Consumer Attitudes Towards Animal Testing Used in Cosmetics: A Case of M.A.C Cosmetics and Maybelline.
do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com.
Abstract
Animal testing used in cosmetic has become a controversial topic throughout many years whereby, consumers are polarised in their attitude towards this issue. Many are in favour whilst, others are against this animal testing and thus have been found to influence their purchase intention to buy cruelty-free cosmetic and not buy those products that have. However, there is a gap in research regarding the factors that influence cosmetic attitude and intention to purchase. To fill this research gap, this study applied the Theory of Reasoned Action (1975) by Fishbein and Ajzen. Initially, Theory of Planned Behaviour was used to understand the research topic however, due to complication with one construct: PBC, only two constructs were analysed. These include attitude and subjective norms. Data were collected from 8 in-depth interviews and online survey response to test the hypothesis proposed in the theoretical framework and gender differences amongst respondents. Findings from in-depth interviews supported the two construct that influenced behavioural intention, however findings from the survey were found insignificance and it was demonstrated despite the influence of attitude and subjective norms does not always translate into actual behaviour. Based in these findings limitation, implication and recommendation for further research were propose.
Contents
2.1 Animal Welfare: Emergence of animal-welfare sensitive consumers
2.2 Animal testing in cosmetics
2.2.1 Common techniques used to test cosmetics
2.2.2 Medical research VS cosmetic testing
2.2.3 M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetics: consumer attitude and purchasing behaviour
3.3 Perceived behavioural control (PBC)
4.1.1 Reason for using in-depth interviews
4.1.2 Procedure and sample size
4.2.1 Reasons for using online survey
4.4.1 Thematic Analysis: In-depth interviews
10 Appendix 1: In-depth interview ethical clearance
11 Appendix 2: In-depth interview information sheet
12 Appendix 3: In-depth interview consent form
13 Appendix 4: In-depth interview questions
14 Appendix 5: In-depth interviews transcripts
15 Appendix 6: In-depth interview Thematic Analysis
16 Appendix 7: Question 13 and 14 subjective norm thematic analysis
17 Appendix 8: Online survey ethical clearance
18 Appendix 9: Online survey information sheet
19 Appendix 10: Online survey questions
1 Introduction
Animal testing has raised serious ethical dilemmas amongst many consumers. The use of animals in numerous research has foster a diverse range of attitudes, with some people demonstrating desire for complete abolition of animal research practices, while others express fanatical support for such practices (Ormandy and Schuppli, 2014). These views have been seen within cosmetic consumers. Cosmetic industries are often targeted by the media and NGOs because of the use of animal-testing methods and now are being targeted by consumers themselves (Sahota, 2013). Consumers today, are now turning to products with specific product attributes such as organic (Yeon Kim and Chung, 2011), animal-friendly (Velijkovic et al, 2015), however the growth of such products are only gradually increasing with only a third of consumers seeking products that have not been tested on animals (Academic.mintel.com, 2017). Furthermore, changes in EU legislation resulted in a ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing, reflecting a general dislike for pain and cruelty towards animals (Academic-mintel.com). Despite, recent bans many companies such as M.A.C and Maybelline still test on animals and retain the highest number of customers worldwide. But why is that?
Many empirical studies have address the issue of animal well-being (Frewer et al., 2005; J. Frewer et al., 2014), attitude towards animal use (Williams et al, 2007), willingness to pay (Sriwaranun et al.,2015) and purchase intention (Matić and Puh, 2016; Hari Adi, 2017). However, majority of these studies only studied consumer attitude and purchasing intention towards organic food products and very little has been done on consumer attitudes towards animals being used to test cosmetics and their purchase intention to buy non-animal tested cosmetics and to stop buying from those who do (M.A.C and Maybelline). The topic of animal testing is rarely touch upon and most existing research on the personal care industry has dealt with marketing strategies rather than consumer behaviour (Yeon Kim and Chung, 2011).
1.1 Research Aims
Thus, the aim of this research is to examine consumers attitude and purchasing intention towards animal testing used in cosmetics base on the Theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Specifically, this study will give reference to two well-known brands known as M.A.C and Maybelline and whether consumers favourable and unfavourable attitude towards animal testing will have an influence in their intention to buy animal-test products M.A.C and Maybelline or non-cruelty free products. The concept of animal testing within the context of attitude and intention-behaviour is a relative new field which has not attracted a great amount of attention in marketing research. Therefore, the aim of this study is to fill gaps in the current state of knowledge to provide a foundation for future marketing strategies in the cosmetic industry as well as for consumer research.
1.2 Research Objectives
- To examine existing empirical and theoretical research that applies to animals being used for cosmetic testing and formulate a framework that explains attitude and intention to buy or not buy animal-tested cosmetic products.
- To conduct primary qualitative research to test key hypothesis constructed from the theoretical framework and identify any emerging themes that could potentially influence consumers attitude and intention to buy or not buy animal-tested cosmetic products.
- To conduct primary quantitative analysis to test the theoretical framework and identify attitude and factors that influence intention to buy or not buy animal-tested cosmetic products.
- To discover if there is a trend in demographic factors in consumer’s attitude and intention to buy or not buy animal-tested products
- To highlight the key important marketing implication and any improvements that can be made based on the research findings.
2 Literature Review
This chapter explores multiple research papers, each providing a better understanding of the research topic. The purpose of the literature review is to summarise and synthesise the arguments and ideas of others to help form the key hypothesis for this study as well as acting as a stepping stone for the construction of the methodological approaches used overall. Theoretical framework will be provided after the summary of key findings. Equally important, key hypothesis for this research will be provided within the theoretical framework.
The literature review will be divided into the following section:
- Animal welfare: Emergence of animal-welfare sensitive consumers
- Animal testing in cosmetics
- Common technique used to test cosmetics
- M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetics
- Medical research VS cosmetic testing
- Demographics
2.1 Animal Welfare: Emergence of animal-welfare sensitive consumers
Over the years, consumer concerns about farm animal welfare has risen in reaction to the ‘intensification of agricultural animal production’ (Harper and Makatouni, 2002). ‘Such issues concern the way in which animals are treated in the production process, particularly in more intensive production systems’ (Akaichi and Revoredo-Giha, 2016). For instance, to reduce production costs and problems caused by the high stocking density of animals,’ farmers have used practices such as confinement, tail docking, beak trimming and limited the amount of space used to raise these animals’, thus, restricting their movement and affecting their well-being (Akaichi and Revoredo-Giha, 2016). Consequently, a large segment of animal welfare-sensitive consumers has been identified (Napolitano et al, 2013). Current technique used by farmers at present which are considered highly intensive in nature have also increased consumers’ sensitivity towards animal welfare, resulting changes in consumer’s purchasing preferences’. (Verbeke and Viaene, 2000; Frewer el al, 2016, Caracciolo et al., 2016, Cembalo et al., 2016). According to Blandford et al, (2002, cited in Toma et al., 2012), consumers are more likely to purchase products if they feel personally responsible that these animals are treated humanely in the production process and that their purchasing behaviour will make a difference overall. Correspondingly, Vanhonacker and Verbeke (2009), Nocella et al (2010) and Meehan et al. (2002) found equivalent results. Despite, such findings found from these studies, there are still numerous empirical studies show that ‘animal welfare minded or sensitive consumers do not always walk their talk’ (Akaichi and Revoredo-Giha, 2016; Carrington et al., 2010). In other words, consumers towards animal welfare or their ethical values do not always translate into actual buying behaviour of animal- friendly products (Verbeke, W, 2009). This is commonly referred to as the attitude-behaviour gap (Carrigan and Attalla, 2001). A recent study, for example, found that while ‘’30% of consumers expressed that they would purchase ethically, only 3% do’’ (Futerra, 2005 found in Carrington et al., 2010). He further than argues that ‘models that predicts ethical intentions that are directly representative of ethical behaviour will be wrong 90% of the time and this will have profound implications for marketers of ethical products, as product launches based on intentions to purchase, will result in costly failures’ (Futerra, 2005 found in Carrington et al., 2010).
Today, consumers are now pursing more conscious choices and seek products with greater information on the production process especially in the cosmetics industry (Harper and Henson, 2001). Consumers are now becoming more aware of the environmental impact to the extent that a new free-of trend on the cosmetic market has emerged (Matić, M. & Puh, B, 2016). But most importantly, consumers are now becoming more aware of the surrounding issue in relation to animals being used for cosmetic testing.
2.2 Animal testing in cosmetics
The ability of cosmetics to influence consumer physical appearance (e.g. make-up, skin care, anti-age products) has always been among the prominent reasons for purchasing products (Hansen, Risborg and Steen, 2012). According to Sahota (2014), cosmetic is perceived by consumers as vanity products brought only to make people look good. These products vary from skin care, shampoos to make-up all used to improve and beautify an individuals’ appearance. Today’s mainstream society, the cosmetic industry is being scrutinised more compared to other industries. One of the reason for being scrutinised is because of the use of animal-testing methods. Throughout many decades, cosmetic companies have tested their product ingredients and finished goods on animals to ensure their safety before selling them to the public. However, the use of method remains a controversial topic.
2.2.1 Common techniques used to test cosmetics
Common techniques or procedure used to test cosmetic products on animals are known as the Draize-eye irritancy test and the Draize-skin irritancy test developed in 1944. The Draize eye irritancy test are conducted mostly on animals such as rabbits to assess the safety of new cosmetic products before selling them to consumers. This technique involves inserting small amount of substance in the animals’ eyes inside a restrained box and observing them for signs of irritation (Orlans et al, 1998). This technique causes severe pain, suffering and sometimes result in blindness for these animals. Skin irritancy test, on the other hand involves the fur of the animal to be shaved off and apply highly concentrated substance to the raw area and observing these animals for any side effects caused (Winders, 2006). Given the suffering and pain caused by these procedures, many consumers are now opposing such cruelty (Phillips et al., 2010). For example, Knight and Barnett (2008), found from their research that participants were more in favour for scientists or researchers to engage in such practices when they believed or consider the purpose to be necessary and beneficial to humans, and when there are no alternative methods, thus suffering in these circumstances are justifiable. However, when believed the purpose to be unnecessary and unacceptable (e.g. cosmetic testing) where there are alternative methods such as vitro method (Alépée et al, 2016), participants were more likely to oppose such experimentations. In general, the use of animals for cosmetic can ‘’elicit ethical concern about exposing animals to potential suffering’ (Schuppli and Weary, 2010).
2.2.2 Medical research VS cosmetic testing
Furthermore, many consumers are polarised in their attitudes in their justification for animal testing. This is particularly accurate when animal testing is used for cosmetic and/or consumer products, with ’less polarisation but, still controversy when animal testing is done for medical research’ (Goldsmith, Clark and Lafferty, 2006). Likewise, Saucier and Cain (2006), highlight that the type of research being conducted has shown to impact the way in which people view the research (e.g. acceptable or unacceptable). For example, past studies (Driscoll, 1992; Stanistreet and Spofforth, 1993; Wuensch and Poteat, 1998) found that participants were less encouraging of cosmetic and agricultural research as compared to medical research. This is because participants viewed medical research more important and essential as opposed to cosmetic and agricultural testing (research). Equivalently, recent studies by Hagelin et al (2002) and Williams et al (2007), found comparable results emphasising that participants would only support the use of animals in research if it results in cures for diseases. Then again, these findings also support the views and findings found by Alépée et al (2016), as mentioned in the previous section.
2.2.3 M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetics: consumer attitude and purchasing behaviour
With the growing emphasises on buying cosmetic products with a conscience and government intervention, many cosmetic companies now are turning to new alternative methods to test their cosmetic products (Sahota, 2014). This change came after the introduction of the new EU law to ban companies from testing their products on animals (Klein, 2012). Many companies now are promoting cosmetic lines without animal testing. ‘One example was SafeBrands Inc., which prohibited the use of animal testing in the development of its products and by its raw ingredient suppliers’ (Kumar, 2005). Companies such as Body Shop are now becoming what’s known as cruelty-free and sell only certified products containing a leaping bunny (see figure 1) (Sahota, 2014.
