lifestyle is not limited to avoiding animal products to consume, but it also means not purchasing and using products that have been tested on animals. The beauty industry is selling makeup products and personal care products of which the ingredients could have been tested on animals. A difference between the food industry and beauty industry when it comes to veganism is that this trend is already used as a marketing tool in the food industry, for example in campaigns promoting meat substitutions. In the beauty industry however, not much attention has yet been paid to the effects of emphasizing this cruelty-free aspect in advertisements for personal care products, while this could influence people’s positive purchasing behavior and could serve as an indication of the company’s ethical morals.
One important way to stimulate ethical consumerism is through advertising, in which information about the cruelty-free aspect of a personal care product could be presented in various ways via advertising appeals. Appeals that have been known to increase purchasing behavior when it comes to sustainable consumption behavior include appeals that refer to social norms that are known to influence people’s behavior, and appeals that refer to certain internal or external benefits for either the consumers themselves or others (Simpson & White, 2013; Simpson & Peloza, 2009). In the vegan food industry, the cruelty-free aspect of the
3
products are often indicated using logos or trademarks, which could be seen as a form of an abstract advertising appeal as people may not fully understand what these logos mean
(Sheehan & Lee, 2014). This research aims to examine whether these appeals are effective in increasing cruelty-free buying behavior. This could be useful for companies who are
struggling to sell their cruelty-free products because people are not informed enough on the subject.
An important factor to consider when investigating consumer responses toward these different advertising appeals is the motivation behind people’s intention to buy these types of products. Depending on people’s motivations for buying cruelty-free products, the various advertising appeals could have different effects. People could buy these products for altruistic reasons, because it is better for the animals. People could also buy them because they want to belong to the specific group of people that buys these types of products, or because they want to be perceived as someone who cares about this ethical issue. The aim of this research is to find out how these underlying motivations affects people’s responses to advertisements for cruelty-free personal care products containing various advertising appeals. The results of this research could be helpful for companies who already produce cruelty-free products or for companies who want to start selling them. According to previous research and the latest veganism trend, there is definitely a market for cruelty-free products, however it is not yet clear how these products could best be marketed towards the consumer. This research aims to provide some insights into this matter.
Theoretical background
Ethical consumerism
Over the last couple of decades ethical consumerism has emerged from green consumerism. Green consumerism occurs when consumers hold certain beliefs and values, which motivate them to buy specific products while keeping a greater purpose in mind (Hendarwan, 2002). Buying an electrically powered vehicle for example is an execution of green consumerism, as this causes less damage to the environment. Ethical consumerism also occurs when consumers hold certain beliefs, but these beliefs always include an ethical judgment. Ethical
consumerism influences the decision-making process (Shaw & Shiu, 2002). Ethical consumers are especially concerned about the “people” element of consumerism, and they express concern on various social issues such as child labor, animal welfare, and employee circumstances (Strong, 1996; Shaw & Clarke, 1999; Harrison et al., 2005). The key aspect of
4
ethical consumerism is that the main benefit of the product lies outside of the consumers themselves. Rather than benefitting from the purchase as a consumer, the main beneficiary is the society as a whole (Shaw et al., 2005). In the case of cruelty-free personal care products, the main beneficiaries are the animals that otherwise would have been harmed through testing of the ingredients during the production of the products.
Ethical consumerism can be executed in multiple ways and can be based on various intentions. People can for instance boycott certain types of products or brands because they do not agree with the company’s vision. The opposite of boycotting is buycotting, which could also be considered ethical consumerism. Buycotting means that consumers specifically buy certain products because they want to support the company behind it as they agree with the company’s philosophy and way of producing (Jingjing et al., 2008). Consumers could also rely on labels and logos that indicate ethical production to execute ethical consumerism, as these labels influence their decision-making process, which is known as positive buying. This is the most common form of ethical consumerism. The last and perhaps most extreme form of ethical consumerism is anti-consumerism, when people adopt a minimalistic lifestyle and try to buy as little products as possible, or to mainly use recycled products. (Jingjing et al., 2008; Sheehan & Lee, 2014).
Buying cruelty-free personal care products is a combination of positive buying and boycotting. People could base their decision to buy a certain product on the fact that the product or the advertisement for the product contains information in forms of a label showing that the product is cruelty-free, which is an example of positive buying. Consumers could also buy products from a certain company because they are aware of the company’s policy to not harm animals while making the products, which is a form of buycotting. This type of
purchasing behavior depends on labels that indicate certain sustainable aspects of the product. However, a majority of consumers does not completely understand the term cruelty-free and the labels that could be used to indicate this aspect, which could explain the gap between people’s intention to buy cruelty-free products and the actual buying behavior (Sheehan & Lee, 2014).
Buying cruelty-free personal care products could be seen as a form of ethical consumerism, as the main beneficiaries of this buying behavior are not the consumers
themselves, but the animals that otherwise would have been harmed during the production of the products. Mice, rats, and rabbits could be used to test certain ingredients on, to make sure that the end product is not damaging to human beings. The conditions and treatment of these animals is more often than not unethical, and in most cases even unnecessary (Lu et al.,
5
2013). Consumers who do not want to support companies that use animal testing could make the conscious decision of only buying personal care products that are cruelty-free. Other consumers might prefer cruelty-free personal care products over products that are tested on animals, when they have the option to choose. These consumers could benefit from logos and information on packaging that indicate the cruelty-free aspect of the products, to further promote the positive buying of cruelty-free products. This information could be presented in advertisement using various advertising appeals, which will be discussed below.
