ZNATI TO PROMOVIRATI NA PAKIRANJU, TO STAVLJATI U PRVI PLAN!!!

o tome detaljno govoriti o raspravi ako se ispostavi da kupci ne prepoznaju proizvode i ako se
onom pitanju u velikoj veini izjasne da ele oznake jasnije stavljati oznaku u prvi plan zbir
pozitivnih nalaza za cruelty free (ukljui i stav i poznavanje i koritenje i preferenciju) IMPLIKACIJE
ISTAIVANJA

http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/package-this-beauty-consumers-favor-
cruelty-free-and-natural-product-claims.html NIELSEN STUDIJA JE NAJCITIRANIJA!!! Stoga
najpouzdanija?

The same product survey identified a gap between factors that beauty consumers deem very
or moderately important and what theyre willing to pay more for. While the not tested on
animals claim took the No. 1 spot in terms of importance (among 57% of respondents), only
43% of respondents said theyd be willing to pay more for beauty products that arent tested on
animals. When its time to open our wallets, respondents said theyre most willing to pay a
premium for all-natural beauty products.

As with all marketing messages, knowing your audience is critical in the beauty aisle. And
according to recent Nielsen Affinova research that was conducted as part of Nielsens larger
Creativity of Beauty study, consumers are looking for familiarity and clarity.

The top two beauty claims women are willing to pay more for are "not tested on animals" (42%)
and contains no animal products (37%). (ZA KOZMETIKU VRIJEDI)

Drugi izvor:

In the same Nielsen survey, nearly half the respondents said that they would be willing to pay
more for beauty products that werent tested on animals. Out of all the advertised benefits that
would entice them to pay more, women chose not tested on animals and contains no animal
products as their top two.

https://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/cosmetics/americans-oppose-testing-cosmetics-
on-animals

In fact, the European Union has banned animal testing of these products. The United States
has not taken such a progressive stance. Tens of thousandsand possibly even 100,000 or
morerabbits, guinea pigs, mice, and rats are still subjected to painful tests each year to bring
eye shadow and shaving cream to American store shelves.

72 percent of respondents agreed that testing cosmetics on animals is unethical

An even higher percentage78 percentof respondents agreed that the development of

alternatives to animal testing for cosmetics testing is important
 Sixty-one percent of respondents said that cosmetics and personal care product companies
should not be allowed to test products on animals

When asked whether their opinions would motivate them at the store, 58 percent said they
would purchase cruelty-free personal care products

Sixty-one percent of respondents were so opposed to animal testing of cosmetics and personal
care products that they said companies should not be allowed to test their products on
animals. These numbers are up significantly from a 2003 Gallup Poll that found 38 percent of
Americans would support a complete ban on product testing on animals.

Significant increase in the number of Americans who would purchase cruelty-free products. In
2008, a survey by the Humane Research Council found that 40 percent of Americans had
purchased products labeled as not tested on animals because of their concern for animals.
PCRMs survey found that 58 percent of Americans would purchase cruelty-free products.
Although the 2008 survey asked whether the respondent had actually purchased the products
and PCRMs asked how likely they would be to purchase cruelty-free products, the results
suggest that consumers are increasingly inclined to purchase products not tested on animals.

In addition, the majority of respondents agreed that developing alternatives to animal testing
is important. These results send a strong message to cosmetics companies and Congress:
Consumers want to be able to purchase cruelty-free cosmetics products and believe that
moving toward nonanimal test methods is an important priority.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8852129/lewis05.html?sequence=2

Karyn Snyder, Terms of Ensnarement; Use of Animals in Testing , Drug Topics, Jan. 22, 1996,
at 51 (quoting the National Consumers League). :

1. Among women, 63% oppose animal testing for health and beauty products.
2. Nine percent of women specifically look for "not tested on animals" claims when buying
health and beauty care (HBC) products.
3. Twenty-two percent of women have purchased HBC products because "advertising
indicated it was not tested on animals."
4. Moreover, 47% said they would be somewhat or much more likely to buy an HBC
product that indicates it has not been tested on animals.
This data reveals that the claim "not tested on animals" has power to add value to a product
and that consumers make choices based on their beliefs about whether or not a company tests
on animals.

2) Even if finished products have not been tested on animals, the ingredients may have been.
3) Even if that product was not tested on animals, the company may have tested earlier, very
similar products.
 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120328142840.htm

Lee, Kim Sheehan (2014): "Participants in our study who recognized the term cruelty-free indicated
that they would be more likely to buy products that were cruelty-free and they had much more
positive attitudes toward brands that advertised themselves as cruelty-free,"

Sheehan and Lee say their findings are concerning in regard to consumer protection. They say that
because they have shown that consumers are willing to spend money on products that are cruelty-
free, even if they don't understand that those products aren't always completely free of animal
testing, the door is opened for product unethical business and advertising practices. Sheehan and Lee
believe there should be a legal definition for what constitutes a cruelty-free product to help protect
consumers.

"Our study shows that consumers rely on their own personal moral values to make decisions,"
Sheehan said. "If the product information consumers receive is misleading, then they are not able to
make important decisions in ways that they would consider morally correct. Creating a legal standard
to define terms like cruelty-free will aid consumers in making the best decisions for themselves and
their families."

The surveys also revealed gaps in the publics knowledge. Of those surveyed, 63% acknowledged that
they did not feel very well informed about developments in scientific research.

More than half of the people surveyed (55%) said that they were interested in finding out more
about ongoing work to find alternatives to using animals in research. Similarly, the majority of people
(54%) said they would be interested in finding out more about work to improve the welfare of
animals used in scientific research.

http://www.crueltyfreekitty.com/news/animal-testing-poll-results-2016/

Humane Society International recently commissioned public opinion surveys regarding animal
testing in the US, Canada, South Korea, Brazil, Japan, and Taiwan. These polls revealed that the
vast majority of people worldwide generally at least 70% want an end to animal
testing.

In the US, the poll was commissioned by The Humane Society of the United States. HSI
partnered with Lush Cosmetics in Japan, and with SPCA in Taiwan.

Survey finds 75 percent of women prefer cruelty-free cosmetics

http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Market-Trends/Survey-finds-75-percent-of-women-prefer-
cruelty-free-cosmetics

By Michelle Yeomans , 23-Oct-2012

A recent survey by online retailer Vitacost.com has found that one label that definitely matters
to US women is cruelty-free, with almost 75 percent admitting to purchasing cosmetics that
feature the label over products that do not.
 Public Attitudes toward Animal Research (openito istraivanje na
ivotinjama valjda nalaze moemo primijeniti i za na kontekst
kozmetike/ienja): A Review
Elisabeth H. Ormandy * and Catherine A. Schuppli , Animals 2014, 4, 391-408
1. Age: It has generally been reported that moral acceptance of the use of animals in
research is positively correlated with age [4]. In their 1981 study [25], Kellert
and Berry suggest that younger people are more opposed to animal use than older
people. The authors go on to describe how older males presented a more
instrumental view toward animals, suggesting that older people tend to emphasize
the practical value of animals. (oito da nije vie tako - navesti kao argument
da se vremena mijenjaju bla bla, tu neto smisliti) Other studies have echoed this
finding [17,2628]. However, some studies have found, conversely, that younger
participants are more supportive of animal-based research that older participants,
e.g., [11]. The effect of age on attitudes toward animals may be a cohort effect,
where people with a shared history are more likely to share beliefs and attitudes
[29], or may be also be related to attitudinal change with age [30].

2. Sex: Sex identity has been consistently found to relate to attitudes toward the
treatment of research animals (and animals in general), with virtually all studies
reporting that women are more likely to object to animal use [12,25,26,31,32]. A
lower proportion of women accept the use of animals in research compared to
men [27,3337] and most studies of the animal protection movement have found
that women activists outnumber men by a ratio of two or three to one [3840].
The effects of sex identity on attitudes toward the use of animals in research are
consistent across many studies, with differences between males and females
extending to at least 15 different countries [14]. Pifer [15] reported that, among a
range of predictors, sex identity was the strongest correlate of opposition to
animal research.
It might be that females are less supportive of animal use because they are more
likely to attribute mental states to animals, and more likely to have a sympathetic
reaction if they believe that animal use will cause some kind of pain or distress to
animals [18]. Indeed, males have been shown to present lower levels of belief in
the mental abilities of animals compared to females. In addition Kellert [42]
reported that men exhibited more dominionistic attitudes toward the
environment, while women exhibited more moralistic attitudes, a difference
that might also explain sex difference in attitudes toward animal use.
Similarly, womens social positions may also lead to greater concern for animals.
For example, Kendall et al. [29] argue that women are typically primary family
caretakers (and so are more likely to take on nurturing roles), and may be more
likely to engage in household tasks that put them in more direct contact with
animals.
 3. Experience with Animals: Attitudes toward the human use of animals can also
be shaped by a persons previous or existing experience of animals [8,35]; for
example, Driscoll [26] found that pet owners rated animal-based research as less
acceptable than did non-pet owners. This finding is also echoed in other studies
that showed that pet owners form an attachment with their animals, and that this
strengthens a general positive attitude toward other animals [4952]. According
to contact theory, e.g., [53], contact with members of an outgroup (e.g., non-
human animals) can lead to a mutual understanding and decreased prejudice
toward that group. Contact may also foster emotional attachment and empathy
toward animals [5457]. This may explain why positive experiences of animals
promote affection and positive attitudes toward animals in general, which is in
conflict with utility or instrumental uses of animals, such as research animals
[58]. Thus pet ownership, or other positive experiences of animals may increase
peoples opposition to animal research.

A third shortcoming is that many of the studies cited above were performed using methods that
asked participants to respond on a scale (e.g., Likert scale, rating or preference scale), or asked
questions requiring a simple Yes or No response, without any insight into the reasoning that may
have led to these responses. Participants are constrained in their choice of answers by the options
provided by the researcher (which may lead to researcher bias) [106] and are unable to provide any
qualification to explain their response. bile smo nekako ograniene u mogunostima s obzirom na
to da je istraivanje bilo terensko i provedeno s ljudima na ulici ;), ali je moda to upravo nedostatak ,
a koji bi mogao nekako bolje objasniti ono to nismo potvrdili hipotezama (a i sve ostalo),,, The
exploration of peoples reasons for their Yes/No or Likert scale responses is important. The
shortcomings of restricted response options can be addressed if questions are designed with sufficient
understanding of the topic: being able to ask meaningful questions that allow people to demonstrate
their reasoning. Often such in-depth understanding is
developed from initial qualitative research, where the quantitative research is used to confirm the
findings. When restricted response options do not allow for consideration of what peoples concerns
are (e.g., why they might be opposed to certain types of research), it is difficult for policy makers to
understand the nuance in attitudes in order to make progress in addressing societal concerns.
Public Opinion on Animal Testing, Justin Goodman
Public attitudes to animal research in 2016
Michael Clemence and John Leaman
This conditional approach to acceptance is underlined by the fact that a majority of the public say they
are bothered by the use of animals in research 59 per cent disagree that it does not bother them if
animals are used in experimentation (identical to 2014), whilst one in five (22%) agree that it is not a
concern to them.

Acceptance of animal research on these measures varies to an extent by demographic factors. Men are
typically more accepting of the use of animals in research than women (a familiar pattern from many other
studies);

A majority of the public agree that more needs to be done to find alternatives to using animals in research
this year three quarters (74%) of the public agree, a similar level to 2014 when 76 per cent agreed. As in 2014,
half (53%) of the public agree that the use of animals in medical research should be conducted only for life-
threatening or debilitating diseases, with one quarter (24%) disagreeing.

Around one third of the public continue to believe that animal research to test cosmetics and
ingredients for cosmetics is allowed in the UK. This year, 35 per cent said that they believed this was
the case, a slight increase on the 31 per cent in 2014. Testing cosmetics and ingredients for cosmetics
on animals has been banned since 2009 across the European Union, and the sale of cosmetics that
have been tested on animals elsewhere has been banned since 2013 2. But this message has not
reached a substantial portion of the public, and the trend data recorded here suggest that awareness
is not rising.

Testing cosmetics on animals remains the area with the greatest difference between those who believe
it is permitted and that it should be permitted; one in ten (9%) say that testing cosmetics on animals
should be allowed - a statistically significant rise from 2014 (5%). These relatively small percentages
disguise very large numbers of people: a conservative estimate equates the 9% to at least three million
people.

The knowledge that cosmetic testing on animals is banned in the UK appears to be somewhat greater amongst
younger people, with 28 per cent of 15-24 year olds (against 35% overall) believing cosmetics testing is legal.
However, there is a marked spike of ignorance among 55-64 year olds, half of whom (49%) believe cosmetics
testing is legal.

Notably, knowledge is consistent between men and women and across age within gender. So, for
example, 15-24-year-old women are no more aware of the ban than people are generally. However,
they are more likely to say that such testing should be allowed (13% against 9% overall a gap
accounted for in large part by 25-34 year olds (across gender), 15 per cent of whom endorse cosmetics
testing on animals).
People from social grades AB are also slightly more accepting of the practice (13%), and also more likely to
believe that it is currently legal (and so, unusually, are less well-informed here than other subgroups).

There has, however, been a statistically significant rise in the proportion who say that animals should not be
used for any of the listed research purposes; 19 per cent say this, compared to 15 per cent in 2014. This view is
more prevalent amongst women (25%) than men (13%), and higher amongst DE (30%) than those from all
other social grades (AB: 15%; C1:16%; C2:17%).
Trust in scientists rises with age a finding mirrored in the 2015 Ipsos MORI veracity index3 and this
extends to trust in scientists not to cause unnecessary suffering to animals used in research. Around
one third (32%) of those aged 15-24 say they trust scientists in this regard, a figure that rises to over
four in ten (43%) of those aged 65+. However, express disagreement remains the same across all age
brackets, with between 31 and 36 per cent disagreeing.

Over one quarter (28%) of the British public expressly do not want to receive more information about
the use of animals in research. The question on receiving more information about animal research was
asked in a new format this year, with an I do not want any more information code included in the
answer options shown to respondents. (The none of these category was available but not shown
directly in the 2014 survey.)

Those who do not want more information are more likely to be male (32% vs 25% of women), and
aged 55-64 (37%). They are also more likely to be from social grades AB (36%), and to be of a white
British ethnic background (30%, compared to 15% of those from other ethnic backgrounds).

This group also has a noticeably different view of animal research. Whilst they are no more likely than
average to feel well informed about animal research (36%, similar to the 34% overall), and are as likely
as the rest of the population to think that cosmetic testing on animals is permitted (36%, against 35%
overall), they are much less likely to agree that the UK government should ban all animal research 17
per cent against 26 per cent overall. Three in ten (30%) agree that it does not bother them if animals
are used in research, compared to just over one in five (22%) of the population.
 What's Cruel About Cruelty Free: An Exploration of Consumers, Moral
Heuristics, andPublic Policy

Author(s): Kim Bartel Sheehan and Joonghwa Lee

Source: Journal of Animal Ethics, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Fall 2014), pp. 1-15

Ethical consumption is on the rise. In a 2007 study, about a third of consumers in five
countries reported they would pay more for ethically produced products (Financial Times,
2007).

Ethical consumers base these positive buying decisions on their presumed ethical
obligations and their personal beliefs about what is right or wrong (Kurland, 1995). These
consumers want to create meaning through their purchases, since ethical issues often are
an important part of their self-identity (Shaw, Grehan, & Hassan, 2005). As a result, these
consumers may hold very strong (or sacred) values that are hard to alter.

This study investigates another term, cruelty free, used in marketing materials to
communicate that companies do not test products on animals. This term arguably serves
as a moral heuristic. Moral heuristics help a consumer to make decisions that can be seen
as benefiting both the consumer and larger society (e.g., a hybrid car provides an
affordable means of transportation that also uses less fossil fuels, contributing to cleaner
air).

clavin and lewis (2005) found that consumers who consider ethical issues when making
purchase decisions know which companies share their ethical values. however, haidt and
Bjorklund (2008) have suggested that values are more typically used to justify behavior
after the fact and that such decisions are more unconscious or intuitive.

Mazar and Zhong (2010) suggest that ethical purchasing behaviors boost moral selfimage,
although maintaining this image comes at a cost because social and ethical dilemmas may
involve a conflict of interest (such as a trade off between cost and ethical consumption).
freestone and mcGoldrick (2007) suggest that social motivators are stronger motivators
for ethical behavior than personal ones; many people recognized that their purchases
represent their ethical beliefs to others.

A study by the coalition of consumer information on cosmetics (ccic), a group that

investigates animal testing by personal care product manufacturers, found that more than
two-thirds of a 1,000 person sample either agreed or strongly agreed that companies
should not test consumer products like cosmetics and dish detergent on animals. those in
a similar percentage were much or somewhat more likely to purchase a product that
had not been tested on animals over one that had been tested on animals
(leapingBunny.org, 2011). it is not surprising that many consumers are interested in
animal rights and animals since animal companions often serve as extensions of a
consumers self (Belk, 1988), and animal companions affect the social identity of the carer,
as well as the carers self-perceptions (sanders, 1990).

In other product categories, such as cleaning products, few if any restrictions on animal
testing exist. in the united Kingdom, the government has pledged to implement a ban on
animal testing for household products, although it is unclear whether the ban would be on
end products only or on the ingredients as well.

the correlation between Ar and Attitude toward cruelty-free brands approached

significance (r = .159, p = .07). the hypothesis (h1d) predicting a positive correlation
between Ar and purchase intentions was also supported as the correlation was positive
and significant (r = .461, p = .000).