Figure 1: Leaping Bunny
Despite, recent ban on cosmetic testing conducted on animals, many cosmetic companies (e.g. M.A.C and Maybelline) still test their products on animals despite claiming on their website being cruelty-free (MAC Cosmetic-Official Site, 2017; Maybelline. com, 2017). M.A.C and Maybelline have a very strong market position within the cosmetic industry in terms of their make-up products being sold worldwide. But why do ethical and conscience consumers still buy from these brands? Is it because they are unaware or simply don’t care? Perhaps this can be explained by Carrigan and Attalan (2001) views on ‘the asymmetrical influence of information’ in the sense that consumer will reward firm that behave ethically and punish those that behave unethically, however this is not the case because of their strong brand image. Furthermore, past researchers suggest that ‘negative information influence consumer attitudes more than positive information’ (Herr et al., 1991; Amine, 1996). Therefore, implying that consumers will still buy from cosmetic companies despite knowing that these companies behave unethically and firms that do behave ethically would not necessarily persuade consumers to buy their products (Carrigan and Attalan, 2001). This may explain why many consumers still by from M.A.C. and Maybelline despite knowing that they conduct their products on animals. In contrast, Boulstridge and Carrigan (2000) disputed that consumers care more about price, quality and product attributes as supposed to whether companies engage in ethical or non-ethical behaviour. This may explain why consumers still purchase from brands (e.g. M.A.C and Maybelline) despite holding ethical values; consumers do care but perceive price and quality more and thus influence their purchasing intention and behaviour.
2.2.4 Demographic
There is an extensive amount of empirical research done on demographic variables in explaining the differences between consumers’ opinions and attitudes towards animal testing in cosmetic products. Personal characteristics such as age, gender, experience with animals, and awareness have been explored and identified by Herzog (2007) as key determinants that can influence attitudes. Although Driscoll (1992) argued that these factors account for a small amount of variance in views. Therefore, attitudes can be described as multidimensional, influenced by varied factors (Knight et al., 2003, 2009). Furthermore, many studies have focused their attention on identifying the disparate views between male consumers and female consumers regarding the research topic (Pudaruth et al., 2015; Furnham, McManus and Scott, 2003; Masterton et al., 2014). Female consumers have been found the economic force in the personal care and cosmetic industry over the past years, thus implying that they have more purchasing power and can influence the way in which business activities are run. (Pudaruth et al., 2015). In respect to animal testing and animal research done on cosmetics, women opposed more than men across a range of countries, including USA, Japan, France and Germany (Phillips et al., 2010). Evidence by Gaarder (2011) supports this view highlighting that females’ greater interest in animal issues and welfare is provided by the composition of animal rights activist organizations. Nevertheless, several studies have focus on explaining consumer purchasing between male consumers and female consumers towards organic food (Almad et al, 2015; Irianto, 2005; Gan et al, 2016; Cembalo et al, 2016) and very few on cosmetic products (Johri and Sahasakmontri, 1998; Yeon Kim and Chung, 2011; Matic and Puh, 2016) and have shown that female consumers have high organic and animal-friendly food consumption attitude and intention than male. If this is true, then in terms of cosmetic, it can be claimed that female consumers are more likely to buy cruelty-free or non-animal tested cosmetics than male. However, the results from Tsakiridou et al (2007) study showed that there is no gender difference in consumers’ attitudes and intention to purchase organic food products.
Age as a socio-demographic also seemed to affect consumer attitudes towards organic products and natural cosmetic products (Tsakiridou et al., 2008). Young people are more environmentally conscious and express more interest in organic products especially for food products (Onyango et al, 2007; Magnusson et al, 2001; Ghorbani and Hamraz, 2009). But, are less willing to pay more due to their lower purchasing power, whereas older people are more willing to pay an extra price for organic food or products (Tsakiridou et al., 2008). The differences may be due to more open-minded attitude of young people and their interest in trendy products (e.g. cruelty-free/organic products) however, their intention to buy these products are not always converted into actual behaviour as compared to older consumers. Moreover, studies suggested that consumers purchase intention are limited by low disposable incomes (Magnusson et al., 2001; Zakowska-Biemans, 2009) hence, similar findings can be used to explain consumers’ behavioural intention towards non-animal tested cosmetic products.
Despite, many studies as specified above showing demographic variables being key factors, other studies explained socio-demographic characteristics have somewhat weaker influence on intention to buy organic products (Gracia and Magistris, 2007; Pearson et al, 2011) especially, research that heavily rely on consumer self-reporting methodologies (Tsakiridou et al., 2008). In addition, Pearson et al (2011) furthers this idea by arguing that studies that have examined the effect of socio-demographic on consumer behaviour towards organic and animal-welfare friendly food and cosmetics have failed to provide a clear profile of these buyers with only small relationship emerging.
2.3 Summary of Key findings
To summarise, the topic of using animals for cosmetic testing has been discussed from the consumers’ perspective and remains a controversial issue throughout many years. Consumers’ are polarised in their attitudes to whether animals should or should not be used for cosmetic testing or for any other research. Many consumers believe, where research is necessary and beneficial for humans’, animal testing is justifiable, others however oppose. Empirical evidence has shown that women are more likely to object animal experimentation and testing across many countries (Phillips et al., 2010) and have prominent level of organic and animal-friendly food consumption, as compared to men. However, it is not clear whether attitude towards animal testing will translate to actual behaviour (Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Verbeke, W, 2009). In other words, consumers may hold ethical values and oppose companies for using animals to test their cosmetics as well as the intention to stop buying from these companies (e.g. M.A.C and Maybelline) but, might not translate their attitude and intention to actual buying behaviour (e.g. stop buying from M.A.C and Maybelline). Although, there are numerous studies regarding consumers’ attitudes and purchase behaviours of green products (Chen, 2007; Magnusson et al, 2001) these studies have focused mainly on organic food products and less on the topic ‘animal testing’ and were conducted on non-British consumers.
3 Theoretical Framework
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) by Ajzen (1991) provide a useful framework to shape the research of this project. Even though the TPB model has not been typically used for this topic and is most likely used for understanding intention and behaviour towards organic food, similar finding can still be used from these studies to understand consumer attitude and intention to buy non-animal tested (cruelty-free) products which will result in consumers to stop buying from brands that do test on animals (i.e. M.A.C and Maybelline).
TPB was developed from Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) Theory of Reasoned Action to include an additional construct known as the Perceived Behavioural control (PBC) to achieve a higher predictive power. According to Ajzen (1991) three constructs: Attitude, Subjective norms and Perceived behavioural control predict behavioural intention and account for variance in behaviour overall (see figure 2)
Figure 2: Theory of Planned Behaviour by Ajzen (1991)
3.1 Attitude
Attitude toward behaviour refers to personal evaluations being favourable or unfavourable to perform the behaviour (Yeon Kim and Chung, 2011), which is shaped by cognition (thought), values (beliefs) and affection (emotions) towards an object (Hoyer and Maclnis, 2004; Dossey and keegan, 2008). According to Michaelidou and Hasson (2000), belief about the consequences (such as environmentally-friendly and animal-welfare friendly) is instrumental in leading consumers towards organic food consumption. Numerous studies further support this idea and suggest that there is a positive relationship between consumers’ attitude and behavioural intention for animal-friendly, non-tested (cruelty-free) and organic cosmetic products (Yeon Kim and Chung, 2011; Aertsens et al., 2011) In case of animal testing, consumers that have unfavourable attitude towards animal testing and oppose the use of method as discovered in the findings from the literature review, will be more likely to purchase cruelty-free cosmetics products. In other words, consumers that oppose animal being used to test cosmetics will not buy from M.A.C and Maybelline, instead will buy from cruelty free products. Thus, the following hypothesis can be constructed:
H1: Consumers’ unfavourable attitude towards animal testing will have a positive influence on their intention to buy non-animal tested cosmetic products than animal-tested products (M.A.C and Maybelline)
3.2 Subjective Norms
Past and recent studies have indicated that attitude is significantly related with subjective norms (Vallerand et al, 1992; Chang 1998; Tarkiainen and Sundqvist (2005). Subjective norms refer to the belief that an important person or group will approve and support a behaviour (Ham, Jeger and Frajman Ivković, 2015). In other words, it refers to a person’s perceived pressure from others to perform a behaviour. However, studies by Krueger et al (2000), showed that subjective norms are not correlated with the intention of individuals. In contrast to Chen (2007), found significant positive relationship between subjective norm and consumers’ intention to buy natural and organic food. Tarkiainen and Sundqvist (2005) furthered this idea from their study in Finland and found a significant path from subjective norms to attitude towards purchasing organic food. In the context of gender differences, it has been found that women are more likely to be influenced by others compared to men (Venkatesh et al., 2000). According to Venkatesh et al (2000), ‘’perception of subjective norms is considered powerful forces in women’s decision-making processes and women are more to be influenced by their peers when purchasing natural cosmetics. Thus, in the context of this research, it is hypothesised that
H2a: Subjective norms will significantly impact women’s attitude towards buying cruelty-free cosmetic products
H2b: Subjective norms will significantly impact women’s intention to buy cruelty-free cosmetic products
3.3 Perceived behavioural control (PBC)
PBC refers to the degree of control that an individual perceives over performing the behaviour (Chen, 2007; Kang et al, 2006). Hence, those who perceive a high degree of personal control tend to have stronger behavioural intention (Ajzen, 1991). Yeon Kin and Chung (2011) suggested that when people believe they have more resources such as time, money and skills their perceptions of control are high and thus their behavioural intentions increases. For example, Chen (2000) explained PBC by giving an example of ‘technology’ and how people are more likely to accept a technology if they feel they have a control over it. Therefore, PBC in this study means consumers’ perceptions of personal control over what they can buy or not. Hypothesis proposed is:
H3: Consumers’ behavioral control perception will affect their intention to purchase non-animal tested products than animal-tested products (M.A.C and Maybelline)
3.4 Theory reasoned of action
Due to the in-depth interview discussion, PBC was found very difficult to test and due this difficulties PBC was not included in the survey and was taken out from the theoretical framework. Using the finding obtained from the theory of planned behaviour the following hypothesis for attitude and subjective norms will be used to understand behavioural intention towards buying non-animal tested cosmetic. Therefore, using Theory of Reasoned Action as a framework despite of theory of planned behaviour. Only one construct is taken out: PBC.
Theory of reasoned of action proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) has been successfully applied to predict behaviour intention and behaviour. The basic idea of this theory is that the intention to perform a behaviour is influenced by one’s attitude and pressure from others, in other words subjective norms similar to what had been said previously in the theory of planned behaviour. Attitude towards the behaviour involves potential responses to the target object or idea. In this study, it’s the attitude towards animal testing used in cosmetics whereas subjective norms refer to the influence of others that affect the individual to perform a behaviour or not (see figure 3).
Figure 3 Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975)
4 Methodology
This chapter illustrates the methods used to explore consumers’ attitudes towards animal testing used in cosmetics. More specifically towards two popular brands: M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetics.
To examine the research question both primary and secondary research was carried out. A selection of different academic journal articles and text books have been used to gain a thorough understanding and background knowledge of the topic. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) was used as a grounding base to construct questions for both interviews and online survey. Details regarding in-depth interviews and online survey are provided below, followed by an explanation of the data analysis conducted for this project.
By employing both qualitative and quantitative research methods provided triangulation, which increases the validity of evaluation and research findings obtained (Thurmond, 2001). Furthermore, Triangulation’ minimizes the inadequacies of single-source research; two sources complement and verify one another, which reduces the impact of bias (Yeasmin and Rahman, 2012). By administrating both in-depth interviews and survey for this dissertation will help obtain holistic, reliable and valid results overall.
4.1 In-depth Interviews
4.1.1 Reason for using in-depth interviews
Qualitative primary research in the form of in-depth interviews was conducted, which involved a set of semi-structured questions to examine the primary objective of this dissertation. The design and construction of the in-depth interviews followed similar patterns used by Knight and Barnett (2008). Through such interviews, researchers can explore in detail the experiences, motives and opinions of others and learn to see the world from perspectives other than their own (Rubin and Rubin, 2012). In-depth interviews were therefore, seen as the most appropriate method for this research to exchange highly sensitive information from participants that otherwise, could have been difficult to obtain through other methods of data collection such as focus group (Elmir et al., 2011). In a focus group, participant may not freely express their views and may be influenced by the presence of a very dominant or opinionated member. This is also known as social desirability (Thomson, 2005).
4.1.2 Procedure and sample size
Prior to the in-depth interviews, ethical clearance was approved in agreement with guidelines and regulations of the University of Reading Committee (see appendix 1). Interviews then commenced the same week ethical clearance was granted in which participants were contacted. Time and location (University of Reading) of the interviews were allocated separately to each participant suited to their convenience. Purposive sampling, also known as judgement sampling (Etikan, 2016) was used to obtain 8 participants; four female participants and four male participants, consisting of undergraduate, postgraduate and general public, age range between 18 to 35. Purposive sampling was considered appropriate to use as it involved identifying and selecting individuals or group of individuals, that are especially knowledgeable about or experienced with a phenomenon of interest (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011). In terms of this research, each participant was selected because of their behavioural characteristics of either using or purchasing M.A.C or Maybelline cosmetics at some point of their daily life. However, the disadvantage of using Purposive sampling is that researcher’s judgment in identifying and selecting the sample can be flawed or biased (Blankenship, 2010) especially inclusion biased due to the time restrained. Therefore, to overcome this weakness an online survey was conducted and distributed amongst respondents; which will further be discussed in this dissertation.
In each interviews participant were presented with an information sheet (appendix 2) explaining the nature of the research and why this research is being undertaken. In addition, a consent form (appendix 3) was given to each participant to sign, outlining that their identity would remain entirely anonymous and confidential and that they are happy to be recorded (audio taped). Besides this they have the right to withdraw from the interview at any time, which was also specified in the information sheet. Once all conditions and requirements had been understood and agreed upon, the interviews could proceed. Interviews were recorded with permissions and lasted approximately 30 minutes. Questions were asked in the order shown in appendix 4, starting with broad questions relating to animal testing then moving onto asking questions regarding animal testing used in cosmetics. Finally, participants were then asked questions related to the TPB model. Attitudes towards animal testing and animal testing used in cosmetics was examined throughout whereas questions with respect to subjective norms, perceived behavioural control (PBC) and behaviour/intention were asked at the end.
4.2 Online Survey
4.2.1 Reasons for using online survey
An online survey was conducted and deemed appropriate for this research to conclusively test hypotheses stated in the literature review. Online survey provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes and opinions of a population (Creswell, 2014) as well as enables the researcher to collect data from numerous individuals, in a short amount of time, despite possibly being separated by great geographic distances thus, making the sample more representative (Wright, 2005; Taylor, 2000). Furthermore, online survey allows researcher to conduct preliminary analysis on collected data while waiting for the desired number of responses to accumulate (Llieva et al., 2002). The survey was designed and distributed online through social media sites, email contacts and phone contacts using a specialised survey software called ‘Qualtrics’. But before distributing the survey, ethical clearance was approved (appendix 8). Purposive sampling was used again as selection of subjects or respondents are solely based on the purpose of this research enabling to obtain rich data (Blankenship, 2010). Only respondents 18 and above could take part in this survey which was expressed in the information sheet (appendix 82) before completing the survey.
4.2.2 Design and measurement
Emerging themes found from the in-depth interviews were used to develop robust survey questions. With respect to the online surveys, all responses were anonymous and confidential, with no identifying feature other than demographic materials such as the respondent’s age, gender, occupation and income asked at the start of the survey (see appendix) and their 6-unique reference number asked at the end of the survey. Initially, nationality was included however, with guidance and expertise nationality question was excluded from the survey. Introductory questions were then asked to participants relating to their cosmetic spending, purchasing, awareness of animal testing being tested on cosmetics and their thoughts on animal testing in general.
The main section of the survey comprises into 3 parts aimed to test the hypotheses derived from the theoretical framework. For the first part, respondents were asked 8 statement questions targeted specifically towards the two brands M.A.C and Maybelline using a Likert-scale type, where respondents are offered seven precoded responses from strongly agree to strongly disagree with the neutral point being neither agree nor disagree as shown in figure 3.
Figure 4: Questions asked specifically on M.A.C and Maybelline
The second and third part of the survey also followed a similar pattern using a Likert-type scale. Second section contained statements which were asked to obtain rich quality and reliable data about animal testing that were not covered in the in-depth interviews (see appendix 10). Finally, section 3 consists of statements based on two images to understand respondent’s attitudes and feelings towards the impact of animal testing.The final two questions asked at the end of the survey were asked to understand where respondents stand regarding the issue of animal testing and whether they are ‘willing to spend more money to ensure cosmetic products are not being tested on animals’ in future.
4.3 Data Analysis
4.3.1 In-depth interviews
Thematic analysis was carried out for each interview (see appendix) to assess the key hypothesis outlined for this study and identify any emerging themes that was not identified before in the prior research.
Thematic analysis (TA) is a method for identifying, analysing, and interpreting patterns of meaning (‘’themes’’) within qualitative data (Clarke and Braun, 2017). Furthermore, TA is known as the most preferable and common method of data analysis used in qualitative work (Burnard et al., 2008). Therefore, it was considered appropriate to analyse each in-depth interview. In addition, TA can be used to analyse large and small data-sets from case study research with 1-2 participants (Cedervall and Åberg, 2010) to large interview studies with 60 or more participants (Mooney-Somers, Perz and Ussher, 2008) thus, was considered the most flexible and convenience data analysis to use for this research.
Each transcript was read several times before picking out key themes or patterns in relation to the question ‘what does this represent. Open- coding began, where transcripts were inspected, line-by-line and broken down into smaller pieces of information. Once this has been done to all the interview transcripts, constant comparison was made allowing identification of similarities and differences between chunks of data, similar method used by (Knight and Barnett, 2008) in their study.
4.3.2 Online survey
SPSS statistics was used to analyse the online survey data. The survey data were reported onto SPSS after reaching a maximum response from respondents. Initially, the sample size was to achieve was 150 responses however, due to the slow response rate and partial answers, the total sample size had to be deducted from 120 to 100. Descriptive statistics were analysed to provide information about the participant’s socio-demographic variables such as gender, age, occupation and income. A simple linear regression analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between attitude and subjective norm will predict consumers’ intention to buy cruelty-free products and their behaviour towards not buying M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetics. The R square and R2 square is looked to shows the amount of variance in the dependent variable.
4.4 Results
4.4.1 Thematic Analysis: In-depth interviews
This section presents the result from the thematic analysis of the in-depth interviews in relation to the proposed theoretical framework (TPB model) in explaining consumers’ attitudes towards animal testing used in cosmetics. Full transcripts for each interview is displayed in appendix 5. Thematic analysis of all the interviews is presented in appendix 6.
- Attitude
From the start of the interview question many participants struggle to identify a consensus attitude towards animal testing. When asked the first question: How do you feel about animal testing? Are you against or with it? Five out of eight participants (majority females) strongly oppose the idea of animal testing whist the other 3 participants stated that they were not against animal testing (see appendix 6)
However, when asked the following question: Why do think some experiments in medical research are carried out on animals? Do you agree with using animals for this purpose? Participants would say ‘they would agree with using animals and testing animals for medical research’ thus, implying that they have a polarised view. For example, they would oppose animal testing however, when asked if they agree with animal testing or animal research being done for medical research they would ‘agree’. This supports Goldsmith, Clark and Lafferty (2006) as explained previously in the literature review.
Furthermore, as interview proceeded it became even more clear where each participant stand in terms of the topic. It became clear that female participants were more likely to oppose animals being used for testing cosmetics. The term ‘shouldn’t was mostly used by participant 2 and 5. Participant 1 furthered her opinion by uttering the following statement:
‘…if some cosmetic companies can be cruelty-free than why can’t other do the same’
In addition, female participants who were unaware that brands M.A.C and Maybelline test on animals but brought these products before started to feel bad by stating words like ‘really oh that’s bad’, ‘I feel kind of bad now knowing this but I thought they didn’t’ and ‘not cool’. Also, when asked if animal testing is ethical or unethical all female participants said unethical and showed a very strong hostile attitude towards animals being used for cosmetic testing.
Overall, unfavourable attitude towards animal being used for cosmetic testing linked to participants’ intention to not buy M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetic. It was found that those who opposed or have adverse attitude towards animal testing would not support or buy from M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetic. As a result, responses demonstrated by participants that unfavourable and opposed attitude towards using animals to test cosmetics will influence their intention to buy products that have not been tested on animals as compared to M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetics which have (H1). This was demonstrated by participant one, two, four and five as seen in the interview transcript and thematic analysis.
- Subjective Norm
Social influence revealed as an important theme from the in-depth interviews. Six out of eight participants agreed that they only buy M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetic because of its popularity amongst consumers. Particularly, some participants pointed out that if someone close (e.g. friend or family member) recommended them to purchase these products or have used these products themselves, would make them more acquiescent to purchase these products. For example, participant 2 stated:
‘…. if all my friends were using these products [M.A.C and Maybelline] then they must be good, why else will they buy them in the first place if they weren’t good. Beside that many people buy from these brands and are willing to pay a good amount of money for them.’
Similarly, participant 4 mentioned:
‘…. Yes, I do buy M.A.C products because of its popularity amongst consumers. My sister uses M.A.C products herself, in fact she has a whole collection of M.A.C lipsticks and she recommended to me to start using these products myself as they are so good.’
Furthermore, one participant (female) mentioned that the major reason why she buys M.A.C cosmetics it because of its popularity amongst beauty bloggers and makeup artists. The word ‘trust’ and ‘knowledge’ was stressed in the context of subjective norm and this further influenced their intention and/or buy from these brands even more. This is demonstrated by participant 1:
‘…. yes, I buy these products because of its popularity amongst consumers. They are very popular among beauty artists and makeup artist and when I saw one of my favourite beauty blogger wearing this light pink shade lip colour made me wanted to purchase it. Beauty bloggers are very trusted amongst many people as they have more knowledge in makeup so I just went and bought the same shade lipstick as well….and I loved it and starting to purchase more from these brands.’
In addition, social influence also played a significant role when participants were asked the following question ‘How much do other people’s attitude towards animals being used to test in these products affect your purchasing behaviour?’. According to many participants if their friends or family stopped using these products because they have been conducted on animals then they would stop buying these brands straightaway as they don’t their friends to think negative of them, as mentioned by participant 2:
‘…. I’m not sure about other people’s attitude but if my friends or family stopped using these brands because they are being tested on animals, then yes I would stop’
This was highly significant amongst female participants than male participants. Male participants were more reluctant to stop using or buying these cosmetics despite being aware that these brands use animals to test their products.
All female participants showed high subjective norm, as compared to male demonstrating how others attitude and intention towards M.A.C and Maybelline brands will influence their purchasing behaviour. If other perceived the brands as negative because they have been tested on animals then female participants were less likely to support or buy from these brands however, if others (e.g. friends, family) perceived brands as positive then they will continue to buy from these brands. Findings revealed Venkatesh et al (2000) views that subjective norms will impact women’s attitude (H2a) as well as their intention to buy cruelty-free cosmetics and stop buying from those that do. Appendix 7 shows gender, age and occupation of all participants and their thoughts on question 13 and 14.
- PBC
The concept of PBC was a struggling perception to come to a clear decision. All participants didn’t seem to understand what the question was really asking. Thus, interpretation was made solely on what participants spoke. Female participants were struggling to decide as demonstrated by participant 5:
‘…. sorry I didn’t understand the question’ (questioned repeated and explained again by researcher)’ ‘umm I’m not sure I think it will be easy for me as I will have the purchasing power and would buy cruelty-free if the quality is same but then I again I buy M.A.C and Maybelline because my friends also buy’
Here, participant demonstrate unsureness even though she believes it’s easy for her to purchase a cruelty-free product, she still influenced by subjective. This suggest that subjective norm overrides consumers to easily buy cruelty-free cosmetic. Female participants value others (i.e. friends) opinions more than their own personal belief which makes it difficult to buy certain product.