Abstract advertising appeal
Indicating that a product has not been tested on animals by using a logo could be seen as a form of an abstract advertising appeal. In spite of the fact that a significant amount of consumers claim that they prefer cruelty-free products over products that are tested on animals, there is a significant gap between consumers’ intention to buy ethically produces products and their actual purchase behavior (Auger & Devinney, 2007; Carrington et al., 2010). For cruelty-free personal care products, this could be explained by the fact that
consumers are not aware of the labels and logos that are used to communicate that companies behind the product do not use animal testing, or that they do not understand what these labels mean (Sheehan & Lee, 2014). Using a logo or a label to convey a marketing message can therefore be seen as an abstract advertising appeal. Like fair trade labels, cruelty-free labels serve as a moral heuristic cue to activate consumer’s positive buying behavior. According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), people can be persuaded via two routes. The central route consists of careful consideration of the arguments, while the
peripheral route relies on cues that do not specifically concern the message of the argument. The audience could then for example be persuaded by the use of labels on packaging. However, these moral heuristic cues could also be misinterpreted and misunderstood by consumers. For example, the word and the color green are often used in marketing messages to position products as environmentally friendly, to persuade consumers into buying the product, while in reality the products are not as much friendly to the environment as they perceive to be (Sheehan, 2011). Research shows that consumers often do not fully understand what the term cruelty-free means, and therefore neither understand the label that depicts this aspect of the product. The term cruelty-free can indicate multiple ideas of how animals are treated by a company. It could point to the fact that the product has not been tested on animals, but it could also mean that the welfare of animals while producing the product is guaranteed. There are no legal guidelines as to when the term cruelty-free can be placed in a
6
marketing message or on product packaging (Clarren, 2006). Because of this ambiguity, we argue that using a cruelty-free label in a marketing message is an example of an abstract advertising appeal.
An abstract advertising appeal is using vague language to describe a products’
features. In the case of cruelty-free labels, it is not only the term cruelty-free that is vague, as consumers do not understand what it means. It is also the depicted label itself that could be perceived as vague as consumers do not fully understand what the label stands for (Sheehan & Lee, 2014). A cruelty-free label often includes the term “cruelty-free” or the term “vegan”, combined with an animation of a bunny (MSPCA, 2011; Winders, 2006). Research shows that consumers are better able to understand the term and label of cruelty-free when they are provided with more information that specifies what the term and label mean (Sheehan & Lee, 2014).
Concrete advertising appeals
Providing more information in marketing messages could be seen as a concrete advertising appeal (Yang et al. 2015). Consumers are then more likely to process the information via the central route according to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Because there is more written information in the advertising appeal than just a cruelty-free label, consumers will process this information more thoroughly.
When using a concrete advertising appeal, the key selling point of the product is described more specifically. In the case of cruelty-free products, this means including written information that explicitly states that the ingredients used in creating the product were not tested on animals, that no animals were harmed while creating the product, and that the company as a whole does not use animal testing for any of their products. Previous research has shown that using concrete advertising appeals generates more green purchase behavior than using abstract advertising appeals (Yang et al., 2015). However, concrete advertising appeals could be portrayed in marketing messages in various ways. Three concrete ways to portray marketing messages will be discussed in more detail below.
Descriptive advertising appeals
An effective way of encouraging sustainable consumption behavior is to point to prevailing social norms (Cialdini et al., 1990; Fisher & Ackerman, 1987; Schults et al., 2007). Buying cruelty-free products could be comparable to sustainable consumption behavior because both are forms of ethical consumerism in which the consumers’ purchasing behavior is based on
7
their ethical beliefs (Shaw & Shiu, 2002). One way to emphasize social norms in marketing messages to include descriptive norms that describe the behavior of others that consumers can relate to. When people are made aware a certain social norm exist, they will more likely behave according to that norm in order to be part of the group, because people naturally want to be a part of groups and not feel left out. Descriptive norms provide social information that people base their own behavior on. By informing people with the notion that a lot of other are doing something, people will infer that that behavior is probably a wise thing to do, which encourages norm-congruent behavior (Cialdini, 2007). Using descriptive norms in advertising appeals has been successful in encouraging sustainable consumption behavior, which gives reason to believe this will also be effective when promoting cruelty-free products, as this is also a form of ethical consumerism.
Injunctive advertising appeals
Another way to emphasize social norms in marketing messages is to highlight injunctive social norms. This type of social norms informs the consumer about the perception of what other people believe to be appropriate behavior, which has been proven to be a successful way to encourage sustainable consumption behavior as well (Cialdini et al., 1990; Schultz et al., 2007). In the case of advertising for cruelty-free products, this means emphasizing the fact that other people in society want the consumer to choose for cruelty-free options. According to research, people are influential to take other people’s evaluations of their own actions into account when making decisions regarding sustainable consumption behavior, especially because this concerns behavior based on morals and ethical beliefs (White & Simpson, 2013; Larimer & Neigbors, 2003). Because purchasing cruelty-free products is also a behavior based on ethical beliefs, using injunctive norms in a marketing message will be used as another advertising appeal in this research.
Benefit advertising appeals
A marketing message used to promote a product that falls under the notion of ethical
consumerism could in some ways be similar to a marketing message used to convince people to donate to charities. In both cases, the ultimate beneficiary of the action is not the consumer himself, but there is an external beneficiary. In order to encourage people to provide support to charitable organizations, persuasive messages often include a benefit appeal (White & Peloza, 2009). Such an appeal can emphasize a benefit towards the recipients themselves in the form of a self-benefit appeal, but it can also emphasize a benefit outside of the immediate
8
recipients in the form of an other-benefit appeal. A self-benefit appeal for example emphasizes the feeling one gets when doing a selfless good deed. An other-benefit
emphasizes the benefit that an action has on something or someone outside of the recipient. In the case of buying cruelty-free personal care products, there are clear external beneficiaries that benefit from this purchase: the animals that would have otherwise been harmed by testing the products on them. Because of these external beneficiaries, an other-benefit appeal will be used as one of the advertising appeals in this experimental research. This means information will be presented in a way that emphasizes the benefit of the action of buying cruelty-free products itself. The consumer will then be persuaded to buy cruelty-free personal care products because it is better for the animals, not because it is better for themselves. People tend to hold affective feelings towards animals and they tend to be concerned about their wellbeing, which could mean that a benefit appeal could affect their feelings towards cruelty-free personal care products (Eurobarometer, 2015; Serpell, 2004).
By comparing the effects that these different types of advertising appeals could have in marketing messages promoting cruelty-free personal care products, this research hopes to formulate an answer to the following research question:
RQ1: How do different types of advertising appeals relate to one another when used in
advertisements promoting cruelty-free personal care products?
