Abstract

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