Male participants on the other hand, were not influenced by subjective norm instead perceived behavioural control was perceived more for them as compared to female participants. Again, the question was misinterpreted all male participants stated that it was easy for them to choose between brands however only if they believed the value of the product was good enough:
‘…I don’t care much about whether a product has or has not been tested on animals for me it’s the value of the product. it’s easy for me to choose one brand over another so I choose M.A.C and Maybelline because of its product attribute’.
Emerging themes
An Emerging theme ‘impact’ was identified in the interviews that was not identified in the prior secondary research.
- Impact
The influence of impact revealed as an important and emerging them for many participant. Impact was linked with PBC as stressed by participant 8:
‘…I don’t really know for me to stop purchasing from a brand I need to know how it impacts the animal overall and this impact will have certain control to purchase a product or not’
Many participants indicated that they were unaware of the impact cosmetic testing can have on these animals especially for male participants. Majority of the participants were unaware that brands (e.g. M.A.C and Maybelline) test their products on animals when asked the following question: ‘Are you aware that these brands and the product they sell test on animals?’ But when asked the following question: ‘Would you continue to purchase, use or support M.A.C and Maybelline products, after knowing they have been tested on animals? If yes, why? If no, why?’ Participants were not sure, this was stressed by participant 3:
‘…. for me I have never seen how the animal testing is done for cosmetics in the cosmetics industry and how it’s done on an animal. Because I haven’t seen it personally for me it would make that much of a deal’
Participant 7 also voiced his opinion:
‘I don’t know for sure If to be completely honest first of all this topic has been spoken much about in depth before also I don’t know the extent that these companies go to in order to test their cosmetic. I don’t know what impact they have on these animals or how much pain and suffering is caused. I’ve never seen a picture of these animals before so I really can’t say anything at the moment’
Summary of findings
From the thematic analysis, it has become clear that attitude and subjective norms have a direct influence towards the intention amongst participants to buy non-animal tested (cruelty-free) cosmetics and stop buying M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetics that have been tested on cosmetics, supporting hypothesis H1, H2a and H2b.This is true for female participant as compared to male participants. Female participants were more likely to purchase cosmetics that haven’t been tested on animals if their friends also purchase them. However, the influence of PBC remains unanswerable. Impact an emerging them discovered from the in-depth interview was deemed important for many participants therefore, impact questions were added to the survey. Hypothesis for this this theme was not proposed instead PBC was replaced from the theoretical framework and only attitude and subjective norms will be used to understand the intention to purchase non-animal tested cosmetic products and stop buying products that have. This new framework can be seen in chapter 2.
4.5 Results for survey
Due to incompletion and partial responses, 25 out of 125 survey responses was emitted out from the Qualtric software before exporting to SPSS. Therefore, data will be analysed in accordance with the completed survey by participants. The total sample size was n=100 participants which consist of 50 female participants and 50 male participants (see table 1). In the context of socio-demographic variables majority (54%) of participants fell into the age range 18 to 24, followed by an equal number 21% of participants age 25 to 34 and 35 to 44. Only few were age 45 and above therefore result for this age range will not be taken into consideration. In regards of occupation and income level, majority of the respondents were either undergraduate (38%) or employed (49%) and had an income level of £0 to £19.999 (65%) and £20.000 to £34.999 (28%). Male respondents were mostly employed (34%) with high income level whereas female respondents were mostly undergraduate (29%) with a respectable income level of 0 to 19.999 (39%). However, when asked how often they purchase cosmetic female more than men were found more likely to buy weekly in respect to male participants. Therefore, implying that income level does not have any effect in their purchasing behaviour of cosmetics with a mean score of 2.84
| Gender | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Male | 50 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 50.0 |
| Female | 50 | 50.0 | 50.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Table 1: frequency table for gender n=100
Table 2: Statistic table for how often female buy cosmetics
Attitude towards animal testing
When asked if respondents were aware that animals are being used to test on cosmetics 95% of respondents said yes (see figure) However, when asked if they agreed with using animals for cosmetic testing, female participants were more likely to oppose and were more likely to say no (56%) as compared to male participants. Thus, male participants argued or implied that using animal testing for cosmetic purposes is correct. These views correlated when asked whether animal testing was ethical or unethical. Majority of male participants (27%) said animal testing is ethical whilst female participants said unethical with a percentage of 32%. Therefore, implying that female participant view animal testing negative and morally wrong than male participants.
Medical research vs cosmetic testing
When asked participants in what circumstance they thought or believed animal testing was okay majority of the participants, majority of the participants agreed that testing on animals is okay if it is done for biomedical or medical research with a high percentage of 68%, followed by drug testing (57%), cosmetic testing (38%), Behavioural studies (10%). Only 26% of respondents said its never okay to test on animals (see figure). There seemed to an agreement with both male and female participants towards animal testing being acceptable if done for medical research with a percentage score for male being 45% and female 23%. However, in term of cosmetic testing male participants were the high scorer than female participants. Many female participant stated that its never okay to test on animals with a percentage score of 21%.
Subjective norms
When asked questions regarding the two brands M.A.C and Maybelline it was found participants valued price and quality when thinking about M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetics. 43% of participants considered quality and when asked whether cosmetic product has or has not been tested on animals will not influence their purchasing behaviour if quality was good, 37% of participants strongly agree. This viewpoint was similar for both male and female. However, when asked participants whether other people’s attitude towards M.A.C and Maybelline products will influence their purchasing behaviour female more than male participants strongly agree 61% compared to male 28%. Male participants were more likely to disagree with this statement.
Impact
When asked questions regarding impact majority of participants felt sad when looking at the two pictures of the rabbit showing the impact of animal testing can caused on these animals. Majority of female participants felt sad 65% followed by male participants. Female participants mostly agreed that what cosmetic companies are doing is wrong with 32% strongly agreed whist 40% agreed. However, majority of participants either stated that they somewhat agreed 18% and others implied that they disagreed with this statement (71%). However, when asked both gender whether they would buy cruelty-free product or not using the 7 scale Likert scale, there was not much variation between their results only 26% of female agreed to buy cruelty-free product whilst only 10% of male agreed.
Regression analysis
A simple regression analysis was performed onto SPSS to show the relationship between attitude, subjective norms, impact and purchase intention, using the root-mean squared formula. Each analysis conducted, the R is considered a measure of quality of the prediction of dependent variable. The R2 value also known as the coefficient of determination represents the proportion of variance in the dependent variable which can be explained by the independent variable. Here, the dependent variable the purchasing of cruelty-free product which is determined by consumers’ attitude, subjective norms and impact. Table 3 indicate that the value of R is 0.621 therefore purchasing behaviour in terms of subjective norms, attitude and impact is a good prediction. Coefficient table was also and this can be seen in appendix 11.
In addition, the r-square shows value of 0.386 in which the independent explain 38.6% of the variable of the dependent variable therefore the consumer attitude and subjective norms do not have much influence in purchasing intention towards buying cruelty-free products.
| Model Summary | ||||
| Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate |
| 1 | .621a | .386 | .302 | .582 |
5 Discussion and Limitation
This section is aimed to discuss the research findings presented in the result section. Furthermore, limitation and marketing implication along with recommendation for research are included. Discussion will help form an overall conclusion for this study.
The findings for this study helped to identify consumer attitude and purchase intention towards animal testing used in cosmetics. More specifically M.A.C and Maybelline. Based on findings of the in-depth interviews it was found that findings supported all three-hypothesis constructed from the theory of planned behaviour. Findings from the in-depth interview suggested that that majority of consumers have an unfavourable attitude towards animal testing and this influence their purchasing intention to buy cruelty-free cosmetics as supposed to those cosmetics that do test on cosmetics i.e. M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetics. Subjective norms also were found significant from the in-depth interviews to influence purchase intention however, the sample size for in-depth interview was small and findings could not be generalised to explaining consumer attitude and purchase intention towards animal testing used in cosmetic for the entire population. Furthermore, questions asked about perceived behavioural control were obtain with difficulties. For this reason, perceived behavioural control construct was taken out from the theoretical framework and a new theory was constructed. As a result, it was found a major limitation for this study. To, overcome the limitation of the small sample size and online survey was distributed amongst participants. The main purpose for this was firstly to find out whether results found from the in-depth interview can be generalise to bigger sample and whether consumers/participants had similar opinions. Secondly, survey was used to overcome the obstacle caused by perceived behaviour control and test the new emerging theme ‘impact’. Linear regression was done and based on findings from the survey as well as from the performed regression analysis it was found that all three-hypothesis had to be rejected. In other words, findings from statistical analysis and the online survey did not support the proposed hypothesis. From the survey result, it was found clear that there was a gender difference between male and female participants. Female participants were more likely to oppose animal testing and animal research regardless of their age, occupation and income level. Therefore, supporting views found from by Phillips et al (2010). Male were more likely to support the idea of animal testing used for cosmetic whereas female was most likely to oppose or have unfavourable attitude towards animal testing used in cosmetics.
Even though female showed a greater opposition towards animal testing as compared to male, they were still polarised in their attitude when asked in what circumstances they believed animal testing was okay to conduct. Majority of female participants were found to support animal testing for medical and drug research however, when asked if animal testing was unethical or ethical 95% of them said unethical. This supported view from Goldsmith, Clark and Lafferty (2006), in which consumers are polarised in their justification for animal testing regardless of holding strong ethical values and this affect their overall purchase intention. In addition, subjective norm was found an influential factor for most participants especially in female participants. Participants showed how others have a profound impact towards their purchasing behaviour. For example, in both survey result and in-depth interview both gender argued that M.A.C and Maybelline are popular amongst consumers and therefore, in some extent influence their purchasing behaviour and from the in-depth interview female participants were found to be most influenced by their peers or family member, thus supporting views of Venkatesh et al (2000). However, this was not translated in behaviour to buy cruelty-free cosmetic products. For example, the survey showed a small variance in both gender towards buying non-cruelty free cosmetic product. Therefore, these findings can support empirical findings by Akaichi and Revoredo-Giha (2016) whereby, consumers do not always walk their talk. This may be argued in terms of perceived brand loyalty and quality. Consumers may hold strong belief about animal testing however, when perceived quality is valued more by the consumers, this may affect their overall purchasing. From the survey, it was found that participants considered M.A.C and Maybelline superior quality of products however, because of the type of question asked in the survey it was still unclear whether participants were less likely to buy cruelty-free cosmetic because they perceived quality, thus becoming a limitation for this study.
Furthermore, impact question was asked in vague and not asked in depth therefore, it was difficult to suggest whether consumers becoming aware of the impact these practices have on animals will influence their purchasing behaviour after seeing such pictures. Maybe a question that could have been asked is whether looking at these pictures will change their decision towards buying from animal-tested products to cruelty-free products for a more in-depth and reliable result. The impact was just touch upon and was hard to see whether impact can influence purchase behaviour to stop buying M.A.C and Maybelline and buy cruelty-free cosmetic instead. Thus, further improvements can be made in terms of methodology.
Limitation regarding the external validity of the online survey is the ratios of age group. Not a single respondent was age 45 and above and very few respondents were aged 35 to 44 (16%) or 25 to 34 (6%). Therefore, it was hard to compare the different age groups and thus become difficult to either support the findings obtained from previous empirical research (Onyango et al, 2007; Magnusson et al; 2001; Tsakiridou et al, 2008). Thus, a representation of participants age 18-24 and 35 to 44 would nevertheless improve the external validity of this research.
6 Implication
These results with improve can be very beneficial for marketing strategies. Although findings obtained did not achieve what is what supposed to achieve, many responses gained from the in-depth interview and online survey result showed an unfavourable attitude towards animal testing used to test cosmetics. It showed how many consumers do not favour such practices and cruelty done on animals and are likely to purchase non-animal tested cosmetic products. Even though the result showed a small proportion of consumers’ willing to purchase cruelty-free products it still have some practical implication on the cosmetic companies and brand like M.A.C and Maybelline. As the market for green and natural cosmetic is increasing with consumers demanding for animal-welfare friendly products, marketers need to understand consumers attitude and how these attitudes can influence their purchasing intention especially companies like M.A.C and Maybelline who have high brand and customer profile. Thus, for these brands its essential that they corporate such understanding into their corporate strategy. One way in which this can be done is by becoming cruelty free overall and banning such action of animal testing or if animal testing is necessary to do so to test the quality of their product then not lie on website and assure their customers that alternative methods were done before hand and animal testing is done as a last result.