The role of motivations in ethical consumerism
Previous research states that the primary reason for people to buy ethically produced products is because of their own personal beliefs and motivations (McGoldrick & Freestone, 2008; Mainieri et al.,1997). Research indicates that consumers can exhibit various types of motivations for purchasing ethically produced products: social ethical motivations, and personal ethical motivations (Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008). Social ethical motivations occur when one wants to behave a certain type of way because you believe your actions reflect you in a positive manner towards other people. Personal ethical motivations are motives that are based on one’s own personal values regarding ethical issues. These types of motivations can be further distinguished into more specific motivation types. In this
experimental research conformity motivations, orientation motivations, and
self-actualization motivations will be further examined, because these motivation types appear to be the most common when it comes to behavior based on ethical beliefs (Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008). Research shows that of these three motivation classes, the main
9
motivation for buying ethical products is self-actualization, especially because of the issue of animal welfare (Karsaklian & Fee, 2014).
Conformity motivations
Conformity motivations occur when the consumer behaves a certain way because they want to belong to a certain group (Karsaklian & Fee, 2014). This means that consumers could buy ethically produced products because their friends or family do the same, therefore this type of motivation falls under social ethical motivations (Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008). We expect people who buy cruelty-free personal care products because of this type of motivation to be more influenced by descriptive advertising appeals than other types of advertising appeals, as this appeal describes the social norm of a group to which people with conformity motivations would like to belong to.
We are mostly interested in what type of advertising appeals and motivation types have an effect of consumers’ purchase intention, as this is the main predictor for buying behavior when it comes to ethically produced products (Yeon Kim & Chung, 2011).
However, to gain more extensive insight into the effects of advertising appeals when it comes to cruelty-free personal care products, we are also interested in the effects on participants’ attitudes towards the brand, and towards the advertisement, as these could also influence their buying behavior (Yeon Kim & Chung, 2011). This leads to the next hypothesis:
H1: People with high conformity motivations will experience a) more positive purchase
intention, b) more positive brand attitude, and c) more positive advertisement attitude when presented with a descriptive advertising appeal than people with low conformity motivations.
Self-orientation motivations
Self-orientation motivations are used when someone takes into account how they want to be perceived by other people (Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008). This means that the consumer buys ethically produced products because they want to come across as a person who cares about for example environmental issues to other people in their environment, which makes this type of motivation a social ethical motivation. When deciding to buy cruelty-free
products, a consumer who has self-orientation motives takes into account how they want to be perceived by other members of society. If consumers want to be perceived as someone who cares about the wellbeing of animals, their intention to buy cruelty-free personal care products should be higher when this injunctive norm is emphasized in the marketing message, because
10
such a message informs consumers that other people would like them to buy certain products. Our second hypothesis is therefore:
H2: People with high self-orientation motivations will experience a) more positive
purchase intention, b) more positive brand attitude, and c) more positive advertisement attitude when presented with an injunctive advertising appeal than people with low self-orientation motivations
Self-actualization motivations
Self-actualization motivations occur when you buy ethically produced products for selfless reasons, without taking your personal and social environment into consideration. People then buy ethically produced products for altruistic reasons, but this action could still bring self-fulfillment to the consumer (Goldstein, 1995). This type of motivation could therefore be considered a personal ethical motivation. Consumers that express a high level of self-actualization motivations when buying cruelty-free products should then have a higher purchase intention than consumers with a low level of self-actualization motivations when they are presented with a benefit appeal, because this type of appeal emphasizes the altruistic feature of buying the cruelty-free product. Our third line of hypotheses is then:
H3: People with high self-actualization motivations will experience a) more positive
purchase intention, b) more positive brand attitude, and c) more positive advertisement attitude when presented with a benefit advertising appeal than people with low self-actualization motivations
Concern with animal wellbeing
As previously mentioned, the main benefit cruelty-free personal care products possess is the fact that no animals have been harmed in the making of the products. As with all product-benefits, this may not be of equal importance to everyone who buys personal care products. Maybe some people like the idea of products being previously tested on animals as this guarantees that the product is safe to use. Previous research has pointed out that the perceived importance of the issue at hand influences the effects of advertising appeals, because people respond more affirmatively to direct requests when it involves an issue that is of high
importance to them than when it involves an issue that is of low importance to them (Kronrod et al., 2012). Other research shows that the level of environmental concern influences
consumers’ purchase behavior, meaning that people who have higher environmental
11
about the environment as much (Mainieri et al., 1997). Cruelty-free purchasing behavior is a form of ethical consumerism, as it includes an ethical judgment to which people will not respond the same way. Because this research aims to examine whether issue importance is also of influence when it comes to cruelty-free products, the overall level of concern with animal wellbeing will be used as an additional variable in this research. The overall concern about animal welfare is a personal value that holds different levels of importance to different people, which makes it a personal ethical motivation. We expect that consumers with overall higher levels of concern about animal welfare will have higher purchase intentions to buy cruelty-free personal care products than consumers with low level of concern, when shown an abstract message appeal in the form of a label indicating that the product is cruelty free. People who care about the welfare of animals are more likely to already be aware of the existence of cruelty-free products, and will more likely understand what it means. Therefore they will more likely be influenced by the presence of this type of abstract advertising appeal than people who are less concerned about the welfare of animals. Our final hypothesis is: H4: People with high concern about animal welfare will experience a) more positive
purchase intention, b) more positive brand attitude, and c) more positive advertisement attitude when presented with an abstract advertising appeal than people with low concern about animal welfare
Method
Participants & design
158 people participated in this study by filling out the online questionnaire. All of the participants gave their consent to participate in the study. The consent form guaranteed their anonymity and the safety of their data. The participants filled out an online experiment using Qualtrics that was distributed via Facebook and email. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions in which they were shown an advertisement for a cruelty-free body wash. A cruelty-cruelty-free body wash was chosen as this was claimed to be a sustained riser by volume of searches according to Google (2017), meaning that there is a market for this type of product so the advertisements used in this experiment would be as realistic as possible. This advertisement was shown to participants for at least one minute before they were able to continue to the next page in order to ensure attentive reading of the written text as much as possible. After viewing one of the four advertisements, participants filled out a questionnaire in which various variables were measured which will be discussed in more detail below. Participants were also presented with a manipulation check, after which they
12
were informed about the aim of this research and were given the option to pull out of the experiment. Lastly, they were thanked for their participation and informed that if they had any questions or reservations, they could contact the researcher.
45 of the participants were excluded because they did not finish the questionnaire. Two participants reported that Dutch was not their native language. In order to make sure that all the participants had the same level of understanding of the advertisements, these two participants were excluded from the experiment. Another two participants reported that they were already familiar with the brand so to avoid any bias in their purchase intention these participants were excluded from participating. This resulted in a total of 109 participants used for analyses (78% female, Mage = 40.34, SDage = 15.69).
One independent variable with four values was used to manipulate the advertising appeals, so a one-factorial between-subjects design was used. For each value of the variable, an advertisement for a cruelty-free body wash was constructed and randomly shown to the participants in the first phase of the experiment. The advertisements contained a picture of a body wash against a neutral white background in order to minimize factors that could
influence participants’ thoughts or attitudes. An unknown brand was used for the body wash, to ensure that participants did not already have preexisting attitudes towards the brand which could influence their purchase intention. The brand Mineral Skin Cosmetics was chosen because it is not sold in stores in the Netherlands, which made it likely that participants were not familiar with the brand.
Design of independent variables
Depending on the experimental condition, the advertisement contained either a label that indicated the cruelty-free aspect of the product, or some text containing information about this aspect. All other aspects of the advertisements were kept the same. The advertisements
contained an image of a bath and shower gel, the logo of the brand and the logo of the brand’s
Mineral Care Dead Sea Experience collection, under which the shower gel falls. The
advertisements all contained the same text in which the participants were informed about the new bath and shower gel, which was added to the advertisement to make it look as real as possible. The text contained information on the shower gel, stating that it is enriched with minerals from the Dead Sea. The next sentence stated that the shower gel prevents
dehydration of the skin and has a gentle cleanse. The last part of the text let the participant know that this product was ‘available now’. This part of the advertisement was added to make the advertisement look as real as possible.
13
For the abstract advertising appeal, the logo “Leaping Bunny” by the organization Coalition of Consumer Information on Cosmetics was placed next to the image of the shower gel. This logo was chosen as this is the only official internationally recognized logo that depicts that a product has not been tested on animals and is therefore cruelty-free. This advertisement also contained the information described above about the shower gel itself. This was done to ensure that the advertisement looked as real as possible to the participants (see Appendix A).
For the benefit advertising appeal, the advertisement contained the same image of the cruelty-free body wash by the same unknown brand. However, for this experimental condition the image was accompanied by a text urging the participant to buy the body wash, explaining how animals would benefit from this action because the product had not been tested on animals. This text was based on previous research by White & Peloza (2009) in which the effects of an “other-benefit appeal” was compared to a “self-benefit appeal”. Since for our imaginary product, the main beneficiaries are animals, not the people who use the body wash. We therefore used an other-benefit appeal that emphasized the fact that by buying this
product, participants would be saving animals from harm, which is beneficial to the animals (see Appendix B).
For the descriptive advertising appeal, the image of the body wash was accompanied by a text explaining that other people buy this particular body wash because it had not been texted on animals, and that the participant should thus buy this body wash as well. This text was based on previous research by White & Simpson (2013) in which descriptive and injunctive advertising appeals are compared for sustainable consumer behaviors. In line with their descriptive appeal, the appeal used in this research contained information about the norm regarding animal testing, and about the descriptive norm regarding buying cruelty-free
products. The text described the overall norm regarding animal testing by pointing out that a lot of people do not agree with animal testing, making that the norm. The descriptive norm regarding buying cruelty-free products was made clear by stating that a lot of people in the Netherlands already buy cruelty-free products. The fact that these people live in the
Netherlands was specifically mentioned to create a sense of community to which participants could feel like whey would like to belong to. Participants were lastly encouraged to join these people and also buy cruelty-free products (see Appendix C).
The text for the injunctive advertising appeal was based on the appeal used by White & Simpson (2013) and references the same overall norm as the descriptive advertising appeal about how a lot of people in the Netherlands do not agree with animal testing. The text also
14
refers to the injunctive norm that other people who do not agree with animal testing want the participant to buy cruelty-free products (see Appendix D).
The texts used in the fake advertisements were written in Dutch as this was the native language for most of the participants who participated in the study. This was done to ensure participants’ understanding of the used advertising appeals and the questions asked in the following questionnaire.
Measurement of dependent variables
Purchase intention was measured using three items. One item measured participants’ interest in buying the product, to which participants could answer on a seven-point semantic
differential scale ranging from highly uninterested to highly interested. Another item measured the probability that participants would buy the product, measured with a seven-point semantic differential scale ranging from very unlikely to very likely. The last item asked if the participants would buy the body wash in a store, to which participants could reply on a seven-point semantic differential scale ranging from very unlikely to very likely. These items were found to be amongst the most reliable to measure purchase intention according to research by Spears & Singh (2004). The combination of these items into another variable represented participants’ intention to purchase the body wash (α = .91).
Participants’ attitude towards the brand was measured using three seven-point semantic differential scales:, poor quality/high quality, negative/positive and
unpleasant/pleasant (Bruner, 2009; Boerman et al., 2014). The mean score of these items was used as a measurement of brand attitude (α = .95).
Attitude towards the advertisement was measured using three seven-point semantic differential scales on low quality/high quality, unpleasant/pleasant and negative/positive (Bruner, 2009; Boerman et al., 2014). The mean score of these items was used as a measurement of attitude towards the advertisement (α = .91).
