Modern-day consumers are faced with countless choices when shopping for groceries, and product labels often factor into their decisions. Although some individuals may shop out of habit, many people check labels to see whether the products align with their personal values. Based on the information provided, they may then draw other conclusions about a product beyond what the label actually says. This is a type of cognitive bias known as the halo effect.

The halo effect occurs when someone uses what’s known about a product to make assumptions about what’s unknown. In this study, researchers focused on the halo effect in the context of dairy production, exploring the assumptions that U.K. consumers make about a dairy company’s animal welfare ethics based solely on claims about its environmental practices.

The researchers recruited 267 participants to complete an online survey. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: pro-environmental, anti-environmental, or control. Each group was given a blurb to read about a fictitious cheese company. Participants in the pro-environmental group were also given a paragraph describing the company’s positive environmental practices, while those in the anti-environmental group read a statement that portrayed these practices in a negative light. The control group only received the initial blurb.

All participants were then asked to rate their opinion of the company’s treatment of its dairy cows, how often they would recommend the company’s cheese be eaten compared to other brands, and whether they generally consider environmental values when purchasing products.

The analysis revealed two significant effects:

• Participants in the pro-environmental group were more likely to recommend the company’s cheese than those who received no ethical information about the company.
• Participants in the pro-environmental group also rated the company’s treatments of its cows more highly than those in the control group.

Taken together, these results indicate that a “humane halo” effect exists whereby consumers assume that because a company cares about the environment, it must also care about animal welfare. In other words, they infer the company’s ethical treatment of animals when that may or may not be the case.

Interestingly, the researchers also observed a negative halo effect: the information about poor environmental practices given to the anti-environmental group resulted in stronger negative judgements about the company’s treatment of its cows. Furthermore, participants’ environmental values played more of a role for those given negative information than those given positive information, leading to harsher animal welfare ratings and lower consumption recommendations.

This study reveals that consumers are likely to assume humane practices when provided with positive information about a company’s environmental actions. For advocates, educating consumers on the harmful climate impacts of dairy production could help to dismantle this “humane halo” and potentially reduce dairy product consumption. As companies that use labels depicting cows in nature may be benefiting from a “humane halo,” informing consumers about the realities of the dairy industry and pushing back against misleading marketing could also be effective in this regard. Finally, policymakers are relevant to this discussion as they may play a role in setting standards for labeling schemes. Thus, advocates could call for improved labeling that clears up the assumptions made about animal welfare based on environmental ethics.