Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

Available online 1 December 20200195-6663/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat

M.C. Onwezen *, E.P. Bouwman, M.J. Reinders, H. Dagevos Wageningen Economic Research, the Netherlands

1 . A B S T R A C T

Consumers’ dietary patterns have a significant impact on planetary and personal health. To address health and environmental challenges one of the many possible solutions is to substitute meat consumption with alternative protein sources.

This systematic review identifies 91 articles with a focus on the drivers of consumer acceptance of five alternative proteins: pulses, algae, insects, plant-based alternative proteins, and cultured meat. This review demonstrates that acceptance of the alternative proteins included here is relatively low (compared to that of meat); acceptance of insects is lowest, followed by acceptance of cultured meat. Pulses and plant-based alternative proteins have the highest acceptance level. In general, the following drivers of acceptance consistently show to be relevant for the acceptance of various alternative proteins: motives of taste and health, fa-miliarity, attitudes, food neophobia, disgust, and social norms. However, there are also differences in relevance between individuals and between alternative proteins. For example, for insects and other novel alternative proteins the drivers of familiarity and affective processes of food neophobia and disgust seem more relevant. As part of gaining full insight in relevant drivers of acceptance, the review also shows an overview of the intervention studies that were included in the 91 articles of the review, providing implications on how consumer acceptance can be increased. The focal areas of the intervention studies included here do not fully correspond with the current knowledge of drivers. To date, intervention studies have mainly focussed on conscious deliberations, whereas familiarity and affective factors have also been shown to be key drivers. The comprehensive overview of the most relevant factors for consumer acceptance of various categories of alternative proteins thus shows large consistencies across bodies of research. Variations can be found in the nuances showing different priorities of drivers for different proteins and different segments, showing the relevance of being context and person specific for future research.

1. Introduction

A convincing body of evidence demonstrates that the over-consumption of meat (Ocke et al., 2009; Sans & Combris, 2015) con-tributes substantially to worrisome environmental impacts (Aiking, 2014; Aiking & de Boer, 2018) and to lifestyle diseases (Ekmekcioglu et al., 2018; Westhoek et al., 2014). To address today’s and tomorrow’s health and environmental challenges, a transition towards lower meat consumption levels and increased consumption of plant-based foods is key (Aiking & de Boer, 2018; de Boer & Aiking, 2019; Godfray et al., 2018; Graça, Godinho, & Truninger, 2019; Poore & Nemecek, 2018; Springmann et al., 2018; Van der Weele, Feindt, Van der Goot, Van Mierlo, & Van Boekel, 2019; Willett, Rockstrom, Loken, Nishtar, & Murray, 2019). Consumers can adopt a more sustainable, plant-rich diet in various ways (de Boer, Schosler, & Aiking, 2014; Onwezen & Van der Weele, 2016): becoming a vegan or a vegetarian, eating smaller amounts of meat (e.g., curtailment, Verain, Dagevos, & Antonides, 2015), or eating meat less frequently (e.g., flexitarianism, Dagevos & Reinders, 2018; Dagevos & Voordouw, 2013). One of the options for a more

sustainable diet is to substitute meat with alternative proteins. Con-sumers can include various sources of proteins in their diets for example replacing meat with a meat substitute, or using alternative proteins like seaweed or beans in their dishes.

In comparison to meat, the market shares of alternative proteins remain low (Gravely & Fraser, 2018), even despite the fact that super-markets and restaurants increasingly offer alternatives to traditional meat products or dishes, such as plant-based burgers or wraps with beans (Curtain & Grafenauer, 2019). Alternative proteins, such as pul-ses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat (e. g., Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017; Van der Weele et al., 2019), are generally considered to be healthier and more environmentally friendly than traditional animal-derived proteins (e.g., Aiking, 2011). That being said, the benefits of alternative protein production have not yet been fully scientifically documented, particularly with respect to the environment. For instance, uncertainty remains about whether cultured meat will be produced in a more environmentally sustainable manner than conven-tional meat (e.g., Alexander, Brown, Dias, Moran, & Rounsevell, 2019; Van der Weele et al., 2019).

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: marleen.onwezen@wur.nl (M.C. Onwezen).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Appetite

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058 Received 27 September 2019; Received in revised form 9 November 2020; Accepted 25 November 2020

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

2

However, consumers are often unaware of meat-related environ-mental and health issues; they are also often unwilling to change their meat-eating habits (e.g., Harguess, Crespo, & Hong, 2020; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017; Onwezen & Van der Weele, 2016; Sanchez-Sabate & Sabate, 2019). Given the importance of transitioning to more sustain-able diets, we need to better understand why consumers might be willing to consume alternative proteins and how this knowledge can be used to develop interventions to increase consumer acceptance.

A large body of consumer acceptance research focusses on specific cases of alternative proteins, namely pulses (i.e., lentils and beans, Allegra, Muratore, & Zarba, 2015; de Boer et al., 2013; Lea et al., 2005; Melendrez-Ruiz et al., 2019), algae (i.e., aquatic organisms for con-sumption, Brayden et al., 2018; Birch, Skallerud, & Paul, 2019a; Moons et al., 2018), insects (e.g., Adamek et al., 2018; Ali, 2016; Baker et al., 2016; Balzan et al., 2016), plant-based meat alternatives (Gravely & Fraser, 2018; Hoek et al., 2011; Schosler et al., 2014), and cultured meat (i.e., clean meat produced by in vitro procedure, Bekker et al., 2017; Circus & Robinson, 2019; Siegrist et al., 2018; Slade, 2018; Wilks et al., 2019). These studies include a wide range of possible factors that drive consumer acceptance of these products—for example, food choice mo-tives (Onwezen et al., 2019; Vainio et al., 2016), attitudes towards alternative proteins (Lemken et al., 2017), food neophobia (Birch et al., 2019a; Moons et al., 2018), and familiarity with alternative proteins (Schlup & Brunner, 2018; Verbeke, 2015; Woolf et al., 2019). It seems that some sources of alternative proteins are more easily accepted by consumers than others (e.g., de Boer et al., 2013; Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019), and it is possible that different drivers are relevant to explaining consumer acceptance for these alternative pro-teins (e.g., Menozzi et al., 2017; Tan, Verbaan, & Stieger, 2017). How-ever, because studies generally do not examine a wide range of factors and a variety of alternative proteins, it remains unclear which factors explain consumer acceptance and how this varies across different types of alternative proteins.

The present review of literature aims to contribute to this field of research by providing a comprehensive overview of the most relevant drivers of Western consumers’ acceptance of, or willingness to buy or eat, a range of alternative proteins. As part of gaining full insight into the drivers of acceptance, we also include intervention studies that focus on increasing acceptance of alternative proteins via drivers of acceptance. We focus on the acceptance of five alternative proteins that reflect a broad range in terms of novelty, desirability, and plausibility (Van der Weele et al., 2019): pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat.

We contribute to the existing literature by focussing on specific drivers of acceptance. Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have aimed to gain insight into effective ways to stimulate healthy and sustainable dietary patterns (e.g., Adriaanse, Vinkers, De Ridder, Hox, & De Wit, 2011; Bianchi, Garnett, Dorsel, Aveyard, & Jebb, 2018; Wilson, Buckley, Buckley, & Bogomolova, 2016). However, in these studies, there has been little focus on the underlying determinants that steer consumers to healthier and more sustainable food consumption, which would provide more insight into the effectiveness of interventions (O’Rourke & MacKinnon, 2018).

There are several reviews on related areas of consumer acceptance of alternative proteins, such as those regarding the consumer acceptance of innovative food (Siegrist, 2008); novel food technologies (Siegrist & Hartmann, 2020); food naturalness (Roman, Sanchez-Siles, & Siegrist, 2017); meat consumption (Sanchez-Sabate & Sabate, 2019); and specific meat alternatives like cultured meat (Bryant & Barnett, 2018), insects (Dagevos, 2021, in press; Mancini, Moruzzo, Riccioli, & Paci, 2019), and plant-based meat substitutes (Weinrich, 2019). These reviews provide comprehensive and detailed overviews of relevant drivers of behaviour; however, they do not include multiple alternative proteins. We aim to contribute to this field of studies by providing an overview on consumer acceptance of various alternative proteins. Thereby allowing for the possibility to reflect on similarities and differences across various

categories of alternative proteins. To the best of our knowledge, the only systematic review on consumer acceptance of several alternative pro-teins available to date is one by Hartmann and Siegrist (2017). This study includes 19 articles focussed on meat substitutes and alternative proteins such as insects and cultured meat. Hartmann and Siegrist’s review paper examines consumers’ awareness of the environmental impact of meat production and their willingness to change their current meat consumption behaviour in general. We add to their review in multiple ways. First, many studies on novel proteins have been recently published, thus requiring a new overview of the literature. Second, the current study provides a more comprehensive and in-depth overview of relevant drivers of consumer acceptance, thereby resulting in a deeper understanding of the drivers that determine consumers’ acceptance of different alternative proteins. Third, the present review encompasses a larger variety of alternative proteins than the review by Hartmann and Siegrist (2017), including cultured meat, seaweed and microalgae, in-sects, pulses, and plant-based alternative proteins. Finally, we add to the literature by reflecting on differences between categories of alternative proteins, thereby providing a first indication of whether different alternative proteins are accepted for different reasons.

Our main contribution to the literature is thus that we provide an up to date, in-depth overview of drivers of acceptance of a wide range of alternative proteins. This overview can help bridging knowledge across research domains and results in a research agenda towards under-standing and steering consumer acceptance of alternative proteins.

2. Method

2.1. Article selection

In June 2020, a literature search was conducted in the electronic database Scopus, as this is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature. We used the following search query: ALL (consumption*) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (food* AND consumer* AND (accept* OR preference* OR willing* OR buy* OR purchas* OR choice* OR behavio* OR adopt* OR perception*) AND (“cultured meat*" OR “in vitro meat*" OR “synthetic meat*" OR seaweed* OR alga* OR insect* OR lupin* OR pulse* OR legume* OR *bean* OR “dry pea*” OR chickpea* OR “cow pea*” OR “pigeon pea*” OR lentil* OR “meat alternative*” OR “meat substitute*” OR “plant-based meat*” OR “meat analogue*”)). The search terms were tested and refined through multiple rounds until the resulting number of papers was manageable while simultaneously demonstrating face validity (i.e., whether important key papers were included in the search results). “Consumption”, “food”, and “consumer” were included to ensure a focus on consumers’ food consumption. Various words for consumer acceptance were included. Finally, various words were included for the five selected alternative proteins. Regarding pulses, the definition of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Or-ganization (FAO)1 was utilised. The search terms were included in the keywords, title, or abstract of the article being searched. Non-English articles, conference papers, reviews, and irrelevant subject areas (i.e., biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology, immunology and micro-biology, chemistry, chemical engineering, engineering, and neurosci-ence) were excluded, resulting in a total of 665 articles.

Fig. 1 displays a flowchart of the article selection process, while Table 1 contains the inclusion and exclusion criteria used. The 665 ar-ticles were screened according to their title and abstract by two

1 FAO recognizes 11 types of pulses: dry beans, dry broad beans, dry peas, chickpeas, cow peas, pigeon peas, lentils, Bambara beans, vetches, lupins and pulses.

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

3

independent raters. Interrater agreement resulted in a conformity of 79%; disagreement was resolved by a discussion resulting in full consensus.2 Based on this screening, 103 articles were considered rele-vant. Most studies were excluded because they either did not contain consumer data or they did not focus primarily on consumers or alter-native proteins, or Western countries.

In the next step, full-text articles were retrieved. All articles were read, and we further refined the set of included articles by excluding papers that did not fit the main purpose of our review. This additional screening resulted in a total of 88 papers included by June 2020. To assure that we do not miss any intervention studies an additional search

was performed including the term “intervention” in the search query. This resulted in one extra study that was included based on the addi-tional search including the term “intervention”.3 Two additional rele-vant articles were found independent of the title and abstract screening. In total, this resulted in 91 relevant articles that were included in the systematic review.

2.2. Data extraction

All relevant information from the articles was extracted. Again, disagreement was resolved by discussion and consensus. All articles were scanned for information on country, sample size, type of study (e. g., survey, experiment), type of alternative protein, independent vari-ables, dependent variables, and main outcomes. The information is lis-ted below in Table 2 (and in more detail in Appendix A). For a complete overview of the included studies, we refer to the supplementary materials.

3. Results

We first describe general findings regarding the studies (section 3.1; country, methods, etc.) and current acceptance levels of the alternative proteins, including variations in lifestyle and demographics (section 3.2), followed by specific findings on the drivers of consumer acceptance of the different alternative proteins (section 3.3). Finally, we discuss the interventions to increase consumer acceptance (section 3.4).

3.1. General findings

The literature research shows that the research field on alternative proteins is developing rapidly. For example, in 2014, there were only three studies published, whereas there were 16 studies in 2018 and 37 in 2019.

The results reveal an unequal distribution of articles across the different alternative proteins. There are 9 articles on pulses, 9 on algae, 58 on insects, 9 on plant-based meat alternatives, and 16 on cultured meat.4 Thus, most studies focus on insects.

The majority of the studies were conducted in the Netherlands (20 studies), Italy (17 studies), Germany (13 studies), the United States (9 studies), Australia (8 studies), Belgium (7 studies), the United Kingdom (5 studies), and Switzerland (6 studies). Other countries, such as the Czech Republic, are only represented once or twice.

The types of study designs show an overrepresentation of quantita-tive designs: 46 of the studies include a survey, 40 studies include an experiment, seven include focus groups, and five include interviews.5

3.2. Acceptance of the different types of alternative proteins

In the selected body of research, different outcome measures were used to refer to acceptance of alternative proteins—for example, will-ingness to pay, intention to try or purchase, and self-reported behaviour. Generally, the results indicate that alternative proteins have low acceptance levels (e.g., Graça et al., 2019; La Barbera, Verneau, & Coppola, 2019; Marinova & Bogueva, 2019; Neff et al., 2018).

Numerous studies compare the acceptance of alternative proteins to that of traditional meat, revealing that alternative proteins are evaluated significantly less positively (e.g., Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al.,

Fig. 1. Flowchart of systematic literature search.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria for article selection.

Inclusion criteria

Concerns consumer behaviour or acceptance of alternative protein sources Contains empirical data (e.g., focus groups, surveys, experiments) Focusses on understanding, explaining, or influencing consumer acceptance or

purchase behaviour regarding alternative proteins Concerns protein sources (product level) instead of proteins (nutrient level) Full-text paper written in English and published in a peer-reviewed journal Concerns studies conducted in Western countries

Exclusion criteria Only concerns technical or ethical aspects of alternative protein sources Reviews, opinion papers, conference papers and abstracts, concept articles Is unrelated to consumer behaviour Concerns trends in food or meat consumption patterns Concerns animal welfare or hunting and eating wild animals Concerns studies conducted in non-Western countries

2 As part of the peer review procedure the search string was adapted and the search was updated, resulting in 168 new articles. The inter-rater reliability is an average of the initial Cohen’s kappa (0.72) and the Cohen’s kappa of the additional search (0.86).

3 The additional search resulted in 96 extra studies, from which 1 study showed to be relevant. The abstracts of these studies (and when necessary the full manuscript) were all checked by two independent raters and 1 study showed to be relevant beyond already included studies.

4 Note that some studies include multiple protein sources. 5 Note that some studies include multiple types of study design. Studies that

include multiple experiments are included as 1 study.

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

4

Table 2 Overview of main findings for drivers and interventions of various meat alternatives.

Pulses Product-related attributes • Motives or barriers to accepta*: Health (Lea, Worsley, &

Crawford, 2005, Vainio, Niva, Jallinoja, & Latvala, 2016), taste (Lea et al., 2005; Vainio et al., 2016), environment (Lea et al., 2005; Vainio et al., 2016), weight control (Vainio et al., 2016), reflection oriented motives (de Boer, Schosler, & Boersema, 2013), variety, versatility (Lea et al., 2005), perceived benefits (Lemken, Knigge, Meyerding, & Spiller, 2017), flatulence (Lemken et al., 2017), preparation difficulty, and viewing pulses as food for vegetarians (Melendrez-Ruiz, Buatois, Chambaron, Monnery-Patris, & Arvisenet, 2019), time needed to prepare, a lack of knowledge of how to prepare legumes or incorporate them in meals and legume distaste (Figueira, Curtain, Beck, & Grafenauer, 2019; Lea et al., 2005).

Psychologal factors • Attitudesc (Lemken et al., 2017; Lucas, Gouin, &

Lesueur, 2019). External attributes • Social environmentf: Family preferences (Figueira et al.,

2019). Interventions • Health and sustainability claims increase willingness-to-

pay for legumes (Lemken et al., 2017). • Lentil consumption increased based on environmental

(78%), economic (75%) and nutritional (72%) information (Warne, Ahmed, Byker Shanks, & Miller, 2019).

Algae Product-related attributes • Motives or barriers to accepta: Health (Birch et al., 2019;

Grasso, Hung, Olthof, Verbeke, & Brouwer, 2019; Moons, Barbarossa, & De Pelsmacker, 2018; Weinrich & Elshiewy, 2019), taste (health and taste; Moons et al., 2018; de Boer et al., 2013), reflection oriented motives (de Boer et al., 2013), organic, ethical and local (Weinrich & Elshiewy, 2019).

• Familiarityb (previous consumption and level of meat consumption) associate with acceptance (Birch et al., 2019).

Psychologal factors • Attitudesc (Lemken et al., 2017; Lucas et al., 2019). • Food neophobiad is relevant in understanding

willingness to consume seaweed (Birch et al., 2019; Moons et al., 2018).

External attributes • Truste: Independent promoters increase trust in the

product (Balzan, Fasolato, Maniero, & Novelli, 2016). Interventions • Health and environmental claims increase acceptance of

seaweed (Brayden, Noblet, Evans, & Rickard, 2018). • The lesser the environmental impact of the meat

substitute (compared to pork/beef), the more it is accepted (Weinrich & Elshiewy, 2019).

• Acceptance of seaweed claim is influenced by the location at which consumers purchase seaweed (Lucas et al., 2019).

• Disguising ingredients increases familiarity (Balzan et al., 2016).

Insects Product-related attributes • Motives or barriers to accepta: health (Adamek,

Adamkova, Mlcek, Borkovcova, & Bednarova, 2018; Ali, 2016; Grasso et al., 2019; Kornher, Schellhorn, & Vetter, 2019; Palmieri, Perito, Macrì, & Lupi, 2019; Powell, Jones, & Consedine, 2019; Sogari, Bogueva & Marinova, 2019), taste (de Boer et al., 2013; Cicatiello, De Rosa, Franco, & Lacetera, 2016; Grasso et al., 2019; Hartmann, Shi, Giusto, & Siegrist, 2015; Menozzi, Sogari, Veneziani, Simoni, & Mora, 2017; Orkusz, Wolanska, Harasym, Piwowar, & Kapelko, 2020; Powell et al., 2019; Wilkinson et al., 2018; Sogari, Menozzi, & Mora, 2018; Tan et al., 2017; Tucker, 2014), environment (Ali, 2006; Kornher et al., 2019; Orkusz et al., 2020; Palmieri

Table 2 (continued )

et al., 2019; Rumpold & Langen, 2019; Sogari, 2015; Sogari, Bogueva & Marinova, 2019; Tucker, 2014; Verbeke et al., 2015), appearance (Orkusz et al., 2020; Wilkinson et al., 2018), safety (Orkusz et al., 2020; Wilkinson et al., 2018), convenience (Balzan et al., 2016; Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014; Schlup & Brunner, 2018; Verbeke, 2015), price (Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014), naturalness (Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014; Powell et al., 2019), not immoral, but nutritious (Barton, Richardson, & McSweeney, 2020), quality (Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014; Orkusz et al., 2020; Wilkinson et al., 2018), selectiveness/fussiness in food choice as barriers (Grasso et al., 2019), risk/danger regarding insects (Gallen, Pantin-Sohier, & Peyrat-Guillard, 2019), lack of availability and incompatibility with local food culture (Menozzi et al., 2017), unnaturalness (Tucker, 2014; Verbeke et al., 2015).

• Familiarityb (i.e., need for familiarity: Schlup & Brunner, 2018; Verbeke, 2015; Woolf, Zhu, Emory, Zhao, & Liu, 2019) and past experience with eating insects increases consumption and tastiness of insects (Caparros Megido et al., 2016; Cicatiello et al., 2016; Hartmann et al., 2015; Lammers, Ullmann, & Fiebelkorn, 2019; Palmieri et al., 2019; Schlup & Brunner, 2018; Sogari, Menozzi, & Mora, 2019; Tan et al., 2015, 2016a, 2016b; Verbeke, 2015; Woolf et al., 2019).

Psychologal factors • Attitudesc: and negative beliefs (Lombardi, Vecchio,

Borrello, Caracciolo, & Cembalo, 2019). Also within the theory of planned behaviour (Menozzi et al., 2017; Piha, Pohjanheimo, Lahteenmaki-Uutela, Kreckova, & Otterbring, 2018) attitudesc, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control have a significant impact on acceptance (Menozzi et al., 2017).

• Food neophobia, disgust and affectd: food neophobia (Barton et al., 2020; Gere, Szekely, Kovacs, Kokai, & Sipos, 2017; Hartmann et al., 2015; Kornher et al., 2019; La Barbera, Verneau, Amato, & Grunert, 2018; La Barbera, 2019; Lammers et al., 2019; Laureati, Proserpio, Jucker, & Savoldelli, 2016; Lombardi et al., 2019; Orkusz et al., 2020; Orsi, Voege, & Stranieri, 2019; Palmieri et al., 2019; Piha et al., 2018; Schaufele, Albores, & Hamm, 2019; Schlup & Brunner, 2018; Sogari, Menozzi, & Mora, 2019; Tan et al., 2016; Verbeke, 2015; Wilkinson et al., 2018) and disgust (Barton et al., 2020; Cicatiello et al., 2016; La Barbera et al., 2018; Gallen et al., 2019; Kornher et al., 2019; Myers & Pettigrew, 2018; Orsi et al., 2019; Poortvliet, Van der Pas, Mulder, & Fogliano, 2019; Powell et al., 2019; Sogari et al., 2016, 2018, 2019a, 2019b), and affective attitudes towards eating insects (Fisher & Steenbekkers, 2018) and affective variables like emotions ambivalence and disgust (Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, Verain, & Veldkamp, 2019) affected willingness to eat specific insects.

• Curiosity (Sogari et al., 2016), sensation seeking (Lammers et al., 2019).

External attributes • Truste: Public health institutions suggested to play a role

in promoting consumption of insects (Balzan et al., 2016).

• Social environmentf: eating insects perceived to be not supported by family and/or friends (Sogari, 2015; Sogari et al., 2016). High social acceptance (Hartmann et al., 2015) and the more participants thought other participants ate mealworm-containing products (Jensen & Lieberoth, 2019), or perceived eating insects as a so-cially acceptable activity (Schaufele et al., 2019), the more likely they were to try insect foods themselves. Perceptions of a conspiracy theory (regarding a social movement toward growing insect consumption) (Sogari, Bogueva & Marinova, 2019).

• Cultural appropriatenessg: Insects were perceived as inappropriate in culture (Gallen et al., 2019; Myers & Pettigrew, 2018; Tan et al., 2016; 2017). Insects that

(continued on next page)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

5

2019; Slade, 2018). For example, when participants were informed that all burgers tasted the same, 65% would purchase the beef burger, 21% would purchase the plant-based burger, 11% preferred the cultured meat burger, and 4% would purchase nothing (Slade, 2018).

A small number of studies include multiple alternative proteins (e.g., Bryant et al., 2019; Circus & Robinson, 2019; de Boer et al., 2013; Gomez-Luciano, Vriesekoop, & Urbano, 2019; Grasso et al., 2019; Ianuzzi, 2019; Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019; Slade, 2018, Tucker, 2014). Direct comparisons indicate that insects are the least accepted alternative protein, cultured meat the second-least, and that plant-based meat substitutes are among the most accepted alternative proteins (Circus & Robinson, 2019; Grasso et al., 2019; Ianuzzi, 2019), demonstrating that consumers are less willing to accept animal-based novel proteins than plant-based novel proteins (de Boer et al., 2013; Slade, 2018). For example, participants were much less willing to taste insect snacks compared to other snacks made from lentils, seaweed, and hybrid meat (i.e., meat products in which meat has been partially replaced by more sustainable protein sources) (de Boer et al., 2013); similarly, plant-based burgers were preferred over cultured meat bur-gers (21% versus 11%; Slade, 2018).

Lifestyle and demographics are described below as these provide often-used descriptions of populations and segmentation criteria (Onwezen, 2018; Verain et al., 2012).

Lifestyle. The studies we examined consistently noted the relevance of dietary patterns (i.e., current meat and meat alternative consump-tion): Consumers with high levels of meat consumption are more

Table 2 (continued )

were marketed more in one’s own culture were preferred more (Fisher & Steenbekkers, 2018; Hartmann et al., 2015).

Interventions Product attributes • Price interventions showed that high prices were

associated with increases in expected quality (Berger, Bartsch, Schmidt, Christandl, & Wyss, 2018).

• Health and environmental claims increase acceptance of insects (Cavallo & Materia, 2018; de-Magistris, Pascucci, & Mitsopoulos, 2015).

• Information on benefits nutrition, societal benefits (Verneau et al., 2016) general-(compared to specific information) increased acceptance (Lombardi et al., 2019).

• Familiarity with products increases willingness to try (Schaufele et al., 2019). Familiarity with products can be increased by producing products such that they fit with known products (Orkusz et al., 2020), prior information (Barsics et al., 2017) or tasting (Barton et al., 2020; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2016; Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014; Pambo et al., 2017; Sogari et al., 2018).

• Willingness to eat insects decreases when insects are visible in the products (even when barely visible; Ali, 2006; Baker, Shin, & Kim, 2016; Balzan et al., 2016; Cavallo & Materia, 2018; de-Magistris et al., 2015; Jensen & Lieberoth, 2019; Schlup & Brunner, 2018), hidden ingredients of insects are revealed (Iannuzzi, Sisto, & Nigro, 2019), for unprocessed compared to processed insects (Gallen et al., 2019; Hartmann et al., 2015; Lammers et al., 2019; Orsi et al., 2019), for insects as food compared to insects as feed (La Barbera, 2019; Laureati et al., 2016; Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019), for common versus uncommon products (Poortvliet et al., 2019), or when descriptions in a menu setting were very explicit (instead of vague) (Baker et al., 2016).

Social environment • Participants exposed to positive peer ratings of a

nutrition bar expected it to be of higher quality than did participants exposed to negative peer ratings (Berger, Christandl, Bitterlin, & Wyss, 2019).

Plant-based meat alternatives

Product-related attributes •Motives or barriers to accepta: moral and ethical motives (Circus & Robinson, 2019), perceived appeal (Bryant et al., 2019), perceptions of environmental impact, and health-consciousness (Siegrist & Hartmann, 2019), inter-naliszed motivation, enjoyment of eating and cooking (Schosler, de Boer, & Boersema, 2014), type of mince, fat content, country of origin, price (Apostolidis & McLeay, 2016), concerned about the additives, artificiality, and insufficient essential vitamins and micronutrients, and taste of meat (Weinrich, 2018). •Familiarityb, familiarity (Hoek et al., 2011) and previous experience (Hoek et al., 2013). Psychologal factors •Attitudesc and beliefs towards meat substitutes and food neophobia (Hoek et al., 2011a). •Food neophobia, disgust and affectd: food neophobia (Bryant et al., 2019; Hoek et al., 2011), disgust (Bryant et al., 2019; Siegrist & Hartmann, 2019). External attributes Interventions •Plant-based meat alternatives have less shelf space compared to traditional meat, less promotions. Consumers found it slightly more satisfying as well as easier to shop for animal-based compared to plant-based protein sources (Gravely & Fraser, 2018).

Cultured meat Product-related attributes • Motives or barriers to accepta: Health (Adamek et al.,

2018; Ali, 2006; Grasso et al., 2019; Verbeke et al., 2015), taste (Tucker, 2014), environment (Ali, 2006; Tucker, 2014; green eating behaviour Grasso et al., 2019; Verbeke et al., 2015), perceived appeal and goodness of clean meat (Birch et al., 2019), food security and safety (Verbeke et al., 2015), and

Table 2 (continued )

selectiveness/fussiness in food choice as barriers (Grasso et al., 2019).

• Familiarityb: Of participants familiar with cultured meat, 64% were willing to try it, whereas 40% of participants unfamiliar with cultured meat would be willing to try it (Mancini & Antonioli, 2019).

Psychologal factors • Attitudesc (Lemken et al., 2017; Lucas et al., 2019)

towards the environment and agriculture (Slade, 2018). • Food neophobia, disgust, and affectd: Food neophobia

(Birch et al., 2019; Wilks, Phillips, Fielding, & Hornsey, 2019), disgust (Birch et al., 2019; Verbeke et al., 2015) and disgust sensitivity (Wilks et al., 2019).

External attributes • Truste: Concerned about risk governance, control, and

need for regulation and proper labelling (Verbeke et al., 2015), and associations with political conservatism and distrust in science (Wilks et al., 2019).

Interventions • Naturalness of food additives (perceived naturalness,

Siegrist & Sütterlin, 2017), “same meat” framing (positive attitudes, Bryant & Dillard, 2019), describing cultured meat in a nontechnical way that focuses on the final product increases acceptance of cultured meat (Siegrist, Sütterlin, & Hartmann, 2018) increase acceptance of cultured meat.

• ‘high-tech’ framing led to the least positive attitudes (Bryant & Dillard, 2019), ‘clean meat is natural’-message (Bryant et al., 2019), production of cultured meat and its benefits (Siegrist et al., 2018) E-numbers or possible negative health effects (perceived naturalness; Siegrist & Sütterlin, 2017), information about cultured meat (tasty and nutritious as a conventional burger, Mancini & Antonioli, 2019) result in lower levels or negative effects on the acceptance of cultured meat.

• Information affects explicit (and not implicit) attitude, especially for unfamiliar respondents (Bekker, Fischer, Tobi, & van Trijp, 2017).

Note. * a,b,c,d,e,f,g These superscript letters are used to link drivers with the manuscript. In this way we do not refer to all references all the time, but simply refer to the superscript letters that correspond with the driver and the related references.

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

6

receptive to cultured meat (e.g., Circus & Robinson, 2019) and products that look similar to meat (Hoek et al., 2011), whereas they are less open to plant-based proteins (lentils, de Boer et al., 2013; meat substitutes, Siegrist & Hartmann, 2019; algae, Weinrich & Elshiewy, 2019; plant-based meat substitutes, Circus & Robinson, 2019). Cultured meat was, for example, favoured by individuals with high meat attachment; edible insects were not favoured by the low and the high meat-attachment groups; and plant-based substitutes were favoured mostly by the low meat-attachment groups who primarily followed vegan and vegetarian diets (Circus & Robinson, 2019).

Additionally, more general dietary lifestyle patterns influence acceptance of alternative proteins; for instance, following a green, vegetarian diet or a healthy lifestyle is an important aspect in acceptance of snacks made from lentils, seaweed (de Boer et al., 2013), and insects (green eating behaviour; Grasso et al., 2019).

Demographics. The results on demographic variables (age, gender, education, etc.) reveal variation in relevance in their association with acceptance of alternative proteins. In some studies, demographics contribute to the understanding of consumer acceptance of alternative proteins (e.g., gender Gomez-Luciano et al., 2019; Orkusz et al., 2020); in other studies, demographics are insignificant (e.g., gender Barton et al., 2020; Birch et al., 2019a; de Boer et al., 2013). The explained variance of demographic variables is generally low, as they only explain some aspects of the acceptance of alternative proteins (e.g., Grasso et al., 2019).

That being said, a common thread can be found throughout the re-sults of the studies we reviewed. Individuals who are young and highly educated (Birch, Skallerud, & Paul, 2019b; de Boer et al., 2013; Gomez-Luciano et al., 2019; Grasso et al., 2019; Grasso et al., 2019, 2019; Siegrist & Hartmann, 2019; Wilks et al., 2019), are not politically conservative (Wilks et al., 2019), live in urban areas (de Boer et al., 2013), or are vegetarian or vegan (insects; Rumpold & Langen, 2019) are more willing to accept alternative proteins.

The influence of gender seems to vary across alternative proteins. Insects are more accepted by males (Cicatiello et al., 2016; Grasso et al., 2019; Lammers et al., 2019; Laureati et al., 2016; Orkusz et al., 2020; Schaufele et al., 2019; Sogari, Menozzi, & Mora, 2019; Woolf et al., 2019), whereas plant-based alternative proteins are more accepted by females (plant-based alternatives; Gomez-Luciano et al., 2019; Melen-drez-Ruiz et al., 2019).

3.3. Drivers of acceptance

Based on a framework of acceptance of novel foods (Siegrist, 2008), we define three types of drivers and interventions. The three lines of drivers are (1) product-related factors, (2) psychological factors, and (3) external attributes (social environment, trust, and culture). The authors (experts in the field of consumer acceptance) categorised drivers of this literature overview within the abovementioned three lines. For each line of research, we first describe the general findings, followed by a reflection on the differences in drivers of acceptance of the categories of alternative proteins. To reflect on differences across alternative proteins, we use studies that include multiple alternative proteins and we counted the number of studies showing significant associations.

3.3.1. Product-related factors The category of drivers refers to product properties and product-

related motivations and associations, including being familiar with products. Based on the literature, two relevant lines of product-related factors are discussed: food motivationsa,6 and familiarityb

Food motivations.a, The results show a range of product-related

drivers that are significant in consumer acceptance of all included alternative proteins:a healthiness (see references below), taste (see ref-erences below), convenience (e.g., Balzan et al., 2016; Figueira et al., 2019; Lea et al., 2005; Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014), environmental benefits (Ali, 2016; Kornher et al., 2019; Lea et al., 2005; Vainio et al., 2016; Weinrich & Elshiewy, 2019), and appearance (Bryant et al., 2019; Orkusz et al., 2020; Wilkinson et al., 2018). There may be variations between individuals (e.g., vegetarian, foodie, or food enjoyer, Moons et al., 2018) and between the experiences of users (House, 2016). A study by House (2016), for example, revealed that motivations for eating insects for the first time substantially differ from factors influ-encing repeated consumption of insect-based food (e.g., price, taste, availability), indicating the importance of differentiating between a first trial and repeated behaviour.

Healthiness and taste were revealed to be highly relevant for the acceptance of all alternative proteins, particularly in the cases of pulses (taste: de Boer et al., 2013; health and taste: Lea et al., 2005), algae (taste: de Boer et al., 2013; healthiness and taste: Moons et al., 2018), insects (taste: de Boer et al., 2013; Cicatiello et al., 2016; Grasso et al., 2019; Hartmann et al., 2015; Menozzi et al., 2017; Orkusz et al., 2020; Powell et al., 2019; Sogari et al., 2018; Tan, Tibboel, & Stieger, 2017; Tucker, 2014; Wilkinson et al., 2018, and healthiness: Adamek et al., 2018; Ali, 2006; Kornher et al., 2019; Palmieri et al., 2019; Powell et al., 2019; Sogari, Bogueva, & Marinova, 2019), and plant-based meat al-ternatives (taste: Weinrich, 2018). It is worth noting that taste was not only mentioned as a motivation but also as a relevant barrier—for example, in the case of pulses (Figueira et al., 2019; Melendrez-Ruiz et al., 2019).

If we focus on healthiness (Adamek et al., 2018; Ali, 2006) and environmental benefits (Ali, 2006; Tucker, 2014; Verbeke et al., 2015), the findings reveal that consumers do not always know whether alter-native proteins have specific benefits. For example, consumers do not seem to be aware of the potential health benefits and environmental benefits, such as the environmental and nutritional advantages of eating insects (Myers & Pettigrew, 2018); many participants also under-estimated the ecological impact of animal production (Vanhonacker, Van Loo, Gellynck, & Verbeke, 2013). However, when consumers are aware of such potential benefits, these motivations are shown to play an important role in consumer acceptance. For example, the belief that eating insects has health benefits (Menozzi et al., 2017; Schlup & Brunner, 2018) and environmental benefits (Menozzi et al., 2017; Sogari, 2016; Vanhonacker et al., 2013; Verbeke, 2015) significantly affects consumers’ intention to consume insects. More than 80% of participants were willing to eat food enriched with edible insects because they believed it to be healthy (Adamek et al., 2018). Note that environmental benefits also reveal mixed findings, and the environ-mental benefits are also not always included in research designs (e.g., review on insects, Dagevos, 2021).

Familiarity.b Individuals have a tendency to behave in similar ways as they are used to behave and to choose options that are already known (e. g., Pelchat & Pliner, 1995; Tuorila, Andersson, Martikainen, & Salo-vaara, 1998). In the context of alternative proteins, familiarity (Schlup & Brunner, 2018) is relevant in the acceptance of pulses (e.g., Florkowswki & Park, 2001), algae (Birch et al., 2019a), insects (Schlup & Brunner, 2018; Tan, van den Berg, & Stieger, 2016; Verbeke, 2015; Woolf et al., 2019), and cultured meat (Hoek et al., 2011). Related concepts, such as previous experience with alternative proteins (i.e., past behaviour; Florkowswki & Park, 2001) and knowledge of and experience with plant-based meat alternatives (Hoek et al., 2013), are also demonstrated to be linked with acceptance. Moreover, past consumption of insects not only increases consumption but also positively impacts wider associa-tions, such as perceptions of tastiness of insects (Tan et al, 2015, 2016a, 2016b; Cicatiello et al., 2016; Hartmann et al., 2015; Megido et al., 2016; Schlup & Brunner, 2018; Verbeke, 2015). The research on insect acceptance clarifies the underlying processes of the relevance of famil-iarity by illustrating, for example, that past experiences with insects

6 The superscript letters refer to Table 2. We use these superscript letters when we refer to all references related to a specific driver with the same su-perscript letter in Table 2.

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

7

result in a formulation of intentions based on memories; comparatively, individuals who do not have these past experiences often have existing negative associations (Tan et al., 2016a, 2017a).

Differences between alternative proteins in product-related factors. Table 2 shows a large range of different motivationsa to consume various alternative proteins (e.g., healthiness, taste, price, convenience, etc). A direct comparison of the relevance of these motivations for the different alternative proteins is not possible, as each study utilises different questionnaires and methods. However, the results do provide some in-dications of noteworthy differences among the alternative proteins. For example, health motivations seem to play a more prominent role in the acceptance of plant-based proteins (Circus & Robinson, 2019; de Boer et al., 2013), whereas environmental motivations seem to be more relevant in the acceptance of animal-based proteins such as cultured meat (Circus & Robinson, 2019).