Measurement of additional variables
Level of concern with animal welfare was measured using five items. A brief version of the original Animal Attitude Scale (AAS) was used, consisting of five items with high reliability values. This brief version was created to measure people’s attitude towards the welfare of animals for smaller research purposes (Herzog et al., 1991; Herzog et al., 2015). The five items were translated in Dutch for the purpose of this research. Participants were asked to rate their agreement to these statements on a five-point scale ranging from extremely
15
disagree/extremely agree. These statements asked about participants’ view towards for example the slaughtering of whales, and the hunting on wild animals just for sport. The five items combined measured participants’ overall concern for animal welfare (α = .62)
Participants’ self-actualization motivation was measured using three items from a short index of measuring self-actualization, for which multiple indices were tested to create a shorter index containing the most reliable items (Jones & Crandall, 1986). The three items were chosen because they loaded highly on the factor autonomy or self-direction, which was the most applicable factor for this research. Items measured participants desire to do what others expect of them, their desire to be themselves, and their feeling of responsibility to help others. Agreement to these statements was measured using a five-point scale ranging from highly agree to highly disagree. The three items combined measured the self-actualization motivation (α = .57).
Conformity motivations were measured by using three items from a model developed by Cooper (1994) in which conformity motivations for adolescent drinking were examined. The three most applicable items for purchasing behavior were adjusted to use for this research. These items measured participants need to buy the same products as their friends, their desire to belong to a group, and their behavior of following the latest trends. Participants could agree to these statements on a five-point scale ranging from highly agree to highly disagree. The combination of the three items was used to measure participants’ conformity motivations (α = .74).
Self-orientation motivations were measured by adjusting three items used in a study that researched the motivations of consumers for buying ethically produced products
(Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008). These items were chosen because they centered around the environment of the participant, which could influence their self-orientation motives. The items centered around how much participants take their surroundings into account when buying products and how important it is to participants that their environment has a good image of them. These items were measured using a five-point scale ranging from highly agree to highly disagree. The combination of these items measured participants’ self-orientation motivations (α = .67).
Measurement of control variables
After viewing the advertisement containing one of the four advertising appeals, participants were asked to answer a few general questions regarding their age, level of education, gender, native language, and country of origin. This information could later be used as covariates
16
when measuring other dependent variables. Participants were asked about their eating pattern as this could influence their beliefs about cruelty-free products (1 = omnivore, 2 = vegetarian
(no meat and no fish), 3 = pescetarian (fish but no meat), 4 = vegan (no fish, no meat, no dairy), 5 = flexitarian (consciously eating less meat and fish) (Cherry, 2015). The largest
groups of the participants reported to be omnivores (47,7%) or to consciously consume less meat or fish (41,3%). Participants were also asked if they currently owned any pets (1 = yes, 2 = no), to which 39,4% responded affirmatively. Another question asked whether participants currently purposely avoided products that have been tested on animals (1 = always, 2 = as
much as possible, 3 = sometimes, 4 = almost never, 5 = never). A large part of the participants
reported to avoid these types of products as much as possible (33,9%) while others reported to avoid these products sometimes (28,4%). They were also asked whether or not they would like to know if a product has been tested on animals prior to purchasing it (1 = definitely not, 2 = definitely yes), to which 69,7% responded that they would definitely like to know. Lastly the participants were asked about their highest education level, ranging from elementary school to a PhD program. More than 90% of the participants had completed an education after high school.
Manipulation checks
After viewing the advertisement and answering the questionnaire, participants completed a manipulation check for the used advertising appeals. For the benefit, descriptive, and
injunctive appeals, participants were asked to choose the statement that was most applicable to the advertisement that was shown to them in the beginning of the experiment. Participants could choose between four options. The options contained a sentence that asked the
participants to consider the benefit of saving animals from harm (the benefit appeal), to consider what other people would want the participant to do (the injunctive appeal), to consider what other would do (the descriptive appeal), or a sentence stating that the advertisement contained a logo (the abstract appeal). These manipulation checks were
developed in line with a study by White & Simpson (2013) in which the effect of descriptive, injunctive, and benefit appeals on people’s sustainable behavior was measured.
If participants reported that they had seen an advertisement that contained a logo, a next question appeared in which they had the option between two logos to choose which one of those was shown in the advertisement. This was done to ensure that participants had noticed the cruelty-free logo. After this question, a final question appeared, asking
17
that the product was tested on animals, that the product was not tested on animals, that the product was safe to use on animals, or they could write down their own answer.
Results
Manipulation checks
The goal of the manipulation checks for this experimental research was to make sure that participants were exposed to the advertisements long enough in order for them to distinguish between written advertisement appeals and an appeal containing a logo, because this increases the chance that the outcomes of this research could be attributed to the exposure to the
advertisement appeals. For the purpose of this research, it did not matter if participants successfully distinguished the less relevant written information in the advertisements, or to what kind of logo they were exposed. What mattered was that the participants were aware that they were exposed to a certain type of advertisement containing either a logo or a written text, as this increases the chance that they attentively viewed the advertisements.
Manipulation was considered successful if a participant who had not been shown the abstract advertising appeal during the experiment chose one of the first three options
containing information from either the benefit, descriptive, or injunctive advertising appeal. 96% of participants who were shown the benefit, descriptive, or injunctive advertising appeal successfully completed the manipulation check. Manipulation was also considered successful if participants who were shown the abstract advertising appeal chose the last option of the advertisement containing a logo. 73% of the participants who were shown the abstract advertising appeal successfully completed the manipulation check.
Randomization
A number of control variables were measured to make sure that any of the effects found could not be caused by differences in the experimental groups. ANOVA and chi-square analyses showed there were no differences between the experimental groups regarding gender, χ² (3) = 5.795, p = 0.122; age, F(3, 108) = 0.115, p = 0.951; eating habits, χ² (12) = 10.442, p = 0.577; owned pets, χ² (3) = 1.735, p = 0.629; avoiding animal tested products, χ² (12) = 12.953, p = 0.373; would like to have knowledge of animal testing before buying the product, F(3, 108) = 0.431, p = 0.731 and level of education, χ² (15) = 9.162, p = 0.869. Therefore, differences between the experimental condition could not have been caused by either one of these variable and randomization was successful.
18
The influence of advertising appeals, motivation types, and level of concern on purchase intention
In order to examine the effects of the advertising appeals, motivation types, and level of concern about animal welfare on participants’ purchase intention, various two-way ANOVA’s have been conducted.
