Contagion of Inequality: How Perceiving Income Inequality Deters Animal Welfare Consumption

ABSTRACT Despite the increasing availability of animal welfare products (i.e., consumer goods produced with consideration for animal welfare in the supply chain), conventional products still dominate the market. Drawing from system justification theory, which suggests that consumers tend to justify the shortcomings of their society, we show that perceiving income inequality is one of the factors that deter consumers from switching to animal welfare products. Our research reveals consumers' motivation to justify income inequality leads them to accept the idea of more competent groups dominating less competent groups (i.e., social dominance orientation), which, in turn, legitimizes humans' dominion over nonhuman animals. Five experimental studies demonstrate that consumers who encounter high (vs. low) income inequality are less inclined to prefer animal welfare products, and this effect is attributed to an enhanced social dominance orientation. We outline the situations in which this effect is mitigated (i.e., when a meritocratic belief is invalid, and when animals are not viewed as inferior to humans) and discuss how animal welfare products can be promoted amid growing income inequality worldwide.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Psychology and Marketing
Published
2025-07-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.70012
Primary Topic
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Contagion of Inequality: How Perceiving Income Inequality Deters Animal Welfare Consumption

Danny JM Kim, Jeffrey P. Boichuk, Sunyee Yoon
Psychology and Marketing
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
article

Contagion of Inequality: How Perceiving Income Inequality Deters Animal Welfare Consumption

Danny JM Kim, Jeffrey P. Boichuk, Sunyee Yoon
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Despite the increasing availability of animal welfare products (i.e., consumer goods produced with consideration for animal welfare in the supply chain), conventional products still dominate the market. Drawing from system justification theory, which suggests that consumers tend to justify the shortcomings of their society, we show that perceiving income inequality is one of the factors that deter consumers from switching to animal welfare products. Our research reveals consumers' motivation to justify income inequality leads them to accept the idea of more competent groups dominating less competent groups (i.e., social dominance orientation), which, in turn, legitimizes humans' dominion over nonhuman animals. Five experimental studies demonstrate that consumers who encounter high (vs. low) income inequality are less inclined to prefer animal welfare products, and this effect is attributed to an enhanced social dominance orientation. We outline the situations in which this effect is mitigated (i.e., when a meritocratic belief is invalid, and when animals are not viewed as inferior to humans) and discuss how animal welfare products can be promoted amid growing income inequality worldwide.

Psychology and MarketingVol. 42(11)
Gonzaga University (US), Western University (CA), University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 82%
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Contagion of Inequality: How Perceiving Income Inequality Deters Animal Welfare Consumption — Danny JM Kim, Jeffrey P. Boichuk, et al. · Psychology and Marketing (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS