Perception of Cultured Meat as a Basis for Market Segmentation: Empirical Findings from Croatian Study

Abstract

Many studies have already addressed the perception of cultured meat, but the segmentation of potential consumers has not been adequately investigated. Based on an online survey in Croatia with 411 valid responses, four socio-demographically characterized segments were identified. The key differentiators between the segments relate to consumers’ moral and ethical concerns about cultured meat and their perceptions of the impact of cultured meat production on the economy. The multinomial logistic regression used to describe the segments found that the segments differed from the reference segment (Concerned) in terms of support for public research and funding of cultured meat, the willingness to consume it, and religiosity. These results help provide deeper insight into the profiles of potential consumers of cultured meat.

1. Introduction

The growth of the world’s population and the increasing average income of people, together with changing lifestyles, are leading to a worldwide increase in demand for meat and meat products [1,2]. Consequently, this leads to growth in livestock production. However, the increase in meat production and consumption has negative effects on the environment and human health and poses a major challenge to the sustainability of food production [2,3,4]. It is also foreseeable that the conventional meat supply will be insufficient to meet demand [5]. Therefore, many scientists call for a reduction in meat consumption to reduce the negative impact of meat production on the environment [6]. As a result, a low-meat diet is becoming increasingly popular [7].

This situation is leading to the development of alternative protein industries and the creation of meat substitutes such as legumes, algae, insects and plant-based meat alternatives that enable dietary change [8,9,10]. Nevertheless, the availability of these meat alternatives has not reduced the demand for meat among the growing global population. According to the Smart Protein survey [11] conducted in 10 EU countries in 2021, only 7% of the surveyed population follows a plant-based diet (vegan and vegetarian). Nevertheless, consumers are now increasingly concerned about the negative environmental, animal welfare, and food and meat safety impacts of animal agriculture [12], even though many of them are unwilling to pay for these food attributes. All meat alternatives, including cultured meat, are considered better for the environment and consumer health [8,13,14]. Thus, there is a need for sustainable alternatives to livestock production, the end product of which is meat [15].

One possible solution to this is the production of cultured meat (laboratory-grown meat, in vitro meat, artificial meat, synthetic meat) as an alternative to regularly raised meat. Cultured meat is an innovative food developed in the field of cellular agriculture. It represents a technological advance in meat production using cell culture farming methods [16]. New technologies in food production are critical for food security and maintaining a steady food supply [17].

Although cultured meat offers a number of benefits, consumers are often skeptical of laboratory-grown foods, including cultured meat. Therefore, the market success of cultured meat is highly dependent on consumer acceptance [18,19]. It is thus important to determine consumers’ perceptions of cultured meat and their willingness to consume such meat. Consumer research can help identify the factors that motivate consumers to purchase and consume, and it can provide guidance on how to encourage consumers to consume sustainably. Consumer dietary behaviour has a major impact on personal health and environmental stability [8].

Therefore, the number of studies focusing on consumer perceptions and acceptance of cultured meat has increased significantly in recent years [20]. Given the increased interest of the academic community in consumer acceptance of sustainable proteins, including cultured meat, several systematic reviews were conducted during the period from 2017 to 2022 [8,18,21,22,23].

The results of these studies [8,18,21,22,23] suggest several factors that influence the acceptability of cultured meat. The main consumer concerns relate to perceived naturalness, health, taste, and price, as well as neophobia toward food and uncertainty about safety and health. The main perceived benefits are animal welfare and environmental benefits, but more recently personal benefits such as health and food safety have also been cited. Previous studies have also confirmed that the acceptance of cultured meat is influenced by various socioeconomic characteristics such as gender, age, income, education level, and the household size of consumers [22,24,25,26], but also by their culture/nationality [27,28,29]. Recent studies confirm the influence of consumers’ diet (frequency of meat consumption) [30] and the influence of producers’ organisational factors on consumers’ acceptance of cultured meat [31].

It is also noted that consumer acceptance of cultured meat will continue to change over time as cultured meat approaches commercialization and consumers become more familiar with it [22]. Therefore, it is necessary to further investigate consumers’ perceptions of cultured meat, as it is well known that perceptions of a particular food have a direct impact on its acceptability [32].