The moderating effect of level of concern about animal welfare on purchase intention
To examine the main effect of advertising appeals on participants’ purchase intention, and the moderating effect of overall level of concern about animal welfare on this relationship, a two-way ANOVA was conducted. Concern about animal welfare and advertisement appeal were used as independent variables, purchase intention as dependent variable. No significant main effect of advertising appeal on purchase intention was found, F(3, 101) = .46, p = .71, η2 = .014. A marginal significant main effect was found of level of concern on participants’
purchase intention, F(1, 101) = 3.74, p = .056, η2 = .036. This means that participants who had a high level of overall concern for the wellbeing of animals reported a somewhat higher purchase intention (M = 3.87, SD = 1.34) for buying cruelty-free body wash than participants with low levels of concern (M = 3.28, SD = 1.55), regardless of which advertisement appeal they had viewed. This partially supports H4 with regards to purchase intention. No interaction
effects between advertisement appeal and level of concern on purchase intention were observed, F(3, 101) = 1.17, p = .324, η2 = .034.
The moderating effect of level of self-orientation motivations on purchase intention
To examine the moderating effect of participants’ level of self-orientation motivations on the relationship between advertisement appeal and purchase intention, a two-way ANOVA was conducted with self-orientation motivation and ad appeal as the independent variables, and purchase intention as the dependent variable. Again, no significant main effect of advertising appeals was found, F(3, 101) = .73, p = .538, η2 = .021. Results did show a marginal
significant main effect of self-orientation motivation on purchase intention, F(1, 101) = 3.12,
p = .081, η2 = .030, which means participants with high self-orientation motivations reported higher purchase intention (M = 3.79, SD = 1.54) than participants with low self-orientation motivations (M = 3.26, SD = 1.40). This means H2 can be partially supported with regards to
purchase intention. No interaction effect of self-orientation motivations on the relationship between advertising appeals and purchase intention was found, F(3, 101) = .30, p = .825, η2 = .009.
19
The moderating effect of level of conformity motivations on purchase intention
For examining the moderating effect of participants’ level of conformity motivations on the relationship between advertisement appeal and purchase intention, a two-way ANOVA was conducted with conformity motivation and advertisement appeal as the independent variables, and purchase intention as the dependent variable. Again, there was no significant main effect of ad appeals, F(3, 101) = .76, p = .518, η2 = .022. A marginal significant main effect between conformity motivation and purchase intention was found, F(1, 101) = 2.90, p = .092, η2 = .028, which means that participants who had a high level of conformity motivations also reported a somewhat higher purchase intention (M = 3.72, SD = 1.45) than participants with low level of conformity motivations (M = 3.29, SD = 1.52). This means H1 can be partially
supported with regards to purchase intention. No interaction effect between conformity motivation and advertising appeal on purchase intention was found, F(3, 101) = 1.35, p = .261, η2 = .039.
The moderating effect of level of self-actualization motivations on purchase intention
For examining the moderating effect of participants’ level of self-actualization motivations on the relationship between advertisement appeal and purchase intention, a two-way ANOVA was conducted with self-actualization motivation and advertisement appeal as the independent variables, and purchase intention as the dependent variable. There was no significant main effect of advertising appeal, F(3, 101) = .71, p = .550, η2 = .021. No significant main effect of self-actualization motivations on purchase intention was found either, F(1, 101) = .06, p = .816, η2 = .001, nor an interaction effect between self-actualization motivations and
advertising appeal, F(3, 101) = .16, p = .95, η2 = .004. This means H3 must be rejected with
regards to purchase intention.
The influence of advertising appeals, motivation types, and level of concern on brand attitude
In order to examine the relationship between advertising appeals and participants’ brand attitude, including moderating effects of motivation types and level of concern about animal welfare, a series of two-way ANOVA’s were conducted.
The moderating effect of concern about animal welfare on brand attitude
To examine the relationship between advertising appeals and brand attitude and the
20
ANOVA was conducted. Independent variables were advertising appeal and level of concern about animal welfare. Brand attitude was used as the dependent variable. No main effects of advertising appeal, F(3, 101) = .21, p = .890, η2 = .006, and level of concern about animal welfare, F(1, 101) = 1.94, p = .167, η2 = .019, were found on participants’ brand attitude. No interaction effect between the two independent variables was found either, F(3, 101) = .52, p = .669, η2 = .015. This leads to the rejection of H4 with regards to brand attitude.
The moderating effect of level of self-orientation motivations on brand attitude
A two-way ANOVA was conducted with advertising appeal and level of self-orientation motivations as the independent variables, and brand attitude as the dependent variable. Again, no significant main effect of advertising appeal was found, F(3, 101) = .32, p = .814, η2 = .009. A significant main effect was found of level of self-orientation motivation on brand attitude, F(1, 101) = 9.76, p = .002, η2 = .088. Participants with high self-orientation
motivations reported higher brand attitude (M = 4.77, SD = 1.23) than participants with low orientation motivations (M = 4.17, SD = .70). There was no interaction effect of self-orientation motivations on the relationship between advertising appeal and brand attitude, F(3, 101) = .83, p = .485, η2 = .024. This means H2 can be partially supported with regards to
brand attitude.
The moderating effect of level of conformity motivations on brand attitude
Another two-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the moderating effect of level of conformity motivations on the relationship between advertising appeals and brand attitude. There was no significant main effect of ad appeals, F(3, 101) = .06, p = .979, η2 = .002. A significant main effect was found of level of conformity motivations on brand attitude, F(1, 101) = 4.38, p = .039, η2 = .042, meaning that participants who had high levels of conformity motivations reported higher attitudes toward the brand (M = 4.67, SD = 1.03) than
participants with low levels of conformity motivations (M = 4.23, SD = .99). However, no interaction effect between the variables was found, F(3, 101) = 1.05, p = .375, η2 = .030, which is why H1 can only be partially supported with regards to brand attitude.