We discovered a greater number of studies demonstrating the rele-vance of some form of familiarity as a driver of the acceptance of insects (59%) compared to that of cultured meat (33%), plant-based meat al-ternatives (27%), algae (20%), and pulses (0%). Although this might occur due various reasons, for example because of a bias in research designs (i.e., familiarity more often included for novel products), or because barriers on familiarity are more easily accessible for consumers than motivations of familiarity, the findings do show indications that underscore the relevance of familiarity for insects. Individuals seem to have negative associations with and fear of trying insects; insects are still far from being accepted by consumers as a conventional part of their diets compared to plant-based proteins (de Boer et al., 2013). Moreover, familiarity seems to play a more prominent role when products are novel for a consumer, e.g., familiarity was less important for heavy users of various meat substitutes in explaining their acceptance compared to non-users and light or medium users. Non-users had a higher tendency to avoid new food (Hoek et al., 2011).

3.3.2. Psychological factors Individuals may exhibit distinct factors that explain variations in

acceptance of alternative proteins. The personal characteristics that demonstrate consistent results are attitudes,c and food neophobia and disgust.d

Attitudes.c Attitudes are consistently shown to be relevant in explaining intentions to consume alternative proteins; this seems to apply to all alternative proteins (Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019; pulses (Lemken et al., 2017), algae (Lucas et al., 2019), insects (Fisher & Steenbekkers, 2018; Lombardi et al., 2019; Menozzi et al., 2017; Piha et al., 2018), plant-based meat alternatives (Hoek et al., 2011), and cultured meat (Slade, 2018)). For example, Lombardi et al. (2019) found that negative beliefs and attitudes toward insects nega-tively affect the willingness to pay for insect-based products. Moreover, attitudes seem to differ between groups of individuals—for example, between non-users, light and medium users, and heavy users of meat substitutes. Non-users have a very positive attitude toward meat, while heavy users have more positive attitudes toward meat substitutes (Hoek et al., 2011).

Food neophobia, disgust, and related feelings.d Food neophobia—the aversion to trying novel foods (Pliner & Hobden, 1992)—is a key barrier for the consumption of insects (Barton et al., 2020; Gere et al., 2017; Hartmann et al., 2015; Kornher et al., 2019; La Barbera, 2019; La Bar-bera et al., 2018; Lammers et al., 2019; Laureati et al., 2016; Lombardi et al., 2019; Orkusz et al., 2020; Orsi et al., 2019; Palmieri et al., 2019; Piha et al., 2018; Schaufele et al., 2019; Schlup & Brunner, 2018; Sogari, Bogueva, & Marinova, 2019; Tan, Fischer, et al., 2016; Verbeke, 2015;

Wilkinson et al., 2018), seaweed (Birch et al., 2019b; Moons et al., 2018), cultured meat (Wilks et al., 2019), and plant-based meat alter-natives (Bryant et al., 2019; Hoek et al., 2011). Similar relevant concepts are disgust for (that is, sensitivity to) insects (Barton et al., 2020; Cica-tiello et al., 2016; La Barbera et al., 2018; Gallen et al., 2019; Kornher et al., 2019; Myers & Pettigrew, 2018; Orsi et al., 2019; Poortvliet et al., 2019; Powell et al., 2019; Sogari et al., 2016, 2018, 2019a, 2019b), plant-based meat alternatives (Bryant et al., 2019; Siegrist & Hartmann, 2019), seaweed (Birch et al., 2019b), and cultured meat (Verbeke et al., 2015; Wilks et al., 2019); affective attitudes (i.e., feelings) toward in-sects (Fischer & Steenbekkers, 2018); and fear of cultured meat (Cica-tiello et al., 2016).

Novel meat alternatives may attract neophilic consumers who seek new food alternatives (e.g., out of curiosity; Sogari, 2016) and are not scared to try novel foods (i.e., drivers of food neophobia, fear, and disgust). Note that these are distinct mechanisms; for example, food neophobia and disgust have separate effects on intention to eat insects, with disgust having more explanatory power (La Barbera et al., 2018). Moons et al. (2018) indicate that sensitivity to food neophobia could differ between specific target groups (i.e., foodies) that are more or less engaged with food and food choices, suggesting that these processes may be even more relevant for specific target groups.

Differences across alternative proteins in psychological factors. The acceptance of all alternative proteins is affected by attitudes. The find-ings of Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, Verain, and Veldkamp (2019) demonstrate a first indication that attitudes are more relevant to meat-related products such as traditional burgers and cultured meat.

The acceptance of all alternative proteins is affected by food neo-phobia; however, insects reveal a broader group of affect-related feel-ings that explain acceptance of specific products (i.e., mostly insect- based products). General disgust, affective attitudes toward eating in-sects (Fisher & Steenbekkers, 2018), fear (Cicatiello et al., 2016), and possible negative evaluations by family or friends (Sogari, 2016) all negatively affect willingness to eat specific insects. In accordance with these findings, Onwezen and colleagues (2019) show that affective drivers are more relevant for innovative alternative proteins of insects and seaweed (compared to less innovative alternative proteins of pulses and fish), indicating that acceptance of innovative alternative proteins is based more on feelings than is acceptance of less innovative alternative proteins.

3.3.3. External attributes As the term “alternative proteins” often refers to new food products

that are perceived as innovative by consumers (e.g., insects; Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019), consumers use external factors to form an opinion on these products (Siegrist, 2008). The results of our review and of previous studies (Siegrist, 2008) reveal three types of external attributes: trust,e social environment,f and (cultural) appropriateness.s

Trust.e Generally, a low number of studies include trust in their research (three studies out of 90 included studies). The findings on trust reveal a positive association between trust and acceptance of alternative proteins (Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014; Wilks et al., 2019). For example, a general distrust in science correlates with less acceptance of cultured meat (Wilks et al., 2019). Independent promoters, conversely, appear to play a role in increasing trust in the product (algae; Balzan et al., 2016); similarly, information provided by public health in-stitutions increase trust in insects as an alternative protein (Balzan et al., 2016). There is also variation between countries (for instance, the Netherlands demonstrates more trust than Australia) in trusting infor-mation about insect food from different organisations (Lensvelt &

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

8

Steenbekkers, 2014). Social environment.g Social norms provide information on appropriate

behaviour via the perception of behaviour and opinions of others. Social norms are generally shown relevant drivers of behaviour (Onwezen, Antonides, & Bartels, 2013; White, Smith, Terry, Greenslade, & McKimmie, 2009). Multiple studies consistently refer to the influence of the social environment on acceptance of alternative proteins (social norms: Jensen & Lieberoth, 2019; Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014; Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019 and social acceptance: Hart-mann et al., 2015; Lemken et al., 2017; Sogari, 2015; 2016; Schaufele et al., 2019; Slade, 2018; Vainio et al., 2016; Warne et al., 2019; Wilks et al., 2019). The negative opinions of family and friends, for example, are referred to as a relevant barrier for trying pulses (Figueira et al., 2019) or edible insects in the future (Sogari et al., 2016). Moreover, in comparison to a range of acceptance variables such as disgust, emotions, attitudes, and perceived behavioural control, social norms appeared to be the most relevant factor in explaining consumer acceptance of a range of alternative proteins: fish, pulses, insects, seaweed, and cultured meat (Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019).

Some studies also reveal the potential of social norms to steer behaviour: The more participants perceived eating insects as a socially acceptable activity, the more they were willing to try insect products (Schaufele et al., 2019). For example, the more participants thought other participants ate products containing mealworm, the more likely they were to eat these foods themselves (Jensen & Lieberoth, 2019). The impact of social norms seems especially relevant for those who do not regularly consume those particular products (e.g., individuals without an established diet containing beans and soy products, Vainio et al., 2016).

Cultural appropriateness. Only studies on insects reveal the relevance of cultural traditions (i.e., alternative proteins not accepted because perceived as inappropriate in one’s own culture; Gallen et al., 2019; Myers & Pettigrew, 2018) or food appropriateness (Tan, Tibboel, & Stieger, 2017). A study by Hartmann et al. (2015) reveals that Chinese participants rated all insect-based products more favourably than Ger-mans regarding taste, nutritional value, familiarity, and social accep-tance and were more willing to eat insect-based products (with no differences for processed versus unprocessed insects), indicating that insects that were already part of a person’s culture were preferred (Hartmann et al., 2015).

Differences between alternative proteins in external attributes. Social norms are a highly relevant factor for all alternative proteins (in com-parison to the included range of explanatory factors such as attitudes, perceived behavioural control, and emotions), as well as for various forms of novel insects that differ in how innovative they are perceived to be (Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019). Social acceptance was important for the acceptance of insects in China and Germany (Hart-mann et al., 2015), indicating that social environment is also relevant for acceptance when a particular food is already part of tradition.

3.4. Interventions

Compared to studies that focus on understanding the drivers of behaviour, far fewer articles have tested the effectiveness of these drivers by means of behavioural interventions (27% of all studies have a link with interventions). We use a broad definition of interventions including all experimental designs that include one or multiple activities to manipulate the choice environment and therefore test how an inter-vention affects consumer acceptance (e.g., attitudes, intentions or behaviour). Below we discuss the findings of these intervention studies pertaining to the behavioural drivers that were distinguished above.

3.4.1. Product-related attributes The majority of the included intervention studies focussed on testing

the effectiveness of product-related attributes (13 out of 27 intervention studies included some form of claim information). Claims of health and environmental benefits are shown to support the acceptance of pulses (Lemken et al., 2017; environmental benefits: Warne et al., 2019), seaweed (Brayden et al., 2018; environmental benefits: Weinrich & Elshiewy, 2019), cultured meat (health benefits: Siegrist & Sütterlin, 2017), insects (Cavallo & Materia, 2018; de-Magistris et al., 2015), and lentil consumption (environmental information in combination with economic and nutritional information: Warne et al., 2019). A combi-nation of both environmental and health claims has been proven to have superior results in increasing acceptance over separate claims (Lemken et al., 2017). Note that physical environment may play a role. For example, a study by Lucas et al. (2019) indicated that participants’ choice of seaweed claims is strongly influenced by the location at which they purchase seaweed.

In addition to claims, framing information in a specific manner is also beneficial in promoting acceptance of alternative proteins. For example, highlighting societal benefits (more than highlighting indi-vidual benefits) increased acceptance of insects (Verneau et al., 2016); describing cultured meat in a nontechnical manner that focusses on the final product increases acceptance of cultured meat (Siegrist et al., 2018); and more specific information increased participants’ willingness to pay for insects (Lombardi et al., 2019).

However, not all information was shown to be effective; for example, positioning the product with different types of information (i.e., product-related information, physiological information, social norm information, or no information) did not affect acceptance of insects (Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014) or cultured meat (Mancini & Antonioli, 2019). Similarly, the ‘clean meat is natural’ message failed to make participants consider clean meat more natural (compared to a control condition) or willing to pay more (Bryant et al., 2019).

Finally, some studies even showed drawback effects as a result of information provision. For example, ‘high-tech’ framing led to the least positive attitudes (Bryant & Dillard, 2019), and communicating e-numbers or possible negative health effects decreased the perceived naturalness of cultured meat (Siegrist & Sütterlin, 2017).

Price interventions prove to be effective in increasing consumer acceptance of alternative proteins. High prices were associated with increases in expected quality, which positively influenced participants’ preference for mealworm burgers and mealworm truffles (Berger et al., 2018).

Familiarity. In line with the findings on familiarity, intervention studies reveal that familiarity can be used to increase consumer accep-tance (i.e., tasting increased familiarity with and acceptance of insects; Barton et al., 2020; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2016; Lensvelt & Steenbek-kers, 2014; Sogari et al., 2018). For example, participants who ate tortilla chips containing cricket flour were more willing to eat unpro-cessed insects than people who had eaten traditional tortilla chips (containing corn flour; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2016). Consumers can also be made more familiar with and more willing to accept alternative proteins by providing them with prior information on consumption of insects (Barsics et al., 2017). Laureati et al. (2016) demonstrated that attending university courses or working in an environment in which the topics of insects and sustainability are investigated and debated posi-tively affects consumers’ willingness to incorporate insects into their diets. A similar effect is found when providing prior information via an information session.

Generally, individuals prefer products in which novel ingredients are disguised; disguising ingredients increases familiarity with algae

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

9

(Balzan et al., 2016), and willingness to eat insects decreases when in-sects are visible in the products (even when barely visible; Ali, 2016; Baker et al., 2016; Cavallo & Materia, 2018; de-Magistris et al., 2015; Schlup & Brunner, 2018). Similarly, acceptance was lower for unpro-cessed insects compared to processed insects (Hartmann et al., 2015), for insects as food compared to insects as animal feed (Laureati et al., 2016), and when descriptions of insects in a menu setting were very explicit instead of vague (Baker et al., 2016).

3.4.2. External attributes Social norms can be utilised to increase acceptance levels such that

participants exposed to positive peer ratings of a nutrition bar expected it to be of higher quality than did participants exposed to negative peer ratings (Berger et al., 2019).

Providing information via different organisations affects the levels of trust on insects and can also be helpful to further increase the effec-tiveness of health and environmental claims. For example, public health institutions can play an active role in promoting consumer acceptance of insects (Balzan et al., 2016).

4. General discussion

Insights into consumer acceptance of alternative proteins and its drivers are needed to steer consumers towards lower meat consumption and higher consumption of alternative proteins (Dagevos & Reinders, 2018; Harguess et al., 2020; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017; Sanchez-Sabate & Sabate, 2019). The present systematic review provides an overview of relevant drivers of willingness to eat and try five different alternative proteins, including the effectiveness of interventions to increase con-sumer acceptance of these alternative proteins. The systematic review adds to the literature by a focus on drivers to understand and find ways to steer consumer acceptance, and by including a wide range of alter-native proteins thereby allowing for a comprehensive overview and comparisons across categories of alternative proteins. Based on our search criteria, 91 articles were identified and included in this system-atic review.

4.1. Acceptance of alternative proteins is relatively low, especially for insects followed by cultured meat

In accordance with previous findings (e.g., Dagevos & Voordouw, 2013; de Boer et al., 2013; Graça et al., 2019; Malek, Umberger, & Goddard, 2019), our first main finding was that acceptance levels of alternative proteins are relatively low in comparison to the consumption of meat (e.g., Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019; Slade, 2018). Furthermore, we observed variations in acceptance levels between the different alternative proteins. Plant-based meat alternatives and pulses are most accepted, insects are least accepted, and cultured meat second-least (Circus & Robinson, 2019; de Boer et al., 2013; Ianuzzi, 2019; Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019). Interestingly, pulses and plant-based meat alternatives are also estimated to have higher sustainability potential at this moment compared to other alternative proteins (Van der Weele et al., 2019), which implies that it is most promising—in terms of environmental impact and societal acceptance —to focus on increasing consumption of pulses and plant-based meat alternatives.

Acceptance levels vary across segmentation criteria of demographics and lifestyle. Demographic variables were generally found to be less relevant compared to social and psychological factors in understanding consumer acceptance of alternative proteins. This finding is in accor-dance with previous research (Beane & Ennis, 1987; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017; Wansink, Sonka, & Park, 2004). Lifestyle showed to be of significance, consumers with high levels of meat consumption are more receptive to cultured meat (e.g., Circus & Robinson, 2019) and meat alternatives that look similar to meat (Hoek et al., 2011), whereas they are less open to plant-based meat alternatives (pulses, de Boer et al.,

2013; meat substitutes, Siegrist & Hartmann, 2019; algae, Weinrich & Elshiewy, 2019; plant-based meat substitutes, Circus & Robinson, 2019).

4.2. Relevant drivers to increase consumer acceptance

This review provides a comprehensive overview of which drivers are consistently shown to have an association with various alternative proteins. In short, these drivers include the food choice motivesa of taste, healthiness (Lea et al., 2005; Moons et al., 2018), familiarity,b attitudes,c

food neophobia and disgust,d and social normsf (more details below). The relevance of this wide range of drivers implies that for acceptance of alternative proteins it is relevant to use integrated approaches including drivers from different levels (e.g., personal, physical environment and social environment, Story et al., 2008).

While alternative proteins are often referred to as a specific category of food choices (e.g., Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017), we want to note that the relevance of the abovementioned drivers is consistent with the body of research on drivers of food choices in general (e.g., similar effects were found for healthy food choices, organic food choices, fruit and vegetable choices, and choices for novel foods).7 Indicating that the acceptance of alternative proteins is not that different compared to food choices in related domains and that much more cross-learning across domains is possible. Moreover, the findings indicate that consumer acceptance of alternative proteins shows many congruencies across alternative proteins. Highlighting the relevance of future research in the context of alternative proteins to learn from related bodies of research within related areas of alternative proteins, for example there is a large body of research on acceptance of insects which can be used by related domains such as acceptance of seaweed.

That being said, our review clearly illustrates differences in alter-native proteins and groups of consumers. Both directions provide a more nuanced picture regarding acceptance of alternative proteins, showing that acceptance of alternative proteins varies across products and cate-gories and across consumers. Moreover, the relevant drivers of accep-tance also show variations across consumer groups and across alternative proteins. We elaborate on these findings in more detail below.

4.3. Differences between groups of consumers

Regarding the drivers of acceptance, the results show that past consumption influences a person’s motivations for eating insects (e.g., price, taste, availability; House, 2016). Variations in use of alternative proteins resulted in a different impact of familiarity, attitudes (Hoek et al., 2011), food neophobia (Moons et al., 2018), and social norms (Vainio et al., 2016) on acceptance. Past consumption of alternative proteins is thus a relevant factor to include in understanding and tar-geting consumers (i.e., segmentation criteria, Onwezen, 2018) in the context of alternative proteins. Moreover, the findings on psychological factors also indicate the relevance of personal variations in under-standing consumer acceptance. It is for example more relevant to target on consumer groups that are more receptive to various alternative proteins, e.g., scoring low on food neophobia, disgust and having posi-tive attitudes and associations with alternative proteins.

7 Taste and health for example are often mentioned as the most relevant food choices (Onwezen et al, 2001, 2019b; Steptoe et al., 1995). Attitudes and social norms are part of the theory of planned behaviour which shows to have pre-dictive value for a broad range of food products (organic food, Arvola et al., 2008; fruit, Bogers, Brug, van Assema, & Dagnelie, 2004; sustainable food, Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008). Food neopobia, disgust and trust seem to be espe-cially related to novel food technologies (Genetic modification, Siegrist, 2008; novel foods, Tuorila & Hartmann, 2020).

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

10

4.4. Differences between alternative proteins

Although future research including designs with direct comparisons across various drivers and various alternative proteins is necessary, the results provide implications for variations in drivers of acceptance across various alternative proteins. Fig. 2 shows a highly simplified overview of the main drivers for each alternative protein. We highlight three relevant lines of differences between alternative proteins.

First, health motivations seem to be more relevant to acceptance of plant-based proteins, and environmental motivations seem more closely linked to the consumption of animal-based proteins (comparison across various alternative proteins: Circus & Robinson, 2019; de Boer et al., 2013). Second, insect-based studies reveal a broader range of affect-related driversd-insects compared to other alternative proteins. Consumers may rely more on affective processes for novel alternatives compared to conventional alternatives (Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019). Third, the role of familiarity seems especially relevant to insect-based alternative proteins (e.g., Schlup & Brunner, 2018; Ver-beke, 2015; Woolf et al., 2019.

Taken together these findings indicate that consumer acceptance of various alternative proteins also shows variations in relevance of drivers. It is therefore recommended for future research to be specific about which proteins are researched, as research even shows variations for different products within categories. Moreover, interventions developed to increase consumer acceptance should be targeted at spe-cific alternative proteins, as these show to be associated with specific product attributes and barriers, and personal motivations and environ-mental drivers.

4.5. Interventions

As noted in the results, the majority of studies on interventions included manipulations of claim information. There are indications that information on health and environmental benefits (Brayden et al., 2018; Lemken et al., 2017; Warne et al., 2019; Weinrich & Elshiewy, 2019) positively influences consumer acceptance. Informational claims can be framed to make them more effective in increasing consumer acceptance, such as highlighting societal benefits (more than highlighting individual benefits; Verneau et al., 2016), nontechnical (versus technical) de-scriptions of production (Siegrist et al., 2018), and including specific (instead of general) information (Lombardi et al., 2019). The results also reveal that not all information was shown to be effective; some infor-mation even resulted in negative effects (Bryant & Dillard, 2019).

In accordance with the central role of familiarity in the acceptance of alternative proteins, the results on interventions indicate various effec-tive routes to increase familiarity and thus promote consumer accep-tance of alternative proteins: Introducing alternative proteins in existing and recognizable dishes and products and decreasing the visibility of the alternative proteins (especially regarding insects) can increase the

acceptance of alternative proteins (Barton et al., 2020; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2016; Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014; Pambo et al., 2017; Sogari et al., 2018). For example developing processed products that fit with known products and recipes (e.g., wraps in which seaweed or in-sects are processed).

The body of research on designing interventions had a focus on fa-miliarity and information. Only a small amount of intervention studies included other aspects like for example social norm or affective in-terventions. This demonstrates that the body of research on in-terventions is not fully in line with the body of literature on the drivers of acceptance of sustainable protein and on consumer acceptance in gen-eral. The results on the affective and social aspects of drivers were promising (see our discussion above), and also other bodies of literature emphasise the importance of including aspects beyond information alone—aspects such as nudging—in interventions in order to potentially change behaviour (e.g., Marchiori, Adriaanse & De Ridder, 2017).

4.6. Future research lines

The manuscripts provides a comprehensive overview of the litera-ture. This overview also results in research gaps and lines for future research. This section focusses on what we believe are the most promi-nent research gaps that set the agenda for future research.

Some sustainable protein sources have been studied more than others (e.g., insects versus algae, see Table 2). More research on a wide range of specific alternative proteins is necessary to gain better insight into the acceptance of consumers regarding a wide range of alternative protein products. Additionally, there are only a few studies that include multiple novel protein sources (e.g., Circus & Robinson, 2019; de Boer et al., 2013; Ianuzzi, 2019; Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019). The comparisons between various products of a specific alternative protein, or across categories of alternative proteins in a comparable way (e.g., a burger from various alternative proteins), are especially crucial to gaining a better understanding of why some specific products are accepted and others are not. Moreover, there is a need for future research to find ways to increase comparisons across studies, for example the use of standardised measures, and an overarching theo-retical framework. We state it is relevant to develop standardised mea-surements and include a wide range of variables including multiple levels (e.g., personal, social environment and physical environment, Story, 2008). In this way knowledge in relative importance across drivers can be increased.

The studies included emphasised cognitive deliberation far more than affective and unconscious factors (e.g., for pulses, there were nine individual studies on food choice motives and none on affective vari-ables; for algae, there were 16 and two respectively). At the same time, the research suggests that affective factors are especially relevant for novel products, which are perceived as more innovative by consumers (Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019). Thus, a recommendation for

Fig. 2. Framework with a simplified overview of the most relevant drivers of consumer acceptance for the various alternative proteins.

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

11

future research is to attend more to affective factors. Although the amount of studies on social norms was relatively low,

the results show the relevance of this driver in consumer acceptance of all alternative proteins. Consumers use all kinds of information to form opinions on alternative proteins, including social context. Studies on food choices in general (Higgs, 2015) and specifically regarding food innovations have already noted the significance of the social environ-ment (Ronteltap, Van Trijp, Renes, & Frewer, 2007). The current review adds to this knowledge by illustrating that social information is also a highly relevant driver of acceptance for all alternative proteins (e.g., Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al., 2019). Future research is needed to further explore the potential of social norms in consumer acceptance of alternative proteins.

Although we focussed on Western countries, a few studies included a comparison between Western and non-Western countries (Bryant et al., 2019; Hartmann et al., 2015; Tan et al., 2015). These comparisons are especially interesting in the context of insects and seaweed, because these products already form a part of the traditional diet in a number of non-Western countries. The comparison can provide valuable insight into how insects and seaweed could become part of traditional diets elsewhere. Future studies should include more representative samples in more countries to identify and explain differences between various countries and cultures.

The amount of intervention studies was relatively small compared to the total amount of studies on consumer acceptance. Moreover, most interventions studies were not performed in real life settings whereas, testing consumer responses in real-life settings is also very important (Taufik, Verain, Bouwman, & Reinders, 2019). Finally, we noticed that the interventions included often-used informational claims, which is a common approach to influencing consumer food choices (Guthrie, Mancino, & Lin, 2015). However, there are many other factors aside from information that influence behaviour; therefore, information does not always determine behavioural change (Guthrie et al., 2015; Michie, Van Stralen, & West, 2011; Rothschild, 1999). We recommend future studies to include other interventions to increase consumer acceptance of alternative proteins for example affective factors and social norms, and also test interventions in real-life for real behavioural choices.

4.7. Limitations

A common limitation of a systematic review is that publication bias has likely inflated the reported results. Publication bias causes effective studies to be published more often than ineffective studies (Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2005, pp. 1–7). Moreover, although we used a broad search string, some studies may be missing in our overview. Including other search engines and a reference check might complement the overview in future literature reviews.

The data did not allow us to conduct a meta-analysis due to the inconsistent way in which outcome measures were reported as well as the diversity in populations, settings, and reported results (e.g., lack of effect sizes and correlation coefficients). As a result, we cannot assess the

relative effectiveness in targeting each of the different determinants in the acceptance of sustainable protein sources. Future research may benefit from the use of consistent outcome measures and the reporting of effect sizes to allow a better quantitative comparison between studies (also see Bryant & Barnett, 2018).

We used an existing framework on acceptance of novel food (Siegrist, 2008) to discuss our results. Possibly the framework which is developed for novel foods is less suitable for conventional alternative proteins. Although we worked from the raw table (see Appendix A and the sup-plementary materials) and fitted the results within the framework it is possible that a different framework would result in different findings. For example the results on trust are only found because the framework explicitly mentioned the relevance of trust. It therefore becomes clear that this factor is under researched in the literature on alternative proteins.

The focus of the review is on acceptance of alternative proteins, as actual behaviour is often not applicable in the case of novel proteins and is not possible in the case of future proteins. However, it should be considered that an increase in intentions or acceptance does not neces-sarily equate to an increase in behaviour as well (Sheeran & Webb, 2016).

5. Conclusion

The findings of the current review provide a comprehensive over-view of the consumer acceptance of multiple alternative proteins. Although consumer acceptance varies greatly across alternative pro-teins, such that plant-based proteins are far more accepted than others like insects, the results also reveal consistencies in the drivers of con-sumer acceptance. The relevant drivers for consumer acceptance of all alternative proteins were food choice motives (especially healthiness and taste), familiarity, attitudes, food neophobia, disgust, and social norms. Besides these consistencies the review also shows the relevance of being specific and taking variations between individuals and alter-native proteins into account. Future research is necessary with a focus on comparisons. Comparisons across multiple drivers, comparisons across multiple alternative proteins, comparisons across countries, and com-parisons across consumer segments. Moreover, intervention studies have a focus on information and familiarity whereas other drivers like social norms and affect also show to be relevant. Thus, aside from focussing on providing information on benefits and motives, there is an urgent need to find ways to make consumers more familiar with various alternative proteins and to include affective messaging and social norm incentives in real-life contexts.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Raimo Rood for his contributions to the data collection. The review is conducted in a research project on alternative proteins funded by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality.

Appendix B. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058.

Appendix A. Table including all articles from the systematic literature review

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

12

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

puls

es

1. A

llegr

a et

al.

(201

5)

Italy

19

7 Q

uest

ionn

aire

su

rvey

Le

gum

es

Part

icip

ant a

ge, s

ocia

l gro

up

(tra

ditio

nalis

t, m

oder

nist

), sp

ecifi

c m

otiv

atio

n fo

r le

gum

e co

nsum

ptio

n (m

emor

y vs

. im

puls

e), t

ype

of le

gum

e (t

radi

tiona

lly

eate

n lo

cally

vs.

gen

eric

gra

in

legu

me)

Valu

atio

n an

d co

nsum

ptio

n of

trad

ition

al a

nd g

ener

ic

legu

mes

.

Ass

essm

ents

of t

he p

erce

ived

qu

ality

, typ

ical

ity a

nd v

alue

fo

r mon

ey o

f leg

umes

do

not

diffe

r by

age

, whe

reas

eas

e of

use

and

ava

ilabi

lity

do

diffe

r by

age

(you

nger

adu

lts

are

less

kno

wle

dgea

ble

abou

t cha

ract

eris

tics

of

spec

ific

legu

mes

and

how

to

prep

are

them

). O

vera

ll,

legu

mes

trad

ition

ally

eat

en

loca

lly (

in S

icily

) ar

e va

lued

m

ore

high

ly th

an g

ener

ic

grai

n le

gum

es (

?). F

or th

e ag

e gr

oup

over

45

year

s,

cons

umpt

ion

of le

gum

es is

m

otiv

ated

by

mem

ory,

and

fo

r yo

unge

r ag

e gr

oups

it is

ba

sed

on im

puls

e (?

).

Age

and

spe

cific

mot

ivat

ion

for

legu

me

cons

umpt

ion

(mem

ory

vs. i

mpu

lse)

2. F

igue

ira

et a

l. (2

019)

A

ustr

alia

50

5 (3

08 a

nsw

ered

al

l que

stio

ns)

Onl

ine

surv

ey

Legu

mes

G

ende

r, ag

e gr

oup,

em

ploy

men

t sta

tus,

die

t (e.

g.,

glut

en-fr

ee),

high

est l

evel

of

educ

atio

n, e

thni

city

/cul

tura

l ba

ckgr

ound

, mai

n ho

useh

old

purc

hase

r an

d pr

epar

er o

f in

gred

ient

s/m

eals

, bro

ad

food

pre

fere

nces

, nut

ritio

nal

know

ledg

e, a

ttitu

des

tow

ard

legu

mes

, cul

inar

y us

e of

le

gum

es, l

egum

e co

nsum

ptio

n pa

tter

ns

– Ch

ickp

eas,

kid

ney

bean

s and

gr

een

peas

wer

e th

e ty

pes

of

legu

me

cons

umed

mos

t by

part

icip

ants

. The

se le

gum

es

wer

e m

ost f

requ

ently

use

d fo

r M

exic

an m

eals

, fol

low

ed

by In

dian

and

Mid

dle

East

ern

mea

ls. F

or

part

icip

ants

who

did

not

co

nsum

e le

gum

es, f

amily

pr

efer

ence

s, ti

me

need

ed to

pr

epar

e le

gum

es, a

lack

of

know

ledg

e of

how

to p

repa

re

legu

mes

or i

ncor

pora

te th

em

in m

eals

and

legu

me

tast

e w

ere

barr

iers

for

legu

me

cons

umpt

ion.

–

3. L

ea e

t al.

(200

5)

Aus

tral

ia

50

Focu

s gr

oup

inte

rvie

ws

Legu

mes

/pul

ses,

nu

ts (

amon

g ot

her

plan

t foo

ds)

Hea

lth-r

elat

ed a

nd

envi

ronm

enta

l ben

efits

, ve

rsat

ility

, tas

te, q

ualit

y an

d va

riet

y of

pla

nt fo

ods,

kn

owle

dge

and

skill

s co

ncer

ning

pla

nt fo

ods

(and

th

eir

prep

arat

ion)

, pr

epar

atio

n tim

e fo

r pl

ant

food

s, a

war

enes

s an

d vi

ews

of p

lant

food

pro

mot

ions

Cons

umpt

ion

of p

lant

-bas

ed

food

s H

ealth

-rel

ated

ben

efits

of

plan

t foo

ds w

ere

cons

ider

ed

mos

t im

port

ant,

follo

wed

by

tast

e, v

arie

ty, v

ersa

tility

and

en

viro

nmen

tal b

enefi

ts. L

ack

of p

repa

ratio

n kn

owle

dge

and

skill

s as

wel

l as

prep

arat

ion

time

wer

e ba

rrie

rs to

con

sum

ptio

n.

Part

icip

ants

wer

e hi

ghly

aw

are

of p

lant

food

pr

omot

ions

, but

not

ed th

at

thes

e sh

ould

focu

s m

ore

on

prac

tical

con

veni

ence

.

Hea

lth-r

elat

ed b

enefi

ts o

f pl

ant f

oods

, pre

para

tion

time

of p

lant

food

s, k

now

ledg

e an

d sk

ills

conc

erni

ng

(pre

para

tion

of)

plan

t foo

ds

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

13

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

4. L

emke

n et

al.

(201

7)

Ger

man

y 10

20

Onl

ine

expe

rim

ent

Legu

mes

/pul

ses

Pric

e se

nsiti

vity

, hea

lth

conc

ern

in d

iets

, vis

ual

attr

actio

n of

pro

duct

s,

perc

eive

d so

cial

bar

rier

s to

le

gum

e co

nsum

ptio

n, h

ealth

an

d en

viro

nmen

tal c

laim

s as

soci

ated

with

pro

duct

Will

ingn

ess-

to-p

ay fo

r le

gum

e pr

oduc

ts

Hea

lth a

nd e

nvir

onm

enta

l cl

aim

s in

crea

se w

illin

gnes

s-

to-p

ay fo

r le

gum

es, w

ith a

m

ix o

f bot

h be

ing

supe

rior

to

sepa

rate

cla

ims.

The

effe

ct o

f fo

od a

ttitu

des

in g

ener

al o

n W

TP v

arie

s be

twee

n ch

ickp

ea a

nd g

reen

-pea

pa

sta.

Leg

umes

’ ass

ocia

tion

with

flat

ulen

ce r

educ

es th

e w

illin

gnes

s-to

-pay

for

thes

e pr

oduc

ts.

Mix

of h

ealth

and

en

viro

nmen

tal c

laim

s as

soci

ated

with

pro

duct

5. M

elen

drez

-Rui

z et

al.

(201

9)

Fran

ce

120

Expe

rim

ent

Puls

es

Gen

der,

age,

edu

catio

n le

vel,

hous

ehol

d co

mpo

sitio

n,

scen

ario

em

ploy

ed d

urin

g di

sh-c

ompo

sitio

n ta

sk (

e.g.

, ‘re

stau

rant

’- or

‘veg

etar

ian

gues

t’-s

cena

rio)

, par

ticip

ant’

vi

ews/

attit

udes

reg

ardi

ng

puls

es

Part

icip

ants

’ cho

ice

of fo

od

imag

es w

ith w

hich

to

com

pose

a d

ish

for

a sp

ecifi

c sc

enar

io, p

artic

ipan

ts’

eval

uatio

n of

food

imag

es

Part

icip

ants

sel

ecte

d im

ages

of

Pul

se-g

roup

pro

duct

s (f

or

use

in th

eir

dish

co

mpo

sitio

n) s

igni

fican

tly

mor

e of

ten

in th

e Se

lf-

serv

ice,

Res

taur

ant a

nd

Vege

tari

an s

cena

rios

, co

mpa

red

to th

e Ev

eryd

ay

(con

trol

) sc

enar

io.

Part

icip

ants

und

er 4

0 ye

ars

old

used

imag

es o

f red

bea

ns,

chic

kpea

s an

d re

d le

ntils

m

ore

ofte

n th

an d

id o

lder

pa

rtic

ipan

ts. P

artic

ipan

ts

over

40,

on

the

othe

r ha

nd,

chos

e im

ages

of e

ggs

and

gnoc

chi m

ore

ofte

n th

an

youn

ger

part

icip

ants

. Men

pr

efer

red

red

mea

t mos

t, m

en o

ver

40 m

ost o

ften

sele

cted

sau

sage

, and

w

omen

ove

r 40

tend

ed to

se

lect

whi

te b

eans

and

br

occo

li m

ore

freq

uent

ly.

Poss

ible

bar

rier

s to

pul

se

cons

umpt

ion

(as

men

tione

d by

par

ticip

ants

) w

ere

disl

ike

of p

ulse

s, p

repa

ratio

n di

fficu

lty, a

nd v

iew

ing

puls

es a

s fo

od fo

r ve

geta

rian

s.

Scen

ario

em

ploy

ed d

urin

g di

sh-c

ompo

sitio

n ta

sk

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

14

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

6. V

aini

o et

al.

(201

6)

Finl

and

1048

Su

rvey

Be

ans

and

soy

Age

, gen

der,

educ

atio

n le

vel,

(Fin

nish

) reg

ion

of re

side

nce,

ho

useh

old

size

, adh

eren

ce to

a

spec

ific

diet

, eat

ing

mot

ives

(e

.g.,

soci

al m

otiv

es)

Chan

ges i

n fo

od c

onsu

mpt

ion

patt

erns

M

otiv

es r

elat

ing

to

envi

ronm

enta

l con

cern

s,

heal

th a

nd w

eigh

t con

trol

w

ere

rela

tivel

y st

rong

, whi

le

mot

ives

rel

ated

to

conv

enie

nce

and

pric

e w

ere

rela

tivel

y w

eak,

am

ong

part

icip

ants

who

follo

wed

an

est

ablis

hed

diet

incl

udin

g be

ans

and

soy

prod

ucts

(c

ompa

red

to th

ose

cons

umin

g on

ly b

eef)

. Tho

se

unde

rgoi

ng a

die

t cha

nge

mor

e st

rong

ly e

ndor

sed

mot

ives

rel

ated

to

envi

ronm

enta

l con

cern

s,

heal

th, s

ocia

bilit

y, s

ocia

l im

age

and

prod

uct p

rice

(c

ompa

red

to th

ose

with

an

esta

blis

hed

diet

con

tain

ing

bean

s an

d so

y pr

oduc

ts).

Adh

eren

ce to

a s

peci

fic d

iet,

mot

ives

rel

atin

g to

en

viro

nmen

tal c

once

rns,

he

alth

and

wei

ght c

ontr

ol

7. W

arne

et a

l. (2

019)

U

nite

d St

ates

&

Cana

da

138

(onl

y su

rvey

ed

cons

umer

s)

Surv

ey/

expe

rim

ent

Puls

es (

lent

ils)

Part

icip

ants

’ age

, ow

n/

hous

ehol

d le

ntil

cons

umpt

ion

freq

uenc

y,

chan

ges

in le

ntil

cons

umpt

ion

over

pas

t 5

year

s, p

rovi

sion

to

part

icip

ants

of a

bro

chur

e co

ntai

ning

info

rmat

ion

on

the

envi

ronm

enta

l, ec

onom

ic

and

nutr

ition

al a

spec

ts o

f le

ntil

(vs

anim

al p

rote

in)

prod

uctio

n

Know

ledg

e of

lent

ils, s

ourc

es

of le

ntil

know

ledg

e, g

ener

al

food

sec

urity

sta

tus,

rea

sons

fo

r ea

ting

lent

ils, a

ttri

bute

s pa

rtic

ipan

ts c

onsi

dere

d m

ost

impo

rtan

t whe

n bu

ying

le

ntils

, per

cept

ion

of w

hat

cons

titut

es h

igh-

qual

ity

lent

ils, s

ocia

l val

ue a

nd

qual

ity a

ttri

bute

s of

lent

ils in

re

latio

n to

pur

chas

e de

cisi

on,

perc

eptio

n of

sen

sory

qu

aliti

es o

f len

tils,

per

cept

ion

of h

ealth

ben

efits

of l

entil

co

nsum

ptio

n, le

ntil

purc

hase

lo

catio

n, p

erce

ptio

n of

lent

il av

aila

bilit

y on

the

mar

ket,

will

ingn

ess

to c

hang

e le

ntil

cons

umpt

ion

freq

uenc

y ba

sed

on in

form

atio

n in

lent

il br

ochu

re

Rega

rdle

ss o

f len

til

cons

umpt

ion

freq

uenc

y (c

onsu

mpt

ion

or n

on-

cons

umpt

ion)

, mos

t pa

rtic

ipan

ts in

dica

ted

they

w

ould

incr

ease

thei

r le

ntil

cons

umpt

ion

base

d on

the

envi

ronm

enta

l (78

%),

econ

omic

(75

%)

and

nutr

ition

al (7

2%)

info

rmat

ion

in th

e br

ochu

re

cont

rast

ing

lent

ils a

nd

anim

al-b

ased

pro

tein

so

urce

s.