Consumers are often categorised into groups based on their perception or acceptance of food. Several studies have examined different segments of potential consumers of cultured meat. Boereboom et al. [27] identified consumer groups in four EU countries based on their willingness to engage with cultured meat. They found three segments in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom and two segments in France and Spain and found differences among these four markets. Hocquette et al. [33] divided French respondents into two groups; one with higher acceptance of cultured meat due to their concerns about ethical and environmental issues related to the production of conventional meat and the other with higher emotional rejection and concern about the negative impact of cultured meat on rural life and animal husbandry. Franceković et al. [19] grouped consumers in three EU countries into three segments based on their meat consumption and then examined their perceptions of cultured meat.

Wang and Scrimgeour [24] examined segments of Chinese consumers based on their motives for meat selection, attitudes, and purchase intention toward cultured meat. They found three segments: one with strongly negative, the other with slightly positive, and the third with strongly positive attitudes and purchase intentions toward cultured meat. Garcez de Oliveira Padilha et al. [26] found six consumer groups in Australia that differed in their willingness to consume cultured meat and in their values in food choices.

As far as the authors are aware, there is neither a tested scale of cultured meat perception nor a segmentation of consumers based on their perception of cultured meat. Therefore, the purpose of this study is twofold: to explore consumer perceptions of cultured meat using a generated and tested pool of perceptual items for cultured meat, and to identify consumer segments based on their perceptions of cultured meat. Segmentation is used to discover perceptual elements of potential consumer niches for cultured meat that would otherwise remain hidden. These results may provide an indication of how to increase consumption of cultured meat and decrease consumption of traditional meat, as this research is under-researched.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection and Sample

An online survey was conducted in order to collect data. A link to the survey was distributed in Zagreb via email and social media between June and August 2021. Through personal contacts and survey platforms, initial participants were encouraged to complete and share the survey. Students at the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Zagreb were also asked to share the survey link. In addition to the survey link, there was a brief notice that participation in the survey was voluntary, that each participant would remain anonymous, and that the data collected would be used solely for scientific purposes. At the end of the survey, 480 responses were collected. For the analysis of the data, 411 responses were used, as 69 respondents were excluded due to incomplete responses. The sample was dominated by female respondents (66.2%), which is in line with previous studies on consumer behaviour in Croatia e.g., [34,35,36]. In terms of age, young respondents (18–24 years old) were the dominant group in the sample (35.5%), which was expected due to the fact that the survey was conducted online and young people are superior in the digital domain [37]. More than half of the respondents considered the financial situation of their household to be good, and more than 96% of them are omnivores. The full description of the sample can be found in

Table 1. Description of the sample.

Socio-Demographic Characteristics	Categories	n	%
Gender	Female male no answer	272 138 1	66.2 33.6 0.2
Age	18–24 25–39 40–64 65 and older	146 114 134 17	35.5 27.7 32.6 4.1
Place of growing up	Countryside Town/City	139 272	33.8 66.2
Perceived financial status of the household	very bad bad neither bad nor good good very good	3 6 131 231 40	0.7 1.5 31.9 56.2 9.7
Highest education	primary school middle school bachelor/master Mr.sc./Dr.sc.	3 163 196 49	0.7 39.7 47.7 11.9
Religiosity	not religious at all not really religious unsure somewhat religious very religious	77 77 79 156 22	18.7 18.7 19.2 38.0 5.4
Political affiliation	left left center center right center right	68 82 175 46 40	16.5 20.0 42.6 11.2 9.7
Diet	omnivore vegetarian vegan something else	398 5 0 8	96.8 1.2 0 1.9
Frequency of meat consumption	very rarely rarely neither rarely nor often often very often	2 18 74 185 129	0.5 4.4 18.1 45.3 31.6
Contact with animal husbandry	no yes *	83 325	20.3 79.7
Did you hear about cultured meat	no not sure yes	127 64 217	31.1 15.7 53.2
Knowledge of right definition of cultured meat	no yes	259 149	63.5 36.5
Supporting public research and funding of cultured meat	no not sure yes	82 175 151	20.1 42.9 37.0
Willingness to consume cultured meat	no, by no means probably not not sure probalby yes for sure	35 87 119 122 45	8.6 21.3 29.2 29.9 11.0

Note: * A visit to a farm/place where domestic animals are raised.

.

Before being confronted with the definition of cultured meat, 53.2% of respondents indicated that they had heard of cultured meat, 31.1% had never heard of it, and 15.7% were not sure if they had heard of it. The exact definition among the three offered was chosen by 36.5% of the respondents (see Table 1).

2.2. Measures

The questionnaire developed for this study included questions on frequency of meat consumption, contact with livestock farming, knowledge and perception of cultured meat, support for public research and funding of cultured meat, willingness to consume cultured meat, and sociodemographic characteristics (Table 1). Statements about perceptions of cultured meat were taken or developed from the literature [38,39,40] and adopted for the current study (

Table 2. Perception of cultured meat.

Statements

(a) The production of cultured meat has no negative impact on the environment. (b) The technology of production of cultured meat is possible and realistic. (c) The production of cultured meat is the only way to provide food for a growing world population. (d) Cultured meat production is a sustainable form of meat production. (e) Cultured meat production is the best way to protect domestic animals. (f) Cultured meat is unnatural meat. (g) Cultured meat production is insufficient to meet the world’s meat needs. (h) Cultured meat is safe meat. (i) Cultured meat production means the end of mass breeding of domestic animals. (j) Cultured meat is healthy meat. (k) The production of cultured meat leads to a reduction in the suffering of domestic animals. (l) Cultured meat is tasty meat. (m) Cultured meat is absolutely environmentally friendly. (n) The production of cultured meat means decline of the traditional breeding of domestic animals. (o) The production of cultured meat is one of the ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (p) Cultured meat is a religiously unacceptable form of meat production. (r) The production of cultured meat is morally questionable. (s) The production of cultured meat does not represent ethical progress in meat production. (t) The production of cultured meat distances humans from nature. (u) Cultured meat is an acceptable form of meat for people who are vegetarians for ethical reasons. (v) The production of cultured meat is a major threat to economies that have developed livestock production. (z) The hygienic conditions of cultured meat production are questionable.

). Perceptions of cultured meat and frequency of meat consumption, support for public research and funding of cultured meat, and willingness to consume cultured meat were measured on a 5-point Likert scale.

2.3. Statistical Approach

The data set was analysed using SPSS 26 statistical software and SmartPLS 3 software. To group the potential consumers of cultured meat based on their perceptions of cultured meat and to describe the obtained segments, the following statistical analyses were performed: exploratory factor analysis with principal component analysis, cluster analysis, discriminant analysis, and multinomial logit.

Principal component analysis (PCA), a form of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) [41], was performed for all 22 perceptual items. Three perceptual items describing negative perceptions of cultured meat (cultured meat is unnatural meat; cultured meat production is insufficient to meet the world’s meat needs; the hygienic conditions of cultured meat production are questionable) were recoded prior to PCA (1 → 5, 2 → 4, 3 → 3, 4 → 2, 5 → 1).

The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin criterion (KMO), the measure of sampling adequacy (MSA), and the Bartlett criterion were used to determine the adequacy of the EFA. Factors with an eigenvalue greater than one were considered. The items with factor loadings of 0.32 and more [42] and with a difference in the case of cross-loadings between two items of at least 0.2 [43] were selected for further analysis. The internal reliability of the factors was tested using the alpha coefficient [44]. To test the reliability and validity of the obtained factors, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was also performed and the composite reliability and average extracted variance were calculated.

The obtained factor scores were used as input for cluster analysis. As in some previous studies e.g., [45], a three-step clustering procedure was used to achieve the optimal cluster number and cluster assignment. The first step was to detect outliers using the single-linkage method. Then, Ward’s algorithm, a dendogram, and a scree plot test were used to determine the optimal number of clusters. Finally, the K-Means algorithm was applied to achieve optimal cluster assignment. The K-Means clustering results were validated using discriminant analysis. Multinomial logistic regression was used to describe clusters based on respondents’ sociodemographic data, frequency of meat consumption, knowledge and support of public research and funding of cultured meat, and contact with livestock production.

3. Results

3.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

A series of principal component analyses (PCA) were performed to obtain an optimal result. The optimal result with satisfactory factor loadings, no high cross-loadings, and reliable factors were obtained after removing three statements “The production of cultured meat is one of the ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” “Cultured meat production is insufficient to meet the world’s meat needs (recoded),” and “Cultured meat is an acceptable form of meat for people who are vegetarians for ethical reasons.” The first statement was removed because it loaded on its factor below 0.32, and the second and third because they contributed to low factor reliability (Cronbach’s alpha).