The moderating effect of level of self-actualization motivations on brand attitude
Lastly for the dependent variable brand attitude, the moderating effect of the participants’ level of self-actualization motivations on the relationship between advertising appeals and brand attitude was examined, using a two-way ANOVA. Again, there was no main effect of
21
advertising appeals, F(3, 101) = .12, p = .947, η2 = .004. No main effect of self-actualization motivations, F(1, 101) = .43, p = .516, η2 = .004, nor an interaction effect was found, F(3, 101) = 1.47, p = .228, η2 = .042. This means H3 must be rejected with regards to brand
attitude.
The influence of advertising appeals, motivation types, and level of concern on advertisement attitude
Multiple two-way ANOVA’s were conducted in order to examine if motivation types and level of concern had a moderating effect on participants’ attitude towards the advertisement when shown different types of advertising appeals.
The moderating effect of concern about animal welfare on advertisement attitude
A two-way ANOVA was conducted with advertising appeal and level of concern for animal welfare as the independent variables, and advertisement attitude as the dependent variable. There were no direct effects of both advertising appeal, F(3, 101) = .42, p = .736, η2 = .012, and level of concern about animal welfare, F(1, 101) = .85, p = .358, η2 = .008, on
participants’ attitude toward the advertisement. No interaction effect between level of concern and type of appeal was observed either, F(3, 101) = 1.90, p = .134, η2 = .053. H4 can therefore
be rejected with regards to advertisement attitude.
The moderating effect of level of self-orientation motivations on advertisement attitude
Using a two-way ANOVA, no main effect was found of ad appeals on advertisement attitude,
F(3, 101) = .37, p = .778, η2 = .011. A significant main effect was found of participants’ level
of self-orientation motivations on their reported advertisement attitude, F(1, 101) = 5.06, p = .027, η2 = .048. Participants with high levels of self-orientation motivations reported
significantly higher attitudes toward the advertisement (M = 4.59, SD = 1.27) than participants with low levels of self-orientation motivations (M = 4.07, SD = 1.16). No interaction effect between this type of motivation and any type of advertising appeal was found, F(3, 101) = .97, p = .411, η2 = .028, which means participants with high levels of self-orientation motivation reported higher advertisement attitudes than participants with low levels of that type of motivation regardless of which advertisement appeal they had seen. H2
22
The moderating effect of level of conformity motivations on advertisement attitude
Another two-way ANOVA was used to examine the moderating effect of level of conformity motivations on the relationship between advertising appeal and advertisement attitude. Results showed no significant main effect of advertising appeals on advertisement attitude, F(3, 101) = .46, p = .713, η2 = .013. No significant main effect of level of conformity motivations, F(1, 101) = 1.87, p = .174, η2 = .018, nor an interaction effect of motivation type and advertising appeal on advertisement attitude, F(3, 101) = .44, p = .726, η2 = .013 was found. This means H1 must be rejected with regards to advertisement attitude.
The moderating effect of level of self-actualization motivations on advertisement attitude
Results of a two-way ANOVA with level of self-actualization motivations and advertising appeal as independent variables, and advertisement attitude as the dependent variable, were not significant. Again, there was no main significant effect of ad appeals, F(3, 101) = .52, p = .667, η2 = .015. There was no significant main effect of this motivation type on participants’ attitude towards the advertisement, F(1, 101) = 1.42, p = .236, η2 = .014, nor was there an interaction effect between the motivation type and appeal type, F(3, 101) = 1.06, p = .370, η2 = .030. These results lead to the rejection of H3 with regards to advertisement attitude.
Conclusion & discussion
Overall findings and conclusion
The aim of this study was to examine whether different types of advertising appeals affected people’s response towards cruelty-free personal care products. Four advertising appeals were researched: an abstract appeal displaying only a logo for cruelty-free products, a benefit appeal stating that animals are the main beneficiaries when people buy the cruelty-free body was, a descriptive appeal that stated that other people were already buying the body wash, and lastly an injunctive appeal that explained that other people wanted the reader to buy the cruelty-free body wash. Various types of consumer responses to the advertisement were examined: their purchase intention, attitude towards the brand, and attitude towards the advertisement itself. Results showed that these responses were not directly affected by the use of different advertising appeals.
More importantly, whether participants held certain types of internal motivations turned out to be an important driver in affecting their responses to the advertisements, but this effect happened independently of the type of advertising appeals. Three different types of
23
motivation were central to this study: conformity motivations that express people’s need to belong to a group, self-orientation motivations that express the importance of how others view you, and self-actualization motivations that express the desire to act without ulterior motives. Results showed that people’s self-orientation motivations are likely to influence their buying behavior when it comes to buying cruelty-free personal care products, as this influences their purchase intention, as well as their attitudes towards the brand and advertisement. Results furthermore showed that people’s attitudes were also affected by their level of conformity motivations. Whether people cared for the wellbeing of animals turned out to be an important driver for their purchase intention.
Discussion and implications for future research and practice
External factors such as advertisements appeal did not seem to influence the responses
towards cruelty-free personal care products, unlike personal determinants of behavior, such as internal motivations. This seems to confirm earlier theories that when it comes to ethical consumerism, people’s beliefs and motivations are of great importance for their consumption behavior (McGoldrick & Freestone, 2008; Karsaklian & Fee, 2014; Mainieri et al., 1997). More in-depth research is necessary to fully understand what factor are of influence when it comes to these beliefs and motivations. This current experimental research shows that social ethical motivations, like self-orientation motivations influence both consumers’ attitudes and purchase intention, and personal ethical motivations influence purchase intention as well. This could be a theoretical foundation for future research to build upon, for example by researching what factors could influence people’s motivation or concern when it comes to ethical
consumerism. It could be worthwhile to further examine people’s motivation to buy cruelty-free products by for example looking at people’s goal orientation, perceived self-efficacy, and locus of control, as these factors have been proven to affect people’s motivational states (Philips & Gully, 1997; Steele-Johnson et al., 2000). The cruelty-free beauty industry should take after the example of the vegan food industry or the green marketing industry, by taking current and future theoretical implications from research and translating these into effective marketing strategies (Fuentes & Fuentes, 2017). More research is needed to determine how internal determinants for ethical consumerism can effectively be translated into marketing strategies.