Lent

il co

nsum

ers

diffe

red

sign

ifica

ntly

from

non

- co

nsum

ers

in th

eir

will

ingn

ess

to c

hang

e th

eir

lent

il co

nsum

ptio

n fr

eque

ncy

base

d on

the

nutr

ition

al in

form

atio

n in

th

e br

ochu

re. N

on-

cons

umer

s (v

s. c

onsu

mer

s)

mor

e fr

eque

ntly

rep

orte

d be

ing

unsu

re w

heth

er o

r no

t to

cha

nge

thei

r le

ntil

cons

umpt

ion

freq

uenc

y ba

sed

on th

e nu

triti

onal

in

form

atio

n, w

here

as

cons

umer

s m

ore

ofte

n re

port

ed th

ey w

ould

not

ch

ange

thei

r le

ntil

cons

umpt

ion

freq

uenc

y ba

sed

on th

is in

form

atio

n.

Part

icip

ants

’ age

, len

til

cons

umpt

ion

freq

uenc

y,

prov

isio

n to

par

ticip

ants

of a

br

ochu

re c

onta

inin

g in

form

atio

n on

the

envi

ronm

enta

l, ec

onom

ic

and

nutr

ition

al a

spec

ts o

f le

ntil

(vs

anim

al p

rote

in)

prod

uctio

n

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

15

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

Alg

ae

8. B

irch

et a

l. (2

019b

) A

ustr

alia

52

1 O

nlin

e su

rvey

A

lgae

(se

awee

d)

Gen

der,

educ

atio

n le

vel,

annu

al h

ouse

hold

inco

me,

ag

e, fo

od n

eoph

obia

, hea

lth-

cons

ciou

snes

s, r

espo

nsib

ility

w

ith fo

od a

nd fo

od s

afet

y co

ncer

n, s

ymbo

lic v

alue

(c

once

rnin

g fo

od

cons

umpt

ion)

, sna

ckin

g be

havi

our,

past

sea

wee

d co

nsum

ptio

n

Like

lihoo

d of

eat

ing

seaw

eed

in th

e ne

xt 1

2 m

onth

s Pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ho h

ad e

aten

or

tast

ed se

awee

d in

the

past

w

ere

mor

e lik

ely

(com

pare

d to

thos

e w

ho h

adn’

t) to

eat

se

awee

d in

the

next

12

mon

ths.

Par

ticip

ants

who

pr

efer

red

red

mea

t, po

rk o

r ch

icke

n ov

er fi

sh/s

eafo

od

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

ly le

ss li

kely

to

hav

e ev

er e

aten

sea

wee

d,

cons

umed

sea

wee

d in

the

past

12

mon

ths,

or

to e

at

seaw

eed

in th

e ne

xt 1

2 m

onth

s. G

ende

r and

age

had

no

sig

nific

ant e

ffect

on

likel

ihoo

d to

con

sum

e se

awee

d in

the

next

12

mon

ths.

Res

pond

ents

with

a

univ

ersi

ty d

egre

e ar

e 4

times

m

ore

likel

y th

an th

ose

with

lo

wer

edu

catio

n to

eat

se

awee

d in

the

next

12

mon

ths,

and

thos

e w

ho a

re

fam

iliar

(vs

. unf

amili

ar)

with

sea

wee

d pr

oduc

ts a

re

7.6

times

mor

e lik

ely

to d

o so

. Foo

d ne

opho

bia

was

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant p

redi

ctor

of

likel

ihoo

d to

eat

sea

wee

d in

th

e ne

xt 1

2 m

onth

s, w

ith

high

er fo

od n

eoph

obia

sc

ores

lead

ing

to a

low

er

likel

ihoo

d to

con

sum

e se

awee

d. A

ttac

hing

mor

e im

port

ance

to th

e sy

mbo

lic

valu

e of

food

con

sum

ptio

n,

high

er h

ealth

-con

scio

usne

ss,

and

mor

e sn

acki

ng

beha

viou

r ea

ch le

d to

a

high

er li

kelih

ood

of e

atin

g se

awee

d in

the

next

12

mon

ths.

Res

pons

ibili

ty w

ith

food

and

food

safe

ty c

once

rn

did

not s

igni

fican

tly a

ffect

th

is li

kelih

ood.

Food

neo

phob

ia

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

16

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

9. B

irch

et a

l. (2

019a

) A

ustr

alia

52

1 O

nlin

e su

rvey

A

lgae

(se

awee

d)

Gen

der,

educ

atio

n le

vel,

annu

al h

ouse

hold

inco

me,

ag

e, fo

od n

eoph

obia

, hea

lth

cons

ciou

snes

s, r

espo

nsib

ility

w

ith fo

od a

nd fo

od s

afet

y co

ncer

n, s

ymbo

lic v

alue

(c

once

rnin

g fo

od

cons

umpt

ion)

, sna

ckin

g be

havi

our,

past

sea

wee

d co

nsum

ptio

n, p

erce

ived

he

alth

and

nut

ritio

nal

bene

fits

of s

eaw

eed,

pe

rcei

ved

seaw

eed

tast

e,

perc

eptio

n of

sea

wee

d’s

natu

raln

ess,

saf

ety

and

fres

hnes

s, k

now

ledg

e of

and

fa

mili

arity

with

seaw

eed,

and

pe

rcep

tion

of s

eaw

eed

expe

nsiv

enes

s

Like

lihoo

d of

eat

ing

seaw

eed

in th

e ne

xt 1

2 m

onth

s Im

port

ant d

rive

rs fo

r co

nsum

ing

seaw

eed

in th

e fu

ture

are

hea

lth a

nd

nutr

ition

al b

enefi

ts o

f se

awee

d, s

eaw

eed

tast

e, a

nd

seaw

eed

bein

g na

tura

l, sa

fe

and

fres

h. Im

port

ant b

arri

ers

are

lack

of k

now

ledg

e ab

out

and

fam

iliar

ity w

ith se

awee

d an

d th

e pe

rcep

tion

that

se

awee

d is

exp

ensi

ve.

Part

icip

ants

who

are

yo

unge

r, fe

mal

e, m

ore

heal

th-c

onsc

ious

, and

hav

e hi

gher

hou

seho

ld in

com

es

and

educ

atio

n le

vels

, who

ar

e le

ss n

eoph

obic

with

food

, w

ho s

nack

mor

e, a

nd w

ho

atta

ch m

ore

impo

rtan

ce to

th

e sy

mbo

lic v

alue

of f

ood

are

mor

e lik

ely

to c

onsu

me

seaw

eed.

Food

neo

phob

ia

10. B

rayd

en e

t al.

(201

8)

Uni

ted

Stat

es

2155

Su

rvey

Se

awee

d So

urce

, cer

tifica

tion,

ori

gin

and

pric

e of

sea

food

pr

oduc

ts. P

artic

ipan

ts’ a

ge,

gend

er a

nd e

duca

tion

leve

l.

Pref

eren

ces

and

will

ingn

ess-

to

-pay

for

seaf

ood

prod

ucts

(s

uch

as s

eaw

eed)

Part

icip

ants

pre

fer

wild

- ha

rves

ted

seaf

ood

prod

ucts

(fi

sh a

nd s

eaw

eed)

, and

are

ad

ditio

nally

will

ing

to p

ay

mor

e fo

r pr

oduc

ts th

at h

ave

a ce

rtifi

catio

n la

bel (

orga

nic

or s

usta

inab

ly h

arve

sted

) or

or

igin

ate

from

thei

r ho

me

stat

e.

Sour

ce, c

ertifi

catio

n, o

rigi

n an

d pr

ice

of se

afoo

d pr

oduc

ts

11. L

ucas

et a

l. (2

019)

Fr

ance

O

nlin

e pr

e-su

rvey

: 12

3 Su

rvey

: 49

5

(Onl

ine)

sur

vey

Seaw

eed

Gen

der,

age,

occ

upat

ion,

ho

useh

old

situ

atio

n, in

com

e,

finan

cial

sat

isfa

ctio

n, m

eat

and

fish

cons

umpt

ion,

fr

eque

ncy

and

type

of

seaf

ood

cons

umed

, coo

king

ha

bits

, cur

iosi

ty, s

eaw

eed

cons

umpt

ion

(con

sum

er v

s.

non-

cons

umer

), pe

rcei

ved

tast

e of

sea

wee

d, ty

pe o

f se

awee

d pr

oduc

ts c

onsu

med

, co

okin

g m

etho

ds fo

r se

awee

d, b

uyin

g ha

bits

re

gard

ing

seaw

eed,

rea

sons

fo

r no

t con

sum

ing

seaw

eed,

w

illin

gnes

s to

try/

buy

seaw

eed,

loca

tion

of se

awee

d co

nsum

ptio

n/pu

rcha

se,

know

ledg

e of

sea

wee

d,

seaw

eed

attr

ibut

es th

at

enco

urag

e/w

ould

enc

oura

ge

cons

umpt

ion

for

part

icip

ants

Part

icip

ants

’ sea

wee

d la

bel

pref

eren

ce

Att

itude

s to

war

d se

awee

d st

rong

ly in

fluen

ce s

eaw

eed

cons

umpt

ion.

Par

ticip

ants

’ ch

oice

of s

eaw

eed

labe

l/

clai

m is

str

ongl

y in

fluen

ced

by th

e lo

catio

n at

whi

ch th

ey

purc

hase

sea

wee

d.

Loca

tion

of s

eaw

eed

cons

umpt

ion/

purc

hase

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

17

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

12. M

oons

et a

l. (2

018)

Be

lgiu

m

1325

Su

rvey

A

lgae

H

ealth

con

scio

usne

ss, f

ood

invo

lvem

ent,

neop

hobi

a,

will

ingn

ess t

o co

mpr

omis

e on

ta

ste,

env

iron

men

tal

conc

ern,

gen

der,

age,

ed

ucat

ion

leve

l, co

nsum

er

segm

ent (

spor

ting,

ve

geta

rian

, foo

die,

or

enjo

yer)

Ado

ptio

n in

tent

ion

of

spir

ulin

a-en

hanc

ed fo

od

Hea

lth c

onsc

ious

ness

and

w

illin

gnes

s to

com

prom

ise

on ta

ste

driv

e ad

optio

n in

tent

ion

of s

piru

lina-

en

hanc

ed fo

od fo

r sp

ortin

g in

divi

dual

s, v

eget

aria

ns a

nd

food

ies.

Neo

phob

ia

nega

tivel

y af

fect

s th

is

inte

ntio

n fo

r fo

odie

s, b

ut

does

not

affe

ct s

port

ing

indi

vidu

als

and

vege

tari

ans.

Fo

od in

volv

emen

t and

en

viro

nmen

tal c

once

rn d

o no

t affe

ct a

dopt

ion

inte

ntio

n.

Hea

lth c

onsc

ious

ness

, w

illin

gnes

s to

com

prom

ise

on ta

ste

13. W

einr

ich

and

Elsh

iew

y (2

019)

G

erm

any,

The

N

ethe

rlan

ds, &

Fr

ance

940

(315

in

Ger

man

y, 3

08 in

NL,

31

5 in

Fra

nce)

Expe

rim

ent

Mea

t sub

stitu

tes

base

d on

mic

ro-

alga

e

Gen

der,

age,

hou

seho

ld s

ize,

ed

ucat

ion

leve

l, (g

roce

ry)

shop

ping

res

pons

ibili

ty

with

in h

ouse

hold

(e.

g.

“mos

tly m

e”),

diet

(e.

g.,

vege

tari

an),

mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n ha

bit/

fr

eque

ncy,

whe

ther

or n

ot th

e m

eat s

ubst

itute

was

org

anic

/ lo

cal,

degr

ee to

whi

ch m

eat

subs

titut

e w

as le

ss

envi

ronm

enta

lly im

pact

ful

com

pare

d to

por

k/be

ef (

e.g.

, 30

% le

ss),

prod

uct p

rice

, at

titud

es to

war

d m

eat a

nd

mea

t sub

stitu

tes

Part

icip

ants

’ cho

ice

of m

eat

subs

titut

e, w

illin

gnes

s-to

-pay

(W

TP)

for

mea

t sub

stitu

tes,

pr

efer

ence

s fo

r sp

ecifi

c pr

opor

tion

of m

icro

-alg

ae

with

in m

eat s

ubst

itute

(10

%,

30%

or 5

0%),

pref

eren

ces f

or

spec

ific

seco

nd in

gred

ient

in

mea

t sub

stitu

te (

soy,

qui

noa,

pe

as, l

upin

es, m

ilk, o

r eg

g)

The

mos

t pre

ferr

ed s

econ

d in

gred

ient

(i.e

., in

add

ition

to

mic

ro-a

lgae

) fo

r m

eat

subs

titut

es w

as e

gg,

follo

wed

by

peas

and

milk

. Fu

rthe

rmor

e, m

any

part

icip

ants

pre

ferr

ed m

eat

subs

titut

es th

at a

re o

rgan

ic

(64%

) and

loca

l (79

%).

Resu

lts a

dditi

onal

ly s

how

th

at th

e le

sser

the

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

of t

he

mea

t sub

stitu

te (

com

pare

d to

por

k/be

ef),

the

mor

e th

ey

pref

er it

. A

ccep

tanc

e of

mea

t su

bstit

utes

was

dri

ven

by th

e pe

rcep

tion

that

mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n is

unh

ealth

y an

d m

eat p

rodu

ctio

n un

ethi

cal,

and

also

by

view

ing

a m

eat-f

ree

diet

as

suffi

cien

t (fo

r a

bala

nced

di

et).

In G

erm

any

and

the

Net

herl

ands

(bu

t not

Fr

ance

), a

stro

nger

mea

t- ea

ting

habi

t was

ass

ocia

ted

with

a w

eake

r pre

fere

nce

for

mea

t sub

stitu

tes

base

d on

m

icro

-alg

ae. T

he p

erce

ptio

n th

at m

eat i

s ex

pens

ive

did

not i

ncre

ase

pref

eren

ce fo

r th

e m

eat s

ubst

itute

s.

The

findi

ngs

for

WTP

fo

llow

ed a

pat

tern

sim

ilar

to

thos

e fo

r pr

efer

ence

s,

alth

ough

(in

Fran

ce)

unfa

mili

arity

with

mea

t su

bstit

utes

was

add

ition

ally

fo

und

to lo

wer

WTP

and

pe

rcei

ving

mea

t as

Mea

t con

sum

ptio

n ha

bit/

fr

eque

ncy,

whe

ther

or n

ot th

e m

eat s

ubst

itute

was

org

anic

/ lo

cal,

degr

ee to

whi

ch m

eat

subs

titut

e w

as le

ss

envi

ronm

enta

lly im

pact

ful

com

pare

d to

por

k/be

ef,

attit

udes

tow

ard

mea

t and

m

eat s

ubst

itute

s

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

18

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

expe

nsiv

e in

crea

sed

WTP

for

the

mea

t sub

stitu

tes.

In

sect

s 14

. Ada

mek

et a

l. (2

018)

Cz

ech

Repu

blic

96

Su

rvey

In

sect

s G

ende

r, ag

e, in

tere

st in

inse

ct

cons

umpt

ion,

Bel

iefs

abo

ut

inse

cts

as fo

od (

e.g.

, in

term

s of

hea

lthin

ess)

, ene

rgy

or

prot

ein

bar

man

ufac

ture

r (C

zech

vs.

Am

eric

an),

bar

flavo

ur

Eval

uatio

n of

tast

e an

d sm

ell

of e

nerg

y an

d pr

otei

n en

rich

ed w

ith c

rick

et fl

our,

pref

eren

ce fo

r A

mer

ican

vs.

Cz

ech

man

ufac

ture

r of

bar

s,

will

ingn

ess

to c

onsu

me

inse

cts

in th

e fu

ture

Mor

e th

an 8

0 pe

rcen

t of

part

icip

ants

was

will

ing

to

eat f

ood

enri

ched

with

ed

ible

inse

cts

beca

use

they

th

ink

it is

hea

lthy.

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts p

refe

rred

a

Czec

h (a

s op

pose

d to

A

mer

ican

) ba

r m

anuf

actu

rer.

Part

icip

ants

m

ost s

tron

gly

pref

erre

d en

ergy

or

prot

ein

bars

with

or

ange

and

pin

eapp

le

flavo

ur fr

om th

e Cz

ech

man

ufac

ture

r (th

ere

wer

e no

di

ffere

nces

in e

valu

atio

ns o

f ba

r fla

vour

s fr

om th

e A

mer

ican

man

ufac

ture

r).

Belie

fs a

bout

inse

cts

as fo

od

(e.g

., in

term

s of

hea

lthin

ess)

15. A

li (2

016)

U

nite

d St

ates

11

6 O

nlin

e su

rvey

In

sect

s A

ge, g

ende

r, fo

od

pref

eren

ces,

food

neo

phob

ia

in r

elat

ion

to e

ntom

opha

gy

(eat

ing

inse

cts)

, vis

ibili

ty o

f in

sect

with

in p

ictu

red

food

pr

oduc

t, pr

ovis

ion

of

info

rmat

ion

abou

t ben

efits

of

eatin

g in

sect

s.

Will

ingn

ess

to e

at in

sect

s A

lthou

gh 8

4 pe

rcen

t of

part

icip

ants

cla

imed

they

w

ere

will

ing

to e

at n

ew a

nd

diffe

rent

pro

duct

s, o

nly

54

perc

ent w

as w

illin

g to

co

nsid

er e

atin

g in

sect

s (ev

en

whe

n in

form

ed a

bout

the

bene

fits

of d

oing

so)

. Fift

y-

eigh

t per

cent

of p

artic

ipan

ts

wou

ld e

at in

sect

s if

they

ta

sted

goo

d, w

here

as 3

8 to

41

per

cent

wou

ld c

onsi

der

eatin

g in

sect

s for

thei

r hea

lth

bene

fits

and

sust

aina

bilit

y.

Whe

n vi

ewin

g pi

ctur

es o

f di

shes

con

tain

ing

bare

ly

visi

ble

inse

cts,

41

perc

ent

indi

cate

d th

ey w

ould

eat

th

ese

dish

es a

nd 3

2 pe

rcen

t sa

id th

ey m

ight

do

so. W

hen

view

ing

pict

ures

of d

ishe

s co

ntai

ning

vis

ible

inse

cts,

57

perc

ent i

ndic

ated

they

w

ould

not

eat

the

pict

ured

di

shes

.

Visi

bilit

y of

inse

cts

with

in

pict

ured

food

pro

duct

s

16. B

aker

et a

l. (2

016)

U

nite

d St

ates

St

udy

1: 2

21

Stud

y 2:

200

St

udy

3: 2

01

Expe

rim

ents

In

sect

s A

ll 3

stud

ies:

Pro

duct

imag

e (p

ictu

re; i

nsec

ts e

asily

id

entifi

able

vs.

har

d to

id

entif

y), p

rodu

ct d

escr

iptio

n (e

xplic

it vs

. vag

ue),

cons

umpt

ion

sett

ing

(ret

ail

shop

in s

tudy

1, r

esta

uran

t in

stud

y 2,

bot

h pa

rt o

f set

ting

man

ipul

atio

n in

stu

dy 3

).

Risk

per

cept

ion

and

purc

hase

in

tent

ion

rega

rdin

g in

sect

- ba

sed

food

pro

duct

s

In r

etai

l set

tings

, pro

duct

im

age

(im

ages

in w

hich

in

sect

s w

ere

easi

ly

iden

tifiab

le v

ersu

s ha

rd to

id

entif

y as

par

t of f

ood

prod

ucts

) is

mos

t im

port

ant

for

redu

cing

per

cept

ion

of

risk

, whe

reas

in th

e re

stau

rant

set

ting

the

men

u

Prod

uct i

mag

e an

d de

scri

ptio

n, c

onsu

mpt

ion

sett

ing (c

ontin

ued

on n

ext p

age)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

19

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

desc

ript

ion

was

mos

t im

port

ant i

n th

is r

egar

d.

Add

ition

ally

, par

ticip

ants

pr

efer

red

vagu

e pr

oduc

t de

scri

ptio

ns o

ver

expl

icit

ones

, with

the

form

er

min

imis

ing

risk

per

cept

ion

and

incr

easi

ng p

urch

ase

inte

ntio

n of

edi

ble

inse

ct

prod

ucts

. 17

. Bal

zan

et a

l. (2

016)

Ita

ly

32

Focu

s gr

oup

inte

rvie

ws

Inse

cts

Basi

c de

mog

raph

ics

(age

, em

ploy

men

t sta

tus,

ed

ucat

ion

leve

l),

part

icip

ants

’ kno

wle

dge

of

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion,

and

thei

r vi

ews

on fo

od s

afet

y, e

co-

sust

aina

bilit

y an

d sa

le o

f ed

ible

inse

cts,

exp

erie

nce

with

pre

pari

ng in

sect

s as

fo

od, p

repa

ratio

n fo

rm o

f ed

ible

inse

cts

Will

ingn

ess

to e

at in

sect

- ba

sed

food

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ w

illin

gnes

s to

ea

t ins

ect-b

ased

food

de

pend

s on

the

form

in

whi

ch it

is p

rese

nted

to

them

. Lac

k of

pra

ctic

e in

pr

epar

atio

n of

inse

ct-b

ased

fo

od w

as a

maj

or b

arri

er to

its

con

sum

ptio

n.

Part

icip

ants

sug

gest

ed th

at

publ

ic h

ealth

inst

itutio

ns

coul

d pl

ay in

rol

e in

pr

omot

ing

cons

umpt

ion

of

inse

cts.

Prep

arat

ion

form

of i

nsec

t- ba

sed

food

, exp

erie

nce

with

pr

epar

ing

inse

ct-b

ased

food

18. L

a Ba

rber

a et

al.

(201

9)

Not

spe

cifie

d (m

ost l

ikel

y a

wes

t-Eur

opea

n co

untr

y,

perh

aps

Italy

)

280

Onl

ine

surv

ey

Inse

cts

Indi

vidu

al s

ensi

tivity

to

disg

ust,

food

neo

phob

ia,

gend

er, a

ge, n

umbe

r of

m

embe

rs in

one

’s h

ouse

hold

, ed

ucat

ion

leve

l, oc

cupa

tion

stat

us

Six

depe

nden

t var

iabl

es:

Inte

ntio

n to

try

raw

inse

cts

(1),

or to

intr

oduc

e th

em in

to

own

daily

die

t (2)

, int

entio

n to

try

food

con

tain

ing

proc

esse

d in

sect

s (3

), or

to

intr

oduc

e it

into

ow

n da

ily

diet

(4),

inte

ntio

n to

try

food

de

rive

d fr

om a

nim

als

fed

with

inse

cts

(5),

or to

in

trod

uce

it in

to o

wn

daily

di

et (6

)

In g

ener

al, p

artic

ipan

ts’

inte

ntio

n to

eat

inse

cts

and

to in

trod

uce

them

into

thei

r da

ily d

iet i

s low

. Int

entio

n to

tr

y an

d to

incl

ude

in o

ne’s

da

ily d

iet w

ere

both

ge

nera

lly h

ighe

r fo

r fo

od

cont

aini

ng p

roce

ssed

inse

cts

com

pare

d to

raw

inse

cts

as

food

. How

ever

, int

entio

n to

tr

y or

to in

clud

e in

one

’s

daily

die

t foo

d de

rive

d fr

om

anim

als

fed

with

inse

cts

rece

ived

the

high

est s

core

s (c

ompa

red

to th

e ot

her

mea

sure

s of i

nten

tion)

. Foo

d ne

opho

bia

is m

ore

corr

elat

ed w

ith in

tent

ion

to

try

inse

cts

than

with

in

tent

ion

to in

trod

uce

them

in

to o

ne’s

dai

ly d

iet.

Food

neo

phob

ia is

a b

ette

r pr

edic

tor

(com

pare

d to

di

sgus

t sen

sitiv

ity)

of

inte

ntio

n to

try

proc

esse

d in

sect

s an

d bo

th to

try

and

intr

oduc

e in

to d

aily

die

t an

imal

s fe

d w

ith in

sect

s.

How

ever

, dis

gust

sen

sitiv

ity

appe

ars

to b

e a

bett

er

pred

icto

r of

inte

ntio

n to

in

trod

uce

raw

inse

cts

into

ow

n da

ily d

iet.

19. B

arto

n et

al.

(202

0)

(Atla

ntic

) Ca

nada

Su

rvey

: 107

H

edon

ic t

est/

ex

peri

men

t:

102

Surv

ey/

expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Part

icip

ants

’ age

, gen

der,

and

inco

me,

food

neo

phob

ia,

belie

fs a

bout

and

att

itude

s to

war

d in

sect

con

sum

ptio

n H

edon

ic t

est/

expe

rim

ent:

Pr

esen

ce (

vs. a

bsen

ce)

of

choc

olat

e in

pro

tein

pow

der

drin

k, p

rese

nce

(vs.

abs

ence

) of

cri

cket

pow

der

in p

rote

in

pow

der

drin

k, p

artic

ipan

ts’

Belie

fs a

bout

and

att

itude

s to

war

d in

sect

con

sum

ptio

n,

hedo

nic

eval

uatio

n of

pro

tein

po

wde

r dr

inks

usi

ng s

peci

fic

answ

erin

g op

tions

(e.

g.,

‘wat

ery’

, ‘be

any’

or

‘nut

ty’)

On

aver

age,

par

ticip

ants

had

lo

w fo

od n

eoph

obia

sco

res.

H

owev

er, p

artic

ipan

ts’

ques

tionn

aire

res

pons

es

indi

cate

d th

at th

ey

cons

ider

ed th

e ea

ting

of

inse

cts

disg

ustin

g an

d th

at

they

foun

d it

unna

tura

l for

hu

man

s to

eat

inse

cts.

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts d

id n

ot c

onsi

der

Part

icip

ants

’ tas

ting

of

prot

ein

pow

ders

(so

me

cont

aini

ng c

rick

et p

owde

r)

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

20

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

tast

ing

of p

rote

in p

owde

rs

(som

e co

ntai

ning

cri

cket

po

wde

r)

killi

ng in

sect

s im

mor

al a

nd

view

ed in

sect

s as

nut

ritio

us.

Part

icip

ants

had

no

inte

ntio

n to

pur

chas

e or

use

cri

cket

po

wde

r in

thei

r ev

eryd

ay

lives

. Gen

der

had

no

sign

ifica

nt e

ffect

on

any

of

the

resu

lts. O

f the

107

pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ho c

ompl

eted

th

e su

rvey

, 102

wer

e w

illin

g to

ret

urn

the

next

day

to tr

y th

e pr

otei

n po

wde

rs

(inc

ludi

ng th

e on

es

cont

aini

ng c

rick

et p

owde

r).

Afte

r co

nsum

ing

the

prot

ein

pow

ders

, par

ticip

ants

’ be

liefs

abo

ut a

nd a

ttitu

des

tow

ard

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion

impr

oved

sig

nific

antly

. The

in

clus

ion

of 3

0% c

rick

et

pow

der

in th

e pr

otei

n po

wde

r di

d no

t sig

nific

antly

af

fect

par

ticip

ants

’ lik

ing

scor

es o

r th

eir

choi

ce o

f at

trib

utes

(e.

g., ‘

nutt

y’)

to

desc

ribe

the

prot

ein

pow

ders

. 20

. Bar

sics

et a

l. (2

017)

Be

lgiu

m

135

Expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Soci

o-de

mog

raph

ic

info

rmat

ion

(age

, gen

der a

nd

ethn

ic o

rigi

n), p

artic

ipan

ts’

prev

ious

aw

aren

ess

of a

nd

expe

rien

ce w

ith in

sect

co

nsum

ptio

n, p

rese

nce

(ver

sus

abse

nce)

of l

abel

in

dica

ting

inse

ct in

gred

ient

in

bre

ad, i

nfor

mat

ion

sess

ion

atte

ndan

ce (

atte

nded

vs.

not

at

tend

ed)

Sens

ory

eval

uatio

ns o

f bre

ad

App

eara

nce,

flav

our

and

over

all l

ikin

g ra

tings

wer

e si

gnifi

cant

ly b

ette

r fo

r bre

ad

labe

lled

as in

sect

-free

(v

ersu

s br

ead

labe

lled

as

cont

aini

ng in

sect

s) b

y pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ho a

tten

ded

the

pres

enta

tion

befo

reha

nd

(ver

sus

thos

e w

ho d

id n

ot).

Pres

ence

(ve

rsus

abs

ence

) of

la

bel i

ndic

atin

g in

sect

in

gred

ient

in b

read

, in

form

atio

n se

ssio

n at

tend

ance

,

21. B

erge

r et

al.

(201

8)

Ger

man

y St

udy

1: 8

0 St

udy

2: 1

60

Expe

rim

ents

In

sect

s Pr

ice

of m

ealw

orm

bur

ger/

tr

uffle

, exp

ecte

d qu

ality

of

mea

lwor

m b

urge

r/tr

uffle

,

Will

ingn

ess-

to-p

ay fo

r th

e m

ealw

orm

bur

ger/

truf

fle,

pref

eren

ce fo

r m

ealw

orm

bu

rger

s/tr

uffle

s

Hig

h pr

ices

pos

itive

ly

influ

ence

par

ticip

ants

’ pr

efer

ence

for

mea

lwor

m

burg

ers

and

even

mea

lwor

m

truf

fles

(in

whi

ch

unpr

oces

sed

inse

cts

wer

e vi

sibl

e). W

hen

pric

es a

re

artifi

cial

ly lo

wer

ed (

to

sim

ulat

e go

vern

men

t su

bsid

ies)

, thi

s ef

fect

is

wea

kene

d.

Pric

e of

mea

lwor

m b

urge

r/

truf

fle, e

xpec

ted

qual

ity o

f m

ealw

orm

bur

ger/

truf

fle

22. B

erge

r et

al.

(201

9)

Stud

y 1:

Sw

itzer

land

St

udy

2:

Ger

man

y

Stud

y 1:

12

0 St

udy

2:

90

Stud

ies

1 &

2:

Expe

rim

ent

Stud

ies

1 &

2:

Inse

cts

Stud

y 1:

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ e

xpos

ure

to

posi

tive,

neg

ativ

e, o

r ne

utra

l pe

er ra

tings

of a

nut

ritio

n ba

r (s

ecre

tly c

onta

inin

g

Stud

y 1:

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ e

xpec

tatio

ns o

f th

e nu

triti

on b

ar’s

qua

lity,

w

illin

gnes

s to

tast

e th

e nu

triti

on b

ar, a

nd o

vera

ll

Stud

y 1:

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts e

xpos

ed to

po

sitiv

e pe

er r

atin

gs o

f the

nu

triti

on b

ar e

xpec

ted

it to

be

of h

ighe

r qua

lity

than

did

Stud

y 1:

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ e

xpos

ure

to

posi

tive,

neg

ativ

e, o

r ne

utra

l pe

er ra

tings

of a

nut

ritio

n ba

r (s

ecre

tly c

onta

inin

g

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

21

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

mea

lwor

m)

Stud

y 2:

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ e

xpos

ure

to a

hi

gh, m

iddl

e, o

r low

ratin

g of

a

burg

er (

whi

ch p

artic

ipan

ts

knew

con

tain

ed m

ealw

orm

s)

by a

n ex

pert

(a

‘reno

wne

d re

stau

rant

gui

de’)

, pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ g

ener

al a

nd

inse

ct-b

ased

dis

gust

se

nsiti

vity

ratin

gs o

f the

nut

ritio

n ba

r (a

fter

eatin

g it)

. St

udy

2:

Part

icip

ants

’ exp

ecta

tions

of

the

burg

er’s

qua

lity,

w

illin

gnes

s to

try

the

burg

er,

‘con

sum

er a

ccep

tanc

e’ (

a co

mpo

site

inde

x co

nsis

ting

of

part

icip

ants

’ rat

ings

of t

he

burg

er’s

tast

e an

d th

e pr

ice

they

wou

ld b

e w

illin

g to

pay

fo

r th

e bu

rger

)

part

icip

ants

exp

osed

to

nega

tive

peer

rat

ings

. Pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ e

xpec

tatio

ns

also

sig

nific

antly

diff

ered

be

twee

n th

e ne

gativ

e an

d ne

utra

l pee

r ra

ting

cond

ition

s. N

o si

gnifi

cant

di

ffere

nce

was

foun

d be

twee

n th

e ne

utra

l and

po

sitiv

e pe

er r

atin

g co

nditi

ons.

Alth

ough

pee

r ra

tings

did

not

dir

ectly

in

fluen

ce th

e ov

eral

l rat

ings

of

the

nutr

ition

bar

, the

y di

d af

fect

par

ticip

ants

’ pre

- ta

stin

g ex

pect

atio

ns, w

hich

in

turn

influ

ence

d th

e ov

eral

l ra

tings

. St

udy

2:

Part

icip

ants

exp

osed

to h

igh-

sc

ore

expe

rt r

evie

ws

had

high

er e

xpec

tatio

ns o

f the

bu

rger

’s q

ualit

y th

an d

id

part

icip

ants

exp

osed

to th

e m

iddl

e-sc

ore

revi

ews,

who

in

turn

had

hig

her

expe

ctat

ions

than

did

pa

rtic

ipan

ts e

xpos

ed to

the

low

-sco

re e

xper

t rev

iew

s.

Cons

umer

acc

epta

nce

was

hi

gher

for

part

icip

ants

ex

pose

d to

hig

h-sc

ore

revi

ews

com

pare

d to

thos

e ex

pose

d to

mid

dle-

and

low

- sc

ore

revi

ews

(the

re w

as n

o si

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ce

betw

een

the

latt

er tw

o gr

oups

). D

isgu

st s

ensi

tivity

(g

ener

al o

r in

sect

-bas

ed) d

id

not m

oder

ate

the

effe

ct o

f ex

pert

influ

ence

on

expe

ctat

ion

of b

urge

r qu

ality

. ‘Co

nsum

er

acce

ptan

ce’ w

as m

ore

affe

cted

by

expe

rt ra

tings

for

part

icip

ants

low

(co

mpa

red

to h

igh)

in in

sect

-bas

ed

disg

ust s

ensi

tivity

. A

dditi

onal

ly, t

he e

ffect

of

expe

rt r

atin

gs o

n co

nsum

er

acce

ptan

ce is

med

iate

d by

ex

pect

atio

ns o

f bur

ger

qual

ity.

mea

lwor

m)

Stud

y 2:

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ e

xpos

ure

to a

hi

gh, m

iddl

e, o

r low

ratin

g of

a

mea

lwor

m b

urge

r by

an

expe

rt, i

nsec

t-bas

ed d

isgu

st

sens

itivi

ty

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

22

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

23. C

apar

ros

M

egid

o et

al.

(201

6)

Belg

ium

79

Ex

peri

men

t In

sect

s Pr

epar

atio

n of

bur

ger

(con

tain

ing

lent

ils, b

eef,

and/

or

mea

lwor

ms)

, par

ticip

ants

’ ge

nder

, par

ticip

ants

’ kn

owle

dge

of o

r pr

evio

us

expe

rien

ce w

ith in

sect

co

nsum

ptio

n, p

artic

ipan

ts’

perc

eptio

n of

inse

ct

cons

umpt

ion

Sens

ory

eval

uatio

ns a

nd

pref

eren

ces

rega

rdin

g di

ffere

nt b

urge

rs

Fem

ale

part

icip

ants

pr

efer

red

the

appe

aran

ce o

f be

ef b

urge

rs, w

here

as m

ale

part

icip

ants

pre

ferr

ed th

e ap

pear

ance

of b

eef a

nd

inse

ct b

urge

rs. T

aste

ev

alua

tion

of in

sect

-bas

ed

burg

ers

was

in-b

etw

een

the

eval

uatio

ns fo

r be

ef a

nd

lent

il-ba

sed

burg

ers.

Am

ong

the

inse

ct-b

ased

bur

gers

, the

on

e co

ntai

ning

mea

lwor

m

and

beef

was

pre

ferr

ed.

Part

icip

ants

with

pre

viou

s in

sect

con

sum

ptio

n ex

peri

ence

gav

e hi

gher

ra

tings

to a

ll pr

epar

atio

ns.

Gen

der,

prev

ious

exp

erie

nce

with

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion

24. C

aval

lo a

nd

Mat

eria

(20

18)

Italy

13

5 O

nlin

e ex

peri

men

t In

sect

s Pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ g

ende

r, ag

e,

hous

ehol

d si

ze, e

duca

tion

leve

l and

neo

phob

ia,

visi

bilit

y of

inse

ct s

hape

(fl

our

vs. w

hole

inse

ct),

prod

uct p

acka

ging

(op

aque

vs

. tra

nspa

rent

), ca

cao

flavo

ur (p

rese

nt v

s. a

bsen

t),

prot

ein

cont

ent (

high

vs.

lo

w),

sust

aina

bilit

y ce

rtifi

catio

n (p

rese

nt v

s.

abse

nt)

Will

ingn

ess

to b

uy a

nd

acce

ptan

ce o

f edi

ble

inse

cts

On

aver

age,

par

ticip

ants

are

w

illin

g to

buy

edi

ble

inse

ct

prod

ucts

, with

invi

sibi

lity

of

inse

ct s

hape

and

cac

ao

flavo

ur (t

he la

tter

onl

y fo

r pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ith h

ighe

r ne

opho

bia)

like

ly fo

ster

ing

this

will

ingn

ess.

A c

ertifi

cate

of

sus

tain

abili

ty o

nly

seem

s to

incr

ease

acc

epta

nce

of

edib

le in

sect

pro

duct

s am

ong

peop

le w

ith h

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion.

Visi

bilit

y of

inse

ct s

hape

, ca

cao

flavo

ur, n

eoph

obia

, su

stai

nabi

lity

cert

ifica

tion,

ed

ucat

ion

leve

l

25. C

icat

iello

et a

l. (2

016)

Ita

ly

201

Surv

ey

Inse

cts

Part

icip

ants

’ edu

catio

n le

vel,

gend

er a

nd a

ge, a

nim

al

prot

ein

mos

t ofte

n co

nsum

ed,

dire

ct e

xper

ienc

e w

ith e

atin

g in

sect

-bas

ed fo

od,

impo

rtan

ce o

f foo

d cu

es in

fo

od c

hoic

e, m

eals

per

wee

k co

nsum

ed o

utsi

de h

ome,

fr

eque

ncie

s of b

uyin

g or

gani

c pr

oduc

ts a

nd e

atin

g in

eth

nic

rest

aura

nts,

app

reci

atio

n of

un

usua

l foo

d pr

oduc

ts,

barr

iers

to in

sect

co

nsum

ptio

n (e

.g.,

inse

ct

appe

aran

ce),

fam

iliar

ity w

ith

fore

ign

food

Will

ingn

ess

to tr

y ea

ting

inse

cts

Thir

ty-o

ne p

erce

nt o

f re

spon

dent

s w

ere

will

ing

to

try

eatin

g in

sect

s, a

nd 5

pe

rcen

t had

alr

eady

trie

d.

Fam

iliar

ity w

ith fo

reig

n fo

od, h

ighe

r ed

ucat

ion

and

mal

e ge

nder

pos

itive

ly

influ

ence

d at

titud

es to

war

d ea

ting

inse

cts.

The

mai

n ba

rrie

rs to

tryi

ng in

sect

s as

fo

od w

ere

fear

of i

nsec

ts a

nd

the

idea

that

inse

cts

mig

ht

have

a d

isgu

stin

g ta

ste.

H

owev

er, t

hese

bar

rier

s w

ere

mai

nly

men

tione

d by

pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ho la

cked

di

rect

exp

erie

nce

with

eat

ing

inse

cts.

Fam

iliar

ity w

ith fo

reig

n fo

od,

educ

atio

n le

vel,

gend

er,

expe

rien

ce w

ith e

atin

g in

sect

fo

od

26. d

e-M

agis

tris

et

al.

(201

5)

The

Net

herl

ands

15

5 Ch

oice

ex

peri

men

t In

sect

s Pa

rtic

ipan

t gen

der,

age,

ed

ucat

ion

leve

l, in

com

e,

prev

ious

exp

erie

nce

with

in

sect

-bas

ed p

rodu

cts.

Pr

oduc

t pri

ce, p

rodu

ct lo

go,

Will

ingn

ess-

to-p

ay a

nd

pref

eren

ce fo

r in

sect

-bas

ed

food

pro

duct

s

Part

icip

ants

’ will

ingn

ess-

to-

pay

and

pref

eren

ce w

ere

high

est f

or in

sect

-bas

ed

prod

ucts

with

a n

utri

tiona

l he

alth

cla

im a

nd lo

go.

Part

icip

ants

are

unw

illin

g to

Prod

uct n

utri

tiona

l cla

im a

nd

logo

, vis

ibili

ty o

f ins

ect i

n fo

od p

rodu

ct.

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

23

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

nutr

ition

al c

laim

s, v

isib

ility

of

inse

ct in

food

pro

duct

. pa

y fo

r pr

oduc

ts in

whi

ch

inse

cts

are

visi

ble.

27

. Fis

her

&

Stee

nbek

kers

(2

018)

The

Net

herl

ands

14

0 Q

uasi

- ex

peri

men

tal

stud

y

Inse

cts

Part

icip

ants

’ pri

or

expe

rien

ce w

ith e

atin

g in

sect

s, fo

od n

eoph

obia

, ov

eral

l, co

gniti

ve a

nd

affe

ctiv

e at

titud

es to

war

d ea

ting

inse

cts,

dis

gust

to

war

ds e

atin

g in

sect

s,

acce

ptan

ce o

f ins

ects

as

food

in

gen

eral

, deg

ree

to w

hich

in

sect

pro

duct

s ar

e m

arke

ted

in o

ne’s

ow

n cu

lture

Will

ingn

ess t

o ea

t ins

ects

and

pr

efer

ence

for

spec

ific

inse

ct

type

s

Inse

cts

that

wer

e m

arke

ted

mor

e in

one

’s o

wn

cultu

re

wer

e pr

efer

red

mor

e, a

nd

thos

e m

arke

ted

less

in o

ne’s

ow

n cu

lture

wer

e pr

efer

red

less

. Gen

eral

dis

gust

and

af

fect

ive

attit

udes

tow

ards

ea

ting

inse

cts

nega

tivel

y af

fect

ed w

illin

gnes

s to

eat

sp

ecifi

c in

sect

s. H

owev

er,

neop

hobi

a w

as n

ot fo

und

to

influ

ence

will

ingn

ess

to e

at

inse

cts.

Deg

ree

to w

hich

inse

ct

prod

ucts

are

mar

kete

d in

on

e’s

own

cultu

re, d

isgu

st

and

affe

ctiv

e at

titud

es

tow

ards

eat

ing

inse

cts

28. G

alle

n et

al.

(201

9)

Fran

ce

37

Expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Deg

ree

to w

hich

inse

ct

prod

uct h

ad b

een

proc

esse

d,

type

of i

nsec

t flav

ouri

ng

Part

icip

ants

’ cat

egor

isat

ion

of in

sect

pro

duct

s, in

tent

ion

to c

onsu

me

inse

ct p

rodu

ct

Part

icip

ants

’ cla

ssifi

catio

ns

of in

sect

s ge

nera

lly fe

ll in

to

the

cate

gory

of ‘

non-

edib

le

in m

y cu

lture

’. Pa

rtic

ipan

ts

also

felt

disg

ust a

nd r

isk/

da

nger

reg

ardi

ng in

sect

s,

and

they

wer

e un

cert

ain

abou

t how

to e

at in

sect

s.

Flav

oure

d an

d pr

oces

sed

inse

cts

wer

e re

ject

ed le

ss,

poss

ibly

bec

ause

they

felt

mor

e fa

mili

ar/l

ess

like

inse

cts

to p

artic

ipan

ts.

Inte

ntio

n to

con

sum

e w

as

high

er fo

r so

me

proc

esse

d in

sect

pro

duct

s, c

ompa

red

to

who

le a

nd u

nflav

oure

d in

sect

s.

Deg

ree

to w

hich

inse

ct

prod

uct h

ad b

een

proc

esse

d,

type

of i

nsec

t flav

ouri

ng

29. G

ere

et a

l. (2

017)

H

unga

ry

400

Onl

ine

surv

ey

Inse

cts

Gen

der,

age,

edu

catio

n le

vel,

food

neo

phob

ia, f

ood

tech

nolo

gy n

eoph

obia

, at

titud

e to

war

ds h

ealth

ch

arac

teri

stic

s of

food

, co

nven

ienc

e or

ient

atio

n fo

r fo

od c

hoic

e, a

tten

tion

to

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

of f

ood

choi

ce, b

elie

f tha

t mea

t is

nutr

itiou

s an

d he

alth

y,

inte

ntio

n to

red

uce

fres

h m

eat,

desi

re fo

r ne

w fo

od

alte

rnat

ives

, con

sum

ptio

n,

awar

enes

s of

inse

cts,

whe

y,

alga

e an

d so

y as

alte

rnat

ive

prot

ein

sour

ces.

Cons

umpt

ion

of in

sect

s Le

ss th

an 1

1 pe

rcen

t of

resp

onde

nts

wer

e un

awar

e of

inse

cts,

soy

, alg

ae a

nd

whe

y as

alte

rnat

ive

prot

ein

sour

ces,

whe

reas

alm

ost 6

0 pe

rcen

t wer

e aw

are

of

inse

cts

as fo

od. I

nsec

t-bas

ed

food

may

att

ract

con

sum

ers

who

see

k ne

w fo

od

alte

rnat

ives

and

inte

nd to

re

duce

thei

r m

eat i

ntak

e.

How

ever

, foo

d ne

opho

bia

is

a ba

rrie

r fo

r th

e co

nsum

ptio

n of

inse

cts.

Des

ire

for

new

food

al

tern

ativ

es, i

nten

tion

to

redu

ce m

eat i

ntak

e, fo

od

neop

hobi

a

30. H

artm

ann

et a

l. (2

015)

G

erm

any

and

Chin

a 50

2 (G

erm

any)

, 443

(C

hina

) Su

rvey

In

sect

s Fo

od n

eoph

obia

, pre

para

tion

of in

sect

(pr

oces

sed

or

unpr

oces

sed)

, att

itude

s to

war

d in

sect

-bas

ed fo

od

item

s, p

revi

ous

expe

rien

ce

Eval

uatio

ns o

f ins

ect-b

ased

pr

oduc

ts, w

illin

gnes

s to

eat

in

sect

-bas

ed p

rodu

cts

Chin

ese

part

icip

ants

rat

ed

all i

nsec

t-bas

ed p

rodu

cts

mor

e fa

vour

ably

(co

mpa

red

to G

erm

ans)

reg

ardi

ng ta

ste,

nu

triti

onal

val

ue, f

amili

arity

Ethn

icity

, pre

para

tion

of

edib

le in

sect

(pr

oces

sed

or

unpr

oces

sed)

, foo

d ne

opho

bia,

per

ceiv

ed s

ocia

l ac

cept

ance

, tas

te

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

24

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

with

eat

ing

inse

cts,

per

ceiv

ed

soci

al a

ccep

tanc

e of

eat

ing

inse

cts,

tast

e ex

pect

atio

ns,

ethn

icity

and

soci

al a

ccep

tanc

e, a

nd

wer

e m

ore

will

ing

to e

at

inse

ct-b

ased

pro

duct

s (w

ith

no d

iffer

ence

s fo

r pr

oces

sed

vs. u

npro

cess

ed in

sect

s).

Ger

man

s w

ere

mor

e w

illin

g to

eat

pro

cess

ed (

vers

us

unpr

oces

sed)

inse

ct fo

od. I

n bo

th c

ount

ries

, low

food

ne

opho

bia,

hig

h so

cial

ac

cept

ance

, pos

itive

tast

e ex

pect

atio

ns, a

nd p

revi

ous

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion

pred

icte

d w

illin

gnes

s to

co

nsum

e in

sect

s.

expe

ctat

ions

, pre

viou

s in

sect

co

nsum

ptio

n

31. H

artm

ann

and

Sieg

rist

(20

16)

Switz

erla

nd

104

Expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Gen

der,

age,

food

neo

phob

ia,

prev

ious

con

sum

ptio

n of

in

sect

s, d

isgu

st o

f liv

ing

(ani

mal

-bas

ed) c

onta

min

ants

in

food

, coo

kie

cont

ent

(cri

cket

flou

r vs

. cor

n flo

ur)

Will

ingn

ess

to e

at in

sect

- ba

sed

prod

ucts

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ho a

te c

hips

co

ntai

ning

cri

cket

flou

r wer

e m

ore

will

ing

to e

at

unpr

oces

sed

inse

cts

than

pe

ople

who

had

eat

en

trad

ition

al c

hips

(co

ntai

ning

co

rn fl

our)

.

Cook

ie c

onte

nt (

cric

ket fl

our

vs. c

orn

flour

)

32. H

ouse

(20

16)

The

Net

herl

ands

33

Se

mi-

stru

ctur

ed

inte

rvie

ws

Inse

cts

Initi

al m

otiv

atio

ns fo

r co

nsum

ing

inse

ct-b

ased

food

(e

.g.,

good

for

heal

th o

r en

viro

nmen

t), p

rice

, tas

te

and

avai

labi

lity

of in

sect

- ba

sed

food

, deg

ree

of fi

t be

twee

n in

sect

food

and

cu

rren

t eat

ing

patt

erns

, ho

useh

old

com

posi

tion

and

fam

ily c

ircu

mst

ance

s, e

thic

al

cons

ider

atio

ns fo

r ea

ting

inse

cts

(Rep

eat)

con

sum

ptio

n of

in

sect

-bas

ed fo

od

Initi

al m

otiv

atio

ns fo

r eat

ing

inse

cts

subs

tant

ially

diff

er

from

fact

ors

influ

enci

ng

repe

at c

onsu

mpt

ion

of

inse

ct-b

ased

food

(e.

g.,

pric

e, ta

ste,

ava

ilabi

lity

and

fit),

and

the

latt

er fa

ctor

s are

in

line

with

fact

ors

influ

enci

ng r

outin

e co

nsum

ptio

n of

mor

e co

nven

tiona

l foo

d pr

oduc

ts.

Pric

e, ta

ste

and

avai

labi

lity

of

inse

ct-b

ased

food

, deg

ree

of

fit b

etw

een

inse

ct fo

od a

nd

curr

ent e

atin

g pa

tter

ns

33. J

ense

n an

d Li

eber

oth

(201

9)

Den

mar

k 18

9 O

nlin

e su

rvey

an

d se

nsor

y te

st

Inse

cts

Age

, gen

der,

path

ogen

di

sgus

t (di

sgus

t sen

sitiv

ity),

perc

eive

d in

fect

abili

ty,

perc

eive

d so

cial

nor

m

rega

rdin

g in

sect

co

nsum

ptio

n, fo

od

neop

hobi

a, p

revi

ous

inse

ct

cons

umpt

ion,

vis

ibili

ty o

f in

sect

(pr

esen

ce v

s. a

bsen

ce

of p

ictu

res a

ccom

pany

ing

the

food

pro

duct

)

Will

ingn

ess

to e

at in

sect

s or

ot

her

food

, act

ual i

nsec

t/

food

tast

ing,

per

cept

ion

of

food

com

bina

tion

appr

opri

aten

ess,

inse

ct

eatin

g di

sgus

t

Spri

ng r

olls

with

vis

ible

(vs

. in

visi

ble)

mea

lwor

ms

wer

e co

nsid

ered

sig

nific

antly

less

ap

prop

riat

e, m

ore

dist

aste

ful,

and

less

edi

ble,

w

ith th

e sa

me

patt

ern

occu

rrin

g fo

r tr

aditi

onal

D

anis

h bu

tter

milk

sou

p.

The

mor

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts

thou

ght o

ther

par

ticip

ants

at

e th

e m

ealw

orm

- co

ntai

ning

pro

duct

s, th

e m

ore

likel

y th

ey w

ere

to e

at

thes

e fo

ods

them

selv

es.

Path

ogen

dis

gust

and

pe

rcei

ved

infe

ctab

ility

faile

d to

con

sist

ently

pre

dict

inse

ct

eatin

g di

sgus

t, w

illin

gnes

s to

eat i

nsec

ts, o

r ac

tual

inse

ct

tast

ing.

Perc

eive

d so

cial

nor

m

rega

rdin

g in

sect

co

nsum

ptio

n

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

25

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

34. K

ornh

er e

t al.

(201

9)

Ger

man

y 31

1 Ex

peri

men

t In

sect

s D

isgu

st to

war

ds in

sect

- ea

ting,

leve

l of g

ener

al

aver

sion

tow

ards

inse

cts,

pas

t in

sect

con

sum

ptio

n,

pref

eren

ces

for

lear

ning

ab

out f

ood

prod

ucts

and

re

cipe

s, fo

od n

eoph

obia

, at

titud

es to

war

d or

gani

c pr

oduc

tion

met

hods

, at

tent

ion

paye

d to

CO

2 em

issi

ons o

f foo

d pr

oduc

tion,

pr

efer

ence

for

conv

enie

nce

food

, im

port

ance

att

ache

d to

nu

triti

onal

info

rmat

ion

abou

t fo

od, i

mpo

rtan

ce a

ttac

hed

to

food

tast

e, im

port

ance

at

tach

ed to

hea

lth st

atem

ents

on

food

pro

duct

s, g

ende

r, ag

e, e

duca

tion

leve

l, fr

eque

ncy

of w

eekl

y m

eat

cons

umpt

ion,

pre

senc

e vs

. ab

senc

e of

pos

itive

stat

emen

t ab

out i

nsec

t pro

duct

sho

wn

to p

artic

ipan

ts, p

rodu

ct

info

rmat

ion

give

n to

pa

rtic

ipan

ts (

prod

uctio

n m

etho

d, v

isua

l im

pres

sion

, he

alth

cla

im, c

arbo

n em

issi

ons,

com

posi

tion

of

burg

er p

atty

, and

pur

chas

e pr

ice)

,

Will

ingn

ess-

to-p

ay fo

r in

sect

fo

od p

rodu

ct, c

hoic

e of

bu

rger

, will

ingn

ess

to e

at

inse

cts

(in

the

futu

re)

Part

icip

ants

mor

e w

illin

g to

ea

t ins

ects

wer

e m

ore

conc

erne

d w

ith th

e en

viro

nmen

tal a

nd h

ealth

- ef

fect

s of

con

sum

ptio

n be

havi

our

and

tend

ed to

co

nsum

e m

eat l

ess

ofte

n th

an th

ose

unw

illin

g to

eat

in

sect

s.

On

the

othe

r ha

nd, g

reat

er

disg

ust t

owar

ds in

sect

- ea

ting,

gre

ater

gen

eral

av

ersi

on to

war

ds in

sect

s and

hi

gher

food

neo

phob

ia

scor

es w

ere

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

unw

illin

gnes

s to

eat

inse

cts.

Food

neo

phob

ia, a

tten

tion

paye

d to

CO

2 em

issi

ons

of

food

pro

duct

ion

impo

rtan

ce a

ttac

hed

to

heal

th s

tate

men

ts o

n fo

od

prod

ucts

fr

eque

ncy

of w

eekl

y m

eat

cons

umpt

ion

35. L

a Ba

rber

a et

al.

(201

8)

Italy

11

8 Ex

peri

men

t In

sect

s Fo

od n

eoph

obia

, dig

ust

expe

rien

ced

tow

ard

inse

cts i

n fo

od, i

mpl

icit

attit

udes

to

war

ds in

sect

-eat

ing

Inte

ntio

n to

eat

inse

ct-b

ased

fo

od, i

mpl

icit

attit

udes

to

war

d ea

ting

inse

cts

Food

neo

phob

ia a

nd d

isgu

st

inde

pend

ently

influ

ence

in

tent

ion

to e

at in

sect

s, w

ith

disg

ust h

avin

g m

ore

expl

anat

ory

pow

er. I

mpl

icit

attit

ude

affe

cts

disg

ust a

nd

indi

rect

ly a

ffect

s ea

ting

inte

ntio

n (m

edia

ted

by

disg

ust)

.

Dis

gust

exp

erie

nced

tow

ards

in

sect

-eat

ing

36. L

aure

ati e

t al.

(201

6)

Italy

34

1 (a

ll pa

rtic

ipat

ed

in s

urve

y, 6

8 pa

rtic

ipat

ed in

ex

peri

men

t)

Surv

ey,

expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Surv

ey: F

ood

neop

hobi

a,

sust

aina

ble

beha

viou

r, ag

e,

gend

er, i

ncom

e, p

lace

of

resi

denc

e/cu

ltura

l ba

ckgr

ound

, aw

aren

ess

of

topi

c (e

atin

g in

sect

s)

Expe

rim

ent:

Expe

cted

liki

ng

of in

sect

-bas

ed fo

ods

Will

ingn

ess

to a

dopt

inse

cts

as fe

ed a

nd fo

od, v

isua

l ac

cept

abili

ty o

f ins

ects

Resp

onde

nts

wer

e no

t rea

dy

to a

dopt

inse

cts

as fo

od, b

ut

a po

sitiv

e tr

end

for

use

of

inse

cts a

s fee

d w

as o

bser

ved.

Re

adin

ess t

o ad

opt i

nsec

ts a

s fo

od a

nd fe

ed w

as m

ainl

y af

fect

ed b

y ag

e, g

ende

r, cu

ltura

l bac

kgro

und

and

food

neo

phob

ia.

Sust

aina

bilit

y of

beh

avio

ur

did

not a

ffect

acc

epta

nce

of

inse

cts.

Age

, gen

der,

cultu

ral

back

grou

nd, f

ood

neop

hobi

a

37. L

amm

ers

et a

l. (2

019)

G

erm

any

516

Onl

ine

surv

ey

Inse

cts

Gen

der,

age,

edu

catio

n le

vel,

mea

t con

sum

ptio

n W

illin

gnes

s to

con

sum

e in

sect

bur

ger/

buffa

lo w

orm

s W

illin

gnes

s to

con

sum

e w

as

sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her

for

the

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

26

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

freq

uenc

y, w

illin

gnes

s to

re

duce

mea

t con

sum

ptio

n,

diet

(e.g

., ve

gan)

, fam

iliar

ity

with

inse

cts a

s foo

d, p

revi

ous

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion,

food

ne

opho

bia,

food

tech

nolo

gy

neop

hobi

a, s

ensa

tion

seek

ing,

sus

tain

abili

ty

cons

ciou

snes

s, fo

od d

isgu

st,

will

ingn

ess

to c

onsu

me

an

inse

ct b

urge

r an

d bu

ffalo

w

orm

s, p

roce

ssin

g of

inse

ct

in fo

od (

proc

esse

d vs

. un

proc

esse

d)

(com

pose

d of

will

ingn

ess

to

try,

will

ingn

ess

to b

uy, a

nd

‘will

ingn

ess

to s

ubst

itute

’)

inse

ct b

urge

r co

mpa

red

to

the

buffa

lo w

orm

s.

Furt

herm

ore,

men

wer

e m

ore

will

ing

to c

onsu

me

buffa

lo w

orm

s th

an w

ere

wom

en.

Prev

ious

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion

and

high

er se

nsat

ion

seek

ing

pred

icte

d hi

gher

will

ingn

ess

to c

onsu

me

the

inse

ct

burg

er, w

here

as h

ighe

r fo

od

neop

hobi

a, h

ighe

r fo

od

tech

nolo

gy n

eoph

obia

and

hi

gher

food

dis

gust

pr

edic

ted

a lo

wer

w

illin

gnes

s to

con

sum

e th

e in

sect

bur

ger.

Fo

r th

e bu

ffalo

wor

ms,

pr

evio

us in

sect

con

sum

ptio

n an

d hi

gher

sens

atio

n se

ekin

g pr

edic

ted

high

er w

illin

gnes

s to

con

sum

e th

e pr

oduc

t. H

ighe

r fo

od n

eoph

obia

, hi

gher

food

tech

nolo

gy

neop

hobi

a an

d hi

gher

food

di

sgus

t pre

dict

ed lo

wer

w

illin

gnes

s to

con

sum

e bu

ffalo

wor

ms.

Food

neo

phob

ia, f

ood

disg

ust,

prev

ious

inse

ct

cons

umpt

ion

38. L

ensv

elt a

nd

Stee

nbek

kers

(2

014)

The

Net

herl

ands

an

d A

ustr

alia

Surv

ey: 2

09

Expe

rim

ent:

133

Onl

ine

surv

ey,

expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Surv

ey: P

rice

and

qua

lity

of

prod

uct,

perc

eive

d pe

rson

al

bene

fits

of e

atin

g in

sect

s,

perc

eive

d ri

sks

of e

atin

g in

sect

s, n

atur

alne

ss o

f pr

oduc

t, av

aila

bilit

y of

pr

oduc

t, co

nven

ienc

e of

pr

epar

atio

n pr

oces

s, fi

t of

prod

uct w

ith c

onsu

mer

ne

eds,

trus

t in

diffe

rent

so

urce

s pr

omot

ing

ento

mop

hagy

, par

ticip

ants

’ cu

lture

Ex

peri

men

t: T

ype

of

info

rmat

ion

rece

ived

abo

ut

inse

ct p

rodu

ct (e

.g.,

soci

al

norm

s, p

hysi

olog

ical

fact

ors)

, ta

ste

of p

rodu

ct, t

ryin

g vs

. no

t try

ing

inse

ct fo

od

Both

stu

dies

: Gen

eral

at

titud

e to

war

ds e

atin

g in

sect

s

Surv

ey: P

artic

ipan

ts

cons

ider

ed e

atin

g in

sect

s be

nefic

ial f

or th

e en

viro

nmen

t but

not

for

them

selv

es. P

rice

, qua

lity,

co

nven

ienc

e an

d na

tura

lnes

s w

ere

addi

tiona

lly

cons

ider

ed im

port

ant

rega

rdin

g in

sect

food

. Dut

ch

part

icip

ants

trus

ted

info

rmat

ion

from

con

sum

er

orga

nisa

tions

abo

ut in

sect

fo

od m

ore

than

did

A

ustr

alia

n pa

rtic

ipan

ts.

Expe

rim

ent:

Tryi

ng in

sect

fo

od p

ositi

vely

influ

ence

d pa

rtic

ipan

t’s

attit

udes

to

war

d ea

ting

inse

cts,

w

here

as th

e ty

pe o

f in

form

atio

n re

ceiv

ed d

id n

ot

affe

ct th

ese

attit

udes

.

Pric

e, q

ualit

y, c

onve

nien

ce,

and

natu

raln

ess

of in

sect

fo

od, e

nvir

onm

enta

l ben

efits

of

inse

ct-e

atin

g, tr

ying

vs.

not

tr

ying

inse

ct fo

od

39. L

omba

rdi e

t al.

(201

9)

Italy

20

0 Ex

peri

men

t In

sect

s Fo

od n

eoph

obia

, bel

iefs

and

at

titud

es a

bout

inse

cts,

co

ncer

n fo

r he

alth

ines

s in

fo

od c

hoic

es, g

ener

al

info

rmat

ion

abou

t the

food

Will

ingn

ess-

to-p

ay fo

r fo

od

prod

ucts

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ho v

alue

d pa

sta

equa

lly r

egar

dles

s of

w

heth

er o

r no

t it c

onta

ined

in

sect

s ha

d a

sign

ifica

ntly

hi

gher

will

ingn

ess-

to-p

ay fo

r

Food

neo

phob

ia, b

elie

fs a

nd

attit

udes

abo

ut in

sect

s,

spec

ific

info

rmat

ion

abou

t in

sect

s pr

ovid

ed to

pa

rtic

ipan

ts

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

27

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

prod

ucts

pro

vide

d to

pa

rtic

ipan

ts, s

peci

fic

info

rmat

ion

abou

t ins

ects

pr

ovid

ed to

par

ticip

ants

(b

enefi

ts fo

r in

divi

dual

vs.

be

nefit

s fo

r th

e co

mm

unity

), pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ v

iew

s on

re

latio

n be

twee

n hu

man

s and

th

e en

viro

nmen

t, fo

od

prod

uct (

carr

ier)

use

d to

co

ntai

n in

sect

s, p

rese

nce

vs.

abse

nce

of in

sect

s in

car

rier

cook

ies

and

choc

olat

e ba

rs

with

out i

nsec

ts (v

s.

cont

aini

ng in

sect

s).

Part

icip

ants

’ will

ingn

ess-

to-

pay

incr

ease

d fr

om th

e ge

nera

l-inf

orm

atio

n- to

the

spec

ific-

info

rmat

ion-

roun

d,

rega

rdle

ss o

f the

type

of

spec

ific

info

rmat

ion

prov

ided

. Inf

orm

atio

n ab

out

the

bene

fits

of in

sect

-eat

ing

for

the

indi

vidu

al (v

s.

com

mun

ity)

had

a sl

ight

ly

stro

nger

pos

itive

effe

ct o

n w

illin

gnes

s-to

-pay

for

all

thre

e pr

oduc

ts.

Neg

ativ

e be

liefs

and

at

titud

es c

once

rnin

g in

sect

s an

d hi

gh le

vels

of f

ood

neop

hobi

a ne

gativ

ely

influ

ence

d w

illin

gnes

s-to

- pa

y fo

r in

sect

-bas

ed

prod

ucts

. Con

cern

for

heal

thin

ess

in fo

od c

hoic

es

and

view

s on

the

rela

tion

betw

een

hum

ans

and

the

envi

ronm

ent g

ener

ally

faile

d to

influ

ence

will

ingn

ess-

to-

pay.

40

. Men

ozzi

et a

l. (2

017)

Ita

ly

231

Surv

ey

Inse

cts

Gen

der,

age,

par

ticip

ants

’ pl

ace

of o

rigi

n, p

artic

ipan

ts’

stud

y fie

ld/t

opic

, att

itude

to

war

d ea

ting

inse

cts,

(s

tren

gth

of)

belie

fs a

bout

ea

ting

inse

cts,

sub

ject

ive

norm

s an

d no

rmat

ive

belie

f st

reng

th r

egar

ding

eat

ing

inse

cts,

per

ceiv

ed b

ehav

iour

co

ntro

l and

con

trol

bel

iefs

re

gard

ing

inse

ct-e

atin

g,

disg

ust t

owar

d in

sect

s,

avai

labi

lity

of in

sect

food

, co

mpa

tibili

ty o

f ins

ect f

ood

with

loca

l foo

d cu

lture

, in

tent

ion

to e

at in

sect

s

Act

ual c

onsu

mpt

ion

of

inse

cts

Att

itude

s an

d pe

rcei

ved

beha

viou

ral c

ontr

ol a

re

sign

ifica

nt p

redi

ctor

s of

in

tent

ion

to e

at in

sect

s, a

nd

inte

ntio

n an

d pe

rcei

ved

beha

viou

ral c

ontr

ol

sign

ifica

ntly

pre

dict

act

ual

cons

umpt

ion

of in

sect

s. T

he

belie

f tha

t eat

ing

inse

cts

posi

tivel

y af

fect

s pe

rson

al

heal

th a

nd th

e en

viro

nmen

t si

gnifi

cant

ly a

ffect

s att

itude

s an

d in

tent

ion.

Bar

rier

s to

in

tent

ion

and

actu

al

cons

umpt

ion

are

disg

ust,

lack

of a

vaila

bilit

y an

d in

com

patib

ility

with

loca

l fo

od c

ultu

re.

Att

itude

s an

d pe

rcei

ved

beha

viou

ral c

ontr

ol,

inte

ntio

n to

eat

inse

cts,

bel

ief

that

eat

ing

inse

cts

bene

fits

heal

th a

nd e

nvir

onm

ent,

disg

ust t

owar

ds (e

atin

g)

inse

cts,

lack

of a

vaila

bilit

y of

in

sect

food

, inc

ompa

tibili

ty

of in

sect

pro

duct

s w

ith lo

cal

food

cul

ture

41. M

yers

and

Pe

ttig

rew

(20

18)

Aus

tral

ia

77

Inte

rvie

ws

Inse

cts

Perc

eive

d cu

ltura

l nor

ms

rega

rdin

g en

tom

opha

gy,

reas

on fo

r ea

ting

inse

cts

(nec

essi

ty v

s. e

njoy

men

t),

know

ledg

e of

ent

omop

hagy

(e

.g.,

nutr

ition

al a

nd

View

s of

ent

omop

hagy

A

mon

g A

ustr

alia

n se

nior

s,

ther

e w

as lo

w a

war

enes

s of

th

e en

viro

nmen

tal a

nd

nutr

ition

al a

dvan

tage

s of

en

tom

opha

gy. M

ost s

enio

rs

view

ed e

ntom

opha

gy a

s di

sgus

ting

and

inco

mpa

tible

Know

ledg

e/aw

aren

ess

of

envi

ronm

enta

l and

nu

triti

onal

adv

anta

ges

of

ento

mop

hagy

, per

ceiv

ed

cultu

ral n

orm

s re

gard

ing

ento

mop

hagy

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

28

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

envi

ronm

enta

l ben

efits

/ co

ncer

ns)

with

thei

r cu

ltura

l val

ues

and

belie

fs, a

lthou

gh a

smal

l gr

oup

cons

ider

ed it

nov

el

and

pote

ntia

lly e

njoy

able

. 42

. Ork

usz

et a

l. (2

020)

Po

land

Su

rvey

: 464

Se

nsor

y te

st:

402

Surv

ey, s

enso

ry

test

In

sect

s G

ende

r, pl

ace

of r

esid

ence

, ho

useh

old

inco

me,

trav

el

dest

inat

ion,

pro

tein

sou

rces

in

one

’s d

iet,

food

neo

phob

ia,

fam

iliar

ity w

ith in

sect

s as

fo

od, a

ttitu

des

tow

ards

the

bene

fits

of e

atin

g in

sect

s,

prev

ious

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion,

di

sgus

t tow

ard

inse

ct

cons

umpt

ion,

pot

entia

l re

ason

s fo

r ea

ting

inse

cts,

in

form

atio

n gi

ven

to

part

icip

ants

on

the

type

of

inse

ct a

dded

to b

read

for

tast

ing

sess

ion

Will

ingn

ess

to tr

y ed

ible

in

sect

s or

eat

ani

mal

s fe

d w

ith in

sect

s, p

refe

rred

inse

ct

prep

arat

ion

(e.g

., w

hole

in

sect

s w

ith s

pice

s),

Part

icip

ants

pre

ferr

ed w

hole

in

sect

s with

spic

e or

cov

ered

in

cho

cola

te to

inse

ct th

at

wer

e si

mpl

e fr

ied.

Fu

rthe

rmor

e, m

ore

men

than

w

omen

wer

e w

illin

g to

try

inse

cts

prep

ared

in a

way

th

at m

ade

them

invi

sibl

e (w

ith fl

our

adde

d). H

ighe

r in

com

e w

as a

lso

asso

ciat

ed

with

hig

her

will

ingn

ess

to

eat i

nsec

ts in

an

unde

tect

able

form

. Fo

r ove

r 30%

of p

artic

ipan

ts

(mor

e fr

eque

ntly

men

than

w

omen

), sc

arci

ty o

f ag

ricu

ltura

l lan

d an

d re

duce

w

asta

ge o

f foo

d w

ere

reas

ons

to in

clud

e in

sect

s in

th

e/th

eir

wes

tern

die

ts.

Tast

e, q

ualit

y, a

ppea

ranc

e an

d nu

triti

onal

saf

ety

of

inse

cts

also

con

side

rabl

y in

fluen

ced

acce

ptan

ce o

f in

sect

s as

food

, whe

reas

en

viro

nmen

tal b

enefi

ts o

f ed

ible

inse

cts

had

the

leas

t in

fluen

ce o

n ac

cept

ance

. Pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ith lo

w (

vs.

med

ium

or

high

) fo

od

neop

hobi

a w

ere

muc

h m

ore

will

ing

to in

clud

e ed

ible

in

sect

s in

thei

r ow

n di

ets.

Food

neo

phob

ia

43. O

rsi e

t al.

(201

9)

Ger

man

y 39

3 O

nlin

e su

rvey

In

sect

s G

ende

r, ag

e, d

iet (

vega

n or

ve

geta

rian

), ed

ucat

ion

leve

l, fo

od n

eoph

obia

, en

viro

nmen

tal a

war

enes

s,

heal

th c

onsc

ious

ness

, fa

mili

arity

with

inse

ct

cons

umpt

ion,

exp

erie

nce

with

inse

cts

as fo

od, t

ype

of

food

con

tain

ing

inse

cts

(pro

tein

bar

with

cri

cket

po

wde

r, in

sect

pas

ta, i

nsec

t gr

anol

a, o

r in

sect

bur

ger)

, ex

peri

ence

d di

sgus

t and

ris

k pe

rcep

tion

rega

rdin

g w

hole

or

pro

cess

ed in

sect

s,

visi

bilit

y of

inse

cts

in fo

od

Will

ingn

ess

to tr

y in

sect

- co

ntai

ning

food

pro

duct

W

illin

gnes

s to

try

did

not

diffe

r be

twee

n th

e in

sect

- pa

sta,

-bur

ger

and

-gra

nola

, w

hile

the

prot

ein

bar

cont

aini

ng c

rick

et p

owde

r w

as m

ost p

opul

ar.

Will

ingn

ess

to tr

y w

as lo

wer

fo

r w

hole

inse

cts

com

pare

d to

pro

cess

ed-in

sect

pro

duct

s,

and

part

icip

ants

wer

e m

ore

disg

uste

d by

vis

ible

/who

le

inse

cts

than

by

invi

sibl

e/

proc

esse

d in

sect

pro

duct

s.

Ove

rall,

vis

ibili

ty o

f ins

ects

in

the

food

pro

duct

, dis

gust

to

war

ds in

sect

s an

d fo

od

Food

neo

phob

ia, d

isgu

st

tow

ards

inse

cts,

vis

ibili

ty o

f in

sect

s in

food

pro

duct

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

29

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

prod

uct (

visi

ble

vs. i

nvis

ible

/ w

hole

vs.

pro

cess

ed)

neop

hobi

a ar

e ba

rrie

rs to

in

sect

con

sum

ptio

n.

44. P

alm

ieri

et a

l. (2

019)

Ita

ly

456

Onl

ine

surv

ey

Inse

cts

Gen

der,

age,

edu

catio

n le

vel,

food

pre

fere

nces

/die

t (e.

g.,

omni

vore

), w

eekl

y m

eat

cons

umpt

ion

freq

uenc

y,

conc

ern

for

heal

th-r

elat

ed

and

envi

ronm

enta

l effe

cts

of

food

, att

itude

tow

ard

(foo

d-

rela

ted)

info

rmat

ion

from

ex

pert

sou

rces

, foo

d ne

opho

bia/

neop

hilia

, foo

d te

chno

phob

ia (

i.e.,

attit

ude

tow

ard

new

food

te

chno

logi

es),

know

ledg

e of

(t

he e

xist

ence

of)

edi

ble

inse

cts,

pre

viou

s ins

ect-b

ased

fo

od c

onsu

mpt

ion,

mot

ives

fo

r ea

ting

inse

cts

(e.g

., nu

triti

onal

and

en

viro

nmen

tal b

enefi

ts),

perc

eptio

n of

hea

lth-r

elat

ed

risk

s of

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion

Will

ingn

ess

to e

at in

sect

- ba

sed

food

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ho a

re

conc

erne

d w

ith

sust

aina

bilit

y an

d he

alth

(c

ompa

red

to th

ose

who

are

no

t) te

nd to

be

mor

e w

illin

g to

con

sum

e in

sect

s. L

ess

neop

hobi

a/m

ore

open

ness

to

war

ds n

ovel

food

s al

so

incr

ease

s th

e lik

elih

ood

of a

pa

rtic

ipan

t bei

ng w

illin

g to

ea

t ins

ect-b

ased

food

. Pr

evio

us in

sect

con

sum

ptio

n al

so in

crea

ses t

he p

roba

bilit

y of

bei

ng w

illin

g to

con

sum

e in

sect

s. P

artic

ipan

ts w

ho

atta

ch w

eigh

t to

tast

e in

th

eir

food

cho

ices

(c

ompa

red

to th

ose

who

do

not)

are

mor

e lik

ely

to a

dopt

in

sect

s int

o th

eir d

iets

. Tho

se

who

do

not c

onsi

der

inse

ct

cons

umpt

ion

dang

erou

s fo

r th

eir

heal

th te

nd to

be

will

ing

to tr

y in

sect

-bas

ed

food

, whe

reas

thos

e w

ho

thin

k in

sect

-eat

ing

can

caus

e al

lerg

ies o

r inf

ectio

ns te

nd to

be

less

will

ing

to c

onsu

me

inse

ct-b

ased

food

. H

ighe

r foo

d te

chno

phob

ia is

, on

ave

rage

, ass

ocia

ted

with

re

duce

d w

illin

gnes

s to

eat

in

sect

s.

Conc

ern

for

heal

th-r

elat

ed

and

envi

ronm

enta

l effe

cts

of

food

, foo

d ne

opho

bia/

ne

ophi

lia, f

ood

tech

noph

obia

, pre

viou

s in

sect

-bas

ed fo

od

cons

umpt

ion,

mot

ives

for

eatin

g in

sect

s, p

erce

ptio

n of

he

alth

-rel

ated

ris

ks o

f ins

ect

cons

umpt

ion

45. P

iha

et a

l. (2

018)

Fi

nlan

d,

Swed

en,

Ger

man

y, a

nd

the

Czec

h Re

publ

ic

887

Onl

ine

surv

ey

Inse

cts

Age

, gen

der,

food

neo

phob

ia,

subj

ectiv

e kn

owle

dge

of

prod

uct,

obje

ctiv

e kn

owle

dge

of p

rodu

ct, p

rodu

ct-r

elat

ed

expe

rien

ces

Gen

eral

att

itude

s to

war

d pr

oduc

t, w

illin

gnes

s to

buy

pr

oduc

t

The

effe

cts

of s

ubje

ctiv

e an

d ob

ject

ive

know

ledg

e an

d fo

od n

eoph

obia

on

will

ingn

ess

to b

uy a

re

prim

arily

med

iate

d by

ge

nera

l att

itude

s to

war

d in

sect

food

. In

Nor

ther

n Eu

rope

, obj

ectiv

e an

d su

bjec

tive

know

ledg

e,

prod

uct-r

elat

ed e

xper

ienc

e an

d fo

od n

eoph

obia

equ

ally

pr

edic

t will

ingn

ess

to b

uy,

whe

reas

in C

entr

al E

urop

e th

e la

tter

two

are

the

supe

rior

pre

dict

ors.

A

ttitu

des

to in

sect

food

are

ge

nera

lly m

ore

posi

tive

in

Nor

ther

n co

mpa

red

to

Cent

ral E

urop

e.

Subj

ectiv

e an

d ob

ject

ive

know

ledg

e of

pro

duct

, pr

oduc

t-rel

ated

exp

erie

nce,

fo

od n

eoph

obia

, gen

eral

at

titud

es to

war

d pr

oduc

t

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

30

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

46. P

oort

vlie

t et a

l. (2

019)

Th

e N

ethe

rlan

ds

130

Expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Type

of m

eat t

hat

part

icip

ants

wer

e sh

own

pict

ures

and

des

crip

tions

of

(bov

ine

vs. i

nsec

t), p

rodu

ct

type

(com

mon

vs.

un

com

mon

), vi

sibi

lity

of

prod

uct i

ngre

dien

ts in

pi

ctur

e, fa

mili

arity

of

prod

uct t

o pa

rtic

ipan

ts, f

ood

choi

ce m

otiv

es (

e.g.

, dis

gust

or

sen

sory

app

eal)

Will

ingn

ess

to tr

y th

e fo

od

prod

uct

Part

icip

ants

wer

e m

ore

will

ing

to tr

y sk

ewer

s (u

ncom

mon

pro

duct

s) th

an

burg

er p

attie

s (c

omm

on

prod

ucts

), w

ith th

e fo

rmer

be

ing

cons

ider

ed to

hav

e m

ore

sens

ory

appe

al th

an

the

latt

er (

this

diff

eren

ce

was

larg

er fo

r bo

vine

mea

t th

an fo

r in

sect

mea

t).

Part

icip

ants

add

ition

ally

had

hi

gher

ris

k pe

rcep

tions

in

the

bovi

ne (

com

pare

d to

in

sect

) co

nditi

ons.

H

ealth

- and

dis

gust

-rel

ated

fo

od c

hoic

e m

otiv

es

med

iate

d th

e in

dire

ct e

ffect

of

mea

t typ

e on

will

ingn

ess

to tr

y th

e fo

od p

rodu

ct.

Sens

ory

appe

al a

nd r

isk

perc

eptio

n (a

s fo

od c

hoic

e m

otiv

es)

did

not m

edia

te

this

indi

rect

effe

ct.

Prod

uct t

ype,

food

cho

ice

mot

ives

47. P

owel

l et a

l. (2

019)

U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m

510

Expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Trai

t dis

gust

pro

pens

ity,

disg

ust s

ensi

tivity

, em

otio

nal

disg

ust r

egul

atio

n st

rate

gies

, pr

o-en

viro

nmen

tal a

ttitu

des,

so

cial

des

irab

ility

in

part

icip

ants

’ res

pons

es, r

isk-

ta

king

, pol

itica

l ori

enta

tion,

ge

nder

, age

, eth

nici

ty,

educ

atio

n le

vel,

prim

ary

empl

oym

ent s

tatu

s, a

mou

nt

of m

oney

typi

cally

spe

nt

wee

kly

on fo

od, d

rink

, and

m

edic

inal

pro

duct

s in

gr

ocer

y st

ores

, die

t (‘o

mni

vore

’ vs.

‘oth

er d

iet’

), pr

imar

y gr

ocer

y sh

op,

prod

uct c

ateg

ory

pres

ente

d to

par

ticip

ants

(e.

g., i

nsec

t- ba

sed

food

s, a

typi

cally

- sh

aped

frui

t), d

escr

iptio

n of

fo

od p

rodu

ct, p

artic

ipan

ts’

eval

uatio

n of

pro

duct

at

trib

utes

(e.

g., t

aste

or

natu

raln

ess)

Part

icip

ants

’ will

ingn

ess-

to-

pay

(WTP

) fo

r pr

esen

ted

prod

ucts

, par

ticip

ants

’ ev

alua

tion

of p

rodu

ct

attr

ibut

es

Whe

n co

ntro

lling

for

cova

riat

es (

e.g.

, pro

- en

viro

nmen

tal a

ttitu

des)

, tr

ait d

isgu

st p

rope

nsity

had

a

sign

ifica

nt n

egat

ive

effe

ct o

n w

illin

gnes

s-to

-pay

for

the

pres

ente

d pr

oduc

t. Th

is

effe

ct w

as m

edia

ted

by

eval

uatio

ns o

f per

ceiv

ed

tast

e, h

ealth

ris

k,

natu

raln

ess

and

visu

al

appe

al o

f the

pro

duct

(e

xpla

inin

g ap

prox

imat

ely

half

of th

e to

tal e

ffect

). Su

ppre

ssio

n an

d tr

ait

reap

prai

sal h

ad n

o si

gnifi

cant

mod

erat

ing

effe

ct

on th

e re

sults

.

Trai

t dis

gust

pro

pens

ity,

part

icip

ants

’ eva

luat

ion

of

prod

uct a

ttri

bute

s

48. R

umpo

ld a

nd

Lang

en (

2019

) G

erm

any

149

Surv

ey, s

enso

ry

test

In

sect

s O

pen-

min

dedn

ess

tow

ards

no

velty

, pre

viou

s in

sect

co

nsum

ptio

n, in

sect

form

(d

ried

who

le, g

roun

d as

an

ingr

edie

nt fo

r a

bar)

, sel

f- re

port

ed a

bilit

y to

imag

ine

ones

elf e

atin

g in

sect

s,

Dec

isio

n to

tast

e ed

ible

inse

ct

prod

uct (

befo

re o

r af

ter

prov

isio

n of

info

rmat

ion

abou

t the

pro

duct

)

Of t

he 3

9 pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ith

prev

ious

inse

ct-e

atin

g ex

peri

ence

, the

maj

ority

de

cide

d to

tast

e th

e of

fere

d in

sect

pro

duct

, whe

reas

12

.8%

ref

used

to ta

ste

rega

rdle

ss o

f the

add

ition

al

Prov

isio

n to

par

ticip

ants

of a

ra

ndom

pie

ce o

f inf

orm

atio

n ab

out e

dibl

e in

sect

s

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

31

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

(dis

agre

emen

t with

) vi

ew o

f in

sect

s as

food

of t

he fu

ture

, (d

isag

reem

ent w

ith)

view

of

inse

cts

as a

sus

tain

able

al

tern

ativ

e to

mea

t, w

illin

gnes

s to

buy

who

le/

proc

esse

d in

sect

s in

a

supe

rmar

ket,

age,

gen

der,

educ

atio

n le

vel,

cultu

ral

back

grou

nd, d

iet (

e.g.

, ve

geta

rian

), pr

ovis

ion

to

part

icip

ants

of a

ran

dom

pi

ece

of in

form

atio

n ab

out

edib

le in

sect

s (e

.g.,

risk

s,

tren

dine

ss; o

nly

prov

ided

w

hen

part

icip

ants

refu

sed

the

first

offe

r to

tast

e an

edi

ble

inse

ct p

rodu

ct)

info

rmat

ion

prov

ided

. Nin

e of

the

42 p

artic

ipan

ts w

ho

initi

ally

ref

used

to ta

ste

the

prod

uct w

ere

pers

uade

d to

do

so

by th

e ad

ditio

nal

info

rmat

ion.

A

lthou

gh o

f all

149

part

icip

ants

, 117

(78

.5%

) cl

aim

ed th

ey c

ould

imag

ine

them

selv

es e

atin

g in

sect

s, 1

4 of

thes

e 11

7 (1

2% o

f thi

s su

bgro

up) w

ere

neve

rthe

less

un

will

ing

to a

ctua

lly ta

ste

an

edib

le in

sect

in th

is s

tudy

. In

add

ition

, mor

e th

an h

alf

of th

e ve

gan

and

vege

tari

an

part

icip

ants

dec

ided

to ta

ste

the

inse

ct p

rodu

ct.

49. S

chau

fele

et a

l. (2

019)

G

erm

any

342

Expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Gen

der,

age,

edu

catio

n le

vel,

mea

t con

sum

ptio

n (c

onsu

mer

vs.

non

- co

nsum

er),

inse

ct v

isib

ility

(w

hole

inse

cts,

cru

shed

in

sect

s, o

r su

ppos

ed in

sect

s pr

oces

sed

as m

eatb

alls

), in

sect

spe

cies

with

in m

eal

(mea

lwor

m v

s. g

rass

hopp

er),

fam

iliar

ity w

ith e

atin

g in

sect

s (c

onsi

sted

of p

revi

ous

know

ledg

e of

and

exp

erie

nce

with

edi

ble

inse

cts)

, foo

d ne

opho

bia,

per

ceiv

ed s

ocia

l ac

cept

abili

ty o

f eat

ing

inse

cts,

die

t (e.

g.,

vege

tari

an),

perc

eptio

n of

in

sect

s as

a p

rodu

ct fo

r pe

ople

with

low

fina

ncia

l re

sour

ces,

aw

aren

ess

of th

e en

viro

nmen

tal a

nd h

ealth

- re

late

d be

nefit

s of

eat

ing

inse

cts

Will

ingn

ess

to tr

y (i

nsec

t)

prod

uct

The

mor

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts

perc

eive

d ea

ting

inse

cts

as a

so

cial

ly a

ccep

tabl

e ac

tivity

, th

e m

ore

they

wer

e w

illin

g to

try

the

inse

ct p

rodu

ct.

Food

neo

phob

ia, o

n th

e ot

her h

and,

had

a si

gnifi

cant

an

d ne

gativ

e ef

fect

on

the

will

ingn

ess

to tr

y th

e pr

oduc

t. In

add

ition

, wom

en w

ere

less

w

illin

g to

try

the

prod

uct

than

men

. Las

tly, h

ighe

r vi

sibi

lity

of in

sect

s pre

dict

ed

low

er w

illin

gnes

s to

try

the

inse

ct p

rodu

ct.

Perc

eive

d so

cial

acc

epta

bilit

y of

eat

ing

inse

cts

50. S

chlu

p an

d Br

unne

r (2

018)

Sw

itzer

land

37

9 Su

rvey

In

sect

s Pr

ior

cons

umpt

ion

of in

sect

s,

freq

uenc

y of

mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n, p

erce

ived

he

alth

ben

efits

of m

eat,

mea

t lik

ing,

sal

ienc

e of

inse

cts

(in

food

?), f

ood

neop

hobi

a, fo

od

tech

nolo

gy n

eoph

obia

, ge

nera

l hea

lth in

tere

st,

expe

cted

food

hea

lthin

ess,

co

nven

ienc

e or

ient

atio

n,

valu

e fo

r m

oney

(of

inse

ct-

base

d fo

od),

ethi

cs, p

erce

ived

se

nsor

y ap

peal

of i

nsec

t foo

d,

Will

ingn

ess

to c

onsu

me

inse

cts

Conv

enie

nce

orie

ntat

ion,

di

scer

nibi

lity

of in

sect

s in

fo

od, e

xpec

ted

food

he

alth

ines

s, n

eed

for

fam

iliar

ity, f

ood

neop

hobi

a,

food

tech

nolo

gy n

eoph

obia

, pe

rcei

ved

heal

th b

enefi

ts o

f m

eat,

gend

er a

nd p

rior

co

nsum

ptio

n of

inse

cts

sign

ifica

ntly

and

rel

iabl

y pr

edic

ted

will

ingn

ess

to

cons

ume

inse

cts.

Conv

enie

nce

orie

ntat

ion,

di

scer

nibi

lity

of in

sect

s in

fo

od, e

xpec

ted

food

he

alth

ines

s, n

eed

for

fam

iliar

ity, f

ood

neop

hobi

a,

food

tech

nolo

gy n

eoph

obia

, pe

rcei

ved

heal

th b

enefi

ts o

f m

eat,

gend

er a

nd p

rior

co

nsum

ptio

n of

inse

cts

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

32

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

perc

eive

d na

tura

lnes

s,

wei

ght c

ontr

ol, n

eed

for

fam

iliar

ity, a

ge, e

duca

tion

leve

l, ge

nder

, inc

ome,

pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ o

rigi

n (r

ural

vs.

ur

ban)

, res

pons

ibili

ty (

yes/

no

), st

atus

as

sing

le (y

es/n

o)

51. S

ogar

i (20

15)

Italy

46

Ex

peri

men

t In

sect

s In

sect

s pr

evio

usly

con

sum

ed,

prev

ious

inse

ct p

refe

renc

e,

sens

ory

char

acte

rist

ics

expe

rien

ced

whi

le e

atin

g in

sect

s, p

erce

ived

soc

ial

impa

ct o

f eat

ing

inse

cts,

cu

rios

ity a

bout

eat

ing

inse

cts,

per

ceiv

ed ta

ste

and

appe

al o

f eat

ing

inse

cts,

pe

rcei

ved

nutr

ition

al b

enefi

ts

of e

atin

g in

sect

s, p

erce

ived

en

viro

nmen

tal b

enefi

ts o

f ea

ting

inse

cts

Will

ingn

ess

and

inte

ntio

n to

ea

t ins

ects

Cu

rios

ity a

nd p

erce

ived

en

viro

nmen

tal b

enefi

ts a

re

the

mos

t im

port

ant f

acto

rs

mot

ivat

ing

futu

re

cons

umpt

ion

of in

sect

s. T

he

maj

ority

of p

artic

ipan

ts

stat

ed th

at e

atin

g in

sect

s w

ould

not

be

endo

rsed

or

supp

orte

d by

fam

ily a

nd/o

r fr

iend

s.

Curi

osity

abo

ut e

atin

g in

sect

s, p

erce

ived

en

viro

nmen

tal b

enefi

ts o

f ea

ting

inse

cts

52. S

ogar

i et a

l. (2

016)

Ita

ly

109

Focu

s gr

oup

Inse

cts

Gen

der,

expe

ctat

ions

and

kn

owle

dge

rega

rdin

g en

viro

nmen

tal,

nutr

ition

al,

sens

ory

and

soci

al a

spec

ts o

f en

tom

opha

gy (

eatin

g in

sect

s), s

elf-e

labo

rate

d re

ason

s fo

r ta

stin

g/no

t ta

stin

g a

cook

ie w

ith in

sect

flo

ur (c

urio

sity

abo

ut

text

ure/

tast

e, a

ppea

l, co

ncer

ns a

bout

hea

lth a

nd

hygi

ene,

etc

.)

Stat

ed w

illin

gnes

s to

tast

e an

ed

ible

inse

ct, a

ctua

l cho

ice

of

tast

ing

vs. n

ot ta

stin

g an

in

sect

-bas

ed c

ooki

e

Nea

rly

all p

artic

ipan

ts ta

sted

th

e co

okie

with

inse

ct fl

our

and

whe

re w

illin

g to

try

othe

r ed

ible

inse

cts

in th

e fu

ture

. An

impo

rtan

t rea

son

for

doin

g so

is c

urio

sity

, w

here

as e

xper

ienc

ed d

isgu

st

as w

ell a

s ne

gativ

e op

inio

ns

of fa

mily

and

frie

nds

are

barr

iers

to tr

ying

edi

ble

inse

cts

in th

e fu

ture

.

Curi

osity

abo

ut e

atin

g in

sect

s, d

isgu

st to

war

ds

inse

cts,

opi

nion

s of

fam

ily

and

frie

nds

53. S

ogar

i et a

l. (2

018)

Ita

ly

88

Expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Age

, gen

der,

part

icip

ants

’ Ita

lian

regi

on o

f ori

gin,

ta

stin

g of

inse

ct p

rodu

cts

(jelly

bas

ed o

n cr

icke

t flou

r or

jelly

with

who

le, v

isib

le

cric

ket)

Sens

ory

eval

uatio

n of

tast

ed

inse

ct p

rodu

ct, r

easo

ns fo

r no

t tas

ting

the

inse

ct p

rodu

ct

(s),

likel

ihoo

d of

re

com

men

ding

the

inse

ct

prod

ucts

to fr

iend

s/fa

mily

Befo

re ta

stin

g, p

artic

ipan

ts

gave

the

appe

aran

ce o

f the

in

sect

-bas

ed je

lly a

mild

ly

posi

tive

scor

e, a

nd th

is sc

ore

sign

ifica

ntly

incr

ease

d af

ter

tast

ing

the

prod

uct.

The

scor

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts g

ave

for

expe

cted

sen

sory

-liki

ng o

f th

e in

sect

jelly

als

o in

crea

sed

sign

ifica

ntly

afte

r ta

stin

g.

For

mal

es, t

here

was

a s

mal

l bu

t sig

nific

ant i

ncre

ase

in

tast

e sc

ores

afte

r th

e ac

tual

ta

stin

g, w

here

as fo

r fe

mal

es

ther

e w

as a

sm

all b

ut

sign

ifica

nt d

ecre

ase

from

pr

e- to

pos

t-tas

ting

scor

es.

Alth

ough

the

tast

e of

jelly

w

ith w

hole

cri

cket

rec

eive

d hi

gher

sco

res

than

that

of

jelly

mad

e w

ith c

rick

et fl

our,

the

latt

er w

as p

refe

rred

ove

r

Gen

der,

tast

ing

of in

sect

pr

oduc

ts (j

elly

bas

ed o

n cr

icke

t flou

r or

jelly

with

w

hole

, vis

ible

cri

cket

)

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

33

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

the

form

er in

term

s of

ap

pear

ance

. Par

ticip

ants

w

ho r

ejec

ted

only

the

jelly

w

ith w

hole

cri

cket

m

entio

ned

disg

ust a

nd

“con

cern

for

text

ure

prop

erty

” as

the

mos

t im

port

ant r

easo

ns fo

r no

t ta

stin

g th

e pr

oduc

t. Pa

rtic

ipan

ts st

ated

they

wer

e hi

ghly

like

ly to

rec

omm

end

the

inse

ct p

rodu

cts

to

frie

nds,

and

slig

htly

less

lik

ely

to re

com

men

d th

em to

fa

mily

mem

bers

. 54

. Sog

ari,

Bogu

eva

&

Mar

inov

a (2

019)

Aus

tral

ia

Firs

t onl

ine

surv

ey:

227

Seco

nd o

nlin

e su

rvey

: 32

8 V

aria

bles

and

fi

ndin

gs w

ere

disc

usse

d fo

r bo

th

surv

eys

toge

ther

Onl

ine

surv

eys

Inse

cts

Self-

repo

rted

pot

entia

l re

ason

s fo

r in

clud

ing

edib

le

inse

cts

and

inse

ct-b

ased

pr

oduc

ts in

to o

ne’s

die

t, op

inio

ns o

n ed

ible

inse

cts

as

an a

ltern

ativ

e fo

od s

ourc

e,

mea

t con

sum

ptio

n fr

eque

ncy,

gen

der

Not

app

licab

le.

Reas

ons

stat

ed b

y pa

rtic

ipan

ts fo

r no

t eat

ing

edib

le in

sect

pro

duct

s w

ere

disg

ust,

neop

hobi

a, c

once

rns

abou

t per

cept

ions

of

mas

culin

ity (i

n th

e ca

se o

f m

en),

and

perc

eptio

ns o

f a

cons

pira

cy th

eory

(reg

ardi

ng

a so

cial

mov

emen

t tow

ard

grow

ing

inse

ct

cons

umpt

ion)

. Som

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts (

n =

33)

perc

eive

d he

alth

ben

efits

(e.

g.

, nut

ritio

nal v

alue

) fr

om

edib

le in

sect

con

sum

ptio

n,

whe

reas

oth

ers

(n =

10)

belie

ved

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion

had

a po

tent

ially

neg

ativ

e ef

fect

on

heal

th (

e.g.

, sp

read

ing

dise

ases

). Pa

rtic

ipan

ts a

lso

ackn

owle

dged

the

envi

ronm

enta

l ben

efits

of

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion

(vs.

co

nven

tiona

l mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n). F

urth

erm

ore,

m

ost p

artic

ipan

ts b

elie

ved

that

, in

orde

r to

be e

ffect

ive,

ed

ible

inse

ct m

arke

ting

shou

ld m

ake

the

inse

ct

bodi

es le

ss v

isib

le/i

nvis

ible

, so

that

tast

e an

d ea

ting

expe

rien

ce b

ecom

e th

e do

min

ant f

eatu

res

of in

sect

- ba

sed

food

s. V

eget

aria

n pa

rtic

ipan

ts p

oint

ed o

ut th

e le

sser

env

iron

men

tal i

mpa

ct

of in

sect

(vs

. tra

ditio

nal)

m

eat p

rodu

ctio

n as

the

mai

n

Self-

repo

rted

pot

entia

l re

ason

s fo

r in

clud

ing

edib

le

inse

cts

and

inse

ct-b

ased

pr

oduc

ts in

to o

ne’s

die

t, op

inio

ns o

n ed

ible

inse

cts

as

an a

ltern

ativ

e fo

od s

ourc

e,

mea

t con

sum

ptio

n fr

eque

ncy,

gen

der

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

34

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

just

ifica

tion

for

cons

umin

g in

sect

-bas

ed fo

od

alte

rnat

ives

. 55

. Sog

ari,

Men

ozzi

, and

M

ora

(201

9)

Italy

88

Ex

peri

men

t In

sect

s A

ge, g

ende

r, pa

rtic

ipan

ts’

Italia

n re

gion

of o

rigi

n, fo

od

neop

hobi

a, p

revi

ous

inse

ct

cons

umpt

ion,

will

ingn

ess

to

try

inse

cts,

initi

al e

xpos

ure

to

inse

ct p

rodu

cts

(bef

ore

tast

ing)

Eval

uatio

n of

edi

ble

inse

ct

prod

uct’

s ap

pear

ance

and

ta

ste

(bef

ore

and

afte

r ta

stin

g), w

illin

gnes

s to

try

inse

ct p

rodu

cts

(jelly

sw

eet

with

who

le c

rick

et a

nd/o

r je

lly s

wee

t with

pro

cess

ed

cric

ket)

, dec

isio

n to

tast

e/no

t ta

ste

inse

ct p

rodu

cts

Mal

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ere

mor

e w

illin

g to

try

the

edib

le

inse

ct p

rodu

cts

than

wer

e fe

mal

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts.

Furt

herm

ore,

food

ne

opho

bia

was

neg

ativ

ely

rela

ted

to th

e w

illin

gnes

s to

tr

y an

d th

e de

cisi

on to

ac

tual

ly ta

ste

the

inse

ct-

cont

aini

ng p

rodu

cts.

Th

e in

itial

exp

osur

e to

the

inse

ct p

rodu

cts

posi

tivel

y in

fluen

ced

part

icip

ants

’ ex

pect

atio

ns o

f app

eara

nce

and

tast

e. L

astly

, will

ingn

ess

(int

entio

n) to

try

stro

ngly

pr

edic

ted

actu

al ta

stin

g.

Gen

der,

food

neo

phob

ia,

initi

al e

xpos

ure

to e

dibl

e in

sect

pro

duct

s, w

illin

gnes

s to

try

the

edib

le in

sect

s

56. T

an e

t al.

(201

5)

Thai

land

and

th

e N

ethe

rlan

ds

54

Focu

s gr

oups

In

sect

s Pa

rtic

ipan

t foo

d pr

efer

ence

s,

expe

rien

ces

with

and

kn

owle

dge

of in

sect

s as

food

, in

tere

st in

and

con

cern

s re

gard

ing

inse

cts

as fo

od,

perc

eive

d ap

prop

riat

enes

s of

in

sect

pre

para

tion,

inse

ct

visi

bilit

y in

food

, cul

tura

l ex

posu

re to

inse

cts

as fo

od

Dec

isio

n to

tast

e in

sect

s,

choi

ce o

f ins

ect p

rodu

ct to

ta

ste,

eva

luat

ions

of i

nsec

ts

as fo

od

Cultu

ral e

xpos

ure

crea

ted

spec

ific

view

s of

whi

ch

inse

ct s

peci

es a

nd

prep

arat

ion

met

hods

wer

e m

ore

appr

opri

ate.

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ho h

ad

prev

ious

ly e

aten

inse

cts

base

d th

eir

eval

uatio

ns o

n th

eir

mem

orie

s of

pre

viou

s co

nsum

ptio

n, w

here

as o

ther

pa

rtic

ipan

ts e

valu

ated

bas

ed

on v

isua

l pro

pert

ies a

nd it

em

asso

ciat

ions

.

Cultu

ral e

xpos

ure

to in

sect

s as

food

, exp

erie

nces

with

in

sect

s as

food

57. T

an, F

isch

er,

van

Trijp

, &

Stie

ger

(201

6)

The

Net

herl

ands

10

3 Ex

peri

men

t In

sect

s Bu

rger

ingr

edie

nt fa

mili

arity

, se

nsor

y-lik

ing

of b

urge

r, pe

rcei

ved

food

ap

prop

riat

enes

s, fo

od

neop

hobi

a, g

ende

r, pr

epar

atio

n fo

rm o

f pro

duct

(b

urge

r vs

. ing

redi

ent)

, ea

ting

situ

atio

n (m

eal,

spec

ial o

ccas

ion,

sna

ck)

Will

ingn

ess

to e

at u

nusu

al

food

s su

ch a

s in

sect

s in

the

futu

re

Sens

ory-

likin

g an

d pe

rcei

ved

food

app

ropr

iate

ness

wer

e lo

wer

for n

ovel

than

for b

eef

burg

ers

befo

re ta

stin

g. A

fter

tast

ing,

sen

sory

-liki

ng le

vels

be

cam

e si

mila

r for

nov

el a

nd

beef

bur

gers

(al

thou

gh fo

od

appr

opri

aten

ess

rem

aine

d lo

wer

for

nove

l bur

gers

). Fu

ture

will

ingn

ess t

o ea

t was

an

d re

mai

ned

(afte

r ta

stin

g)

low

er fo

r th

e no

vel

com

pare

d to

the

beef

bur

ger,

and

it w

as m

ainl

y pr

edic

ted

by fo

od a

ppro

pria

tene

ss

(and

not

sen

sory

liki

ng o

r in

divi

dual

trai

ts).

Perc

eive

d fo

od

appr

opri

aten

ess

58. T

an, T

ibbo

el, &

St

iege

r (2

017)

Th

e N

ethe

rlan

ds

100

Expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Expe

cted

sen

sory

pro

files

(e.

g.

, mea

ty, f

atty

, jui

cy)

of

ingr

edie

nts

and

burg

ers,

pr

ior

expe

rien

ce w

ith ta

stin

g

Will

ingn

ess t

o ea

t ing

redi

ents

an

d bu

rger

s (a

gain

) Be

liefs

abo

ut ta

ste

wer

e ba

sed

on s

peci

es-r

elat

ed

asso

ciat

ions

and

wer

e ge

nera

lly m

ore

nega

tive

for

Perc

eive

d fo

od

appr

opri

aten

ess

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

35

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

ingr

edie

nts

and

burg

ers,

ex

peri

ence

d se

nsor

y pr

ofile

s,

perc

eive

d fo

od

appr

opri

aten

ess

food

that

had

not

bee

n ta

sted

be

fore

. Whi

le th

ese

belie

fs

had

som

e ef

fect

on

post

- co

nsum

ptio

n be

liefs

, the

la

tter

wer

e m

ainl

y de

term

ined

by

the

food

’s

actu

al p

rope

rtie

s. H

owev

er,

the

low

will

ingn

ess

to e

at

nove

l foo

ds (

or fo

ods

with

no

vel i

ngre

dien

ts)

was

re

late

d to

per

ceiv

ed fo

od

appr

opri

aten

ess

mor

e th

an

to th

e fo

od’s

act

ual t

aste

. Fo

od ta

ste

neve

rthe

less

ex

erts

an

influ

ence

on

perc

eive

d fo

od

appr

opri

aten

ess.

59

. Tan

, van

den

Be

rg, &

Stie

ger

(201

6)

The

Net

herl

ands

97

6 Ex

peri

men

t In

sect

s A

ge, g

ende

r, ed

ucat

ion

leve

l, fo

od n

eoph

obia

, pro

duct

pr

epar

atio

n, p

rodu

ct

fam

iliar

ity, t

aste

fam

iliar

ity

of fo

od c

arri

er (

i.e.,

food

co

ntai

ning

the

inse

ct

ingr

edie

nt)

Acc

epta

nce

of in

sect

s as

food

A

ccep

tanc

e de

pend

ed to

a

larg

e ex

tent

on

perc

eive

d ap

prop

riat

enes

s of

m

ealw

orm

s as

food

and

of

the

spec

ific

prod

uct

com

bina

tion.

Eve

n w

hen

visu

ally

iden

tical

, m

ealw

orm

pro

duct

s w

ere

alw

ays c

onsi

dere

d in

feri

or to

ca

rrie

r pr

oduc

ts.

Part

icip

ants

’ ind

ivid

ual

trai

ts (

e.g.

, foo

d ne

opho

bia)

an

d fa

mili

arity

with

m

ealw

orm

s af

fect

w

illin

gnes

s to

try

mor

e th

an

othe

r ac

cept

ance

mea

sure

s,

alth

ough

they

pla

yed

a re

lativ

ely

min

or r

ole.

Perc

eive

d ap

prop

riat

enes

s of

m

ealw

orm

s as

food

, spe

cific

pr

oduc

t com

bina

tion

60. T

an, V

erba

an,

& S

tiege

r (2

017)

Th

e N

ethe

rlan

ds

214

Expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Age

, gen

der,

food

neo

phob

ia,

prio

r pr

oduc

t pre

sent

atio

n or

der

(exp

erim

enta

l),

prod

uct f

amili

arity

, pe

rcei

ved

prep

arat

ion

appr

opri

aten

ess,

per

ceiv

ed

appr

opri

aten

ess

as fo

od,

expe

cted

and

exp

erie

nced

se

nsor

y-lik

ing,

exp

ecte

d an

d ex

peri

ence

d se

nsor

y pr

ofile

, id

eal s

enso

ry p

rofil

e

Sens

ory-

likin

g of

and

w

illin

gnes

s to

buy

inse

ct-

base

d fo

od p

rodu

cts

Mea

lwor

m p

rodu

cts

wer

e ex

pect

ed to

and

exp

erie

nced

as

tast

ing

very

diff

eren

t fro

m

mea

lwor

m-fr

ee p

rodu

cts,

an

d pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ould

ge

nera

lly li

ke m

ealw

orm

pr

oduc

ts to

tast

e si

mila

r to

m

ealw

orm

-free

pro

duct

s.

Even

with

hig

h in

tere

st a

nd

good

pro

duct

s, w

illin

g pa

rtic

ipan

ts h

esita

te to

re

gula

rly

cons

ume

inse

ct-

base

d pr

oduc

ts d

ue to

pr

actic

al a

nd s

ocio

-cul

tura

l fa

ctor

s (s

uch

as

appr

opri

aten

ess

of fo

od

prep

arat

ion)

.

Perc

eive

d ap

prop

riat

enes

s of

fo

od p

repa

ratio

n

61. V

anho

nack

er

et a

l. (2

013)

Be

lgiu

m

221

Surv

ey

Inse

cts,

soy

G

ende

r, ag

e, e

duca

tion

leve

l, fin

anci

al s

ituat

ion

of

Att

itude

s to

war

d, w

illin

gnes

s to

con

sum

e an

d w

illin

gnes

s M

any

part

icip

ants

un

dere

stim

ated

the

Aw

aren

ess

of a

nd c

once

rn

abou

t env

iron

men

tal i

mpa

ct

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

36

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

hous

ehol

d, li

ving

en

viro

nmen

t (ur

ban

vs.

rura

l), d

egre

e of

re

spon

sibi

lity

for

food

pu

rcha

ses

with

in h

ouse

hold

, aw

aren

ess

of a

nd c

once

rn

abou

t env

iron

men

tal i

mpa

ct

of a

nim

al p

rodu

ctio

n an

d m

eat c

onsu

mpt

ion,

pa

rtic

ipan

ts’

envi

ronm

enta

lly-fr

iend

ly

beha

viou

rs, m

eat

cons

umpt

ion

freq

uenc

y,

enjo

ymen

t of m

eat

cons

umpt

ion

to p

ay fo

r di

ffere

nt fo

od

choi

ces w

ith lo

wer

eco

logi

cal

impa

ct (

e.g.

, pla

nt-b

ased

fo

ods)

ecol

ogic

al im

pact

of a

nim

al

prod

uctio

n. S

egm

ents

of

part

icip

ants

can

be

dist

ingu

ishe

d ba

sed

on

awar

enes

s of

and

con

cern

ab

out t

he e

nvir

onm

enta

l im

pact

of a

nim

al p

rodu

ctio

n an

d m

eat c

onsu

mpt

ion.

Th

ese

segm

ents

sho

w th

at

awar

enes

s of

and

con

cern

ab

out t

he e

nvir

onm

enta

l im

pact

of a

nim

al p

rodu

ctio

n an

d m

eat c

onsu

mpt

ion

som

etim

es in

crea

se

will

ingn

ess

to r

educ

e th

e ec

olog

ical

impa

ct o

f one

’s

diet

. Enj

oym

ent o

f mea

t and

m

eat c

onsu

mpt

ion

freq

uenc

y ar

e ba

rrie

rs to

su

ch r

educ

tion.

Wel

l-kno

wn

alte

rnat

ives

to tr

aditi

onal

m

eat c

onsu

mpt

ion

such

as

cons

umpt

ion

of o

rgan

ic

mea

t and

red

uctio

n of

tr

aditi

onal

mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n ar

e ac

cept

ed,

alth

ough

will

ingn

ess

to p

ay

for

alte

rnat

ive

prod

ucts

is

low

er th

an w

illin

gnes

s to

co

nsum

e. P

artic

ipan

ts d

o no

t ap

pear

to b

e op

en to

al

tern

ativ

es th

at p

artly

or

entir

ely

leav

e ou

t mea

t in

a m

eal.

of a

nim

al p

rodu

ctio

n an

d m

eat c

onsu

mpt

ion,

en

joym

ent a

nd fr

eque

ncy

of

mea

t con

sum

ptio

n

62. V

an T

hiel

en,

Verm

uyte

n,

Stor

ms,

Ru

mpo

ld, a

nd

Van

Cam

penh

out

(201

9)

Belg

ium

38

8 Te

leph

one

surv

ey

Inse

cts

Gen

der,

age,

par

ticip

ants

’ Be

lgia

n pr

ovin

ce o

f ori

gin,

pr

evio

us in

sect

con

sum

ptio

n,

inte

rest

in in

sect

co

nsum

ptio

n, fr

eque

ncy

of

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion,

type

of

inse

cts

enco

unte

red

in

prod

ucts

, pro

duct

type

s co

nsid

ered

sui

tabl

e (b

y pa

rtic

ipan

ts) f

or in

sect

in

corp

orat

ion,

info

rmat

ion

expe

cted

on

inse

ct p

rodu

ct

pack

agin

g, p

refe

rred

loca

tion

for

buyi

ng in

sect

-con

tain

ing

food

s, p

lace

and

occ

asio

n in

w

hich

inse

cts

had

prev

ious

ly

been

con

sum

ed, k

now

ledg

e of

ben

efits

of i

nsec

t co

nsum

ptio

n, r

easo

ns fo

r ha

ving

/not

hav

ing

Not

app

licab

le.

Of a

ll pa

rtic

ipan

ts, 7

9% w

ere

awar

e of

the

poss

ibili

ty o

f bu

ying

inse

ct-b

ased

food

s.

Furt

herm

ore,

11.

2% h

ad

prev

ious

ly e

aten

food

co

ntai

ning

pro

cess

ed in

sect

s,

31.8

% h

ad n

o ex

peri

ence

but

w

ere

will

ing

to tr

y, a

nd 5

7%

had

no e

xper

ienc

e w

ith o

r in

tere

st in

tryi

ng s

uch

prod

ucts

. Po

tent

ial i

nsec

t con

sum

ers

stat

ed th

ey w

ould

acc

ept

invi

sibl

e pr

oces

sed

mea

lwor

ms

in e

nerg

y ba

rs,

ener

gy s

hake

s, s

oup,

bu

rger

s, s

andw

ich

spre

ads,

an

d (f

ried

and

unf

ried

) sn

acks

. A

dditi

onal

ly, p

artic

ipan

ts

Not

app

licab

le.

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

37

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

prev

ious

ly e

aten

inse

cts,

pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ l

ikel

ihoo

d of

re

com

men

ding

inse

ct-

cont

aini

ng fo

ods

to fa

mily

, fr

iend

s, o

r th

e ge

nera

l pub

lic

thou

ght t

hat t

he p

rese

nce

of

inse

cts i

n pr

oduc

ts sh

ould

be

clea

rly

stat

ed o

n th

e pr

oduc

t pa

ckag

ing.

La

stly

, par

ticip

ants

indi

cate

d th

ey w

ould

pre

fer

to b

uy

inse

ct-c

onta

inin

g pr

oduc

ts

in th

e su

perm

arke

t (in

term

s of

pur

chas

e lo

catio

n pr

efer

ence

). 63

. Ver

beke

(20

15)

Belg

ium

36

8 O

nlin

e su

rvey

In

sect

s G

ende

r, ag

e, e

duca

tion

leve

l, fa

mili

arity

with

inse

cts

as

food

, foo

d ne

opho

bia,

food

te

chno

logy

neo

phob

ia,

attit

ude

tow

ards

hea

lth

char

acte

rist

ics

of fo

od,

conv

enie

nce

orie

ntat

ion

rega

rdin

g fo

od c

hoic

e,

atte

ntio

n to

env

iron

men

tal

impa

ct o

f foo

d, im

port

ance

of

tast

e in

eva

luat

ion

of m

eat

qual

ity, b

elie

f tha

t mea

t is

nutr

itiou

s an

d he

alth

y,

inte

ntio

n to

red

uce

fres

h m

eat c

onsu

mpt

ion

Read

ines

s to

ado

pt in

sect

s as

m

eat s

ubst

itute

s Th

e pr

edic

ted

likel

ihoo

d of

m

ales

and

fem

ales

ado

ptin

g in

sect

s as

mea

t sub

stitu

tes

are

12.8

and

6.3

per

cent

, re

spec

tivel

y. P

eopl

e w

ho

clai

m to

be

fam

iliar

with

the

idea

of e

atin

g in

sect

s ar

e 2.

6 tim

es m

ore

likel

y to

ado

pt

inse

cts

as fo

od, w

here

as

thos

e in

tend

ing

to r

educ

e fr

esh

mea

t int

ake

are

up to

4.

5 tim

es m

ore

likel

y to

do

so. F

ood

neop

hobi

a is

the

larg

est c

ontr

ibut

ing

fact

or to

pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ u

nwill

ingn

ess

to a

dopt

inse

cts

as fo

od.

Stro

nger

con

veni

ence

or

ient

atio

n an

d m

ore

inte

rest

in th

e en

viro

nmen

tal

impa

ct o

f foo

d ch

oice

in

crea

se li

kelih

ood

of

adop

ting

inse

cts

by 7

5 an

d 71

per

cent

, res

pect

ivel

y.

How

ever

, a st

rong

bel

ief t

hat

mea

t is

nutr

itiou

s/he

alth

y an

d hi

gher

val

uatio

n of

mea

t ta

ste

low

er th

ese

odds

to 6

4 an

d 61

per

cent

, res

pect

ivel

y.

Food

neo

phob

ia, i

nten

tion

to

redu

ce fr

esh

mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n, in

tere

st in

en

viro

nmen

tal i

mpa

ct o

f fo

od c

hoic

es

64. V

erne

au e

t al.

(201

6)

Den

mar

k an

d Ita

ly

282

Expe

rim

ent

Inse

cts

Part

icip

ants

’ pos

itive

and

ne

gativ

e im

plic

it as

soci

atio

ns

with

inse

cts,

fam

iliar

ity w

ith

inse

cts

as fo

od, i

nten

tion

to

inco

rpor

ate

inse

cts

into

die

t, su

gges

t it t

o fr

iend

s, a

nd to

bu

y fo

od w

ith in

sect

rat

her

than

trad

ition

al p

rote

ins,

ex

peri

men

tal m

anip

ulat

ion

(pro

visi

on o

f inf

orm

atio

n ab

out i

ndiv

idua

l vs.

soc

ieta

l be

nefit

s of

eat

ing

inse

cts)

, pr

evio

us k

now

ledg

e of

in

sect

-eat

ing,

gen

der,

natio

n (o

f res

iden

ce)

Act

ual c

onsu

mpt

ion

of

inse

cts

Mes

sage

s co

ncer

ning

in

divi

dual

and

soc

ieta

l be

nefit

s of

eat

ing

inse

cts

affe

cted

inte

ntio

n an

d be

havi

our,

with

the

soci

etal

m

essa

ge a

ppea

ring

mor

e ro

bust

ove

r tim

e. T

hese

co

mm

unic

atio

n ef

fect

s w

ere

still

sig

nific

ant a

fter

acco

untin

g fo

r the

influ

ence

s of

gen

der,

natio

n of

re

side

nce

and

prev

ious

kn

owle

dge

of in

sect

-eat

ing.

Im

plic

it ne

gativ

e at

titud

es

tow

ards

inse

ct-e

atin

g st

rong

ly in

fluen

ced

Prov

isio

n of

info

rmat

ion

abou

t ind

ivid

ual v

s. s

ocie

tal

bene

fits

of e

atin

g in

sect

s,

impl

icit

nega

tive

attit

udes

to

war

ds in

sect

-eat

ing

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

38

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

beha

viou

r ye

t did

not

im

pede

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

in

form

atio

n ab

out

indi

vidu

al o

r so

ciet

al

bene

fits.

65

. Wilk

inso

n et

al.

(201

8)

Aus

tral

ia

820

Onl

ine

surv

ey

Inse

cts

Gen

der,

age,

edu

catio

n le

vel,

hous

ehol

d in

com

e, e

thni

city

, fo

od n

eoph

obia

, pro

tein

so

urce

s con

sum

ed, a

war

enes

s of

ent

omop

hagy

, pre

viou

s in

sect

con

sum

ptio

n,

attr

ibut

es o

f edi

ble

inse

cts (

e.

g., t

aste

, app

eara

nce,

qua

lity,

an

d sa

fety

)

Att

itude

s to

war

ds in

sect

s as

fo

od, w

illin

gnes

s to

try

eatin

g in

sect

s

Of t

he 8

20 p

artic

ipan

ts, 6

8 pe

rcen

t had

hea

rd o

f en

tom

opha

gy (i

nsec

t-eat

ing)

an

d 21

per

cent

had

pr

evio

usly

eat

en in

sect

s.

Tast

e, a

ppea

ranc

e, s

afet

y an

d qu

ality

of e

dibl

e in

sect

s w

ere

mos

t lik

ely

to in

fluen

ce

part

icip

ants

’ will

ingn

ess

to

try

eatin

g in

sect

s. N

eoph

obic

pa

rtic

ipan

ts a

ccep

ted

ento

mop

hagy

far

less

than

ne

ophi

lic p

artic

ipan

ts, a

nd

thos

e w

ho h

ad p

revi

ousl

y ea

ten

inse

cts

wer

e m

ost

acce

ptin

g of

this

food

. In

sect

s w

ere

cons

ider

ed

mor

e ap

peal

ing

whe

n in

corp

orat

ed in

to fa

mili

ar

prod

ucts

or

cook

ed m

eals

.

Tast

e, a

ppea

ranc

e, sa

fety

and

qu

ality

of e

dibl

e in

sect

s,

prev

ious

inse

ct c

onsu

mpt

ion

66. W

oolf

et a

l. (2

019)

U

nite

d St

ates

39

7 O

nlin

e su

rvey

In

sect

s G

ende

r, ag

e, e

thni

city

, ed

ucat

ion

leve

l, an

nual

in

com

e, o

ccup

atio

n, p

lace

of

resi

denc

e, fa

mili

arity

with

an

d kn

owle

dge

of

ento

mop

hagy

, pre

viou

s in

sect

con

sum

ptio

n, s

ourc

e/

loca

tion

of p

revi

ous

inse

ct

cons

umpt

ion

(e.g

., tr

avel

ab

road

or

loca

l res

taur

ant)

, in

sect

-con

tain

ing

food

s (I

CF)

cons

umpt

ion

freq

uenc

y,

mot

ives

for I

CF c

onsu

mpt

ion,

ov

eral

l exp

erie

nce

ratin

g fo

r IC

F co

nsum

ptio

n, ty

pe(s

) of

IC

F co

nsum

ed, o

vera

ll ra

ting

of th

e IC

F pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ould

be

will

ing

to c

onsu

me

Will

ingn

ess

to tr

y IC

F/ea

t th

em r

egul

arly

M

ale

part

icip

ants

wer

e m

ore

will

ing

than

fem

ales

to

regu

larl

y co

nsum

e IC

F.

Part

icip

ants

wer

e ad

ditio

nally

mor

e w

illin

g to

co

nsum

e IC

F if

they

wer

e fa

mili

ar w

ith th

e co

ncep

t of

ento

mop

hagy

, wer

e aw

are

of

the

bene

fits

of

ento

mop

hagy

, or

if th

ey h

ad

cons

umed

inse

cts

prio

r to

th

is s

tudy

. Of t

he

part

icip

ants

who

had

nev

er

eate

n IC

F be

fore

, 67%

co

nsid

ered

ent

omop

hagy

di

sgus

ting,

as

did

35%

of

part

icip

ants

who

had

eat

en

ICF

befo

re. P

revi

ous

expo

sure

to IC

F ap

pear

ed to

be

the

mos

t im

port

ant f

acto

r in

fluen

cing

per

cept

ions

of

ento

mop

hagy

am

ong

part

icip

ants

.

Prev

ious

ICF

cons

umpt

ion

Cult

ured

mea

t

67

. Bek

ker

et a

l. (2

017)

Th

e N

ethe

rlan

ds

Stud

y 1:

190

St

udy

2: 1

94

Stud

y 3:

192

Expe

rim

ents

Cu

lture

d m

eat

All

stud

ies:

Fa

mili

arity

with

cul

ture

d m

eat

Stud

ies

1 an

d 2:

Pro

visi

on o

f po

sitiv

e ve

rsus

neg

ativ

e

Expl

icit

and

impl

icit

attit

udes

to

war

d cu

lture

d m

eat

Stud

y 1

show

ed th

at

posi

tive

or n

egat

ive

info

rmat

ion

abou

t cul

ture

d m

eat c

hang

ed th

e ex

plic

it at

titud

e in

the

dire

ctio

n of

Prov

isio

n of

pos

itive

ver

sus

nega

tive

info

rmat

ion

abou

t cu

lture

d m

eat

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

39

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

info

rmat

ion

abou

t cul

ture

d m

eat

Stud

y 2:

Pro

visi

on o

f pos

itive

in

form

atio

n ab

out s

olar

pa

nels

St

udy

3: In

duct

ion

of

posi

tive

or n

egat

ive

moo

d st

ate

the

info

rmat

ion.

Thi

s ef

fect

w

as s

mal

ler

for

part

icip

ants

w

ho w

ere

mor

e fa

mili

ar w

ith

cultu

red

mea

t. St

udy

2 sh

owed

that

the

expl

icit

attit

ude

tow

ards

cul

ture

d m

eat a

lso

chan

ged

in th

e di

rect

ion

of p

ositi

ve

info

rmat

ion

abou

t sol

ar

pane

ls. S

tudy

3 s

how

ed th

at

the

expl

icit

attit

ude

chan

ge

in th

e pr

evio

us tw

o st

udie

s w

as n

ot d

ue to

con

tent

-free

af

fect

. In

all t

hree

stu

dies

, im

plic

it at

titud

es w

ere

unaf

fect

ed b

y in

form

atio

n or

m

ood

stat

e.

68. B

ryan

t et a

l. (2

019)

Str

ateg

ies

…

Uni

ted

Stat

es

1185

Ex

peri

men

t Cu

lture

d m

eat

Gen

der,

diet

(e.

g.,

vege

tari

an),

fam

iliar

ity w

ith

clea

n (c

ultu

red)

mea

t, ex

posu

re to

a p

rom

otio

nal

mes

sage

/arg

umen

t co

ncer

ning

cle

an m

eat

(exp

erim

enta

lly

man

ipul

ated

)

Beha

viou

ral i

nten

tions

, at

titud

es, b

elie

fs, a

ffect

ive

reac

tions

, and

will

ingn

ess

to

pay

(WTP

) re

gard

ing

clea

n m

eat

The

‘cle

an m

eat i

s na

tura

l’-

mes

sage

faile

d to

mak

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts c

onsi

der

clea

n m

eat m

ore

natu

ral

(com

pare

d to

the

cont

rol

cond

ition

). Th

e ‘c

onve

ntio

nal m

eat i

s un

natu

ral’-

mes

sage

mad

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts c

onsi

der

conv

entio

nal m

ade

less

na

tura

l (co

mpa

red

to th

e co

ntro

l con

ditio

n). I

t als

o le

d to

sig

nific

antly

hig

her

WTP

fo

r cl

ean

fish

stic

ks, a

nd

mar

gina

lly h

ighe

r W

TP fo

r cl

ean

chic

ken

nugg

ets.

The

ef

fect

of t

his

mes

sage

on

WTP

for

clea

n be

ef b

urge

rs

was

non

-sig

nific

ant b

ut

follo

wed

the

sam

e di

rect

ion.

Th

e ‘c

halle

ngin

g th

e ap

peal

to

nat

ure’

-arg

umen

t (w

hich

de

bunk

ed th

e pe

rcep

tion

that

nat

ural

ness

is

impo

rtan

t) fa

iled

to m

ake

part

icip

ant a

ttac

h le

ss

wei

ght t

o na

tura

lnes

s.

Prom

otio

nal m

essa

ges/

ar

gum

ents

con

cern

ing

clea

n m

eat (

spec

ifica

lly th

e ‘c

onve

ntio

nal m

eat i

s un

natu

ral’-

mes

sage

)

69. B

ryan

t and

D

illar

d (2

019)

U

nite

d St

ates

48

0 Ex

peri

men

t Cu

lture

d m

eat

Gen

der,

age,

reg

ion

of

resi

denc

e, d

iet (

e.g.

, om

nivo

re),

part

icip

ants

’ fa

mili

arity

with

cul

ture

d m

eat,

cultu

red

mea

t fra

min

g (‘S

ocie

tal b

enefi

ts’,

‘Hig

h-

tech

’ or

‘Sam

e m

eat’

)

Part

icip

ants

’ per

cept

ions

of

and

attit

udes

tow

ard

cultu

red

mea

t, w

illin

gnes

s to

try

cultu

red

mea

t, w

illin

gnes

s to

bu

y cu

lture

d m

eat r

egul

arly

, w

illin

gnes

s to

eat

cul

ture

d m

eat a

s a

repl

acem

ent f

or

conv

entio

nally

pro

duce

d m

eat,

will

ingn

ess

to e

at

The

fram

ing

of c

ultu

red

mea

t had

a s

igni

fican

t effe

ct

on a

ttitu

des

tow

ard

cultu

red

mea

t, th

e be

lief t

hat c

ultu

red

mea

t is

heal

thy,

the

belie

f th

at c

ultu

red

mea

t is

safe

, an

d th

e be

lief t

hat c

ultu

red

mea

t is

good

for

the

envi

ronm

ent.

The

“sam

e m

eat”

fram

ing

led

to th

e

Expe

rim

enta

l fra

min

g of

cu

lture

d m

eat.

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

40

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

cultu

red

mea

t com

pare

d to

pl

ant-b

ased

mea

t sub

stitu

tes.

m

ost p

ositi

ve a

ttitu

des

tow

ard

cultu

red

mea

t, w

here

as th

e ‘h

igh-

tech

’ fr

amin

g le

d to

the

leas

t po

sitiv

e at

titud

es.

Part

icip

ants

exp

osed

to th

e ‘h

igh-

tech

’ fra

min

g of

cu

lture

d m

eat (

com

pare

d to

th

ose

in th

e ot

her

cond

ition

s) w

ere

sign

ifica

ntly

less

will

ing

to

try

cultu

red

mea

t, bu

y cu

lture

d m

eat r

egul

arly

, eat

cu

lture

d m

eat a

s re

plac

emen

t for

co

nven

tiona

l mea

t, or

eat

cu

lture

d m

eat a

s co

mpa

red

to p

lant

-bas

ed m

eat

alte

rnat

ives

. 70

. Man

cini

and

A

nton

ioli

(201

9)

Italy

52

5 O

nlin

e su

rvey

Cu

lture

d m

eat

Gen

der,

age,

edu

catio

n le

vel,

plac

e of

res

iden

ce, m

eat

cons

umpt

ion

habi

ts, r

easo

ns

for

not e

atin

g m

eat,

reas

ons

for

redu

cing

mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n, p

rior

fa

mili

arity

with

cul

ture

d m

eat,

info

rmat

ion

prov

ided

to

par

ticip

ants

con

cern

ing

cultu

red

mea

t

Perc

eptio

ns a

nd e

xpec

tatio

ns

rega

rdin

g cu

lture

d m

eat,

will

ingn

ess

to p

ay a

pr

emiu

m/c

onve

ntio

nal p

rice

(w

ith c

onve

ntio

nal m

eat a

s re

fere

nce)

for

cultu

red

mea

t

Afte

r th

e pr

ovis

ion

of

info

rmat

ion

abou

t cul

ture

d m

eat,

part

icip

ants

did

not

ex

pect

cul

ture

d m

eat t

o be

as

tast

y as

a c

onve

ntio

nal

burg

er, n

or d

id th

ey e

xpec

t it

to b

e m

ore

nutr

itiou

s.

Of p

artic

ipan

ts fa

mili

ar w

ith

cultu

red

mea

t, 64

% w

ere

will

ing

to tr

y it,

whe

reas

40

% o

f par

ticip

ants

un

fam

iliar

with

cul

ture

d m

eat w

ould

be

will

ing

to tr

y it.

Prio

r fa

mili

arity

with

cu

lture

d m

eat,

info

rmat

ion

prov

ided

to p

artic

ipan

ts

conc

erni

ng c

ultu

red

mea

t

71. S

iegr

ist a

nd

Sütt

erlin

(20

17)

Switz

erla

nd

Stud

ies

1a, 1

b, a

nd

2: 2

44

Stud

y 3:

253

Expe

rim

ents

Cu

lture

d m

eat

Stud

y 1a

: Inf

orm

atio

n ab

out

e-nu

mbe

rs (

prov

ided

vs.

not

pr

ovid

ed)

Stud

y 1b

: Inf

orm

atio

n ab

out

heal

th e

ffect

s (p

rese

nce

vs.

abse

nce

of p

ossi

ble

nega

tive

heal

th e

ffect

s of

food

ad

ditiv

es),

info

rmat

ion

abou

t or

igin

of f

ood

addi

tive

(syn

thet

ic v

s. n

atur

e-

iden

tical

vs.

nat

ural

) St

udy

2: in

form

atio

n ab

out

trad

ition

al v

s. in

-vitr

o m

eat

Stud

y 3:

Info

rmat

ion

abou

t tr

aditi

onal

ver

sus

in-v

itro

mea

t, pe

rcei

ved

natu

raln

ess

of tr

aditi

onal

or i

n-vi

tro

mea

t (m

edia

tor)

Stud

ies

1a a

nd 1

b:

Perc

eive

d na

tura

lnes

s of

a

food

add

itive

Stu

dy 1

b:

acce

ptab

ility

of f

ood

addi

tive

Stud

y 2:

per

ceiv

ed

acce

ptab

ility

of r

isk

of c

olon

ca

ncer

ass

ocia

ted

with

pr

oduc

t St

udy

3: P

erce

ived

na

tura

lnes

s of

trad

ition

al o

r in

-vitr

o m

eat (

med

iato

r),

perc

eive

d ac

cept

abili

ty o

f ri

sk o

f col

on c

ance

r as

soci

ated

with

pro

duct

Stud

y 1a

: Dis

play

ing

E-

num

bers

red

uced

per

ceiv

ed

natu

raln

ess

of fo

od

addi

tives

. St

udy

1b: F

ood

addi

tives

w

ere

cons

ider

ed m

ost

natu

ral w

hen

obta

ined

from

a

plan

t sou

rce

and

whe

n no

ne

gativ

e in

form

atio

n ab

out

heal

th e

ffect

s w

as p

rovi

ded.

In

form

atio

n ab

out p

ossi

ble

nega

tive

heal

th e

ffect

s re

duce

d th

e pe

rcei

ved

natu

raln

ess,

alth

ough

no

such

effe

ct w

as o

bser

ved

for

synt

hetic

food

add

itive

s.

Stud

y 2:

Per

ceiv

ed r

isk

of

colo

n ca

ncer

was

con

side

red

muc

h m

ore

acce

ptab

le fo

r tr

aditi

onal

com

pare

d to

in-

vitr

o m

eat.

Info

rmat

ion

abou

t e-

num

bers

, inf

orm

atio

n ab

out

heal

th e

ffect

s, p

erce

ived

na

tura

lnes

s of

trad

ition

al o

r in

-vitr

o m

eat

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

41

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

Stud

y 3:

Per

ceiv

ed

natu

raln

ess

of tr

aditi

onal

or

in-v

itro

mea

t med

iate

s th

e pe

rcei

ved

risk

of c

olon

ca

ncer

on

the

acce

ptab

ility

of

this

ris

k, w

ith in

-vitr

o m

eat b

eing

per

ceiv

ed a

s le

ss

natu

ral a

nd th

e he

alth

ris

k as

soci

ated

with

it th

us

cons

ider

ed le

ss a

ccep

tabl

e.

72. S

iegr

ist e

t al.

(201

8)

Switz

erla

nd

Stud

y 1:

20

4 St

udy

2:

298

Expe

rim

ents

Cu

lture

d m

eat

Stud

y 1:

Ex

peri

men

tal c

ondi

tion

(inf

orm

atio

n ab

out

trad

ition

al v

s. in

-vitr

o m

eat)

, pe

rcei

ved

natu

raln

ess

of

trad

ition

al g

roun

d be

ef

(med

iato

r)

Stud

y 2:

Ex

peri

men

tal c

ondi

tion

(tec

hnic

al d

escr

iptio

n of

cu

lture

d m

eat p

rodu

ctio

n vs

. no

ntec

hnic

al d

escr

iptio

n of

cu

lture

d m

eat p

rodu

ctio

n vs

. ge

nera

l des

crip

tion

of

conv

entio

nal m

eat

prod

uctio

n), p

erce

ived

na

tura

lnes

s of

cul

ture

d or

co

nven

tiona

l bee

f (m

edia

tor)

Stud

y 1:

Pe

rcei

ved

natu

raln

ess

of

trad

ition

al g

roun

d be

ef

(med

iato

r) a

nd w

illin

gnes

s to

cons

ume

trad

ition

al g

roun

d be

ef

Stud

y 2:

Pe

rcei

ved

natu

raln

ess

of

cultu

red

or c

onve

ntio

nal

beef

, dis

gust

tow

ard

cultu

red

or c

onve

ntio

nal b

eef,

will

ingn

ess

to e

at/r

egul

arly

bu

y cu

lture

d or

con

vent

iona

l be

ef

Stud

y 1:

Fin

ding

s su

gges

t th

at a

ccep

tanc

e of

cul

ture

d m

eat i

s lo

w b

ecau

se it

is

cons

ider

ed u

nnat

ural

. In

form

ing

part

icip

ants

of t

he

prod

uctio

n of

cul

ture

d m

eat

and

its b

enefi

ts in

crea

ses

acce

ptan

ce o

f con

vent

iona

l m

eat.

Stud

y 2:

D

escr

ibin

g cu

lture

d m

eat i

n a

nont

echn

ical

way

that

fo

cuse

s on

the

final

pro

duct

in

stea

d of

the

prod

uctio

n m

etho

d in

crea

ses a

ccep

tanc

e of

cul

ture

d m

eat.

Perc

eive

d na

tura

lnes

s of

cu

lture

d or

con

vent

iona

l m

eat

73. V

erbe

ke e

t al.

(201

5)

Belg

ium

, Po

rtug

al, a

nd

the

Uni

ted

King

dom

179

Focu

s gr

oups

(o

n- a

nd

offli

ne)

Cultu

red

mea

t Pe

rcei

ved

pers

onal

ben

efits

an

d ri

sks

of c

ultu

red

mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n, p

erce

ived

so

ciet

al b

enefi

ts a

nd c

once

rn

abou

t soc

ieta

l con

sequ

ence

s,

initi

al r

eact

ions

tow

ards

cu

lture

d m

eat (

e.g.

, dis

gust

or

judg

ing

by it

s un

natu

raln

ess)

, unc

erta

inty

ab

out s

cien

tific

know

ledg

e re

gard

ing

cultu

red

mea

t, pe

rcei

ved

cont

rolla

bilit

y an

d re

gula

tions

reg

ardi

ng

cultu

red

mea

t, ac

cept

ance

of

scie

ntifi

c pr

ogre

ss

Not

app

licab

le

Whe

n le

arni

ng a

bout

cu

lture

d m

eat,

part

icip

ants

in

itial

ly fe

lt di

sgus

t and

co

nsid

ered

it u

nnat

ural

. D

espi

te s

eein

g fe

w p

erso

nal

bene

fits

rega

rdin

g cu

lture

d m

eat,

part

icip

ants

ac

know

ledg

ed b

enefi

ts o

f cu

lture

d m

eat f

or th

e en

viro

nmen

t and

glo

bal f

ood

secu

rity

. Per

sona

l and

so

ciet

al r

isks

wer

e fr

amed

in

term

s of

saf

ety-

and

hea

lth-

rela

ted

unce

rtai

ntie

s as

wel

l as

pos

sibl

e ne

gativ

e co

nseq

uenc

es s

uch

as lo

ss o

f fa

rmin

g an

d ea

ting

trad

ition

s an

d ru

ral

livel

ihoo

ds. P

artic

ipan

ts

wer

e ad

ditio

nally

sce

ptic

ab

out t

he in

evita

bilit

y of

sc

ient

ific

prog

ress

and

co

ncer

ned

abou

t ris

k go

vern

ance

, con

trol

, and

ne

ed fo

r re

gula

tion

and

prop

er la

belli

ng.

–

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

42

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

74. W

ilks

et a

l. (2

019)

U

nite

d St

ates

11

93

Onl

ine

surv

ey

Cultu

red

mea

t A

ge, g

ende

r, ho

useh

old

inco

me,

edu

catio

n le

vel,

mea

t con

sum

ptio

n (‘y

es’ o

r ‘n

o’),

polit

ical

con

serv

atis

m,

degr

ee o

f bia

s to

war

d na

tura

lnes

s, s

peci

esis

m,

soci

al d

omin

ance

or

ient

atio

n, d

egre

e of

dis

trus

t in

sci

ence

, con

spir

ator

ial

idea

tion,

deg

ree

of fo

od

neop

hobi

a, d

isgu

st

sens

itivi

ty

Part

icip

ants

’ will

ingn

ess

to

eat c

ultu

red

mea

t, lik

elih

ood

of p

erce

ivin

g be

nefit

s of

cu

lture

d (c

ompa

red

to

farm

ed)

mea

t, pa

rtic

ipan

ts’

(lac

k of

) ab

solu

te o

ppos

ition

to

cul

ture

d m

eat

Part

icip

ants

who

wer

e yo

unge

r, m

ale,

less

po

litic

ally

con

serv

ativ

e, a

nd

who

had

low

er le

vels

of f

ood

neop

hobi

a w

ere

mor

e w

illin

g to

eat

cul

ture

d m

eat.

Furt

herm

ore,

par

ticip

ants

w

ho w

ere

youn

ger

and

mal

e w

ere

mor

e lik

ely

to p

erce

ive

bene

fits

of c

ultu

red

(vs.

fa

rmed

) m

eat.

On

the

othe

r ha

nd, p

oliti

cal c

onse

rvat

ism

, di

stru

st in

sci

ence

and

food

ne

opho

bia

wer

e al

l ne

gativ

ely

rela

ted

to

perc

eptio

ns o

f cul

ture

d (c

ompa

red

to fa

rmed

) m

eat.

Fina

lly, p

artic

ipan

ts w

ho

wer

e ol

der,

fem

ale,

and

th

ose

high

er in

co

nspi

rato

rial

idea

tion,

food

ne

opho

bia

and

(foo

d- a

nd

hygi

ene-

rela

ted)

dis

gust

se

nsiti

vity

wer

e m

ore

likel

y to

agr

ee w

ith th

e st

atem

ents

(r

egar

ding

cul

ture

d m

eat)

“T

his

shou

ld b

e pr

ohib

ited

no m

atte

r ho

w g

reat

the

bene

fits

and

min

or th

e ri

sks

are

from

allo

win

g it”

and

“It

is e

qual

ly w

rong

to a

llow

so

me

of th

is to

hap

pen

as it

is

to a

llow

twic

e as

muc

h to

ha

ppen

. The

am

ount

doe

sn’t

m

atte

r”.

Age

, gen

der,

polit

ical

co

nser

vatis

m, d

egre

e of

di

stru

st in

sci

ence

, deg

ree

of

cons

pira

tori

al id

eatio

n,

degr

ee o

f foo

d ne

opho

bia,

di

sgus

t sen

sitiv

ity

(Par

tial

ly)

plan

t-ba

sed

mea

t alt

erna

tive

s 75

. Elz

erm

an,

Hoe

k, V

an

Boek

el, a

nd

Luni

ng (

2011

)

The

Net

herl

ands

93

Ex

peri

men

t M

eat s

ubst

itute

s M

eal c

onte

xt in

whi

ch m

eat

subs

titut

e is

ser

ved

to

part

icip

ant,

flavo

ur o

f mea

t su

bstit

ute,

text

ure

of m

eat

subs

titut

e, fo

rm in

whi

ch

mea

t sub

stitu

te w

as s

erve

d (m

ince

d or

in p

iece

s),

part

icip

ants

’ tas

ting

of th

e m

eal

Ove

rall

likin

g of

indi

vidu

al

mea

t sub

stitu

te, o

vera

ll lik

ing

of m

eat s

ubst

itute

w

ithin

mea

l, pr

oduc

t lik

ing,

pe

rcei

ved

appr

opri

aten

ess

of

mea

t sub

stitu

te w

ithin

mea

l, in

tent

ion

to u

se a

dis

h w

ith

mea

t sub

stitu

tes

Mea

l con

text

influ

ence

d th

e pe

rcei

ved

appr

opri

aten

ess

and

likin

g of

mea

t su

bstit

utes

. Fur

ther

mor

e,

appr

opri

aten

ess

seem

ed to

be

influ

ence

d m

ore

by th

e ap

pear

ance

of t

he m

eat

subs

titut

e-m

eal c

ombi

natio

n th

an b

y th

e m

eat s

ubst

itute

’s

text

ure

and

flavo

ur. L

astly

, pr

e-ta

stin

g ap

prop

riat

enes

s ra

tings

of m

eat s

ubst

itute

s w

ithin

a m

eal i

nflue

nced

the

acce

ptan

ce o

f the

mea

l.

Perc

eive

d ap

prop

riat

enes

s of

m

eat s

ubst

itute

-mea

l co

mbi

natio

n

76. H

oek

et a

l. (2

011)

Th

e N

ethe

rlan

ds

and

Uni

ted

King

dom

553

Surv

ey

Mea

t sub

stitu

tes;

ve

geta

ble

base

d fo

od p

rodu

cts

that

co

ntai

n pr

otei

ns

Food

cho

ice

mot

ives

, at

titud

es, b

elie

fs, f

ood

neop

hobi

a

Acc

epta

nce

of m

eat

subs

titut

es

Cons

umer

acc

epta

nce

was

la

rgel

y de

term

ined

by

the

attit

udes

and

bel

iefs

tow

ards

m

eat s

ubst

itute

s an

d fo

od

In o

rder

to m

ake

mea

t su

bstit

utes

mor

e at

trac

tive

to

mea

t con

sum

ers,

we

wou

ld

not r

ecom

men

d to

focu

s on

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

43

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

mad

e fr

om p

ulse

s (m

ainl

y so

y),

cere

al p

rote

in, o

r fu

ngi.

neop

hobi

a. K

ey b

arri

ers

for

non-

user

s an

d lig

ht/

med

ium

-use

rs w

ere

the

unfa

mili

arity

with

mea

t su

bstit

utes

and

the

low

er

sens

ory

attr

activ

enes

s co

mpa

red

to m

eat.

In

addi

tion,

non

-use

rs h

ad a

hi

gher

tend

ency

to a

void

ne

w fo

ods.

Hen

ce, t

he le

ss

cons

umer

s w

ere

usin

g m

eat

subs

titut

es, t

he m

ore

they

w

ante

d th

ese

prod

ucts

to b

e si

mila

r to

mea

t. A

lthou

gh

non-

user

s an

d lig

ht/

med

ium

-use

rs d

id r

ecog

nize

th

e et

hica

l and

wei

ght-

cont

rol a

spec

ts o

f mea

t su

bstit

utes

, thi

s w

as

obvi

ousl

y le

ss r

elev

ant t

o th

em. A

ctua

lly, o

nly

heav

y-

user

s ha

d hi

gh m

otiv

atio

ns

to c

hoos

e et

hica

l foo

ds,

whi

ch e

xpla

ins

thei

r ch

oice

fo

r m

eat s

ubst

itute

s.

com

mun

icat

ion

of e

thic

al

argu

men

ts, b

ut to

si

gnifi

cant

ly im

prov

e th

e se

nsor

y qu

ality

and

re

sem

blan

ce to

mea

t.

77. H

oek

et a

l. (2

013)

Th

e N

ethe

rlan

ds

89

Expe

rim

ent

Mea

t sub

stitu

tes

Age

, gen

der,

food

neo

phob

ia,

vari

ety

seek

ing,

pri

or

freq

uenc

y of

mea

t sub

stitu

te

cons

umpt

ion,

pri

or

freq

uenc

y of

chi

cken

co

nsum

ptio

n, r

epea

ted

expo

sure

to m

eat (

subs

titut

e)

prod

uct,

type

of p

rodu

ct

eate

n (c

hick

en v

s. m

eat

subs

titut

e), t

ype

of m

eal u

sed

to a

ccom

pany

mea

t (s

ubst

itute

) pr

oduc

t

Des

ire

to e

at p

rodu

ct, l

ikin

g of

pro

duct

, bor

edom

with

pr

oduc

t, ea

ten

amou

nt (

of

prod

uct)

Afte

r th

e re

peat

ed e

xpos

ure

peri

od, l

ikin

g sc

ores

for

chic

ken,

tofu

and

Quo

rn

wer

e no

t sig

nific

antly

di

ffere

nt, a

nd li

king

for

all

thre

e pr

oduc

ts d

ecre

ased

si

gnifi

cant

ly o

ver

time.

On

aver

age,

par

ticip

ants

ate

2/3

of

the

prod

uct,

and

this

did

no

t sig

nific

antly

dec

reas

e ov

er ti

me

for

any

of th

e 3

prod

uct g

roup

s. O

ver

time,

m

ost t

ofu-

eatin

g pa

rtic

ipan

ts

exhi

bite

d a

mer

e-ex

posu

re

patt

ern

of in

crea

sed

likin

g,

whe

reas

chi

cken

-eat

ing

part

icip

ants

sho

wed

a

patt

ern

of in

crea

sed

bore

dom

with

the

prod

uct.

The

Quo

rn g

roup

was

in-

betw

een,

with

a s

light

m

ajor

ity e

xhib

iting

a p

atte

rn

of b

ored

om w

ith th

e pr

oduc

t ov

er ti

me.

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ith a

hig

her

decr

ease

in p

rodu

ct li

king

ov

er ti

me

mad

e m

ore

switc

hes

over

tim

e in

term

s of

the

mea

ls th

ey a

te to

Type

of p

rodu

ct e

aten

(c

hick

en v

s. m

eat s

ubst

itute

), pr

ior

freq

uenc

y of

mea

t su

bstit

ute

cons

umpt

ion,

pri

or

freq

uenc

y of

chi

cken

co

nsum

ptio

n

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

44

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

acco

mpa

ny th

e m

eat

(sub

stitu

te)

prod

uct.

Food

neo

phob

ia a

nd v

arie

ty

seek

ing

did

not a

ffect

pr

oduc

t bor

edom

or

mer

e ex

posu

re p

atte

rns.

Pre

viou

s ex

peri

ence

with

mea

t su

bstit

utes

was

ass

ocia

ted

with

hig

her

likin

g sc

ores

for

this

pro

duct

, whe

reas

usi

ng

mor

e ty

pes

of m

eals

to

acco

mpa

ny th

e pr

oduc

t was

as

soci

ated

with

low

er li

king

sc

ores

. 78

. Gra

vely

and

Fr

aser

(20

18)

Cana

da

Seve

n su

perm

arke

ts,

24 c

onsu

mer

s, 5

key

in

form

ants

Surv

ey

Alte

rnat

ive,

pla

nt-

base

d pr

otei

n so

urce

s

Supe

rmar

kets

’ she

lf sp

ace

allo

tmen

ts fo

r pl

ant-b

ased

pr

otei

n pr

oduc

ts (

met

ers

of

shel

f spa

ce),

supe

rmar

kets

’ pr

omot

ion

of p

lant

-bas

ed

prot

ein

prod

ucts

(pr

esen

ce

vs. a

bsen

ce o

f spe

cial

sale

s or

desc

ript

ive

sign

s), p

lant

- ba

sed

prod

uct s

helf

loca

tion

in s

uper

mar

ket,

cons

umer

s’

perc

eptio

ns o

f pro

tein

sou

rce

avai

labi

lity

in s

uper

mar

kets

, fa

mili

arity

of c

onsu

mer

s with

su

perm

arke

t, co

nsum

ers’

sh

oppi

ng s

trat

egie

s co

ncer

ning

pro

tein

pro

duct

s

Ease

with

whi

ch c

onsu

mer

s w

ere

able

to fi

nd a

pro

tein

so

urce

in a

sup

erm

arke

t, co

nsum

ers’

cho

ice

of p

rote

in

sour

ces

Supe

rmar

kets

allo

cate

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

shel

f sp

ace

to a

nim

al-b

ased

co

mpa

red

to p

lant

-bas

ed

prot

ein

prod

ucts

. Co

nsum

ers

foun

d it

slig

htly

m

ore

satis

fyin

g as

wel

l as

easi

er to

sho

p fo

r an

imal

- ba

sed

com

pare

d to

pla

nt-

base

d pr

otei

n so

urce

s.

Ther

e w

ere

also

mor

e pr

omot

ions

for a

nim

al-b

ased

co

mpa

red

to p

lant

-bas

ed

prot

ein

sour

ces.

Pl

ant-b

ased

pro

tein

sou

rces

w

ere

mos

t com

mon

ly

pres

ent i

n th

e gr

ocer

y ai

sles

of

sup

erm

arke

ts.

Shel

f loc

atio

n of

pla

nt-b

ased

pr

otei

n so

urce

s po

ssib

ly

limite

d th

e ex

tent

to w

hich

co

nsum

ers

disc

over

ed th

ese

prod

ucts

. Add

ition

ally

, co

nven

tiona

l ret

aile

rs

tend

ed to

dev

ote

mor

e re

tail

spac

e, sa

les a

nd p

rom

otio

nal

sign

age

to p

lant

-bas

ed

prot

ein

sour

ces

(esp

ecia

lly

for

plan

t-bas

ed m

eat a

nd

dair

y su

bstit

utes

) th

an d

id

disc

ount

ret

aile

rs.