The final run of PCA with Promax rotation yielded acceptable values for KMO (0.915), Bartlett’s test (0.000), and MSA (0.734–0.958), confirming the adequacy of the EFA. The four-factor solution (

Table 3. Results of the PCA.

	Factor Loading	$\overline{\mathbf{x}}$	SD
Factor 1: Positive attributes of cultured meat (Cα = 0.860; CR = 0.894; AVE = 0.517)
The production of cultivated meat has no negative impact on the environment.	0.560	3.22	0.871
The technology of production of cultured meat is possible and realistic.	0.390	3.60	0.780
Cultured meat is unnatural meat (recoded)	0.521	2.71	1.001
Cultured meat is safe meat.	0.906	3.02	0.892
Cultured meat is healthy meat.	0.839	2.86	0.871
Cultured meat is tasty meat.	0.729	2.97	0.688
Cultured meat is absolutely environmentally friendly.	0.819	3.11	0.733
The hygienic conditions of cultured meat production are questionable (recoded)	0.589	3.34	0.881
Factor 2: Functional benefits of cultured meat (Cα = 0.849; CR = 0.899; AVE = 0.689)
The production of cultured meat is the only way to provide food for a growing world population.	0.780	2.78	1.031
Cultured meat production is a sustainable form of meat production.	0.710	3.21	0.941
Cultured meat production is the best way to protect domestic animals.	0.944	3.14	1.113
The production of cultured meat leads to a reduction in the suffering of domestic animals.	0.654	3.48	1.023
Factor 3: Moral and ethical doubts about cultured meat (Cα = 0.784; CR = 0.862; AVE = 0.612)
Cultured meat is a religiously unacceptable form of meat production.	0.899	2.59	0.868
The production of cultured meat is morally questionable.	0.778	2.72	0.906
The production of cultured meat does not represent ethical progress in meat production.	0.741	2.88	0.842
The production of cultured meat distances humans from nature.	0.490	3.05	1.145
Factor 4: Negative impact of cultured meat on economy, especially on livestock (Cα = 0.519; CR = 0.669; AVE = 0.497)
Cultured meat production means the end of mass breeding of domestic animals.	0.613	2.98	1.013
The production of cultured meat means decline of the traditional breeding of domestic animals.	0.848	3.05	0.962
The production of cultivated meat is a major threat to economies that have developed livestock production.	0.712	3.49	0.959

Note: Mean values are from 5 point Likert scale with 1 meaning I fully disagree, and 5 I fully agree; Cα—Cronbach alpha, CR—composite reliability, AVE—average variance extracted.

) explains 60.50% of the total variance, which can be considered a sufficient proportion of the variance [46]. The first factor describes the positive attributes of cultured meat, including aspects such as healthy meat, safe meat, or tasty meat. Therefore, this factor was named “Positive attributes of cultured meat”. The second factor, named “Functional benefits of cultured meat” includes functional aspects of cultured meat, such as food security for the growing world population, a way to protect domestic animals, or a sustainable form of meat production. The third factor is dominated by ethical aspects related to cultured meat, such as the religious impermissibility of cultured meat or cultured meat as a factor that distances people from nature. Therefore, this factor was named “Moral and ethical doubts about cultured meat”. The fourth factor reported the negative impact of cultured meat production on the economy with dominant aspects such as cultured meat means a decline in traditional breeding of domestic animals, and cultured meat is a threat to economies that have developed livestock farming. Therefore, this factor was named “Negative impact of cultured meat on economy, especially on livestock” (Table 3). Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability indicate good reliability for factors one, two, and three [47,48], as does the average variance extracted in the case of validity for the same factors [48]. While the Cronbach’s alpha for the fourth factor can be considered poor [47] and the composite reliability acceptable [48], the average variance extracted, which is just below 0.5, indicates insufficient validity for this factor [48].

