Randomized trial investigates motivations influencing vegan cosmetics consumption in Brazilian consumers, suggesting ethical values enhance purchase intentions.
Purpose Despite increasing ethical awareness, many consumers who express favorable attitudes toward vegan cosmetics fail to act on these intentions. This study aims to address the attitude–intention gap by exploring how specific motivations (identity-based vs self-oriented) and contextual factors shape consumer behavior in the vegan cosmetics domain. Design/methodology/approach Based on data from 299 Brazilian consumers, the authors applied structural equation modeling to examine key antecedents of attitudes and their effect on purchase intentions, along with three moderators: vegan lifestyle, product availability and length of vegan cosmetics use. Findings Environmental awareness, concern for animal welfare, perceived quality and trust positively influence consumers’ attitudes toward vegan cosmetics consumption, whereas health consciousness and social influence show no significant results. The relationship between attitude and purchase intention was significantly moderated by ethical lifestyle, product accessibility and length of vegan cosmetics use, revealing when attitudes are more likely to convert into intentions. Originality/value This study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that not all motivations for ethical consumption exert the same influence on consumer behavior. The authors show that motivations grounded in ethical values, such as concerns for animal welfare and environmental preservation, are more likely to be integrated into one’s moral identity, and therefore have a stronger impact on attitudes and intentions. In contrast, motivations tied to health or social influence appear more situational and less enduring. This distinction offers a novel lens through which to understand the attitude–intention gap, highlighting the importance of identity congruence in shaping consistent ethical consumer behavior.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rauber et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: