Search

Consumers in modern society are often less exposed to meat that resembles the animal, and thus are less familiar with it, making it difficult to disentangle the influence of these two inputs (familiarity vs. animal resemblance) on meat appetite. Across three studies, we sought to systematically disentangle the impact of familiarity and animal resemblance on meat appetite using inductive (Study 1) and experimental (Studies 2a-2b) approaches. In Study 1 (N = 229) we separated familiarity and animal resemblance into orthogonal dimensions using 28 meat products. Participants provided free associations and rated the products on familiarity, animal resemblance, and appetitive appeal. In Studies 2a and 2b (N = 514) we experimentally examined the independent contributions of familiarity and animal resemblance, using stimuli normed in Study 1. We hypothesized that animal resemblance has its most pronounced influence on appetite when meat products are unfamiliar. Participants' free associations and ratings of the products were in line with this conditional hypothesis (Study1), as were the experimental manipulations of familiarity and animal resemblance (Studies 2a-2b), confirmed by a mini meta-analysis. In all three studies, familiarity had a pervasive influence on appetite. These findings suggest that product familiarity can attenuate the psychological impact that animal reminders have on appetite. Thus, interventions aimed at eliciting animal associations with meat should consider the familiarity of the products employed., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Understanding consumer perceptions of meat alternatives is key to facilitating a shift toward more sustainable food consumption. Importantly, these perceptions may vary according to the characteristics of the consumer (e.g., preferences, motivations), the product (e.g., sensory attributes) and the encounter (e.g., how the meat alternative is presented/framed). Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied to examine consumer perceptions of five proposed alternatives to meat: legumes, tofu, seitan, lab-grown meat, and insects. In Study 1, 138 participants provided free associations with regards to conventional animal proteins (e.g., red/white meat, fish) and the five alternatives. Three profiles of consumers were identified: (1) hedonically motivated meat eaters uninterested in meat substitutes; (2) health-oriented meat eaters open to some meat substitutes; and (3) ethically conscious meat avoiders positively oriented to most meat alternatives. In Study 2, the presentation of the product was experimentally manipulated: 285 participants evaluated the same five meat alternatives along several dimensions (e.g., edibility, healthiness), either when framed as an individual product or as part of a larger meal. Overall, most meat alternatives benefited from a meal framing, with the notable exception of legumes, which benefited from an individual framing, and insects which were evaluated quite negatively regardless of framing. The present findings suggest that there is not a single way to frame all meat alternatives that will improve their appeal to all consumers., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)