3.2. Cluster Analysis

Based on the first two steps of the clustering procedure (the single-linkage method and Ward’s method), three outliers were excluded from further analysis and a four-cluster solution was chosen. The third and final step of the clustering procedure included 408 cases. The results of the final cluster centers (Appendix A) were used to describe the clusters by extracted factors. The first cluster includes respondents who have a strongly negative perception of cultured meat and see no benefits in this type of meat. At the same time, they see serious moral and ethical problems as well as negative impacts on production when it comes to cultured meat. We have named this cluster “Concerned.” Cluster 2 includes respondents who have an almost neutral perception and see some benefits of cultured meat. However, they are slightly concerned about moral and ethical issues related to cultured meat and the negative affect it could have on the economy. The second group was labeled “Rationally Concerned.” Group 3 includes respondents who have a very positive perception and see many benefits of cultured meat. They see no negative impact of cultured meat on the economy and have fewer moral or ethical concerns when it comes to cultured meat compared to the other groups. We called this group “Acceptors.” Cluster 4 includes respondents who have weakly positive perceptions of cultured meat, see no significant functional benefits of cultured meat, but also have no moral or ethical concerns and see no negative impact of cultured meat on the economy. Based on the above characteristics, we named this cluster “Apathetic” (Figure 1).

As shown in

Table 4. Number of cases in each cluster.

Cluster	N	Share in the Whole Sample
Concerned	88	21.6%
Rationally Concerned	171	41.9%
Acceptors	60	14.7%
Apathetic	89	21.8%
Valid	408	100.0%
Missing	0

, the second group, the “Rationally Concerned”, is the largest group with 41.9% of all respondents, followed by the “Apathetic” (21.8%) and the “Concerned” (21.6%). The smallest share in the entire sample is accounted for by the “Acceptors” (14.7%).

3.3. Discriminant Analysis

To validate the results of the cluster analysis, a discriminant analysis was performed considering different tests and parameters. Based on the test for equality of group means, it can be concluded that all four factors contribute significantly to the separation of the groups. The main separating factors are “Moral and ethical doubts regarding cultured meat” (Wilks’ λ = 0.477) and “Negative impact of cultured meat on the economy, especially on livestock” (Wilks’ λ = 0.473) (

Table 5. Test of equality of group means.

Variables	Wilks’λ	F	Significance
Positive attributes of cultured meat	0.437	173.797	0.000
Functional benefits of cultured meat	0.406	196.841	0.000
Moral and ethical doubts regarding cultured meat	0.477	147.682	0.000
Negative impact of cultured meat on the economy, especially livestock	0.473	150.264	0.000

). The clustering procedure proved to be reliable, as 96.8% of the cases were correctly classified (Appendix B). The satisfactory level of group separation was confirmed by the canonical correlation. For the first function, this coefficient was 0.884 (p = 0.000), for the second function it was 0.647 (p = 0.000), and for the third function it was 0.371 (p = 0.000) (

Table 6. Indicators of canonical discriminant functions.

Functions	Eigenvalue	Explained Variance	Canonical Correlation	Wilks’ λ	X²	df	Significance
1	3.587	80.3%	0.884	0.109	892.573	12	0.000
2	0.721	16.1%	0.647	0.501	278.716	6	0.000
3	0.160	3.6%	0.371	0.862	59.814	2	0.000

Note: The first three canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.

). Finally, the values of Fisher’s linear discriminant functions (Appendix C) confirmed the clustering of respondents based on the factors already shown in Figure 1.

3.4. Multinomial Logistic Regression

The goodness of fit of our logit model is confirmed, as the chi-square test (X² = 369.021, df = 39, p = 0.000) was statistically significant and both the Pearson’s test and deviance test were not significant (X² = 1071.955, df = 1179, p = 0.988; and X² = 699.414, df = 1179, p = 1.000, respectively).

Table 7. Description of the clusters.

Cluster	Predictor	B	S.E.	p	Exp(B)
Cluster 2: Rationally concerned	Gender	0.303	0.401	0.450	1.354
	Age	−0.369	0.212	0.082	0.691
	Place of growing up	0.649	0.383	0.090	1.914
	Financial status of the household	−0.282	0.266	0.289	0.754
	The highest level of education	0.195	0.284	0.493	1.215
	Religiosity	−0.218	0.185	0.238	0.804
	Political affiliation	−0.216	0.167	0.196	0.806
	Frequency of meat consumption	−0.409	0.233	0.079	0.665
	Contact with animal husbandry	−0.361	0.521	0.489	0.697
	Did you hear about cultured meat	−0.243	0.204	0.233	0.784
	Knowledge of right definition of cultured meat	0.146	0.413	0.724	1.157
	Supporting public research and funding of cultured meat	1.643	0.352	0.000	5.170
	Willingness to consume cultured meat	0.969	0.228	0.000	2.636
Cluster 3: Acceptors	Gender	1.141	0.609	0.061	3.129
	Age	−0.149	0.302	0.621	0.861
	Place of growing up	0.395	0.595	0.507	1.485
	Financial status of the household	−0.724	0.394	0.066	0.485
	The highest level of education	0.388	0.399	0.331	1.474
	Religiosity	−0.560	0.249	0.025	0.571
	Political affiliation	−0.377	0.271	0.163	0.686
	Frequency of meat consumption	−0.247	0.330	0.454	0.781
	Contact with animal husbandry	−0.371	0.689	0.590	0.690
	Did you hear about cultured meat	0.175	0.300	0.560	1.191
	Knowledge of right definition of cultured meat	0.766	0.560	0.171	2.151
	Supporting public research and funding of cultured meat	3.668	0.623	0.000	39.166
	Willingness to consume cultured meat	2.753	0.415	0.000	15.687
Cluster 4: Apathetic	Gender	0.471	0.466	0.313	1.601
	Age	−0.169	0.242	0.508	0.852
	Place of growing up	0.447	0.446	0.316	1.564
	Financial status of the household	0.037	0.315	0.907	1.037
	The highest level of education	0.245	0.325	0.450	1.278
	Religiosity	−0.394	0.206	0.055	0.674
	Political affiliation	−0.219	0.195	0.262	0.803
	Frequency of meat consumption	−0.284	0.265	0.283	0.753
	Contact with animal husbandry	−0.320	0.575	0.577	0.726
	Did you hear about cultured meat	0.357	0.241	0.138	1.429
	Knowledge of right definition of cultured meat	0.869	0.452	0.055	2.385
	Supporting public research and funding of cultured meat	1.967	0.399	0.000	7.150
	Willingness to consume cultured meat	1.179	0.265	0.000	3.251

Note: Reference category is Cluster 1: Concerned; Gender: (1) male, (2) female, (3) no answer; Age: (1) 18–24, (2) 25–39, (3) 40–64, (4) 65 and older; The highest level of education: (1) primary school, (2) high school, (3) bachelor/master, (4) scientific master/PhD; Religiosity: (1) not religious at all, (5) very religious; Political affiliation: (1) left, (5) right; Frequency of meat consumption: (1) very rarely, (5) very often; Contact with animal husbandry: (1) no, (2) yes; Did you hear about cultured meat: (1) no, (2) not sure, (3) yes; Knowledge of right definition of cultured meat: (1) no, (2) yes; Supporting public research and funding of cultured meat: (1) no, (2) not sure, (3) yes; Willingness to consume cultured meat: (1) no, by no means, (5) for sure. Offered definitions of cultured meat: (A) Cultured meat is meat grown from animal stem cells and not obtained by slaughtering the animal. The sensory and nutritional profile of cultured meat is the same as that of meat produced in the traditional manner. Cultivated meat is not synthetic meat (correct answer). (B) Cultured meat is meat grown from animal stem cells and not obtained by slaughtering the animal. The sensory and nutritional profile of cultured meat is not the same as that of meat produced in the traditional manner. Cultivated meat is synthetic meat (wrong answer). (C) Cultured meat is meat grown from animal stem cells and not obtained by slaughtering the animal. The sensory and nutritional profile of cultured meat is the same as that of meat produced in the traditional manner. Cultured meat is synthetic meat (wrong answer).

provides a detailed description of the clusters. The first section in Table 7 contains the results of the comparison between the Concerned reference cluster and the Rationally concerned cluster. As can be seen, only the variables “support for public research” and “funding of cultured meat and willingness to consume cultured meat” were significant predictors. Respondents who were more inclined to support public research and funding of cultured meat were more likely to belong to the Rationally Concerned cluster (B = 1.643, S.E. = 0.352, p < 0.001). The odds ratio of 5.170 means that for each unit on the scale of support for public research and funding for cultured meat, the probability that a respondent belongs to the Rationally Concerned cluster increases by a factor of 5.170. Respondents who are more willing to consume cultured meat were more likely to belong to the Rationally Concerned cluster (B = 0.969, S.E. = 0.228, p < 0.001).

The second section in Table 7 shows the results of the comparison between the Concerned cluster and the Acceptors cluster. Survey participants who are more religious were less likely to belong to this cluster (B = −0.560, S.E. = 0.249; p < 0.05). Supporters of public research and funding of cultured meat and those willing to consume this type of meat were more likely to belong to the Acceptors cluster (B = 3.668, S.E. = 0.623, p < 0.001 and B = 2.753, S.E. = 0.415, p < 0.001, respectively). High odds ratios (39.166 and 15.687) indicate a strong affiliation of supporters of public research and funding of cultured meat and those willing to consume this type of meat to this cluster (acceptors).