Earlier research distinguishes between personal and social ethical motivations when it comes to consumer’s buying behavior of ethically produced products. When it comes to ethically produced products in general, these two classes of motivations are closely
24
intertwined (Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008). According to this current experimental
research, this expectation holds when it comes to consumers’ purchase intention. Both social ethical motivations, such as self-orientation motivation, as personal ethical motivations, such as concern for animal welfare, seem to affect purchase intention. This might have to do with consumer’s personal values that they find important when buying products. If a consumer holds the value of the wellbeing of an animal as important, the consumer will more like intend to buy cruelty-free personal care products. People also seem to be more willing to buy
cruelty-free personal care products because they want to be perceived by others as a person who cares about this topic.
However, based on the results of this experimental research it seems that people’s attitudes towards the marketing of cruelty-free personal care products are mainly affected only by their social ethical motivations, such as self-orientation motivations and conformity motivations rather than by personal ethical motivations. Consumers’ attitudes seem to be influenced by consumer’s beliefs of how others will perceive them, or on the desire to do as others do. Personal ethical motivations, like concern for animal welfare, did not affect
participants’ attitudes towards the brand or the advertisements, which means that even though participants cared highly for the wellbeing of animals, this did not influence their liking for the used brand or advertisements in this research. This could indicate that people did not relate the cruelty-free aspect of the product to the entire identity of the brand.
Because various types of motivations affect people’s responses to advertisements for cruelty-free personal care products in different ways, it is important for marketing purposes to determine the goal of the campaign. If the goal is to improve consumers’ attitudes towards the brand, companies should make the cruelty-free aspect part of the entire brands’ identity as this could possible increase the chance that people who care about animals will hold more positive attitudes towards the brand. Green brand positioning is an effective strategy when it comes to the marketing of green products (Dangelico & Vocalelli, 2017). Future developments will have to find out whether this could also be effective for cruelty-free brand positioning. If the goal of the campaign is to directly increase consumer’s purchase intention, the campaign should focus on increasing people’s concern for animal welfare, for example by creating a commercial showing how animals are treated in labs.
Earlier research suggested self-actualization as the main motivator for buying ethically produced products, but this type of motivation did not affect participants’ responses to the advertisements for cruelty-free personal care products in this experimental research
25
personal care products for altruistic reasons, which could mean that it would be more effective to include some personal benefits in advertisements for cruelty-free personal care products. This is a marketing strategy that companies that sell natural personal care products already successfully apply when advertising their products, so this could be an effective strategy for cruelty-free personal care products as well (Todd, 2004).
26
References
Atkinson, L. (2012). Buying in to Social Change: How Private Consumption Choices Engender Concern for the Collective. The ANNALS of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 644, 191–206
Auger, P., & Devinney, T.M. (2007). Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), 361-383
Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T.M., & Louviere, J.J. (2003). What Will Consumers Pay for Social Product Features? Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3), 281– 304
Boerman, S.C., Van Reijmersdal, E.A., & Neijens, P.C. (2014). Effects of sponsorship
disclosure timing on the processing of sponsored content: A study on the effectiveness of European disclosure regulations. Psychology & Marketing, 31(3), 214-224
Bruner, G.C.I. (2009). Marketing scales handbook. A compilation of multi-item measures for
consumer behavior & advertising research (5th ed.). Carbondale, IL: GCBII
Productions
Carrigan, M. and Attala, A. (2001). The Myth of the Ethical Consumer - Do Ethics Really Matter in Purchase Behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–577
Carrington, M.J., Neville, B.A., & Whitwell, G.J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded
consumers. Journal of business ethics, 97(1), 139-158
Cherry, E. (2006). Veganism as a cultural movement: A relational approach. Social Movement
Studies, 5(2), 155-170
Cherry, E. (2015). I was a teenage vegan: Motivation and maintenance of lifestyle movements. Sociological Inquiry, 85(1), 55-74
Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., & Kallgren, C.A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 58(6), 1015
Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A., & Reno, R.R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In Advances in experimental social psychology, 24, 201-234. Academic Press.
Clarren, R. (2006). Coming clean about cruelty free. Retrieved from http://www .salon.com/life/feature/2006/12/13/crueltyfree
27 Cooper, M. L. (1994). Motivations for alcohol use among adolescents: Development and
validation of a four-factor model. Psychological assessment, 6(2), 117
Dagevos, H., Voordouw, J., van der Weele, C.N., & De Bakker, E. (2012). Vlees vooral (snog) vanzelfsprekend: consumenten over vlees eten en vleesminderen. LEI,
onderdeel van Wageningen UR
Eckhardt, G.M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T.M. (2010). Why don't consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 426-436
Ethical Consumer. (2007). Why buy ethically? Retrieved from
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ aboutec/whybuyethically.html
Eurobarometer (2014). Attitudes towards the environment. European Commission Eurobarometer (2015). Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare. European
Commission
Fisher, R.J., & Ackerman, D. (1998). The effects of recognition and group need on
volunteerism: A social norm perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 262-275
Flatters, P. & Willmott, M. (2009). Understanding the Post-Recession Consumer. Harvard
Business Review (87), 106-112
Freestone, O.M., & McGoldrick, P.J. (2007). Ethical positioning and political marketing: The ethical awareness and concerns of UK voters. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(7/8), 651–673
Freestone, O.M., & McGoldrick, P.J. (2008). Motivations of the ethical consumer. Journal of
business ethics, 79(4), 445-467.
Goldstein, E. (1995). Ego psychology and social work practice. Simon and Schuster.
Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2014). Finding the right shade of green: The effect of advertising appeal type on environmentally friendly consumption. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 128-141
Harrison, R., T. Newholm and D. Shaw (2005), The Ethical Consumer (Sage, London) Harter, S., Stocker, C., & Robinson, N.S. (1996). The perceived directionality of the link
between approval and self-worth: The liabilities of a looking glass self-orientation among young adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6(3), 285-308 Hendarwan, E. (2002). Seeing Green. Global Cosmetic Industry, 170(5), 16–18
Herzog, H.A., Betchart, N.S. and Pittman, R.B. (1991). Gender, sex role orientation, and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoös, 4, 184–191
