Healthy, but Disgusting: An Investigation Into Consumers' Willingness to Try Insect Meat.

P Marijn Poortvliet, Lieke Van der Pas, Bob C Mulder, Vincenzo Fogliano
Author Information
  1. P Marijn Poortvliet: Strategic Communication, Wageningen University, EW, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
  2. Lieke Van der Pas: Strategic Communication, Wageningen University, EW, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
  3. Bob C Mulder: Strategic Communication, Wageningen University, EW, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
  4. Vincenzo Fogliano: Food Quality and Design, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Abstract

Consumption of insects has gained interest because it may provide a more sustainable and healthier alternative for conventional meat. However, in Western societies, Insect consumption is met with resistance due to negative attitudes based on fear and disgust. To further understand consumers' willingness to try Insect meat, a 2 (meat type: bovine vs. Insect) × 2 (product type: common vs. uncommon) experiment was conducted (n = 130). Four food choice factors were expected to mediate the effect of meat type and product type on willingness to try: health, sensory appeal, risk perception, and disgust. Results indicate that meat type had no effect on willingness to try. Relative to bovine meat, Insect meat was perceived as both healthier and more disgusting, which could explain the absence of a meat type effect. Unexpectedly, use of insects in common products (burgers) as compared to uncommon products (skewers) was met with a lower willingness to try. Also, common products with Insect meat was considered to be less healthy and more disgusting, compared to uncommon products with Insect meat.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS One. 2010 Dec 29;5(12):e14445 [PMID: 21206900]
  2. Meat Sci. 2006 Sep;74(1):149-60 [PMID: 22062724]
  3. Appetite. 2016 Jan 1;96:319-326 [PMID: 26431679]
  4. Soc Sci Med. 2015 Mar;129:106-12 [PMID: 24973999]
  5. Appetite. 2003 Apr;40(2):163-73 [PMID: 12781166]
  6. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Nov;36(4):717-31 [PMID: 15641418]
  7. Br J Soc Psychol. 2008 Jun;47(Pt 2):245-65 [PMID: 17678574]
  8. Meat Sci. 2015 Apr;102:49-58 [PMID: 25541372]
  9. J Agric Food Chem. 2017 Mar 22;65(11):2275-2278 [PMID: 28252948]
  10. J Econ Entomol. 2017 Aug 1;110(4):1404-1411 [PMID: 28535207]
  11. Appetite. 2014 Oct;81:168-79 [PMID: 24953197]
  12. Psychol Rev. 1987 Jan;94(1):23-41 [PMID: 3823304]
  13. Food Sci Nutr. 2017 May 03;5(4):852-864 [PMID: 28748073]
  14. Appetite. 1995 Dec;25(3):267-84 [PMID: 8746966]
  15. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2015 Aug;23(8):1577-81 [PMID: 26138331]

MeSH Term

Animals
Cattle
Consumer Behavior
Disgust
Edible Insects
Food Preferences
Insecta
Meat

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0meatinsectwillingnesstypeproductstrybovinecommonuncommoneffectinsectshealthiermetdisgust2type:vsproductfoodchoicedisgustingcomparedConsumptiongainedinterestmayprovidesustainablealternativeconventionalHoweverWesternsocietiesconsumptionresistanceduenegativeattitudesbasedfearunderstandconsumers'×experimentconductedn=130Fourfactorsexpectedmediatetry:healthsensoryappealriskperceptionResultsindicateRelativeperceivedexplainabsenceUnexpectedlyuseburgersskewerslowerAlsoconsideredlesshealthyHealthyDisgusting:InvestigationConsumers'WillingnessTryInsectMeatconsumerdecision-makingmotives

Similar Articles

Cited By (12)