The last section in Table 7 shows that respondents who are more inclined to support public research and funding of cultured meat and those who are more willing to consume cultured meat belong to the Apathetic cluster rather than the Concerned cluster (B = 1.967, S.E. = 0.399, p < 0.001, and B = 1.179, S.E. = 0.265, p < 0.001, respectively). None of the other variables significantly contributed to the description of this cluster compared to the Concerned cluster.

Cluster 2 members had the best prediction by the multinomial logistic regression model with 77.8% prediction accuracy, followed by Cluster 1 (71.6%) and Cluster 3 (66.8%). Cluster 4 members had the lowest prediction accuracy of 19.1% (Appendix D).

4. Discussion

The results of the study show a relatively high familiarity of respondents with cultured meat, considering that this product is not available on the market. More than half of the respondents (53.2%) reported having heard of cultured meat, 31.1% had never heard of it, and another 15.7 were not sure if they’d heard of it. These results show a slightly higher level of awareness compared to the study conducted in three countries, including Croatia, one year before the current study [19]. This could be due to more frequent media coverage of cultured meat. However, only about one-third of respondents (36.5%) knew the correct definition of cultured meat, suggesting that consumers need to be better educated about this meat substitute.

A higher percentage of respondents are willing to support public research and funding for cultured meat (37.0%) than those who are opposed (20.1%). Nevertheless, the majority is still undecided on this issue. In contrast, the majority of French respondents, who are less willing to accept cultured meat [27,49], are against public funding for the development of biotechnology for cultured meat [33].

Many of the respondents are curious about cultured meat and would be willing to consume it (40.9%), while the same proportion of respondents are not willing to try it or are not sure if they would consume it (29.9% and 29.2%, respectively). These results are similar to the results of other studies, in which the positive response to consumption of cultured meat was also around 40–50% [19,25,49].

We tested a scale to measure perceptions of cultured meat, developed based on existing literature on opinions of cultured meat [38,39,40], and segmented potential consumers of cultured meat based on their perceptions of this type of meat. The factor analysis resulted in four factors, which we named: positive attributes of cultured meat, functional benefits of cultured meat, moral and ethical doubts about cultured meat, and negative impact of cultured meat on the economy, especially on livestock. The extracted factors showed high to sufficient reliability.

The results of the factor analysis are consistent to some extent with the French study [33], in which the authors also found four groups of drivers, motives, and barriers to the acceptance of cultured meat among consumers, namely positive acceptance of cultured meat, emotional resistance to eating cultured meat and two opposing groups of variables related to concerns about current livestock systems and meat production or consumption.

The factors extracted in this study were used as input variables to group the potential consumers of cultured meat. The four identified consumer segments were then described in terms of variables that have been shown to influence consumers perceptions or acceptance of cultured meat, namely the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents [22,23,27,33], the frequency of meat consumption [19], the familiarity and knowledge of cultured meat [22,23], willingness to support public research and funding of cultured meat [33], and the willingness to consume this type of meat [33].

The first segment was called Concerned because it consisted of respondents who did not see any benefits of cultured meat, only the problems. For members of this segment, cultured meat is a potential threat to animal agriculture and its production is morally very questionable. This segment was chosen as a reference segment to allow comparison between segments in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and other variables mentioned above to describe consumer segments.

We named the second segment Rationally concerned because members of this cluster are less concerned about moral and ethical issues related to cultured meat and believe that the production of cultured meat has some functional benefits. When we compare this segment and the Concerned segment in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, it is clear that no differences are observed. However, differences between Rationally concerned and Concerned can be observed in terms of willingness to support public research and funding for cultured meat and willingness to consume this type of meat. Respondents who are more inclined to support public research and funding of cultured meat and those who are more willing to consume this type of meat are also more likely to be members of the Rationally concerned segment than members of the Concerned segment.