7 Areas for future research
A study of future research can be to test participant ages 18 to 24 and 35 to 44 with equal number of both male and females. Furthermore, instead of in-depth interview, focus group may be beneficial even though there is the issue of sensitivity however, more knowledge can be gained from focus group than from in-depth interview. This study only contributes to a small number of research on cosmetic. Because the topic of animal testing has not been considered in much depth and research conducted are solely done from the consumer perspective, it can be suggested that a more research surrounding the psychological constructs involved in attitude towards cosmetic can benefit cosmetic companies. In the context of quantitative data, a future improvement can be to conduct a pilot questionnaire to test the adequacy of the research instrument assess whether the research procedure is realistic and workable, which in this study was found problematic.
8 References
Academic.mintel.com. (2017). Login to Mintel Reports – Mintel Group Ltd.. [online] Available at: http://academic.mintel.com/display/698194/?highlight [Accessed 17 Apr. 2017].
Aertsens, J., Mondelaers, K., Verbeke, W., Buysse, J. and Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2011). The influence of subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food. British Food Journal, 113(11), pp.1353-1378.
Ahmad, A.N., Rahman, A.A. & Rahman, S.A. 2015, “Assessing Knowledge and Religiosity on Consumer Behavior towards Halal Food and Cosmetic Products”, International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 10-14.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp.179-211.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp.179-211.
Akaichi, F. and Revoredo-Giha, C. (2016). Consumers demand for products with animal welfare attributes. British Food Journal, 118(7), pp.1682-1711.
Akaichi, F. and Revoredo-Giha, C. (2016). Consumers demand for products with animal welfare attributes. British Food Journal, 118(7), pp.1682-1711.
Alépée, N., Hibatallah, J., Klaric, M., Mewes, K.R., Pfannenbecker, U. & McNamee, P. 2016, “Assessment of cosmetic ingredients in the in vitro reconstructed human epidermis test method EpiSkin™ using HPLC/UPLC-spectrophotometry in the MTT-reduction assay”, Toxicology in Vitro, vol. 33, pp. 105-117.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001a). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology,40, 471–489.
Blankenship, D. (2010). Applied research and evaluation methods in recreation. 1st ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Bryant, W. K., Jeon-Slaughter, H., Kang, H., & Tax, A. (2003). Participation in philanthropic activities: Donating money and time. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 43–73.
Burnard, P., Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. and Chadwick, B. (2008). Analysing and presenting qualitative data. BDJ, 204(8), pp.429-432.
Bussell, H. and Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the volunteer market: the what, where, who and why of volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(3), pp.244-257.
Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), pp.560-578.
Carrington, M., Neville, B. and Whitwell, G. (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), pp.139-158.
Cedervall, Y. and Åberg, A. (2010). Physical activity and implications on well-being in mild Alzheimer’s disease: A qualitative case study on two men with dementia and their spouses. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 26(4), pp.226-239.
Cembalo, L., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A., Del Giudice, T., Grunert, K.G. & Cicia, G. 2016, “Determinants of Individual Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare-Friendly Food Products”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 237-254.
Chang, M.K. ( 1998 ), ” Predicting unethical behavior: a comparison of the theory of reasoned action of the theory of planned behavior “, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 16, pp. 1825 – 1833 .
Chen, M. (2007). Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Quality and Preference, 18(7), pp.1008-1021.
Chen, M. (2008). An integrated research framework to understand consumer attitudes and purchase intentions toward genetically modified foods. British Food Journal, 110(6), pp.559-579.
Cheung, C. K., & Chan, C. M. (2000). Social-cognitive factors of donating money to charity, with special attention to an international relief organization. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 241–253.
Clarke, V. & Braun, V. 2017, “Thematic analysis”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 297-298.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. and Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dossey, B.M. and Keegan, L. (2008), Holistic Nursing: A Handbook for Practice, Jones and Bartlett Learning, Sadbury, MA.
Driscoll, J. (1992). Attitudes Toward Animal Use. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 5(1), pp.32-39.
Elmir, R., Schmied, V., Jackson, D. and Wilkes, L. (2011). Interviewing people about potentially sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher, 19(1), pp.12-16.
Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), p.1.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley
Frewer, L., Kole, A., Kroon, S. and Lauwere, C. (2005). Consumer Attitudes Towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(4), pp.345-367.
Furnham, A., McManus, C. and Scott, D. (2003). Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 16(2), pp.135-146.
Gaarder, E. (2011). Women and the animal rights movement. 1st ed. New Brunswick. N.J: Rutgers University Press.
Gan, C., Chang, Z., Tran, M.C. & Cohen, D.A. 2016, “Consumer Attitudes toward the Purchase of Organic Products in China”, International Journal of Business and Economics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 117.
Ghorbani, M. and Hamraz, S. (2009). A Survey on Factors Affecting on Consumer’s Potential Willingness to Pay for Organic Products in Iran (A Case Study). Trends in Agricultural Economics, 2(1), pp.10-16.
Goldsmith, R., Clark, R. and Lafferty, B. (2006). INTENTION TO OPPOSE ANIMAL RESEARCH: THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN NONCONFORMITY. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 34(8), pp.955-964.
Hagelin, J., Johansson, B., Hau, J. and Carlsson, H. (2002). Influence of pet ownership on opinions towards the use of animals in biomedical research. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 15(3), pp.251-257.
Ham, M., Jeger, M. and Frajman Ivković, A. (2015). The role of subjective norms in forming the intention to purchase green food. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1), pp.738-748.
Hansen, T., Risborg, M. and Steen, C. (2012). Understanding consumer purchase of free-of cosmetics: A value-driven TRA approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(6), pp.477-486.
Hari Adi, P. (2017). ANTECENDENTS OF CONSUMERS PERCEPTION AND ITS INFLUENCE TOWARDS PURCHASE INTENTION ON COSMETICS PRODUCT. EKUITAS (Jurnal Ekonomi dan Keuangan), 19(4), p.480.
Harper, G. and Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104(3/4/5), pp.287-299.
Harper, G. and Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104(3/4/5), pp.287-299.
Hoyer, W.D. and Maclnis, D.J. (2004), Consumer Behavior, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Irianto, H. 2015, “Consumers’ Attitude and Intention towards Organic Food Purchase: An Extension of Theory of Planned Behavior in Gender Perspective”, International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, vol. 4, no. 1.
J. Frewer, L., Coles, D., Houdebine, L. and A. Kleter, G. (2014). Attitudes towards genetically modified animals in food production. British Food Journal, 116(8), pp.1291-1313.
Johri, L.M. & Sahasakmontri, K. 1998, “Green marketing of cosmetics and toiletries in Thailand”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 265-281.
Kang, H., Hahn, M., Fortin, D., Hyun, Y. and Eom, Y. (2006). Effects of perceived behavioral control on the consumer usage intention of e-coupons. Psychology and Marketing, 23(10), pp.841-864.
Klein, J. 2012, “EU Cosmetics Directive and the ban on animal testing: compliance, challenges, and the GATT as a potential barrier to animal welfare”, Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 251.
Kleinman, M. (2000, July 20). Marie Curie to increase donor list via DRTV ads. Marketing (London), p. 14
Knight, S. and Barnett, L. (2008). Justifying Attitudes toward Animal Use: A Qualitative Study of People’s Views and Beliefs. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 21(1), pp.31-42.
Kottasz, R. (2004). Differences in the Donor Behavior Characteristics of Young Affluent Males and Females: Empirical Evidence from Britain. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2), pp.181-203.
Krueger, N., Reilly, M. and Carsrud, A. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(5-6), pp.411-432.
Kumar, S. (2005). Exploratory analysis of global cosmetic industry: major players, technology and market trends. Technovation, 25(11), pp.1263-1272.
Lee, Y. and Chang, C. (2007). WHO GIVES WHAT TO CHARITY? CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING DONATION BEHAVIOR. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35(9), pp.1173-1180.
Llieva, J., Baron, S. & Healey, N. (2002). Online surveys in marketing research: pros and cons. International Journal of Market Research. 44 (3), p361-376.
MAC Cosmetics – Official Site. (2017). Animal Testing Notice. [online] Available at: http://www.maccosmetics.co.uk/animaltesting [Accessed 13 Apr. 2017].
Magnusson, M., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U., Åberg, L. and Sjödén, P. (2001). Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. British Food Journal, 103(3), pp.209-227.
Masterton, M., Renberg, T. and Kälvemark Sporrong, S. (2014). Patients’ attitudes towards animal testing: “To conduct research on animals is, I suppose, a necessary evil”. BioSocieties, 9(1), pp.24-41.
Matic, M. & Puh, B. 2016, “CONSUMERS’ PURCHASE INTENTIONS TOWARDS NATURAL COSMETICS”, Ekonomski Vjesnik, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 53.
Matić, M. & Puh, B. 2016, “CONSUMERS’ PURCHASE INTENTIONS TOWARDS NATURAL COSMETICS”, Ekonomski Vjesnik, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 53-64.
Maybelline.com. (2017). Contact & FAQ – Maybelline. [online] Available at: https://www.maybelline.com/faq [Accessed 6 Apr. 2017].
Meehan, H., Cowan, C. and McIntrye, B., 2002. Food choice & consumer. Concerns about animal welfare in Ireland. Final report EC-FAIR ‘Consumer Concern about Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice’.
Michaelidou, N. and Hassan, L. (2008). The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), pp.163-170.
Mooney-Somers, J., Perz, J. and Ussher, J. (2008). A Complex Negotiation: Women’s Experiences of Naming and Not Naming Premenstrual Distress in Couple Relationships. Women & Health, 47(3), pp.57-77.
Napolitano, F., Serrapica, M. and Braghieri, A. (2013). Contrasting Attitudes towards Animal Welfare Issues within the Food Chain. Animals, 3(2), pp.551-557.
Napolitano, F., Serrapica, M. and Braghieri, A. (2013). Contrasting Attitudes towards Animal Welfare Issues within the Food Chain. Animals, 3(2), pp.551-557.
Nocella, G., Hubbard, L. and Scarpa, R. (2010). Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 32(2), pp.275-297.
Nocella, G., Hubbard, L. and Scarpa, R. (2010). Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 32(2), pp.275-297.
Onyango, B., Hallman, W. and Bellows, A. (2007). Purchasing organic food in US food systems. British Food Journal, 109(5), pp.399-411.
Orlans, F.B., Beauchamp, T.L., Dresser, R. & Morton, D.B. 1998, The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice, Oxford University Press, Cary.
Ormandy, E. and Schuppli, C. (2014). Public Attitudes toward Animal Research: A Review. Animals, 4(3), pp.391-408.
Pearson, D., J. Henryks, and H. Jones, (2011), “Organic Food: What We Know (and Do Not Know) about Consumers,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 26(2), 171-177.
Phillips, C., Izmirli, S., Aldavood, J., Alonso, M., Choe, B., Hanlon, A., Handziska, A., Illmann, G., Keeling, L., Kennedy, M., Lee, G., Lund, V., Mejdell, C., Pelagic, V. and Rehn, T. (2010). An International Comparison of Female and Male Students’ Attitudes to the Use of Animals. Animals, 1(1), pp.7-26.
Phillips, C., Izmirli, S., Aldavood, J., Alonso, M., Choe, B., Hanlon, A., Handziska, A., Illmann, G., Keeling, L., Kennedy, M., Lee, G., Lund, V., Mejdell, C., Pelagic, V. and Rehn, T. (2010). An International Comparison of Female and Male Students’ Attitudes to the Use of Animals. Animals, 1(1), pp.7-26.
Pudaruth, S., Juwaheer, T. and Seewoo, Y. (2015). Gender-based differences in understanding the purchasing patterns of eco-friendly cosmetics and beauty care products in Mauritius: a study of female customers. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(1), pp.179-198.
Reid, M. and Wood, A. (2008). An investigation into blood donation intentions among non-donors. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(1), pp.31-43.
Rubin, H. and Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Sahota, A. (2014). Sustainability. 1st ed. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Sahota, A. 2013, Sustainability: How the Cosmetics Industry is Greening Up, 1st edn, Wiley, Somerset.
Sargeant, A. (2001). Using Donor Lifetime Value to Inform Fundraising Strategy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(1), pp.25-38.
Sargeant, A., Ford, J. and West, D. (2000). Widening the appeal of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 5(4), pp.318-332.
Saucier, D. and Cain, M. (2006). The Foundations of Attitudes About Animal Research. Ethics & Behavior, 16(2), pp.117-133.
Schuppli, C. and Weary, D. (2010). Attitudes towards the use of genetically modified animals in research. Public Understanding of Science, 19(6), pp.686-697.
Sharpe, R. (1985). The Draize test—Motivations for change. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 23(2), pp.139-143.
Shelley, L. and Jay Polonsky, M. (2002). Do charitable causes need to segment their current donor base on demographic factors? An Australian examination. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(1), pp.19-29.
Sriwaranun, Y., Gan, C., Lee, M. and Cohen, D. (2015). Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic products in Thailand. International Journal of Social Economics, 42(5), pp.480-510
Stanisstreet, M., Spofforth, N. and Williams, T. (1993). Attitudes of undergraduate students to the uses of animals. Studies in Higher Education, 18(2), pp.177-196.
Tarkiainen, A. and Sundqvist, S. (2005). Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. British Food Journal, 107(11), pp.808-822.
Taylor, H. (2000). Does Internet research work? Comparing electronic survey results with telephone survey. International Journal of Market Research, 42 (1), 51–63.
Thomson, R. (2005) ‘Common Focus’, Medical Marketing & Media, 40(6), pp. 56–57.
Thurmond, V.A. 2001, “The Point of Triangulation”, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 253-258.
Toma, L., Stott, A., Revoredo-Giha, C. and Kupiec-Teahan, B. (2012). Consumers and animal welfare. A comparison between European Union countries. Appetite, 58(2), pp.597-607.
Toma, L., Stott, A., Revoredo-Giha, C. and Kupiec-Teahan, B. (2012). Consumers and animal welfare. A comparison between European Union countries. Appetite, 58(2), pp.597-607.
Tsakiridou, E., Boutsouki, C., Zotos, Y. & Mattas, K. (2007). Attitudes and behaviour towards organic products: An exploratory study. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(2): 158-175.
Tsakiridou, E., Boutsouki, C., Zotos, Y. and Mattas, K. (2008). Attitudes and behaviour towards organic products: an exploratory study. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(2), pp.158-175.
Vallerand, R., Deshaies, P., Cuerrier, J., Pelletier, L. and et al, (1992). Ajzen and Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action as applied to moral behavior: A confirmatory analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), pp.98-109.
Vanhonacker, F. and Verbeke, W. (2009). Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not. Poultry Science, 88(12), pp.2702-2711.
Vanhonacker, F. and Verbeke, W. (2009). Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not. Poultry Science, 88(12), pp.2702-2711.
Veljkovic, S., Stojanovic, Z. and Filipovic, J. (2015). Attitudes toward farm animals welfare and consumer’s buying intentions: Case of Serbia. Ekonomika poljoprivrede, 62(1), pp.53-71.
Verbeke, W. (2009), “Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare”, Animal Welfare, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 325-333.
Williams, V., Dacre, I. and Elliott, M. (2007). Public attitudes in New Zealand towards the use of animals for research, testing and teaching purposes. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 55(2), pp.61-68.
Williams, V., Dacre, I. and Elliott, M. (2007). Public attitudes in New Zealand towards the use of animals for research, testing and teaching purposes. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 55(2), pp.61-68.
Winders, D.J. 2006, “Combining reflexive law and false advertising law to standardize “cruelty-free” labelling of cosmetics”, New York University Law Review, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 454.
Wright, K. (2005). Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 10 (3).
Wuensch, K., & Poteat, G. M. (1998). Evaluating the morality of animal research: Effects of ethical ideology, gender, and purpose. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 139- 150
Wymer, W. (1997). Segmenting Volunteers Using Values, Self-Esteem, Empathy, and Facilitation as Determinant Variables. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 5(2), pp.3-28.
Yavas, U. and Riecken, G. (1993). Socioeconomic and Behavioral Correlates of Donor Segments. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 1(1), pp.71-83.
Yeasmin, S. and Rahman, K.F. (2012) ‘“Triangulation” Research Method as the Tool of Social Science Research’, BUP Journal, 1(1), pp. 154–163
Yeon Kim, H. & Chung, J. 2011, “Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 40-47.
Zakowska-Biemans, S., (2009), “Factors Underlying Consumption of Organic Food in the Opinion of Polish Consumers,” Agronomy Research, 7(2), 768-782.
9 APPENDICES
13 Appendix 4: In-depth interview questions
Interview questions
General questions about animal testing
- How do you feel about animal testing? Are you against or with it?
- Why do think some experiments in medical research are carried out on animals? Do you agree with using animals for this purpose?
- Can you give me examples of the type of animals being used to test on?
Questions regarding animal testing on cosmetics
- How often do you purchase cosmetic products?
- Are you aware that animals are used to test cosmetics? If Yes/no, what is your opinion about using animals to test cosmetics?
- Do you agree with the following statement ‘’using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary’’?
- Now if I was to change the following statement by adding the noun ‘’safety’’ for example ‘’Using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary to ensure human safety’’ Would you still agree with this statement?
- Have you ever heard of two cosmetic brands such as M.A.C and Maybelline?
- Do you buy these products? If so, how often?
- Are you aware that these brands and the product they sell test on animals?
Questions related to the TPB model
- Would you continue to purchase, use or support M.A.C and Maybelline products, after knowing they have been tested on animals? If yes, why? If no, why?
- Do you think testing on animals for cosmetics is ethical?
- How much do other people’s attitude towards animals being used to test in these products affect your purchasing behaviour?
- Do you buy M.A.C and Maybelline products because of its popularity among consumers?
- How easy/difficult would it be to choose a cosmetic product that is cruelty free or a brand that you like which is not cruelty free?
- Are you willing to pay more to ensure cosmetic products are not tested on animals?
14 Appendix 5: In-depth interviews transcripts
Female participant 1
General questions about animal testing
- How do you feel about animal testing? Are you against or with it?
‘…I am against animal testing, I think it’s wrong and its shouldn’t been done especially when animals are suffering so much’
- Why do think some experiments in medical research are carried out on animals? Do you agree with using animals for this purpose?
‘…I think they are carried out because they would be too dangerous to be carried out on human beings, even though I would hate to think of animals treated this way I think it needs to be done’.
- Can you give me examples of the type of animals being used to test on?
Monkeys and rats
Questions regarding animal testing on cosmetics
- How often do you purchase cosmetic products?
‘Monthly’
- Are you aware that animals are used to test cosmetics? If Yes/no, what is your opinion about using animals to test cosmetics?
‘…I know some brands do and others don’t’
- Do you agree with the following statement ‘’using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary’’?
‘…I don’t agree because if some companies can be cruelty-free than why can’t others do the same. It’s not necessary and I think it shouldn’t be done’
- Now if I was to change the following statement by adding the noun ‘’safety’’ for example ‘’Using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary to ensure human safety’’ Would you still agree with this statement?
‘…. ummm not really sure I know medical research it’s important to conduct but for cosmetic I don’t think it’s necessary as there are many alternative methods and I know some companies that use these’
- Have you ever heard of two cosmetic brands such as M.A.C and Maybelline?
‘Yes’
- Do you buy these products? If so, how often?
‘..I have purchased Maybelline quite a few and M.A.C I have a lot of times, probably once every two weeks’
- Are you aware that these brands and the product they sell test on animals?
‘…I wasn’t fully aware. No ‘oh that’s really bad not cool’
Questions related to the TPB model
- Would you continue to purchase, use or support M.A.C and Maybelline products, after knowing they have been tested on animals? If yes, why? If no, why?
‘…I probably wouldn’t keep purchasing because I think what they do and stand for is unethical and sending the wrong messages to their consumers’
- Do you think testing on animals for cosmetics is ethical?
‘…No, it isn’t, it’s unethical because it doesn’t need to be done where there are alternative methods animal testing shouldn’t be done for cosmetic purposes at all’
- How much do other people’s attitude towards animals being used to test in these products affect your purchasing behaviour?
‘……my friends are likely to have an effect on my attitude. The topic is very controversial and sensitive and I think all of friends would say that animal testing done on these products is wrong. If my friends told me that M.A.C and Maybelline are good products in term of quality but then they don’t buy it because they test on animals, then I would have to rethink my purchasing decision’
- Do you buy M.A.C and Maybelline products because of its popularity among consumers?
‘…. yes, I buy these products because of its popularity amongst consumers. They are very popular among beauty artists and makeup artist and when I saw one of my favourite beauty blogger wearing this light pink shade lip colour made me wanted to purchase it. Beauty bloggers are very trusted amongst many people as they have more knowledge in makeup so I just went and bought the same shade lipstick as well….and I loved it and starting to purchase more from these brands.’
- How easy/difficult would it be to choose a cosmetic product that is cruelty free or a brand that you like which is not cruelty free?
‘…ummm I guess its easy to choose cruelty-free product if my friends also buy cruelty free products. I am against cosmetic companies testing on animals so I would love to buy them’
- Are you willing to pay more to ensure cosmetic products are not tested on animals?
‘Yes, I would pay more’
Female participant 2
General questions about animal testing
- How do you feel about animal testing? Are you against or with it?
‘I am against it I don’t think it’s right to test on animals its shouldn’t be done’
- Why do think some experiments in medical research are carried out on animals? Do you agree with using animals for this purpose?
‘…To test whether a new drug or product is not hazardous dangerous for us {human} and yeah I do I agree using animal for medical research is vital’
- Can you give me examples of the type of animals being used to test on?
‘Rabbits, Dogs, Fish, Rats, Cat’.
Questions regarding animal testing on cosmetics
- How often do you purchase cosmetic products?
Very often
- Are you aware that animals are used to test cosmetics? If Yes/no, what is your opinion about using animals to test cosmetics
‘…Yes, I am aware that animals are used to test cosmetics.
Using animals to test cosmetics is not right, cosmetics are simply a luxury and using animals for a human’s beauty is not acceptable. Animals have the same right as humans and their right should be considered’
- Do you agree with the following statement ‘’using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary’’?
No
- Now if I was to change the following statement by adding the noun ‘’safety’’ for example ‘’Using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary to ensure human safety’’ Would you still agree with this statement?
No I still don’t
- Have you ever heard of two cosmetic brands such as M.A.C and Maybelline?
Yes, I have who hasn’t
- Do you buy these products? If so, how often?
Quite Often
- Are you aware that these brands and the product they sell test on animals?
I am not aware, really, they do, oh wow I’m surprised they do but they said they are cruelty free that’s really bad to know
Questions related to the TPB model
- Would you continue to purchase, use or support M.A.C and Maybelline products, after knowing they have been tested on animals? If yes, why? If no, why?
No, because it has ruined and destroyed animal’s life and it is not right
- Do you think testing on animals for cosmetics is ethical?
no its unethical
- How much do other people’s attitude towards animals being used to test in these products affect your purchasing behaviour?
‘…. I’m not sure about other people’s attitude but if my friends or family stopped using these brands because they are being tested on animals, then yes I would stop’
- Do you buy M.A.C and Maybelline products because of its popularity among consumers?
‘…. yes, especially if all my friends were using these products [M.A.C and Maybelline] then they must be good, why else will they buy them in the first place if they weren’t good. Beside that many people buy from these brands and are willing to pay a good amount of money for them’
’
- How easy/difficult would it be to choose a cosmetic product that is cruelty free or a brand that you like which is not cruelty free?
‘… It would be easy I guess I actually I’m not sure what you meant by the question. I mean if would be easier but then I again my friends buy them as well so Its not wrong. I don’t know I am not sure’
- Are you willing to pay more to ensure cosmetic products are not tested on animals?
yes
Male participant 3
General questions about animal testing
- How do you feel about animal testing? Are you against or with it?
I’m for it I don’t think there is anything wrong with animal testing
- Why do think some experiments in medical research are carried out on animals? Do you agree with using animals for this purpose?
Because its unethical to carry it out on humans and ya’ll I do to test out new drugs than I necessary I mean you hear loads of where human volunteers are used however, this can lead to fatal effect and sometime result in death and it becomes a moral issue whereas with animals I know people do oppose using animals however, it’s better to use animals than humans in my opinion.
- Can you give me examples of the type of animals being used to test on?
I know rats are primarily used for testing but that’s about it.
Questions regarding animal testing on cosmetics
- How often do you purchase cosmetic products?
Once a week
- Are you aware that animals are used to test cosmetics? If Yes/no, what is your opinion about using animals to test cosmetics?
Yes, I know as said before I’m not against animal testing
- Do you agree with the following statement ‘’using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary’’?
I don’t think it’s necessary it depends on what is being tested
- Now if I was to change the following statement by adding the noun ‘’safety’’ for example ‘’Using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary to ensure human safety’’ Would you still agree with this statement?
Yes, I agree
- Have you ever heard of two cosmetic brands such as M.A.C and Maybelline?
Yes, I have
- Do you buy these products? If so, how often?
Yes, I do, less than once three month. I don’t exactly
- Are you aware that these brands and the product they sell test on animals?
Yes, I am aware Maybelline is under L’oreal and I think there was a Huge drama going on with that firm conducting experiments on animals and not complying to the 3 Rs.
Questions related to the TPB model
- Would you continue to purchase, use or support M.A.C and Maybelline products, after knowing they have been tested on animals? If yes, why? If no, why?
No, I wouldn’t cosmetic are tested for a reason not just for the fun of it
- Do you think testing on animals for cosmetics is ethical?
Yes, it is
- How much do other people’s attitude towards animals being used to test in these products affect your purchasing behaviour?
‘too some extent they do’ people tell me that these animals are suffering because the way we consumer stuff without considering the way which they are made, produce and the overall production process behind it from producing to testing to delivering and not enough is known about the impact
- Do you buy M.A.C and Maybelline products because of its popularity among consumers?
‘yes, I brought it because they are popular I don’t buy anything that are not popular amongst consumers’
- How easy/difficult would it be to choose a cosmetic product that is cruelty free or a brand that you like which is not cruelty free?
‘…I don’t care much about whether a product has or has not been tested on animals for me it’s the value of the product. it’s easy for me to choose one brand over another so I choose M.A.C and Maybelline because of its product attribute’.
- Are you willing to pay more to ensure cosmetic products are not tested on animals?
NO
Female participant 4
General questions about animal testing
- How do you feel about animal testing? Are you against or with it?
I am against it, I don’t like to see any animals being harm but I know animal testing is still being done despite being alternatives.
- Why do think some experiments in medical research are carried out on animals? Do you agree with using animals for this purpose?
well I would say for humans it’s much more complicated and the way I would say or see it would make it unethical but then easier to produce an animal then to produce a human being…… genetically modified. So, it’s easier to do testing on animals rather than then to do it on human beings.
- Can you give me examples of the type of animals being used to test on?
Monkey, umm rabbits, fish I think
Questions regarding animal testing on cosmetics
- How often do you purchase cosmetic products?
Definitely,once or twice a month but I don’t think I purchase more like some of friends do. They buy like almost every week
- Are you aware that animals are used to test cosmetics? If Yes/no, what is your opinion about using animals to test cosmetics?
really, they do na I wasn’t aware of this my opinion would be in terms of attitude I am against the idea
- Do you agree with the following statement ‘’using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary’’?
no I don’t think it necessary
- Now if I was to change the following statement by adding the noun ‘’safety’’ for example ‘’Using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary to ensure human safety’’ Would you still agree with this statement?
No
- Have you ever heard of two cosmetic brands such as M.A.C and Maybelline?
Yes, I have heard of both
- Do you buy these products? If so, how often?
Maybelline product I have brought mainly their foundation and concealer once a month and M.A.C a couple of time. Their products last very long so I don’t need to buy them that often
- Are you aware that these brands and the product they sell test on animals?i
Actually not
Questions related to the TPB model
- Would you continue to purchase, use or support M.A.C and Maybelline products, after knowing they have been tested on animals? If yes, why? If no, why?
I wouldn’t support no
- Do you think testing on animals for cosmetics is ethical?
I would say its unethical because it’s not fair
- How much do other people’s attitude towards animals being used to test in these products affect your purchasing behaviour?
a lot’ ‘…. if a lot of people stop buying from these products because they are testing on animals then yeah I would have a great impact on me but a lot people are buying from these brands so they must be ok I guess so at the moment I will still continue to buy it’
- Do you buy M.A.C and Maybelline products because of its popularity among consumers?
‘…. Yes, I do buy M.A.C products because of its popularity amongst consumers. My sister uses M.A.C products herself, in fact she has a whole collection of M.A.C lipsticks and she recommended to me to start using these products myself as they are so good.’
- How easy/difficult would it be to choose a cosmetic product that is cruelty free or a brand that you like which is not cruelty free?
could you say that question again I didn’t quite get it I don’t know to be honest. I always rely on sister opinion when it comes to make-up so if she starts to buy it then I will as well
- Are you willing to pay more to ensure cosmetic products are not tested on animals?
Yes
Female participant 5
General questions about animal testing
- How do you feel about animal testing? Are you against or with it?
I am against it I feel it’s not right to test makeup products on animals its unfair. I feel bad for the animals being tested on
- Why do think some experiments in medical research are carried out on animals? Do you agree with using animals for this purpose?
To check for any harm that could potentially harm humans and yeah, I do agree because here the practice is necessary
- Can you give me examples of the type of animals being used to test on?
Rabbits, rats
Questions regarding animal testing on cosmetics
- How often do you purchase cosmetic products?
Once a month
- Are you aware that animals are used to test cosmetics? If Yes/no, what is your opinion about using animals to test cosmetics?
Yes, I am aware of it especially in my home country china it is mandatory to test on animals for cosmetics, medical and so on. I don’t like the idea of being tested on animals I just feel bad for them.
- Do you agree with the following statement ‘’using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary’’?
No I don’t agree with, it’s unethical and it shouldn’t be done in any circumstance
- Now if I was to change the following statement by adding the noun ‘’safety’’ for example ‘’Using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary to ensure human safety’’ Would you still agree with this statement?
No I don’t agree with it. It feels a bit selfish you test on animal but you test on humans because it’s dangerous well it works similar ways it’s pose harmful affect for the animals as well.
- Have you ever heard of two cosmetic brands such as M.A.C and Maybelline?
Yes, I have heard of these products. I’m brought a couple of mac lipsticks before
- Do you buy these products? If so, how often?
Yeah, I do, once/twice a week or within two weeks
- Are you aware that these brands and the product they sell test on animals?
no I didn’t know
Questions related to the TPB model
- Would you continue to purchase, use or support M.A.C and Maybelline products, after knowing they have been tested on animals? If yes, why? If no, why?
‘’’umm maybe not I don’t know what procedure they conduct and the impact they have however, knowing that I don’t disagree with animal used for cosmetic I will not support M.A.C and Maybelline, thinking about it I would not buy from these’.
- Do you think testing on animals for cosmetics is ethical?
‘Unethical! testing for cosmetics in this day n age is not necessary where there is alternative. Animals should not be tested on cosmetics and researchers should not be required to do so’
- How much do other people’s attitude towards animals being used to test in these products affect your purchasing behaviour?
‘umm they do influence my choice. I know that the products are perceived high in quality and that they are very popular but if people are buying them regardless of being tested on animals then I think it ok. if everyone is buying from them and not just me them I’m not doing anything wrong. You know what I mean if they stop buying from them then surely, I will go and buy from other brands’
- Do you buy M.A.C and Maybelline products because of its popularity among consumers?
‘Yes, I do’
- How easy/difficult would it be to choose a cosmetic product that is cruelty free or a brand that you like which is not cruelty free?
‘…. sorry I didn’t understand the question’ (questioned repeated and explained again by researcher)’ ‘umm I’m not sure I think it will be easy for me as I will have the purchasing power and would buy cruelty-free if the quality is same but then I again I buy M.A.C and Maybelline because my friends also buy’
- Are you willing to pay more to ensure cosmetic products are not tested on animal?
‘yes, I am’
Male participant 6
General questions about animal testing
- How do you feel about animal testing? Are you against or with it?
I’m not against I don’t think it’s a big deal
- Why do think some experiments in medical research are carried out on animals? Do you agree with using animals for this purpose?
To ensure human safety and also it be unethical to test on humans so animals are well suited since they are considered similar to humans. So yeah, I agree with using animals for medical research
- Can you give me examples of the type of animals being used to test on?
Rats, monkeys used in other countries, guinea pigs
Questions regarding animal testing on cosmetics
- How often do you purchase cosmetic products?
Two/three times in a month it depends on what cosmetics
- Are you aware that animals are used to test cosmetics? If Yes/no, what is your opinion about using animals to test cosmetics?
Yes, I am I don’t really have an opinion on this I don’t care if I’m honest I know it might sound shallow it’s been done for a long time
- Do you agree with the following statement ‘’using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary’’?
yes, I do
- Now if I was to change the following statement by adding the noun ‘’safety’’ for example ‘’Using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary to ensure human safety’’ Would you still agree with this statement?
Yes, I do
- Have you ever heard of two cosmetic brands such as M.A.C and Maybelline?
Yes, I have
- Do you buy these products? If so, how often?
Yes, I have for my sister especially on her birthday and sometimes when I feel like giving my mum and sister something as a thank you present. Sometimes
- Are you aware that these brands and the product they sell test on animals?
No I’m not aware I know most cosmetics have been tested on animals but I don’t know exactly which one
Questions related to the TPB model
- Would you continue to purchase, use or support M.A.C and Maybelline products, after knowing they have been tested on animals? If yes, why? If no, why?
Yes, I would purchase however supporting them is another spectrum for me to support them I need be strongly for with the idea of using animals in cosmetics.
- Do you think testing on animals for cosmetics is ethical?
Yes, I do
- How much do other people’s attitude towards animals being used to test in these products affect your purchasing behaviour?
‘yes, they do, I feel bad knowing they are tested on animals my friend has this adorable pet and she doesn’t buy from M.A.C and Maybelline but if my sister and mum don’t want them then I won’t buy as well
- Do you buy M.A.C and Maybelline products because of its popularity among consumers?
Somewhat
- How easy/difficult would it be to choose a cosmetic product that is cruelty free or a brand that you like which is not cruelty free?
it doesn’t matter either way for me the product attribute matters overall. So its easy for me to switch.
- Are you willing to pay more to ensure cosmetic products are not tested on animals?
no I wouldn’t
Male participant 7
General questions about animal testing
- How do you feel about animal testing? Are you against or with it?
It depends what they are testing for I mean for me personally I don’t like the idea of animal testing but I consider the reason for why these animals are being used for such as medical research I wouldn’t mind.
- Why do think some experiments in medical research are carried out on animals? Do you agree with using animals for this purpose?
I think it’s because its unethical to test on humans so let’s say you’re testing a new medicine you can’t inject or ask someone to take that medicine because of the risk its poses, life is at stake so the only way to test this through animals such as rabbits which is considered much more appropriate than using a human. So yeah, I agree using animals for this purpose
- Can you give me examples of the type of animals being used to test on?
Rabbits for sure, rats, hamsters and Guinea pigs
Questions regarding animal testing on cosmetics
- How often do you purchase cosmetic products?
Quite often once a week
- Are you aware that animals are used to test cosmetics? If Yes/no, what is your opinion about using animals to test cosmetics?
Yeah, I am aware they do test cosmetics on animals I don’t really have an opinion about this to be honest. I don’t care or thought about it
- Do you agree with the following statement ‘’using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary’’?
I don’t think it’s necessary to use animals always again it depends on the reason why your conducting such testing in the first place.
- Now if I was to change the following statement by adding the noun ‘’safety’’ for example ‘’Using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary to ensure human safety’’ Would you still agree with this statement?