Supe

rmar

kets

’ she

lf sp

ace

allo

tmen

ts fo

r pl

ant-b

ased

pr

otei

n pr

oduc

ts (

met

ers

of

shel

f spa

ce),

supe

rmar

kets

’ pr

omot

ion

of p

lant

-bas

ed

prot

ein

prod

ucts

(pr

esen

ce

vs. a

bsen

ce o

f spe

cial

sale

s or

desc

ript

ive

sign

s), p

lant

- ba

sed

prod

uct s

helf

loca

tion

in s

uper

mar

ket,

cons

umer

s’

shop

ping

str

ateg

ies

conc

erni

ng p

rote

in p

rodu

cts

79. S

chos

ler

et a

l. (2

014)

Th

e N

ethe

rlan

ds

1083

O

nlin

e su

rvey

M

eat s

ubst

itute

s/

plan

t-bas

ed

prot

ein

prod

ucts

Gen

der,

age,

Bod

y M

ass

Inde

x (B

MI)

, hou

seho

ld s

ize,

ed

ucat

ion

leve

l, co

mm

unity

si

ze, t

ypes

of f

ood-

rela

ted

mot

ivat

ion

(e.g

., pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ r

espo

nse

to th

e st

atem

ent ‘

‘I fe

el h

appy

whe

n I h

ave

time

and

atte

ntio

n to

co

ok’‘)

Num

ber

of m

eat-e

atin

g da

ys

per

wee

k, r

easo

n fo

r ea

ting

low

/hig

h am

ount

of m

eat,

degr

ee to

whi

ch o

ne’s

ho

useh

old

buys

org

anic

/fre

e-

rang

e m

eat,

degr

ee to

whi

ch

one’

s ho

useh

old

buys

mea

t su

bstit

utes

, pre

fere

nces

for

anim

al- v

s. p

lant

-bas

ed fo

ods

Diff

eren

ce in

type

of f

ood-

re

late

d m

otiv

atio

n pr

edic

ted

diffe

renc

es in

mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n am

ount

and

fr

eque

ncy,

freq

uenc

y of

bu

ying

org

anic

/fre

e-ra

nge

mea

t, fr

eque

ncy

of b

uyin

g m

eat s

ubst

itute

s, r

easo

ns fo

r no

t (fr

eque

ntly

) eat

ing

mea

t,

Inte

rnal

ised

food

-rel

ated

m

otiv

atio

n, in

trin

sic

enjo

ymen

t of e

atin

g an

d co

okin

g (con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

45

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

and

pref

eren

ce fo

r pl

ant-

base

d vs

. ani

mal

-bas

ed

prot

ein

food

s. In

tern

alis

ed

mot

ivat

ion

was

the

mos

t in

fluen

tial f

acto

r in

this

re

gard

, fol

low

ed b

y in

trin

sic

enjo

ymen

t of e

atin

g an

d co

okin

g.

80. S

iegr

ist a

nd

Har

tman

n (2

019)

Sw

itzer

land

55

86

Onl

ine

surv

ey

Mea

t sub

stitu

tes

(inc

ludi

ng a

wid

er

rang

e of

mea

t su

bstit

utes

than

on

ly p

lant

-bas

ed)

Ratin

gs o

f the

env

iron

men

tal

impa

ct o

f diff

eren

t foo

ds,

heal

th c

onsc

ious

ness

, foo

d di

sgus

t sen

sitiv

ity, g

ende

r, ag

e, h

ouse

hold

inco

me,

ed

ucat

ion

leve

l

Cons

umpt

ion

freq

uenc

y fo

r (o

rgan

ic)

mea

t and

mea

t su

bstit

utes

, fre

quen

cy o

f pu

rcha

sing

org

anic

mea

t

Part

icip

ants

who

wer

e m

ore

likel

y to

con

sum

e m

eat

subs

titut

es w

ere

fem

ale

(vs.

m

ale)

, you

nger

and

mor

e hi

ghly

edu

cate

d, a

nd h

ad a

lo

wer

mea

t con

sum

ptio

n fr

eque

ncy,

vie

wed

mea

t as

havi

ng a

big

env

iron

men

tal

impa

ct, w

ere

very

hea

lth-

cons

ciou

s, a

nd w

ere

low

in

food

dis

gust

sen

sitiv

ity.

Cons

umpt

ion

of o

rgan

ic

mea

t was

pos

itive

ly

influ

ence

d by

hig

h he

alth

co

nsci

ousn

ess,

bei

ng fe

mal

e,

bein

g ol

der,

hav

ing

a hi

gher

in

com

e an

d ed

ucat

ion

leve

l, an

d vi

ewin

g co

nven

tiona

lly

prod

uced

mea

t as

havi

ng a

bi

g en

viro

nmen

tal i

mpa

ct.

Dis

gust

sen

sitiv

ity

nega

tivel

y in

fluen

ced

orga

nic

mea

t con

sum

ptio

n fr

eque

ncy.

La

stly

, alth

ough

mea

t and

m

eat s

ubst

itute

con

sum

ptio

n co

rrel

ated

neg

ativ

ely,

this

co

rrel

atio

n w

as w

eak.

Ratin

gs o

f the

env

iron

men

tal

impa

ct o

f diff

eren

t foo

ds,

heal

th c

onsc

ious

ness

, foo

d di

sgus

t sen

sitiv

ity, g

ende

r, ag

e, h

ouse

hold

inco

me,

ed

ucat

ion

leve

l

81. W

einr

ich

(201

8)

Ger

man

y,

Fran

ce &

The

N

ethe

rlan

ds

43 (

13 in

Ger

man

y,

16 in

Fra

nce,

14

in

NL)

Focu

s gr

oups

M

eat s

ubst

itute

s (i

nclu

ding

a w

ider

ra

nge

of m

eat

subs

titut

es th

an

only

pla

nt-b

ased

)

Age

, gen

der,

educ

atio

n le

vel,

net h

ouse

hold

inco

me,

pr

evio

us m

eat s

ubst

itute

co

nsum

ptio

n (a

s w

ell a

s th

e ty

pes

of m

eat s

ubst

itute

), ot

her

type

s of

mea

t su

bstit

utes

par

ticip

ants

cou

ld

thin

k of

, pot

entia

l rea

sons

for

(not

) su

bstit

utin

g m

eat (

with

a

subs

titut

e), p

oten

tial

reas

ons f

or d

rive

rs o

r bar

rier

s fo

r (n

ot)

subs

titut

ing

mea

t, at

trib

utes

of c

urre

ntly

- av

aila

ble

mea

t sub

stitu

tes

liked

/not

like

d, a

ccep

tabl

e/

unac

cept

able

pri

ce le

vel f

or a

m

eat s

ubst

itute

, par

ticip

ants

’ ra

nkin

g of

top

3 re

ason

s fo

r

Not

app

licab

le.

Part

icip

ants

wer

e co

ncer

ned

abou

t the

add

itive

s in

and

ar

tifici

ality

of m

eat

subs

titut

es a

nd a

bout

the

poss

ibili

ty th

at th

e es

sent

ial

vita

min

s an

d m

icro

nutr

ient

s ga

ined

from

mea

t sub

stitu

tes

mig

ht b

e in

suffi

cien

t. A

dditi

onal

ly, t

he ta

ste

of

mea

t was

men

tione

d as

a

reas

on fo

r no

t sub

stitu

ting

it w

ith m

eat s

ubst

itute

s. T

he

fact

that

par

ticip

ants

’ eat

ing

habi

ts a

ppea

red

to b

e fix

ed

and

that

they

focu

sed

in

conv

enie

nce

(in

cons

umpt

ion)

wer

e al

so

poss

ibly

bar

rier

s to

Not

app

licab

le.

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

46

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

and

agai

nst s

ubst

itutin

g m

eat

with

mea

t sub

stitu

tes

cons

umin

g m

eat s

ubst

itute

s in

stea

d of

mea

t. 82

. Apo

stol

idis

&

McL

eay

(201

6)

UK

247

Choi

ce

expe

rim

ent

Mea

t sub

stitu

te

prod

ucts

(i

nclu

ding

a w

ider

ra

nge

of m

eat

subs

titut

es th

an

only

pla

nt-b

ased

)

Dem

ogra

phic

s, A

ttri

bute

s ch

oice

exp

erim

ent:

Fat

cont

ent,

Carb

on fo

otpr

int,

Type

of

min

ce, M

etho

d of

pr

oduc

tion,

Pri

ce, O

rigi

n

Prod

uct c

hoic

e Th

e ty

pe o

f min

ce, f

at

cont

ent,

coun

try

of o

rigi

n an

d pr

ice

are

maj

or fa

ctor

s th

at in

fluen

ce c

hoic

e.

Carb

on fo

otpr

int,

met

hod

of

prod

uctio

n an

d br

and

play

a

seco

ndar

y ro

le in

de

term

inin

g co

nsum

ers’

ch

oice

s of

mea

t/m

eat

subs

titut

es. L

aten

t cla

ss

anal

ysis

is u

sed

to id

entif

y si

x co

nsum

er se

gmen

ts: p

rice

co

nsci

ous,

hea

lthy

eate

rs,

tast

e dr

iven

, gre

en, o

rgan

ic

and

vege

tari

an c

onsu

mer

s w

hich

hav

e di

ffere

nt s

ocio

- de

mog

raph

ic c

hara

cter

istic

s an

d m

eat c

onsu

mpt

ion

patt

erns

.

The

type

of m

ince

, fat

co

nten

t, co

untr

y of

ori

gin

and

pric

e ar

e m

ajor

fact

ors

that

influ

ence

cho

ice

Mul

tipl

e m

eat a

lter

nati

ves

83. B

ryan

t et a

l. (2

019)

A s

urve

y …

Uni

ted

Stat

es,

Indi

a an

d Ch

ina

3030

(U

S: 9

87,

Indi

a: 1

024,

Chi

na:

1019

)

Onl

ine

surv

ey

Cultu

red

mea

t and

pl

ant-b

ased

mea

t Pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ d

iet (

e.g.

, ve

gan)

, fre

quen

cy o

f mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n, fo

od

neop

hobi

a, p

oliti

cal v

iew

s,

inco

me,

fam

iliar

ity w

ith

clea

n (c

ultu

red)

mea

t, m

eat

atta

chm

ent,

attit

udes

tow

ard

clea

n m

eat (

e.g.

, in

term

s of

he

alth

ines

s, e

thic

s an

d ap

peal

).

Inte

ntio

n to

pur

chas

e cl

ean

mea

t, in

tent

ion

to p

urch

ase

plan

t-bas

ed m

eat

In th

e U

S, p

esca

tari

ans,

ve

geta

rian

s an

d ve

gans

had

a

sign

ifica

ntly

low

er

inte

ntio

n to

pur

chas

e cl

ean

mea

t com

pare

d to

om

nivo

res.

Pur

chas

e in

tent

ion

was

als

o hi

gher

for

polit

ical

ly le

ft-le

anin

g pa

rtic

ipan

ts a

nd fo

r th

ose

mor

e fa

mili

ar w

ith c

lean

m

eat.

Low

er fo

od n

eoph

obia

pr

edic

ted

high

er p

urch

ase

inte

nt fo

r bo

th c

lean

and

pl

ant-b

ased

mea

t. H

ighe

r di

sgus

t pre

dict

ed lo

wer

pu

rcha

se in

tent

ion,

whe

reas

pe

rcei

ved

appe

al a

nd

good

ness

of c

lean

mea

t pr

edic

ted

high

er p

urch

ase

inte

ntio

n. F

or p

lant

-bas

ed

mea

t in

the

US,

mor

e po

litic

ally

libe

ral

part

icip

ants

and

thos

e m

ore

fam

iliar

with

the

prod

uct

had

a hi

gher

inte

ntio

n of

bu

ying

it. P

artic

ipan

ts m

ore

atta

ched

to (

conv

entio

nal)

m

eat w

ere

less

incl

ined

to

buy

plan

t-bas

ed m

eat.

Last

ly, p

erce

ived

app

eal o

f, ex

cite

men

t abo

ut, a

nd lo

w

disg

ust t

owar

d pl

ant-b

ased

Part

icip

ants

’ die

t (e.

g.,

vega

n), f

requ

ency

of m

eat

cons

umpt

ion,

food

ne

opho

bia,

pol

itica

l vie

ws,

in

com

e, fa

mili

arity

with

cl

ean

(cul

ture

d) m

eat,

mea

t at

tach

men

t, at

titud

es to

war

d cl

ean

mea

t (e.

g., i

n te

rms

of

heal

thin

ess,

eth

ics

and

appe

al). (con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

47

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

mea

t pre

dict

ed h

ighe

r pu

rcha

se in

tent

. 84

. de

Boer

et a

l. (2

013)

Th

e N

ethe

rlan

ds

1083

Su

rvey

Le

gum

es,

seaw

eed,

hyb

rid

mea

t

Mea

t and

fish

con

sum

ptio

n ha

bits

, tas

te-o

rien

ted

food

ch

oice

mot

ives

, refl

ectio

n-

orie

nted

food

cho

ice

mot

ives

, ge

nder

, age

, edu

catio

n le

vel,

com

mun

ity s

ize

Choi

ce o

f sna

cks

Tast

e-or

ient

ed fo

od c

hoic

e m

otiv

es w

ere

asso

ciat

ed

with

incr

ease

d lik

elih

ood

of

choo

sing

snac

ks fr

om le

ntils

, in

sect

s an

d se

awee

d,

com

pare

d to

cho

osin

g hy

brid

mea

t (pa

rt m

eat,

part

m

eat s

ubst

itute

). Re

flect

ion-

or

ient

ed fo

od c

hoic

e m

otiv

es

wer

e as

soci

ated

with

in

crea

sed

likel

ihoo

d of

ch

oosi

ng s

nack

s fr

om le

ntils

an

d se

awee

d, c

ompa

red

to

choo

sing

hyb

rid

mea

t. Pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ith h

igh

mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n w

ere

less

like

ly

to c

hoos

e sn

acks

from

lent

ils

and

seaw

eed,

whe

reas

fish

co

nsum

ers

wer

e m

ore

likel

y to

cho

ose

seaw

eed

snac

ks.

Hig

her

educ

atio

n le

vel a

nd

mor

e ur

ban

livin

g en

viro

nmen

t wer

e as

soci

ated

with

cho

osin

g le

ntil

and

seaw

eed

snac

ks.

Part

icip

ants

wer

e m

uch

less

w

illin

g to

tast

e in

sect

sna

cks

com

pare

d to

the

othe

r sn

acks

.

Tast

e-or

ient

ed fo

od c

hoic

e m

otiv

es, r

eflec

tion-

orie

nted

fo

od c

hoic

e m

otiv

es, m

eat

and

fish

cons

umpt

ion

habi

ts

85. C

ircu

s an

d Ro

bins

on (

2019

) U

nite

d Ki

ngdo

m

139

inte

rvie

ws

and

an o

nlin

e su

rvey

Cultu

red

mea

t, in

sect

s, p

lant

- ba

sed

mea

t su

bstit

utes

Base

d on

the

inte

rvie

ws

spec

ific

pers

onal

dri

vers

, pe

rson

al b

arri

ers,

glo

bal

driv

ers

and

glob

al b

arri

ers

for c

ultu

red

mea

t, in

sect

s and

pl

ant-b

ased

sub

stitu

tes

wer

e de

velo

ped

will

ingn

ess

to c

onsu

me

the

thre

e al

tern

ativ

e pr

otei

ns

Find

ings

indi

cate

d th

at

plan

t-bas

ed s

ubst

itute

s w

ere

favo

ured

for

pers

onal

co

nsum

ptio

n fo

r m

oral

and

et

hica

l rea

sons

and

edi

ble

inse

cts

wer

e le

ast f

avou

red

due

to a

vers

ion.

Mea

t at

tach

men

t was

sig

nific

antly

as

soci

ated

with

per

sona

l w

illin

gnes

s to

con

sum

e al

tern

ativ

e pr

otei

ns in

eac

h of

the

thre

e ca

ses.

Res

ults

ch

alle

nged

pre

viou

s re

sear

ch th

at h

ad p

ropo

sed

that

whe

n co

nsid

erin

g th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of c

erta

in

alte

rnat

ives

in a

ddre

ssin

g gl

obal

env

iron

men

tal i

ssue

s,

peop

le m

ay a

dvoc

ate

them

bu

t not

wan

t to

cons

ume

them

per

sona

lly. R

esul

ts

impl

y th

at th

e co

ngru

ity o

f

This

stu

dy h

as d

emon

stra

ted

an a

ssoc

iatio

n be

twee

n on

e’s

atta

chm

ent t

o co

nven

tiona

l m

eat a

nd p

erce

ptio

n of

al

tern

ativ

e pr

otei

ns a

nd h

as

high

light

ed th

e co

mpl

exity

of

inte

ract

ions

bet

wee

n pe

rson

al p

refe

renc

e an

d m

ore

glob

al p

ersp

ectiv

es.

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

48

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

thes

e pe

rcep

tions

is m

ore

com

plex

. 86

. Gom

ez-L

ucia

no

et a

l. (2

019)

Sp

ain

and

the

Dom

inic

an

Repu

blic

401

(201

from

the

Dom

inic

an

Repu

blic

, 200

from

Sp

ain)

Onl

ine

and

face

-to-fa

ce

surv

ey

Cultu

red

mea

t, in

sect

s G

ende

r, ye

ar o

f bir

th/a

ge,

educ

atio

n le

vel,

loca

tion

of

resi

denc

e (r

ural

vs.

urb

an),

pres

ence

(vs.

abs

ence

) of

fo

od a

llerg

ies,

bel

iefs

re

gard

ing

the

heal

th a

nd

nurt

ritio

nal b

enefi

ts o

f mea

t, vi

ews

on th

e se

nsor

y ex

peri

ence

of m

eat,

attit

udes

co

ncer

ning

the

heal

thin

ess,

en

viro

nmen

tal e

ffect

s an

d co

nven

ienc

e of

food

s,

freq

uenc

y of

mea

t co

nsum

ptio

n, s

elf-e

stim

ated

fu

ture

mea

t con

sum

ptio

n,

attit

udes

tow

ard

and

belie

fs

abou

t mea

t

Will

ingn

ess

to tr

y al

tern

ativ

e pr

otei

n so

urce

s, b

elie

ves

abou

t how

rea

listic

pla

nt-

base

d di

ets

are

in th

e sh

ort-

term

(203

0) a

nd lo

ng-te

rm

(205

0)

Of t

he S

pani

sh p

artic

ipan

ts,

15.5

% b

elie

ved

mea

t was

ne

cess

ary

for

obta

inin

g be

nefic

ial n

utri

ents

, whe

reas

43

.5%

thou

ght t

hat

alte

rnat

ive

prot

ein

sour

ces

coul

d ea

sily

mat

ch th

e nu

triti

onal

ben

efits

of m

eat.

Span

ish

wom

en w

ere

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e w

illin

g to

tr

y pl

ant-b

ased

die

ts th

an

Span

ish

men

, with

the

latt

er

bein

g ge

nera

lly u

nwill

ing

to

try

plan

t-bas

ed p

rote

ins.

Sp

anis

h w

omen

als

o co

nsid

ered

pla

nt-b

ased

die

ts

real

istic

in th

e sh

ort-t

erm

an

d w

ere

will

ing

to tr

y m

ycop

rote

ins.

Spa

nish

men

w

ere,

how

ever

, lik

ely

to

cons

ider

tryi

ng c

ultu

red

mea

t. Sp

anis

h pa

rtic

ipan

ts

with

a u

nive

rsity

-leve

l ed

ucat

ion

wer

e m

ore

will

ing

than

thos

e w

ith o

ther

ed

ucat

ion

leve

ls to

try

plan

t- ba

sed

alte

rnat

ive

prot

eins

. Sp

anis

h pa

rtic

ipan

ts a

ged

16–2

7 w

ere

mor

e lik

ely

to

cons

ider

a d

iet o

f pla

nt-

base

d al

tern

ativ

e pr

otei

ns

real

istic

in th

e lo

ng-te

rm,

and

they

wer

e al

so m

ore

likel

y to

con

side

r m

ycop

rote

ins

an u

nrea

listic

al

tern

ativ

e. L

astly

, the

y w

ere

mor

e lik

ely

to b

e un

will

ing

to tr

y cu

lture

d m

eat.

Gen

der,

educ

atio

n le

vel,

age

87. G

rass

o et

al.

(201

9)

Uni

ted

King

dom

, The

N

ethe

rlan

ds,

Pola

nd, S

pain

, an

d Fi

nlan

d

1825

O

nlin

e su

rvey

In

sect

s, c

ultu

red

mea

t, al

gae

Freq

uenc

y of

con

sum

ptio

n fo

r var

ious

pro

tein

sour

ces (

e.

g., l

egum

es, c

hees

e), d

ieta

ry

regi

me

(e.g

., ve

geta

rian

), se

lect

iven

ess

in a

ccep

ting

food

s (‘f

ood

fuss

ines

s’),

food

ch

oice

mot

ives

(e.

g.,

conv

enie

nce)

, en

viro

nmen

tally

con

scio

us/

‘gre

en’ e

atin

g be

havi

our,

gend

er, a

ge g

roup

, cou

ntry

of

resi

denc

e (o

f the

5 c

ount

ries

in

this

stu

dy),

educ

atio

n le

vel,

perc

eive

d fin

anci

al

Acc

epta

nce

of/w

illin

gnes

s to

co

nsum

e va

riou

s pr

otei

n so

urce

s (e

.g.,

plan

t- an

d in

sect

-bas

ed p

rote

ins)

Plan

t-bas

ed p

rote

ins

wer

e th

e m

ost a

ccep

ted

alte

rnat

ive

prot

ein

sour

ce,

whe

reas

inse

ct- a

nd in

vitr

o m

eat-b

ased

pro

tein

s w

ere

the

leas

t acc

epte

d al

tern

ativ

e pr

otei

n so

urce

s.

Gre

en e

atin

g be

havi

our

and

high

er e

duca

tion

are

posi

tivel

y re

late

d to

the

acce

ptan

ce o

f alte

rnat

ive,

su

stai

nabl

e pr

otei

n so

urce

s.

Sele

ctiv

enes

s/fu

ssin

ess

in

food

cho

ice,

on

the

othe

r

Food

fuss

ines

s, fo

od c

hoic

e m

otiv

es, g

reen

eat

ing

beha

viou

r

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

49

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

situ

atio

n, li

ving

con

ditio

n (e

. g.

, ‘liv

es a

lone

’),

resp

onsi

bilit

y fo

r fo

od

purc

hase

s (e.

g., ‘

Doe

s mos

t of

food

sho

ppin

g’),

heal

th

stat

us

hand

, is n

egat

ivel

y re

late

d to

ac

cept

ance

of a

ltern

ativ

e pr

otei

n so

urce

s.

Fem

ale

(com

pare

d to

mal

e)

olde

r ad

ults

wer

e le

ss li

kely

to

acc

ept i

nsec

t-bas

ed

prot

eins

, sin

gle-

cell

base

d pr

otei

ns (e

.g.,

alga

e) a

nd in

vi

tro

mea

t-bas

ed p

rote

in

sour

ces.

Co

untr

y of

res

iden

ce a

lso

influ

ence

d ac

cept

ance

of

alte

rnat

ive

prot

ein

sour

ces.

Th

e se

nsor

y m

otiv

e fo

r ch

oosi

ng/e

atin

g fo

od (

i.e.,

atta

chin

g im

port

ance

to

sens

ory

attr

ibut

es o

f foo

d)

nega

tivel

y in

fluen

ced

olde

r ad

ults

’ acc

epta

nce

of s

ingl

e-

cell-

and

inse

ct-b

ased

pr

otei

n so

urce

s. V

alui

ng

heal

th w

hile

mak

ing

food

ch

oice

s w

as p

ositi

vely

re

late

d to

acc

epta

nce

of

plan

t-bas

ed p

rote

in s

ourc

es.

Furt

herm

ore,

old

er a

dults

w

ho a

ttac

hed

wei

ght t

o pr

oduc

t pri

ces

whi

le

sele

ctin

g fo

od w

ere

mor

e lik

ely

to a

ccep

t in

vitr

o m

eat-

base

d pr

otei

n so

urce

s.

Sust

aina

bilit

y an

d co

nven

ienc

e fo

od c

hoic

e m

otiv

es d

id n

ot s

igni

fican

tly

affe

ct a

ccep

tanc

e of

al

tern

ativ

e pr

otei

n so

urce

s.

88. I

annu

zzi e

t al.

(201

9)

Italy

58

7 (fi

rst a

nd se

cond

se

ctio

ns o

f sur

vey)

, 17

5 (t

hird

sec

tion

of

surv

ey) I

t is

uncl

ear

whe

ther

the

se

num

bers

ove

rlap

or

not

Onl

ine

surv

ey

Inse

cts,

alg

ae

Part

icip

ants

’ aw

aren

ess

of

hidd

en/n

ovel

piz

za

ingr

edie

nts

Part

icip

ants

’ cho

ice

of p

izza

pr

ofile

(pi

zza

with

spe

cific

co

mbi

natio

n of

ingr

edie

nts)

Mak

ing

part

icip

ants

aw

are

of th

e hi

dden

ingr

edie

nts

of

a pi

zza

(cri

cket

flou

r an

d/or

sp

irulin

a al

gae)

cha

nged

thei

r ch

oice

of p

izza

. Afte

r th

e re

vela

tion

of h

idde

n in

gred

ient

s, th

e pi

zza

with

cr

icke

t flou

r w

as c

hose

n le

ast,

and

the

pizz

a w

ith

trad

ition

al in

gred

ient

s, p

lus

spiru

lina

alga

e, w

as c

hose

n m

ost.

Part

icip

ants

’ aw

aren

ess

of

hidd

en/n

ovel

piz

za

ingr

edie

nts

89. O

nwez

en, v

an

den

Putt

elaa

r, Ve

rain

, and

Ve

ldka

mp

(201

9)

The

Net

herl

ands

St

udy

1:

2461

St

udy

2:

2771

St

udy

3:

1001

Stud

y 1:

Ex

peri

men

t St

udy

2:

Expe

rim

ent

Stud

y 3:

Ex

peri

men

t

Inse

cts,

sea

wee

d,

cultu

red

mea

t, pu

lses

Stud

y 1:

Sp

ecifi

c pr

oduc

t par

ticip

ants

w

ere

aske

d qu

estio

ns a

bout

(fi

sh, s

eaw

eed,

pul

ses,

in

sect

s, o

r cu

lture

d m

eat)

, fo

od c

hoic

e m

otiv

es, p

ositi

ve

Stud

y 1:

Pe

rcei

ved

inno

vativ

enes

s of

pr

oduc

t, in

tent

ion

to e

at

prod

uct,

inte

ntio

n to

buy

pr

oduc

t St

udy

2:

Stud

y 1:

In

sect

s an

d se

awee

d (c

ompa

red

to p

ulse

s an

d fis

h) w

ere

cons

ider

ed th

e m

ost i

nnov

ativ

e pr

oduc

t ca

tego

ries

, whe

reas

cul

ture

d

Stud

y 1:

Po

sitiv

e an

d ne

gativ

e em

otio

nal r

espo

nses

to

prod

uct

Stud

y 2:

Po

sitiv

e an

d ne

gativ

e

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

50

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

and

nega

tive

emot

iona

l re

spon

ses

to p

rodu

ct, d

isgu

st

tow

ards

pro

duct

, att

itude

, in

junc

tive

norm

, int

entio

n an

d pe

rcei

ved

beha

viou

ral

cont

rol r

egar

ding

the

buyi

ng

of th

e pr

oduc

t, am

biva

lenc

e to

war

ds b

uyin

g th

e pr

oduc

t St

udy

2:

Spec

ific

prod

uct p

artic

ipan

ts

wer

e as

ked

ques

tions

abo

ut

(fre

sh in

sect

s, d

ried

inse

cts,

fr

ied

inse

cts,

pro

cess

ed

inse

cts,

fres

h in

sect

s as

feed

, pr

oces

sed

inse

cts

as fe

ed, o

r m

eat b

urge

rs),

food

cho

ice

mot

ives

, pos

itive

and

ne

gativ

e em

otio

nal r

espo

nses

to

pro

duct

, dis

gust

tow

ards

pr

oduc

t, at

titud

e, in

junc

tive

norm

, int

entio

n an

d pe

rcei

ved

beha

viou

ral

cont

rol r

egar

ding

the

buyi

ng

of th

e pr

oduc

t, am

biva

lenc

e to

war

ds b

uyin

g th

e pr

oduc

t, co

ncer

n fo

r an

imal

wel

fare

St

udy

3:

Spec

ific

prod

uct p

artic

ipan

ts

wer

e as

ked

ques

tions

abo

ut

(ins

ect-b

ased

bur

ger,

burg

er

mad

e fr

om c

hick

en th

at w

as

fed

inse

cts

or c

hick

en

burg

er),

type

of m

essa

ge

give

n to

par

ticip

ants

(c

ogni

tive

vs. a

ffect

ive)

, typ

e of

mes

sage

con

tent

(he

alth

, en

viro

nmen

t, or

bot

h), f

ood

choi

ce m

otiv

es, p

ositi

ve a

nd

nega

tive

emot

iona

l res

pons

es

to p

rodu

ct, d

isgu

st to

war

ds

prod

uct,

attit

ude,

inju

nctiv

e no

rm, i

nten

tion

and

perc

eive

d be

havi

oura

l co

ntro

l reg

ardi

ng th

e bu

ying

of

the

prod

uct,

ambi

vale

nce

tow

ards

buy

ing

the

prod

uct,

pers

onal

nor

ms

rega

rdin

g on

e’s

heal

th/t

he

envi

ronm

ent

Perc

eive

d in

nova

tiven

ess

of

prod

uct,

inte

ntio

n to

eat

pr

oduc

t, in

tent

ion

to b

uy

prod

uct

Stud

y 3:

In

tent

ion

to e

at (

inse

ct)

prod

uct

mea

t was

con

side

red

less

in

nova

tive

than

inse

cts.

Se

awee

d an

d in

sect

s w

ere

cons

ider

ed e

qual

ly

inno

vativ

e.

Posi

tive

emot

ions

, fol

low

ed

by d

isgu

st, a

re th

e m

ost

impo

rtan

t pre

dict

ors

of

prod

uct a

ccep

tanc

e at

the

cate

gory

leve

l. A

dditi

onal

ly,

ambi

vale

nce

had

sign

ifica

nt

adde

d va

lue

on th

e pr

oduc

t- sp

ecifi

c le

vel.

Affe

ctiv

e fa

ctor

s ha

ve a

si

gnifi

cant

add

ed v

alue

for

pred

ictin

g ac

cept

ance

of

inse

cts

and

seaw

eed,

but

not

fo

r pu

lses

and

fish

. Th

e in

fluen

ce o

f am

biva

lenc

e an

d di

sgus

t to

war

ds in

sect

s on

the

acce

ptan

ce o

f thi

s pr

oduc

t ca

tego

ry s

eem

s to

at l

east

pa

rtia

lly b

e ac

coun

ted

for b

y pe

rcei

ved

inno

vativ

enes

s of

in

sect

s.

Stud

y 2:

Th

e af

fect

ive

vari

able

s ha

d ad

ded

pred

ictiv

e va

lue

(for

pr

oduc

t acc

epta

nce)

rel

ativ

e to

the

Theo

ry o

f Pla

nned

Be

havi

our-

vari

able

s an

d fo

od c

hoic

e m

otiv

es.

Affe

ctiv

e va

riab

les

also

ap

pear

to h

ave

mor

e in

fluen

ce o

n th

e ac

cept

ance

of

mor

e in

sect

-bas

ed

(com

pare

d to

less

inse

ct-

base

d or

mor

e tr

aditi

onal

) pr

oduc

ts, s

ugge

stin

g th

at

emot

iona

l res

pons

es m

ay b

e es

peci

ally

rel

evan

t for

re

spon

ses

to m

ore

inno

vativ

e pr

otei

n pr

oduc

ts.

Stud

y 3:

A

ffect

ive

fact

ors

agai

n ha

d ad

ded

valu

e (r

elat

ive

to fo

od

choi

ce m

otiv

es a

nd th

e Th

eory

of P

lann

ed

Beha

viou

r-va

riab

les)

in

pred

ictin

g in

tent

ion

to e

at

inse

cts,

esp

ecia

lly fo

r m

ore

nove

l ins

ect-b

ased

pro

duct

s.

Usi

ng c

ogni

tive

(vs.

emot

iona

l res

pons

es to

pr

oduc

t St

udy

3:

Posi

tive

and

nega

tive

emot

iona

l res

pons

es to

pr

oduc

t, pe

rson

al n

orm

s re

gard

ing

one’

s he

alth

/the

en

viro

nmen

t, ty

pe o

f m

essa

ge g

iven

to p

artic

ipan

ts

(cog

nitiv

e vs

. affe

ctiv

e)

(con

tinue

d on

nex

t pag

e)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

51

(con

tinue

d)

Aut

hors

(ye

ar)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Type

of s

tudy

Pr

otei

n so

urce

ca

tego

ry

Inde

pend

ent/

expl

orat

ory

vari

able

s D

epen

dent

/pre

dict

ed

vari

able

s O

utco

mes

M

ost i

mpo

rtan

t fac

tor(

s)

influ

enci

ng c

onsu

mer

ac

cept

ance

/res

pons

es

Size

affe

ctiv

e) fr

amin

g of

m

essa

ges

did

not i

nflue

nce

cons

umer

acc

epta

nce.

H

owev

er, p

artic

ipan

ts w

ith

wea

k (v

s. s

tron

g) p

erso

nal

heal

th o

r en

viro

nmen

tal

norm

s w

ere

mor

e w

illin

g to

ea

t bur

gers

whe

n th

ese

burg

ers

wer

e ac

com

pani

ed

by a

n af

fect

ive

(vs.

co

gniti

ve)

mes

sage

. 90

. Sla

de (

2018

) Ca

nada

53

3 O

nlin

e su

rvey

Cu

lture

d m

eat,

plan

t-bas

ed m

eat

Purc

hase

freq

uenc

y of

mea

t, bu

rger

s and

mea

t sub

stitu

tes,

im

port

ance

of p

rice

, tas

te,

heal

thin

ess,

soc

ial i

mpa

ct,

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

and

an

imal

wel

fare

in p

urch

ase

deci

sion

, sup

port

for

gene

tical

ly m

odifi

ed,

orga

nic,

loca

l or

proc

esse

d fo

od, a

ttitu

des

(e.g

., to

war

d fa

rmin

g, o

ther

food

te

chno

logi

es),

vege

tari

anis

m,

acqu

aint

ance

with

a

vege

tari

an, a

ge, e

duca

tion

leve

l, in

com

e, g

ende

r

Will

ingn

ess

to p

urch

ase

plan

t-bas

ed a

nd c

ultu

red

mea

t bur

gers

Will

ingn

ess

to p

urch

ase

plan

t-bas

ed o

r cul

ture

d m

eat

burg

ers

is r

elat

ed to

age

, ge

nder

, vie

ws

of o

ther

food

te

chno

logi

es a

nd a

ttitu

des

tow

ards

the

envi

ronm

ent

and

agri

cultu

re. A

lthou

gh

part

icip

ants

wer

e in

form

ed

that

all

burg

ers

tast

ed th

e sa

me,

65

perc

ent w

ould

pu

rcha

se th

e be

ef b

urge

r, 21

pe

rcen

t wou

ld p

urch

ase

the

plan

t-bas

ed b

urge

r, 1

1 pe

rcen

t the

cul

ture

d m

eat

burg

er, a

nd 4

per

cent

pu

rcha

se n

othi

ng.

Pref

eren

ces

for

plan

t-bas

ed

and

cultu

red

mea

t bur

gers

ar

e hi

ghly

cor

rela

ted.

Age

, gen

der,

view

s of

oth

er

food

tech

nolo

gies

, att

itude

s to

war

ds th

e en

viro

nmen

t and

ag

ricu

lture

91. T

ucke

r (2

014)

N

ew Z

eala

nd

69

Focu

s G

roup

s Cu

lture

d m

eat a

nd

inse

cts

Stat

ed re

ason

s for

will

ingn

ess

to c

onsu

me

(spe

cific

type

s of)

ge

netic

ally

mod

ified

pr

oduc

e, in

vitr

o m

eat,

nose

- to

-tail

prod

ucts

, and

pro

duct

s fa

lling

und

er th

e ex

tend

liv

ing

prot

ein

rang

e (e

.g.,

inse

cts,

fera

l cat

s, a

nd

rabb

its)

Will

ingn

ess

to c

onsu

me

(spe

cific

type

s of

) gen

etic

ally

m

odifi

ed p

rodu

ce, i

n vi

tro

mea

t, no

se-to

-tail

prod

ucts

, an

d pr

oduc

ts fa

lling

und

er

the

exte

nd li

ving

pro

tein

ra

nge

(e.g

., in

sect

s, fe

ral c

ats,

an

d ra

bbits

)

Ecol

ogic

al r

easo

ns fo

r co

nsid

erin

g th

e co

nsum

ptio

n of

mea

t alte

rnat

ives

or

alte

rnat

ive

prot

ein

sour

ces i

s ac

know

ledg

ed a

nd

cons

ider

ed im

port

ant b

y m

ost p

artic

ipan

ts. H

owev

er,

appl

ying

thes

e vi

ews

in

prac

tice

is h

inde

red

by

recu

rren

t sen

sory

obj

ectio

ns

to th

e co

nsum

ptio

n of

pr

otei

n-ba

sed

food

s or

re

duct

ion

of m

eat

cons

umpt

ion.

Ecol

ogic

al r

easo

ns fo

r co

nsid

erin

g al

tern

ativ

e pr

otei

n so

urce

s or

mea

t al

tern

ativ

es, s

enso

ry

obje

ctio

ns to

pro

tein

-bas

ed

food

s or

mea

t red

uctio

n

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

52

Authors (year) Country Sample size Type of study Alternative protein Most important factor(s) influencing consumer acceptance

Pulses 1. Allegra et al. (2015) Italy 197 Questionnaire

survey Legumes Age and specific motivation for legume consumption

(memory vs. impulse) 2. Figueira et al. (2019) Australia 505 Online survey Legumes – 3. Lea et al. (2005) Australia 50 Focus group

interviews Legumes/pulses, nuts (among other plant foods)

Health-related benefits of plant foods, preparation time of plant foods, knowledge and skills concerning (preparation of) plant foods

4. Lemken et al. (2017) Germany 1020 Online experiment Legumes/pulses Mix of health and environmental claims associated with product

5. Melendrez-Ruiz et al. (2019)

France 120 Experiment Pulses Scenario employed during dish-composition task

6. Vainio et al. (2016) Finland 1048 Survey Beans and soy Adherence to a specific diet, motives relating to environmental concerns, health and weight control

7. Warne et al. (2019) United States & Canada 138 Survey/ experiment

Pulses (lentils) age, lentil consumption frequency, provision of information on the environmental, economic and nutritional aspects of lentil production

Algae 8. Birch et al. (2019b) Australia 521 Online survey Algae (seaweed) Food neophobia 9. Birch et al. (2019a) Australia 521 Online survey Algae (seaweed) Food neophobia 10. Brayden et al.