The third segment was called Acceptors. Members of this segment have no moral or ethical concerns and do not see the production of cultured meat as having any potential negative consequences for the economy. On the contrary, they see many positive aspects and functional benefits of cultured meat. Members of this segment are less likely to be religious compared to members of the Concerned segment. All other sociodemographic characteristics did not play an important role in determining the difference between this segment and the Concerned segment. However, members of this segment were more likely to consume cultured meat and support public research and funding for cultured meat than members of the Concerned segment. This segment is similar to segments in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands that are willing to engage with cultured meat [27]. When segmenting Australian consumers by their willingness to consume cultured meat, Garcez de Oliveira Podilha et al. [26] discovered a segment similar to our Acceptors segment. Members of this segment are the most willing to consume cultured meat of all six identified segments, and they have stronger beliefs about the personal and social benefits of cultured meat. Unlike our segment, whose members do not differ in sociodemographic characteristics from the other three segments, as this segment includes younger people with higher educations.

Members of the fourth segment have a positive perception of cultured meat to some degree, but do not see any significant benefits or negative consequences of producing this type of meat. For this reason, we have named this segment Apathetic. Like the previous two segments, this segment does not differ from the reference Concerned segment in terms of the sociodemographic characteristics of its members. Respondents who are more willing to consume cultured meat and support public research and funding for cultured meat are more likely to belong to this segment than to the Concerned segment.

Although the segments cannot be compared with each other due to the limitations of using multinomial logistic regression, but only with the reference segment, it is clear that other than their perceptions of cultured meat, the segments differ only in their willingness to support public research and funding and willingness to consume cultured meat. Religiosity was the only sociodemographic variable by which members of the Concerned and Acceptors segments differed.

Similar to other studies [27], it was not possible to clearly describe the consumer profiles based on their characteristics, possibly due to the lack of experience with this meat substitute. As indicated earlier, it is likely that consumer profiles can be better described once cultured meat is fully commercialized [27]. The findings from this study are useful in understanding the acceptability of cultured meat. The identified segments can be considered as four stages of acceptance of this type of meat and can serve as a basis for future research on cultured meat acceptance. In addition, certain marketing activities can already create a good climate for the integration of this product in the market. It is recommended that promotional activities for this type of meat be conducted to promote the idea of cultured meat and ultimately create a positive image of cultured meat among consumers. In the context of this research, promotional activities targeting the segment of those who accept cultured meat should emphasize the positive characteristics and benefits of this type of meat in order to strengthen positive beliefs about it. Similarly, it is necessary to arouse the interest of the Apathetic segment in this type of meat by emphasizing that the production of cultured meat will solve many social problems and that its production does not violate moral norms and contributes to animal welfare. In the case of the Concerned and Rationally concerned segments, the message should be conveyed to potential consumers that this type of meat is acceptable from a moral and ethical point of view and that its production contributes more to the welfare of domestic animals than it negatively affects animal production. The promotional content should be communicated through social media, but also through traditional media such as TV or the radio by addressing this issue thoroughly.

There are several limitations in this study that limit the generalizability of the results. We used a convenience sample and social networks and pre-existing lists to recruit respondents. This could lead to a biased selection of the sample in terms of respondents’ characteristics (more female and younger respondents), but also with regard to their interest in cultured meat [7,27]. Although all respondents received the short definition of cultured meat, it was difficult for many of them to express their opinion about this product [7]. The perception of cultured meat is influenced solely by the characteristics of the respondents, as the respondents did not have the opportunity to experience this type of meat. Therefore, one should be cautious with general conclusions when it comes to the perception of cultured meat. One of the limitations is that the reliability of the factor “Negative impact of cultured meat on the economy, especially on livestock” is marginal and its validity is insufficient, suggesting that new statements should be considered for the composition of this factor. Although we used perceptual statements that have been used in this or a similar form in previous work, we cannot consider this study theory-driven because these statements were not part of a single instrument tested. This is also a substantial weakness of the study.

5. Conclusions

This study makes a valuable contribution to research and knowledge about consumers of cultured meat. First, the battery of statements generated and tested to measure perceptions of cultured meat has proven successful. This instrument can be used and further developed for future research on cultured meat perceptions, which is of particular importance because, to our knowledge, there are no developed instruments to measure cultured meat perceptions. Second, the four segments that emerge from the perception of cultured meat can be used to develop marketing activities that contribute to the acceptance of the idea and later of the actual product. This is because the success of cultured meat in the marketplace will depend not only on the development of the technology and the ability to produce it economically, but also on the moral, ethical, and economic doubts consumers have about this type of meat.