Yes, I agree
- Have you ever heard of two cosmetic brands such as M.A.C and Maybelline? Yes, I have
- Do you buy these products? If so, how often?
Not that often, I buy it for my girlfriend for her birthday and sometimes for special occasion as she loves them
- Are you aware that these brands and the product they sell test on animals?
yes, I am
Questions related to the TPB model
- Would you continue to purchase, use or support M.A.C and Maybelline products, after knowing they have been tested on animals? If yes, why? If no, why?
‘I don’t know for sure If to be completely honest first of all this topic has been spoken much about in depth before also I don’t know the extent that these companies go to in order to test their cosmetic. I don’t know what impact they have on these animals or how much pain and suffering is caused. I’ve never seen a picture of these animals before so I really can’t say anything at the moment’
- Do you think testing on animals for cosmetics is ethical?
I wouldn’t say its ethical I am not someone to say that however if the products needs to be tested on they its needs to be tested on. You can’t argue with cosmetic company with this now.
- How much do other people’s attitude towards animals being used to test in these products affect your purchasing behaviour?
‘no, they don’t, I only buy things that I like or want to whether they have or have not been tested on animals’
- Do you buy M.A.C and Maybelline products because of its popularity among consumers?
‘no, I only brought it because I knew my wife has these make up product I brought it as a gift for her I didn’t knew they were popular’
- How easy/difficult would it be to choose a cosmetic product that is cruelty free or a brand that you like which is not cruelty free?
It be easy for me to choose a brand that I like whether its cruelty free or not. If I didn’t like a brand, then obviously, I wouldn’t buy it
- Are you willing to pay more to ensure cosmetic products are not tested on animals?
no not really
Male participant 8
General questions about animal testing
- How do you feel about animal testing? Are you against or with it?
I’m with it
- Why do think some experiments in medical research are carried out on animals? Do you agree with using animals for this purpose?
Because it not considered ethical and morally right to conduct testing on humans. Animals are the best alternative and yeah, I do agree
- Can you give me examples of the type of animals being used to test on?
Rats, rabbit, fish
Questions regarding animal testing on cosmetics
- How often do you purchase cosmetic products?
Quite often
- Are you aware that animals are used to test cosmetics? If Yes/no, what is your opinion about using animals to test cosmetics?
Yes, I am aware I think its ok to test cosmetics on animals
- Do you agree with the following statement ‘’using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary’’?
yes, I do
- Now if I was to change the following statement by adding the noun ‘’safety’’ for example ‘’Using animals for cosmetic testing is necessary to ensure human safety’’ Would you still agree with this statement?
Yes, I do
- Have you ever heard of two cosmetic brands such as M.A.C and Maybelline?
Yes, I have
- Do you buy these products? If so, how often?
I’m a blogger so I buy them on a regular basis so twice a week and sometimes I get them for free
- Are you aware that these brands and the product they sell test on animals?
No
Questions related to the TPB model
- Would you continue to purchase, use or support M.A.C and Maybelline products, after knowing they have been tested on animals? If yes, why? If no, why?
Yes, I would I love their products so I will continue to purchase their products
- Do you think testing on animals for cosmetics is ethical?
Yes
- How much do other people’s attitude towards animals being used to test in these products affect your purchasing behaviour?
‘No, they don’t, if I feel negative about something they I will oppose it and wouldn’t care what others think. I don’t think animal testing is unethical or completely wrong and for me quality matters and price’
- Do you buy M.A.C and Maybelline products because of its popularity among consumers?
‘They are popular agree but because they are popular and influenced my buying then I don’t agree’
- How easy/difficult would it be to choose a cosmetic product that is cruelty free or a brand that you like which is not cruelty free?
it be difficult to buy a product that I don’t like but easier if I do like the brand whether its cruelty free or not
- Are you willing to pay more to ensure cosmetic products are not tested on animals?
not really
15 Appendix 6: In-depth interview Thematic Analysis
| Participant | Attitude |
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
‘…To test whether a new drug or product is not hazardous dangerous for us {human} and yeah I do I agree using animal for medical research is vital’
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
No I don’t agree with, it’s unethical and it shouldn’t be done in any circumstance
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| Participants | Subjective norms |
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| Participants | Perceived behavioural control |
| 1 | ‘…ummm I guess its easy to choose cruelty-free product if my friends also buy cruelty free products. I am against cosmetic companies testing on animals so I would love to buy them’ |
| 2 | ‘… It would be easy I guess I actually I’m not sure what you meant by the question. I mean if would be easier but then I again my friends buy them as well so Its not wrong. I don’t know I am not sure’ |
| 3 | ‘…I don’t care much about whether a product has or has not been tested on animals for me it’s the value of the product. it’s easy for me to choose one brand over another so I choose M.A.C and Maybelline because of its product attribute’. |
| 4 | could you say that question again I didn’t quite get it I don’t know to be honest. I always rely on sister opinion when it comes to make-up so if she starts to buy it then I will as well |
| 5 | ‘…. sorry I didn’t understand the question’ (questioned repeated and explained again by researcher)’ ‘umm I’m not sure I think it will be easy for me as I will have the purchasing power and would buy cruelty-free if the quality is same but then I again I buy M.A.C and Maybelline because my friends also buy’ |
| 6 | it doesn’t matter either way for me the product attribute matters overall. So its easy for me to switch. |
| 7 | It be easy for me to choose a brand that I like whether its cruelty free or not. If I didn’t like a brand, then obviously, I wouldn’t buy it |
| 8 | it be difficult to buy a product that I don’t like but easier if I do like the brand whether its cruelty free or not |
| Participants | Impact |
| 3 | ‘too some extent they do’ people tell me that these animals are suffering because the way we consumer stuff without considering the way which they are made, produce and the overall production process behind it from producing to testing to delivering and not enough is known about the impact |
| 5 | ‘’’umm maybe not I don’t know what procedure they conduct and the impact they have however, knowing that I don’t disagree with animal used for cosmetic I will not support M.A.C and Maybelline, thinking about it I would not buy from these’. |
| 7 | ‘I don’t know for sure If to be completely honest first of all this topic has been spoken much about in depth before also I don’t know the extent that these companies go to in order to test their cosmetic. I don’t know what impact they have on these animals or how much pain and suffering is caused. I’ve never seen a picture of these animals before so I really can’t say anything at the moment’ |
16 Appendix 7: Question 13 and 14 subjective norm thematic analysis
17 Appendix 8: Online survey ethical clearance
18 Appendix 9: Online survey information sheet
Thank you very much for taking the time to help me with this survey. I am an Undergraduate student in my final year at the University of Reading. This survey forms part of my dissertation which is part of my degree in Consumer Behaviour and Marketing. As part of my module AP3EX2 Individual Project, I am conducting research into consumer attitudes towards animal testing used in cosmetics.
Only people who have used or purchased M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetics can take part in this survey. If you have never used or purchased M.A.C and Maybelline products, please discontinue this survey.
This survey will take approximately 10 minutes to complete and you must be the age of 18 and above to complete this survey. We will not collect any names or personal details as part of the survey.
Participation is entirely voluntary and you can complete it at your own leisure before the deadline 17th March 2017. You are free to end this survey at any point if you wish to do so. Your participation will remain entirely anonymous and confidential. Any contribution made will not be possible to withdrawn from after 17th March 2017.
All data I collect will be stored electronically on a password-protected computer. The data will be destroyed at the end of the research project no later than 19/04/17. By completing this survey, you are acknowledging that you understand the terms and conditions of participation in this study and that you consent to these terms.
This research has been approved in accordance with guidelines and regulation of the University of Reading Ethics Committee.
Thank you once again for taking time to take part in this survey!
19 Appendix 10: Online survey questions
Survey questions
Q1. What is your gender?
- Male
- Female
Q2. What is your age?
- 18 to 24
- 25 to 34
- 35 to 44
- 45 and above
Q3. What is your occupation?
- High school graduate or less
- Undergraduate
- Postgraduate
- Unemployed
- Employed
- Other (Please specify)
- Prefer not to say
Q4. What category best describes your annual income level?
- £0 to £19.999
- £20.000 to £34.999
- £35.000 to £49.999
- £50.000 to £74.999
- £75.000 and above
Q5. How often do you buy cosmetic products?
- Daily
- Weekly
- Monthly
- Once a year
Q6. On an average, how much do you spend every month on cosmetic products?
- Less than £20
- Between £20 to £40
- Between £41 to £60
- More than £60
Q7. Are you aware that animals are being used to test cosmetics?
- Yes
- No
Q8. Do you agree with using animals for cosmetic testing?
- Yes
- No
- Not sure
Q9. Do you think animal testing is?
- Ethical
- Unethical
- Not sure
Q10. In what circumstances (if any) do you think it’s okay to test on animals?
- Behavioural studies
- Biomedical research/studies
- cosmetic testing
- Drug testing
- Education purposes
- Other (Please specify)
- Never okay to test on animals
Q11. Have you ever purchased M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetic products before?
- Yes
- No
Q12. If you have ticked ‘yes’ for question 11, please answer the following statements indicating how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.
Q12. Here are some general statements regarding animal testing. Please indicate your immediate response in regards to the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.
Q13. Based on the two pictures shown above, please indicate your immediate response
Q14Are you willing to spend more money to ensure cosmetic products are not being tested on animals considering the cost of cosmetic production will increase therefore the price of cosmetic products sold may also increase?
- Yes
- No
Q15. By answering all the questions in this survey, where do you stand in regards to animal testing overall? (1= not against animal testing, 5= strongly against animal testing)
| Strongly not against | Strongly against |
Please enter a 6-digit unique reference number of your choice. This is a number that you will remember and that you can use to withdraw from your information at a later point of time if you wish to do so.
| Coefficientsa | ||||||||
| Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | 95.0% Confidence Interval for B | |||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||
| 1 | (Constant) | 2.334 | .655 | 3.563 | .001 | 1.032 | 3.635 | |
| Gender | .076 | .175 | .055 | .434 | .665 | -.271 | .423 | |
| Age | -.008 | .074 | -.010 | -.105 | .917 | -.154 | .139 | |
| subjective norm -I believe M.A.C and Maybelline products are very popular amongst consumers therefore influence my purchasing behaviour | .009 | .041 | .022 | .216 | .829 | -.073 | .091
Appendix 10: coefficient |
|
| subjective norm Other people’s attitude towards M.A.C and Maybelline products influence my purchasing decisions | -.023 | .048 | -.058 | -.480 | .632 | -.118 | .072 | |
| subjective norm .-I will not buy M.A.C and Maybelline cosmetic products even if my friends told me do so | .040 | .038 | .101 | 1.045 | .299 | -.036 | .115 | |
| attitude: Here are some general statements regarding animal testing. Please indicate your immediate re…-It doesn’t bother me at all if animals are being used for all types of research. | .035 | .048 | .097 | .719 | .474 | -.061 | .131 | |
| impact: Based on the two pictures shown above, please indicate your immediate response-Looking at the pictures above makes me feel uncomfortable | -.088 | .076 | -.203 | -1.160 | .249 | -.239 | .063 | |
| impact: Based on the two pictures shown above, please indicate your immediate response-Looking at the pictures above makes me feel frustrated | -.106 | .053 | -.293 | -1.975 | .051 | -.212 | .001 | |
| impact:Based on the two pictures shown above, please indicate your immediate response-Looking at the pictures above makes me feel sad | .001 | .087 | .003 | .017 | .987 | -.172 | .175 | |
| impact: Based on the two pictures shown above, please indicate your immediate response-looking at the pictures above, makes no difference to me at all | -.117 | .079 | -.213 | -1.480 | .143 | -.275 | .040 | |
| Q13. Here are some general statements regarding animal testing. Please indicate your immediate re…-Humans are much more important than animals. If animals can be used to make human life better than they should be used | .079 | .052 | .219 | 1.527 | .130 | -.024 | .181 | |
| Q13. Here are some general statements regarding animal testing. Please indicate your immediate re…-Animal testing cannot be justified whatever the reason it is conducted for in the first place | .015 | .046 | .041 | .326 | .745 | -.077 | .107 | |
| a. Dependent Variable: attitude: Do you agree with using animals for cosmetic testing? | ||||||||
Leave a Reply