(2018) United States 2155 Survey Seaweed Source, certification, origin and price of seafood products

11. Lucas et al. (2019) France Survey: 123 Survey: 495

(Online) survey Seaweed Location of seaweed consumption/purchase

12. Moons et al. (2018) Belgium 1325 Survey Algae Health consciousness, willingness to compromise on taste 13. Weinrich and

Elshiewy (2019) Germany, The Netherlands, & France

940 (315 in Germany, 308 in NL, 315 in France)

Experiment Meat substitutes based on micro-algae

Meat consumption habit/frequency, whether or not the meat substitute was organic/local, degree to which meat substitute was less environmentally impactful compared to pork/beef, attitudes toward meat and meat substitutes

Insects 14. Adamek et al.

(2018) Czech Republic 96 Survey Insects Beliefs about insects as food (e.g., in terms of healthiness)

15. Ali (2016) United States 116 Online survey Insects Visibility of insects within pictured food products 16. Baker et al. (2016) United States Study 1: 221

Study 2: 200 Study 3: 201

Experiments Insects Product image and description, consumption setting

17. Balzan et al. (2016) Italy 32 Focus group interviews

Insects Preparation form of insect-based food, experience with preparing insect-based food

18. La Barbera et al. (2019)

Not specified (most likely a west-European country, perhaps Italy)

280 Online survey Insects Food neophobia is a better predictor (compared to disgust sensitivity) of intention to try processed insects and animals fed with insects. However, disgust sensitivity appears to be a better predictor of intention to introduce raw insects into own daily diet.

19. Barton et al. (2020) (Atlantic) Canada Survey: 107 Experiment: 102

Survey/ experiment

Insects Participants’ tasting of protein powders (some containing cricket powder)

20. Barsics et al. (2017) Belgium 135 Experiment Insects Presence (versus absence) of label indicating insect ingredient in bread, information session attendance,

21. Berger et al. (2018) Germany Study 1: 80 Study 2: 160

Experiments Insects Price of mealworm burger/truffle, expected quality of mealworm burger/truffle

22. Berger et al. (2019) Study 1: Switzerland Study 2: Germany

Study 1: 120 Study 2: 90

Experiments Studies 1 & 2: Insects

Study 1: Participants’ exposure to positive, negative, or neutral peer ratings of a nutrition bar (secretly containing mealworm) Study 2: Participants’ exposure to a high, middle, or low rating of a mealworm burger by an expert, insect-based disgust sensitivity

23. Caparros Megido et al. (2016)

Belgium 79 Experiment Insects Gender, previous experience with insect consumption

24. Cavallo and Materia (2018)

Italy 135 Online experiment Insects Visibility of insect shape, cacao flavour, neophobia, sustainability certification, education level

25. Cicatiello et al. (2016)

Italy 201 Survey Insects Familiarity with foreign food, education level, gender, experience with eating insect food

26. de-Magistris et al. (2015)

The Netherlands 155 Choice experiment Insects Product nutritional claim and logo, visibility of insect in food product.

27. Fisher & Steenbekkers (2018)

The Netherlands 140 Quasi- experimental study

Insects Degree to which insect products are marketed in one’s own culture, disgust and affective attitudes towards eating insects

28. Gallen et al. (2019) France 37 Experiment Insects Degree to which insect product had been processed, type of insect flavouring

29. Gere et al. (2017) Hungary 400 Online survey Insects Desire for new food alternatives, intention to reduce meat intake, food neophobia

30. Hartmann et al. (2015)

Germany and China 502 (Germany), 443 (China)

Survey Insects Ethnicity, preparation of edible insect (processed or unprocessed), food neophobia, perceived social acceptance, taste expectations, previous insect consumption

31. Hartmann and Siegrist (2016)

Switzerland 104 Experiment Insects Cookie content (cricket flour vs. corn flour)

(continued on next page)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

53

(continued )

Authors (year) Country Sample size Type of study Alternative protein Most important factor(s) influencing consumer acceptance

32. House (2016) The Netherlands 33 Semi-structured interviews

Insects Price, taste and availability of insect-based food, degree of fit between insect food and current eating patterns

33. Jensen and Lieberoth (2019)

Denmark 189 survey and sensory test

Insects Perceived social norm regarding insect consumption

34. Kornher et al. (2019)

Germany 311 Experiment Insects Food neophobia, attention payed to CO2 emissions of food production importance attached to health statements on food products frequency of weekly meat consumption

35. La Barbera et al. (2018)

Italy 118 Experiment Insects Disgust experienced towards insect-eating

36. Laureati et al. (2016)

Italy 341 (68 in experiment) Survey, experiment

Insects Age, gender, cultural background, food neophobia

37. Lammers et al. (2019)

Germany 516 Online survey Insects Food neophobia, food disgust, previous insect consumption

38. Lensvelt and Steenbekkers (2014)

The Netherlands and Australia

Survey: 209 Experiment: 133

Online survey, experiment

Insects Price, quality, convenience, and naturalness of insect food, environmental benefits of insect-eating, trying insect food

39. Lombardi et al. (2019)

Italy 200 Experiment Insects Food neophobia, beliefs and attitudes about insects, specific information about insects provided to participants

40. Menozzi et al. (2017)

Italy 231 Survey Insects Attitudes and perceived behavioural control, intention to eat insects, belief that eating insects benefits health and environment, disgust towards (eating) insects, lack of availability of insect food, incompatibility of insect products with local food culture

41. Myers and Pettigrew (2018)

Australia 77 Interviews Insects Knowledge/awareness of environmental and nutritional advantages of entomophagy, perceived cultural norms regarding entomophagy

42. Orkusz et al. (2020) Poland Survey: 464 Sensory test: 402

Survey, sensory test

Insects Food neophobia

43. Orsi et al. (2019) Germany 393 Online survey Insects Food neophobia, disgust towards insects, visibility of insects in food product

44. Palmieri et al. (2019)

Italy 456 Online survey Insects Concern for health-related and environmental effects of food, food neophobia/neophilia, food technophobia, previous insect-based food consumption, motives for eating insects, perception of health-related risks of insect consumption

45. Piha et al. (2018) Finland, Sweden, Germany, Czech

887 Online survey Insects Subjective and objective knowledge of product, product- related experience, food neophobia, general attitudes toward product

46. Poortvliet et al. (2019)

The Netherlands 130 Experiment Insects Product type, food choice motives

47. Powell et al. (2019) United Kingdom 510 Experiment Insects Trait disgust propensity, participants’ evaluation of product attributes

48. Rumpold and Langen (2019)

Germany 149 Survey, sensory test

Insects Provision to participants of a random piece of information about edible insects

49. Schaufele et al. (2019)

Germany 342 Experiment Insects Perceived social acceptability of eating insects

50. Schlup and Brunner (2018)

Switzerland 379 Survey Insects Convenience orientation, discernibility of insects in food, expected food healthiness, need for familiarity, food neophobia, food technology neophobia, perceived health benefits of meat, gender and prior consumption of insects

51. Sogari (2015) Italy 46 Experiment Insects Curiosity about eating insects, perceived environmental benefits of eating insects

52. Sogari et al. (2016) Italy 109 Focus group Insects Curiosity about eating insects, disgust towards insects, opinions of family and friends

53. Sogari et al. (2018) Italy 88 Experiment Insects Gender, tasting of insect products (jelly based on cricket flour or jelly with whole, visible cricket)

54. Sogari, Bogueva & Marinova (2019)

Australia survey 1: 227 survey 2: 328

Online surveys Insects Self-reported potential reasons for including edible insects and insect-based products into one’s diet, opinions on edible insects as an alternative food source, meat consumption frequency, gender

55. Sogari, Menozzi, and Mora (2019)

Italy 88 Experiment Insects Gender, food neophobia, initial exposure to edible insect products, willingness to try the edible insects

56. Tan et al. (2015) Thailand and the Netherlands

54 Focus groups Insects Cultural exposure to insects as food, experiences with insects as food

57. Tan, Fischer, van Trijp, & Stieger (2016)

The Netherlands 103 Experiment Insects Perceived food appropriateness

58. Tan, Tibboel, & Stieger (2017)

The Netherlands 100 Experiment Insects Perceived food appropriateness

59. Tan, van den Berg, & Stieger (2016)

The Netherlands 976 Experiment Insects Perceived appropriateness of mealworms as food, specific product combination

60. Tan, Verbaan, & Stieger (2017)

The Netherlands 214 Experiment Insects Perceived appropriateness of food preparation

(continued on next page)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

54

(continued )

Authors (year) Country Sample size Type of study Alternative protein Most important factor(s) influencing consumer acceptance

61. Vanhonacker et al. (2013)

Belgium 221 Survey Insects, soy Awareness of and concern about environmental impact of animal production and meat consumption, enjoyment and frequency of meat consumption

62. Van Thielen et al. (2019)

Belgium 388 Telephone survey Insects Not applicable.

63. Verbeke (2015) Belgium 368 Online survey Insects Food neophobia, intention to reduce fresh meat consumption, interest in environmental impact of food choices

64. Verneau et al. (2016)

Denmark and Italy 282 Experiment Insects Provision of information about individual vs. societal benefits of eating insects, implicit negative attitudes towards insect-eating

65. Wilkinson et al. (2018)

Australia 820 Online survey Insects Taste, appearance, safety and quality of edible insects, previous insect consumption

66. Woolf et al. (2019) United States 397 Online survey Insects Previous ICF consumption Cultured meat 67. Bekker et al. (2017) The Netherlands Study 1: 190

Study 2: 194 Study 3: 192

Experiments Cultured meat Provision of positive versus negative information about cultured meat

68. Bryant et al. (2019) Strategies …

United States 1185 Experiment Cultured meat Promotional messages/arguments concerning clean meat (specifically the ‘conventional meat is unnatural’- message)

69. Bryant and Dillard (2019)

United States 480 Experiment Cultured meat Experimental framing of cultured meat.

70. Mancini and Antonioli (2019)

Italy 525 Online survey Cultured meat Prior familiarity with cultured meat, information provided to participants concerning cultured meat

71. Siegrist and Sütterlin (2017)

Switzerland Studies 1a, 1b, and 2: 244 Study 3: 253

Experiments Cultured meat Information about e-numbers, information about health effects, perceived naturalness of traditional or in-vitro meat

72. Siegrist et al. (2018)

Switzerland Study 1: 204 Study 2: 298

Experiments Cultured meat Perceived naturalness of cultured or conventional meat

73. Verbeke et al. (2015)

Belgium, Portugal, United Kingdom

179 Focus groups (on- and offline)

Cultured meat –

74. Wilks et al. (2019) United States 1193 Online survey Cultured meat Age, gender, political conservatism, distrust in science, conspiratorial ideation, food neophobia, disgust sensitivity

(Partially) plant-based meat alternatives 75. Elzerman et al.

(2011) The Netherlands 93 Experiment Meat substitutes Perceived appropriateness of meat substitute-meal

combination 76. Hoek et al. (2011) The Netherlands and

United Kingdom 553 Survey Meat substitutes;

pulses (mainly soy), cereal, or fungi.

not recommend to focus on communication of ethical arguments, but to significantly improve the sensory quality and resemblance to meat.

77. Hoek et al. (2013) The Netherlands 89 Experiment Meat substitutes Type of product eaten (chicken vs. meat substitute), prior frequency of meat substitute consumption, prior chicken consumption

78. Gravely and Fraser (2018)

Canada 7 supermarkets, 24 consumers, 5 key informants

Survey Alternative, plant- based protein sources

Supermarkets’ shelf space allotments for plant-based protein products (meters of shelf space), supermarkets’ promotion of plant-based protein products (presence vs. absence of special sales or descriptive signs), plant-based product shelf location in supermarket, consumers’ shopping strategies

79. Schosler et al. (2014)

The Netherlands 1083 Online survey Meat substitutes/ plant-based protein products

Internalised food-related motivation, intrinsic enjoyment of eating and cooking

80. Siegrist and Hartmann (2019)

Switzerland 5586 Online survey Meat substitutes (not only plant-based)

Ratings of the environmental impact of different foods, health consciousness, food disgust sensitivity, gender, age, household income, education level

81. Weinrich (2018) Germany, France & The Netherlands

43 Focus groups Meat substitutes (not only plant-based)

Not applicable.

82. Apostolidis & McLeay (2016)

UK 247 Choice experiment Meat substitutes (not only plant-based)

The type of mince, fat content, country of origin and price are major factors that influence choice

Multiple meat alternatives 83. Bryant et al. (2019)

A survey … United States, India and China

3030 Online survey Cultured meat and plant-based meat

Participants’ diet (e.g., vegan), frequency of meat consumption, food neophobia, political views, income, familiarity with clean (cultured) meat, meat attachment, attitudes toward clean meat (e.g., in terms of healthiness, ethics and appeal).

84. de Boer et al. (2013)

The Netherlands 1083 Survey Legumes, seaweed, hybrid meat

Taste-oriented food choice motives, reflection-oriented food choice motives, meat and fish consumption habits

85. Circus and Robinson (2019)

United Kingdom 139 interviews and an online survey

Cultured meat, insects, plant-based meat substitutes

attachment to conventional meat, and highlighted the complexity of interactions between personal preference and more global perspectives.

86. Gomez-Luciano et al. (2019)

Spain and the Dominican Republic

401 Online and face-to- face survey

Cultured meat, insects Gender, education level, age

87. Grasso et al. (2019) Uk, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Finland

1825 Online survey Insects, cultured meat, algae

Food fussiness, food choice motives, green eating behaviour

(continued on next page)

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

55

(continued )

Authors (year) Country Sample size Type of study Alternative protein Most important factor(s) influencing consumer acceptance

88. Iannuzzi et al. (2019)

Italy 587 Online survey Insects, algae Participants’ awareness of hidden/novel pizza ingredients

89. Onwezen, van den Puttelaar, et al. (2019)

The Netherlands Study 1: 2461 Study 2: 2771 Study 3: 1001

Experiments Insects, seaweed, cultured meat, pulses

Study 1–3: Positive and negative emotional responses to product Study 3: Personal norms regarding one’s health/the environment, type of message given to participants (cognitive vs. affective)

90. Slade (2018) Canada 533 Online survey Cultured meat, plant- based meat

Age, gender, views of other food technologies, attitudes towards the environment and agriculture

91. Tucker (2014) New Zealand 69 Focus Groups Cultured meat and insects

Ecological reasons for considering alternative protein sources or meat alternatives, sensory objections to protein-based foods or meat reduction

Ethical statement

The current manuscript involves a systematic review. We did not collect data by ourselves and therefore our research did not involve human participants, human material, or human data in any direct way. Subsequently a statement on ethics approval is not required.

References

de-Magistris, T., Pascucci, S., & Mitsopoulos, D. (2015). Paying to see a bug on my food: How regulations and information can hamper radical innovations in the European Union. British Food Journal, 117(6), 1777–1792.

Adamek, M., Adamkova, A., Mlcek, J., Borkovcova, M., & Bednarova, M. (2018). Acceptability and sensory evaluation of energy bars and protein bars enriched with edible insect. Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences, 12(1), 431–437.

Adriaanse, M. A., Vinkers, C. D., De Ridder, D. T., Hox, J. J., & De Wit, J. B. (2011). Do implementation intentions help to eat a healthy diet?: A systematic review and meta- analysis of the empirical evidence. Appetite, 56(1), 183–193.

Aiking, H. (2011). Future protein supply. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(2–3), 112–120.

Aiking, H. (2014). Protein production: Planet, profit, plus people? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(suppl_1), 483S–489S.

Aiking, H., & de Boer, J. (2018). Protein and sustainability–the potential of insects. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 1–6.

Alexander, P., Brown, C., Dias, C., Moran, D., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2019). Sustainable proteins production. In C. M. Galanakis (Ed.), Proteins: Sustainable source, processing and Applications (pp. 1–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- 816695-6.00001-5.

Ali, A. E. (2016). A semiotic approach to entomophagy: The language, localization, and reimagining of insects as foodstuffs in America. Perspectives on Global Development & Technology, 15(4), 391–405.

Allegra, V., Muratore, F., & Zarba, A. S. (2015). Can shelf life be considered as a mean to promote vegetable products of sustainable local varieties? Italian Journal of Food Science, 103–106.

Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A., Lahteenmaki, L., et al. (2008). Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite, 50(2–3), 443–454.

Baker, M. A., Shin, J. T., & Kim, Y. W. (2016). An exploration and investigation of edible insect consumption: The impacts of image and description on risk perceptions and purchase intent. Psychology and Marketing, 33(2), 94–112.

Balzan, S., Fasolato, L., Maniero, S., & Novelli, E. (2016). Edible insects and young adults in a north-east Italian city: An exploratory study. British Food Journal, 118(2), 318–326.

Barsics, F., Caparros Megido, R., Brostaux, Y., Barsics, C., Blecker, C., Haubruge, E., et al. (2017). Could new information influence attitudes to foods supplemented with edible insects? British Food Journal, 119(9), 2027–2039.

Barton, A., Richardson, C. D., & McSweeney, M. B. (2020). Consumer attitudes toward entomophagy before and after evaluating cricket (Acheta domesticus)-based protein powders. Journal of Food Science, 85(3), 781–788.

Beane, T. P., & Ennis, D. M. (1987). Market segmentation: A review”. European Journal of Marketing, 21(5), 20–42.

Bekker, G. A., Fischer, A. R., Tobi, H., & van Trijp, H. C. (2017). Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite, 108, 245–254.

Berger, S., Bartsch, C., Schmidt, C., Christandl, F., & Wyss, A. M. (2018). When utilitarian claims backfire: Advertising content and the uptake of insects as food. Frontiers in Nutrition, 5, 88.

Berger, S., Christandl, F., Bitterlin, D., & Wyss, A. M. (2019). The social insectivore: Peer and expert influence affect consumer evaluations of insects as food. Appetite, 141, 104338.

Bianchi, F., Garnett, E., Dorsel, C., Aveyard, P., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: A systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(9), e384–e397.

Birch, D., Skallerud, K., & Paul, N. (2019a). Who eats seaweed?: An Australian perspective. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 31(4), 329–351.

Birch, D., Skallerud, K., & Paul, N. A. (2019b). Who are the future seaweed consumers in a Western society?: Insights from Australia. British Food Journal, 121(2), 603–615.

de Boer, J., & Aiking, H. (2019). Strategies towards healthy and sustainable protein consumption: A transition framework at the levels of diets, dishes, and dish ingredients. Food Quality and Preference, 73, 171–181.

de Boer, J., Schosler, H., & Aiking, H. (2014). “Meatless days” or “less but better”?: Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite, 76, 120–128.

de Boer, J., Schosler, H., & Boersema, J. J. (2013). Motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or “hybrid” meat. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 32–35.

Bogers, R. P., Brug, J., van Assema, P., & Dagnelie, P. C. (2004). Explaining fruit and vegetable consumption: The Theory of Planned Behaviour and misconception of personal intake levels. Appetite, 42(2), 157–166.

Brayden, W. C., Noblet, C. L., Evans, K. S., & Rickard, L. (2018). Consumer preferences for seafood attributes of wild-harvested and farm-raised products. Aquaculture Economics and Management, 22(3), 362–382.

Bryant, C., & Barnett, J. (2018). Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Science, 143, 8–17.

Bryant, C., & Dillard, C. (2019). The impact of framing on acceptance of cultured meat. Frontiers in Nutrition, 6, 103.

Cavallo, C., & Materia, V. C. (2018). Insects or not insects?: Dilemmas or attraction for young generations: A case in Italy. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 9 (3), 226–239.

Cicatiello, C., De Rosa, B., Franco, S., & Lacetera, N. (2016). Consumer approach to insects as food: Barriers and potential for consumption in Italy. British Food Journal, 118(9), 2271–2286.

Circus, V. E., & Robinson, R. (2019). Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachment. British Food Journal, 121, 533–545.

Curtain, F., & Grafenauer, S. (2019). Plant-based meat substitutes in the flexitarian age: An audit of products on supermarket shelves. Nutrients, 11(11), 2603.

Dagevos, H. (2021). A literature review of consumer research on edible insects: Recent evidence and new vistas from 2019 studies. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 7(1) (in press).

Dagevos, H., & Reinders, M. J. (2018). Flexitarianism and social marketing: Reflections on eating meat in moderation. In D. Bogueva, D. Marinova, & T. Raphaely (Eds.), Handbook of research on social marketing and its influence on animal Origin food product consumption (pp. 105–120). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Dagevos, H., & Voordouw, J. (2013). Sustainability and meat consumption: Is reduction realistic? Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 9(2), 60–69.

Ekmekcioglu, C., Wallner, P., Kundi, M., Weisz, U., Haas, W., & Hutter, H. P. (2018). Red meat, diseases, and healthy alternatives: A critical review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 58(2), 247–261.

Elzerman, J. E., Hoek, A. C., Van Boekel, M. A., & Luning, P. A. (2011). Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context. Food Quality and Preference, 22(3), 233–240.

Figueira, N., Curtain, F., Beck, E., & Grafenauer, S. (2019). Consumer understanding and culinary use of legumes in Australia. Nutrients, 11(7), 1575.

Fischer, A. R., & Steenbekkers, L. B. (2018). All insects are equal, but some insects are more equal than others. British Food Journal.

Florkowski, W. J., & Park, T. A. (2001). Promotional programmes and consumer purchasing decisions: pecan demand models. Applied Economics, 33(6), 763–770.

Gallen, C., Pantin-Sohier, G., & Peyrat-Guillard, D. (2019). Cognitive acceptance mechanisms of discontinuous food innovations: The case of insects in France. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 34(1), 48–73.

Gere, A., Szekely, G., Kovacs, S., Kokai, Z., & Sipos, L. (2017). Readiness to adopt insects in Hungary: A case study. Food Quality and Preference, 59, 81–86.

Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., et al. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361, 243.

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

56

Gomez-Luciano, C. A., Vriesekoop, F., & Urbano, B. (2019). Towards food security of alternative dietary proteins: A comparison between Spain and the Dominican Republic. Amfiteatru Economic, 21(51), 393–407.

Grasso, A. C., Hung, Y., Olthof, M. R., Verbeke, W., & Brouwer, I. A. (2019). Older consumers’ readiness to accept alternative, more sustainable protein sources in the European Union. Nutrients, 11(8), 1904.

Gravely, E., & Fraser, E. (2018). Transitions on the shopping floor: Investigating the role of Canadian supermarkets in alternative protein consumption. Appetite, 130, 146–156.

Graça, J., Godinho, C. A., & Truninger, M. (2019). Reducing meat consumption and following plant-based diets: Current evidence and future directions to inform integrated transitions. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 91, 380–390.

Guthrie, J., Mancino, L., & Lin, C. T. J. (2015). Nudging consumers toward better food choices: Policy approaches to changing food consumption behaviors. Psychology and Marketing, 32(5), 501–511.

Harguess, J. M., Crespo, N. C., & Hong, M. Y. (2020). Strategies to reduce meat consumption: A systematic literature review of experimental studies. Appetite, 144, 104478.

Hartmann, C., Shi, J., Giusto, A., & Siegrist, M. (2015). The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Quality and Preference, 44, 148–156.

Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Becoming an insectivore: Results of an experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 51, 118–122.

Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2017). Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 61, 11–25.

Higgs, S. (2015). Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite, 86, 38–44.

Hoek, A. C., Elzerman, J. E., Hageman, R., Kok, F. J., Luning, P. A., & de Graaf, C. (2013). Are meat substitutes liked better over time?: A repeated in-home use test with meat substitutes or meat in meals. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 253–263.

Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., & De Graaf, C. (2011). Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person-and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite, 56(3), 662–673.

House, J. (2016). Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in The Netherlands: Academic and commercial implications. Appetite, 107, 47–58.

Iannuzzi, E., Sisto, R., & Nigro, C. (2019). The willingness to consume insect-based food: An empirical research on Italian consumers. Agricultural Economics, 65(10), 454–462.

Jensen, N. H., & Lieberoth, A. (2019). We will eat disgusting foods together–Evidence of the normative basis of Western entomophagy-disgust from an insect tasting. Food Quality and Preference, 72, 109–115.

Kornher, L., Schellhorn, M., & Vetter, S. (2019). Disgusting or innovative-consumer willingness to pay for insect based burger patties in Germany. Sustainability, 11(7), 1878.

La Barbera, F., Verneau, F., Amato, M., & Grunert, K. (2018). Understanding Westerners’ disgust for the eating of insects: The role of food neophobia and implicit associations. Food Quality and Preference, 64, 120–125.

La Barbera, F., Verneau, F., & Coppola, A. (2019). Entomophagy: A contribution to the understanding of consumer intention. Calitatea, 20(S2), 329–334.

Lammers, P., Ullmann, L. M., & Fiebelkorn, F. (2019). Acceptance of insects as food in Germany: Is it about sensation seeking, sustainability consciousness, or food disgust? Food Quality and Preference, 77, 78–88.

Laureati, M., Proserpio, C., Jucker, C., & Savoldelli, S. (2016). New sustainable protein sources: Consumers’ willingness to adopt insects as feed and food. Italian Journal of Food Science, 28(4).

Lea, E., Worsley, A., & Crawford, D. (2005). Australian adult consumers’ beliefs about plant foods: A qualitative study. Health Education & Behavior, 32(6), 795–808.

Lemken, D., Knigge, M., Meyerding, S., & Spiller, A. (2017). The value of environmental and health claims on new legume products: A non-hypothetical online auction. Sustainability, 9(8), 1340.

Lensvelt, E. J., & Steenbekkers, L. P. A. (2014). Exploring consumer acceptance of entomophagy: A survey and experiment in Australia and The Netherlands. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 53(5), 543–561.

Lombardi, A., Vecchio, R., Borrello, M., Caracciolo, F., & Cembalo, L. (2019). Willingness to pay for insect-based food: The role of information and carrier. Food Quality and Preference, 72, 177–187.

Lucas, S., Gouin, S., & Lesueur, M. (2019). Seaweed consumption and label preferences in France. Marine Resource Economics, 34(2), 143–162.

Malek, L., Umberger, W. J., & Goddard, E. (2019). Committed vs. uncommitted meat eaters: Understanding willingness to change protein consumption. Appetite, 138, 115–126.

Mancini, M. C., & Antonioli, F. (2019). Exploring consumers’ attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Science, 150, 101–110.

Mancini, S., Moruzzo, R., Riccioli, F., & Paci, G. (2019). European consumers’ readiness to adopt insects as food. A review. Food Research International, 122, 661–678.

Marchiori, D. R., Adriaanse, M. A., & De Ridder, D. T. (2017). Unresolved questions in nudging research: Putting the psychology back in nudging. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(1), Article e12297.

Marinova, D., & Bogueva, D. (2019). Planetary health and reduction in meat consumption. Sustainable Earth, 2, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-019-0010-0

Megido, R. C., Gierts, C., Blecker, C., Brostaux, Y., Haubruge, E., Alabi, T., et al. (2016). Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 237–243.

Melendrez-Ruiz, J., Buatois, Q., Chambaron, S., Monnery-Patris, S., & Arvisenet, G. (2019). French consumers know the benefits of pulses, but do not choose them: An exploratory study combining indirect and direct approaches. Appetite, 141, 104311.

Menozzi, D., Sogari, G., Veneziani, M., Simoni, E., & Mora, C. (2017). Eating novel foods: An application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to predict the consumption of an insect-based product. Food Quality and Preference, 59, 27–34.

Michie, S., Van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1), 42.

Moons, I., Barbarossa, C., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2018). The determinants of the adoption intention of eco-friendly functional food in different market segments. Ecological Economics, 151, 151–161.

Myers, G., & Pettigrew, S. (2018). A qualitative exploration of the factors underlying seniors’ receptiveness to entomophagy. Food Research International, 103, 163–169.

Neff, R. A., Edwards, D., Palmer, A., Ramsing, R., Righter, A., & Wolfson, J. (2018). Reducing meat consumption in the USA: A nationally representative survey of attitudes and behaviours. Public Health Nutrition, 21, 1835–1844.

Ocke, M., Larranaga, N., Grioni, S., Van Den Berg, S. W., Ferrari, P., Salvini, S., & Jenab, M. (2009). Energy intake and sources of energy intake in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 63(S4), S3.

Onwezen, M. (2018). Including context in consumer segmentation: A literature overview shows the what, why, and how. In Methods in consumer research (Vol. 1, pp. 383–400). Woodhead Publishing.

Onwezen, M. C., Antonides, G., & Bartels, J. (2013). The Norm Activation Model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 141–153.

Onwezen, M. C., Reinders, M. J., Verain, M. C. D., & Snoek, H. M. (2019). The development of a single-item food choice questionnaire. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 34–45.

Onwezen, M. C., van den Puttelaar, J., Verain, M. C. D., & Veldkamp, T. (2019). Consumer acceptance of insects as food and feed: The relevance of affective factors. Food Quality and Preference, 77, 51–63.

Onwezen, M. C., & Van der Weele, C. N. (2016). When indifference is ambivalence: Strategic ignorance about meat consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 96–105.

Orkusz, A., Wolanska, W., Harasym, J., Piwowar, A., & Kapelko, M. (2020). Consumers’ attitudes facing entomophagy: Polish case perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2427.

Orsi, L., Voege, L. L., & Stranieri, S. (2019). Eating edible insects as sustainable food?: Exploring the determinants of consumer acceptance in Germany. Food Research International, 125, Article 108573.

O’Rourke, H. P., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2018). Reasons for testing mediation in the absence of an intervention effect: A research imperative in prevention and intervention research. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 79(2), 171–181.

Palmieri, N., Perito, M. A., Macrì, M. C., & Lupi, C. (2019). Exploring consumers’ willingness to eat insects in Italy. British Food Journal, 21(11), 2937–2950.

Pelchat, M. L., & Pliner, P. (1995). “Try it. You’ll like it”: Effects of information on willingness to try novel foods. Appetite, 24(2), 153–165.

Piha, S., Pohjanheimo, T., Lahteenmaki-Uutela, A., Kreckova, Z., & Otterbring, T. (2018). The effects of consumer knowledge on the willingness to buy insect food: An exploratory cross-regional study in Northern and Central Europe. Food Quality and Preference, 70, 1–10.

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992.

Poortvliet, P. M., Van der Pas, L., Mulder, B. C., & Fogliano, V. (2019). Healthy, but disgusting: An investigation into consumers’ willingness to try insect meat. Journal of Economic Entomology, 112(3), 1005–1010.

Powell, P. A., Jones, C. R., & Consedine, N. S. (2019). It’s not queasy being green: The role of disgust in willingness-to-pay for more sustainable product alternatives. Food Quality and Preference, 78, Article 103737.

Roman, S., Sanchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 67, 44–57.

Ronteltap, A., Van Trijp, J. C. M., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. J. (2007). Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite, 49(1), 1–17.

Rothschild, M. L. (1999). Carrots, sticks, and promises: A conceptual framework for the management of public health and social issue behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 24–37.

Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis (pp. 1–7). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments.

Rumpold, B. A., & Langen, N. (2019). Potential of enhancing consumer acceptance of edible insects via information. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 5(1), 45–53.

Sanchez-Sabate, R., & Sabate, J. (2019). Consumer attitudes towards environmental concerns of meat consumption: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(7), 1220.

Sans, P., & Combris, P. (2015). World meat consumption patterns: An overview of the last fifty years (1961–2011). Meat Science, 109, 106–111.

Schaufele, I., Albores, E. B., & Hamm, U. (2019). The role of species for the acceptance of edible insects: Evidence from a consumer survey. British Food Journal, 121(9), 2190–2204.

Schlup, Y., & Brunner, T. (2018). Prospects for insects as food in Switzerland: A tobit regression. Food Quality and Preference, 64, 37–46.

M.C. Onwezen et al.

Appetite 159 (2021) 105058

57

Schosler, H., de Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2014). Fostering more sustainable food choices: Can Self-Determination Theory help? Food Quality and Preference, 35, 59–69.

Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The intention–behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503–518.

Siegrist, M. (2008). Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19(11), 603–608.

Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2019). Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes. Appetite, 132, 196–202.

Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020). Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature Food, 1(6), 343–350.

Siegrist, M., & Sütterlin, B. (2017). Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite, 113, 320–326.

Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B., & Hartmann, C. (2018). Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Science, 139, 213–219.

Slade, P. (2018). If you build it, will they eat it?: Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite, 125, 428–437.

Sogari, G. (2015). Entomophagy and Italian consumers: An exploratory analysis. Progress in Nutrition, 17(4), 311–316.

Sogari, G., Bogueva, D., & Marinova, D. (2019). Australian consumers’ response to insects as food. Agriculture, 9(5), 108.

Sogari, G., Menozzi, D., Hartmann, C., & Mora, C. (2019b). How to measure consumers acceptance towards edible insects? – a scoping review about methodological approaches. In G. Sogari, C. Mora, & D. Menozzi (Eds.), Edible insects in the food sector: Methods, current Applications and Perspectives (pp. 27–44). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Sogari, G., Menozzi, D., & Mora, C. (2016). Exploring young foodies׳ knowledge and attitude regarding entomophagy: A qualitative study in Italy. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 7, 16–19.

Sogari, G., Menozzi, D., & Mora, C. (2018). Sensory-liking expectations and perceptions of processed and unprocessed insect products. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 9, 1012–2018, 4129.

Sogari, G., Menozzi, D., & Mora, C. (2019). The food neophobia scale and young adults’ intention to eat insect products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 43(1), 68–76.

Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B. L., Lassaletta, L., & Jonell, M. (2018). Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature, 562(7728), 519.

Tan, H. S. G., Fischer, A. R., Tinchan, P., Stieger, M., Steenbekkers, L. P. A., & van Trijp, H. C. (2015). Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 42, 78–89.

Tan, H. S. G., Fischer, A. R., van Trijp, H. C., & Stieger, M. (2016). Tasty but nasty?: Exploring the role of sensory-liking and food appropriateness in the willingness to eat unusual novel foods like insects. Food Quality and Preference, 48, 293–302.

Tan, H. S. G., Tibboel, C. J., & Stieger, M. (2017). Why do unusual novel foods like insects lack sensory appeal?: Investigating the underlying sensory perceptions. Food Quality and Preference, 60, 48–58.

Tan, H. S. G., van den Berg, E., & Stieger, M. (2016). The influence of product preparation, familiarity and individual traits on the consumer acceptance of insects as food. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 222–231.

Tan, H. S. G., Verbaan, Y. T., & Stieger, M. (2017). How will better products improve the sensory-liking and willingness to buy insect-based foods? Food Research International, 92, 95–105.

Taufik, D., Verain, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., & Reinders, M. J. (2019). Determinants of real- life behavioural interventions to stimulate more plant-based and less animal-based diets: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 93, 281–303.

Tucker, C. A. (2014). The significance of sensory appeal for reduced meat consumption. Appetite, 81, 168–179.

Tuorila, H., Andersson, A., Martikainen, A., & Salovaara, H. (1998). Effect of product formula, information and consumer characteristics on the acceptance of a new snack food. Food Quality and Preference, 9(5), 313–320.

Tuorila, H., & Hartmann, C. (2020). Consumer responses to novel and unfamiliar foods. Current Opinion in Food Science, 33, 1–8.

Vainio, A., Niva, M., Jallinoja, P., & Latvala, T. (2016). From beef to beans: Eating motives and the replacement of animal proteins with plant proteins among Finnish consumers. Appetite, 106, 92–100.

Van Thielen, L., Vermuyten, S., Storms, B., Rumpold, B., & Van Campenhout, L. (2019). Consumer acceptance of foods containing edible insects in Belgium two years after their introduction to the market. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 5(1), 35–44.

Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E. J., Gellynck, X., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite, 62, 7–16.

Van der Weele, C., Feindt, P., Van der Goot, A. J., Van Mierlo, B., & Van Boekel, M. (2019). Meat alternatives: An integrative comparison. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 88, 505–512.

Verain, M. C., Bartels, J., Dagevos, H., Sijtsema, S. J., Onwezen, M. C., & Antonides, G. (2012). Segments of sustainable food consumers: A literature review. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36(2), 123–132.

Verain, M. C., Dagevos, H., & Antonides, G. (2015). Sustainable food consumption. Product choice or curtailment? Appetite, 91, 375–384.

Verbeke, W. (2015). Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 147–155.

Verbeke, W., Marcu, A., Rutsaert, P., Gaspar, R., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., et al. (2015). ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Science, 102, 49–58.

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of Planned Behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 542–553.

Verneau, F., La Barbera, F., Kolle, S., Amato, M., Del Giudice, T., & Grunert, K. (2016). The effect of communication and implicit associations on consuming insects: An experiment in Denmark and Italy. Appetite, 106, 30–36.

Wansink, B., Sonka, S. T., & Park, S. B. (2004). Segmentation approaches that differentiate consumption frequency from sensory preference. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19(4), 327–340.

Warne, T., Ahmed, S., Byker Shanks, C., & Miller, P. (2019). Sustainability dimensions of a North American lentil system in a changing world. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, 88.

Weinrich, R. (2018). Cross-cultural comparison between German, French and Dutch consumer preferences for meat substitutes. Sustainability, 10(6), 1819.

Weinrich, R. (2019). Opportunities for the adoption of health-based sustainable dietary patterns: A review on consumer research of meat substitutes. Sustainability, 11(15), 4028.

Weinrich, R., & Elshiewy, O. (2019). Preference and willingness to pay for meat substitutes based on micro-algae. Appetite, 142, 104353.

Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J. P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., De Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., & Oenema, O. (2014). Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change, 26, 196–205.

White, K. M., Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Greenslade, J. H., & McKimmie, B. M. (2009). Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in-group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 135–158.

Wilkinson, K., Muhlhausler, B., Motley, C., Crump, A., Bray, H., & Ankeny, R. (2018). Australian consumers’ awareness and acceptance of insects as food. Insects, 9(2), 44.

Wilks, M., Phillips, C. J., Fielding, K., & Hornsey, M. J. (2019). Testing potential psychological predictors of attitudes towards cultured meat. Appetite, 136, 137–145.

Willett, W., Rockstrom, J., Loken, B., , … Nishtar, S., & Murray, C. J. L. (2019). Food in the anthropocene: The EAT–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(18)31788-4

Wilson, A. L., Buckley, E., Buckley, J. D., & Bogomolova, S. (2016). Nudging healthier food and beverage choices through salience and priming. Evidence from a systematic review. Food Quality and Preference, 51, 47–64.

Woolf, E., Zhu, Y., Emory, K., Zhao, J., & Liu, C. (2019). Willingness to consume insect- containing foods: A survey in the United States. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft & Technologie, 102, 100–105.

M.C. Onwezen et al.