A shopper stands in the grocery aisle comparing two cartons of eggs. One promises free-range farming practices. The other is the familiar standard option – and it comes with a lower price tag. In the end, the conventional carton goes into the cart.
For companies investing in animal-friendly products, this moment reflects a common reality. Despite growing awareness of animal welfare and the rise of products like grass-fed meat, vegan leather, and cruelty-free cosmetics, most consumers still choose the conventional alternative.
For many, the obvious explanation for this decision is cost. Animal welfare products often carry higher prices and choosing them can mean giving up familiar benefits, like taste and texture. But new research from Jeffrey Boichuk, Assistant Professor of Marketing at Ivey Business School, suggests the real barrier runs deeper. It's not the product that's the problem – it’s the psychological lens consumers are looking through when they evaluate it.
And right now, that lens is being shaped by widening economic inequality.
Justifying the pecking order
In many industrialized countries, the gap between rich and poor is widening in ways that are increasingly hard to ignore. In the United States alone, it has grown by roughly 20 per cent over the past four decades.
As that divide becomes more visible, it raises a difficult question: is this fair?
It's a significant question, but not one most people dwell on for long. Instead, they rationalize, adjust, and move on. Over time, economic inequality begins to feel less like a problem to solve and more like a given.
Psychologists call this tendency system justification.
"Seeing society as fundamentally unfair can be psychologically uncomfortable," said Boichuk. "It creates a sense of unpredictability and loss of control. System justification helps people cope by gradually coming to see inequality as acceptable or even justified."
But Boichuk's research pushes the question further: once people accept inequality among humans, does that same logic extend to other hierarchies – like the one between humans and animals?
When one hierarchy feeds the next
To find out, Boichuk and his research colleagues conducted five studies in which participants imagined living in societies with either high or low levels of economic inequality, then chose between conventional products and those designed to improve animal welfare.
The results were consistent: those exposed to higher inequality were significantly less likely to choose animal welfare products.
The easy assumption is that this comes down to price. But Boichuk's research is the first to show that the driver is instead psychological. When people come to accept inequality in one part of life, that acceptance quietly carries over into others.
He explained: "Inequality doesn't just shape what people have, it shapes how they think. Once people accept that some people deserve more than others, that logic doesn't stay contained. It spreads to how they see every other hierarchy in their lives."
In that context, choosing conventional products over animal-friendly alternatives doesn't feel like a compromise. It feels like the natural order.
When the order is questioned
But even contagious ideas have limits.
In Boichuk's studies, the spread weakened when participants questioned whether economic success was truly earned. When outcomes were seen as partly shaped by luck or circumstance, it became harder to believe that those at the top deserved to be there, and the logic of hierarchy began to unravel.
The same shift occurred when participants no longer saw animals as inherently beneath humans. Without that assumption, the justification for choosing conventional products lost its hold.
In other words, inequality only drives behaviour when people believe it has merit. The moment they stop believing, the effect starts to fade.
Changing what lands in the cart
For companies and policymakers in the animal welfare space, Boichuk’s research offers an important reminder: changing consumer behaviour requires more than improving the product or adjusting the price. It requires a deeper look at understanding the beliefs and markets that shape how these products are received.
His research suggests three ways to shift those beliefs:
1. Choose context carefully
Animal welfare campaigns are likely to resonate most in environments where economic inequality is less visible. Where possible, avoid placing campaigns alongside content that emphasizes widening gaps, which can reinforce hierarchical thinking.
2. Reduce the sense of hierarchy
Campaigns that portray animals as sentient beings capable of thought and feeling can narrow the perceived distance between humans and animals. This can, in turn, make welfare-oriented choices harder to dismiss.
3. Challenge what feels deserved
Messages that highlight the role of luck, circumstance, or unequal opportunity can make inequality feel less justified. When that belief is disrupted, consumers are less likely to carry the same hierarchical logic into other decisions – including what they choose to buy.
"At the end of the day, the consumer selecting the conventional carton of eggs isn't just making a cost decision," said Boichuk. "They've already accepted a set of beliefs about how the world is ordered: who's on top, who's not, and why that's okay. That acceptance follows them into the grocery aisle. The companies that understand this have a real opportunity to reframe the conversation and, ultimately, the choice."
For a deeper look at how perceptions of inequality can spread across domains and shape decision-making, see Jeffrey Boichuk, Danny J. M. Kim, and Sunyee Yoon’s research, Contagion of Inequality: How Perceiving Income Inequality Deters Animal Welfare Consumption, published in Psychology and Marketing.
