A Conjoint Analysis Evaluation of Consumer Perspectives on Cricket-Based Snacks: A Case Study for Alberta, Canada

Abstract

Insects have been proposed as a sustainable protein alternative to conventional meat sources. However, consumer acceptance of edible insects is still low in the Western Hemisphere. This study examined how product characteristics and consumer beliefs influence the liking and willingness to try cricket-based food products. An online survey was conducted in the province of Alberta, Canada. Alberta is a major site for beef production and plays a vital role in Canada’s agricultural and economic landscape. Participants (n = 548) were asked to indicate their overall liking (OL) and willingness to try (WTT) a cricket-based snack in a conjoint analysis experiment. A 2 × 2 × 5 design was used for the product characteristics (type of product, presence of an image of the product, and product benefit claims). Each participant was assigned five product profiles using a balanced incomplete block design. The type of product (cricket chips and whole roasted crickets) was the most important attribute for participants. Product benefit claims did not effectively increase the OL or WTT of the cricket-based snacks. Higher scores on the Entomophagy Attitude Scale and previous experiences consuming insect-based food products positively influenced WTT and OL. The findings of this study underscore the significance of the type of product and personal attitudes towards entomophagy in shaping consumer preferences for sustainable protein sources and offer valuable insights for the development and marketing of insect-based food products in a Western market where meat products are accessible and affordable for many.

1. Introduction

The global population is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050, resulting in a significant increase in meat demand [1]. Given that livestock production already occupies a large portion of agricultural land, alternative protein sources are being explored [2,3]. Insects are considered a viable option due to their lower resource requirements and similarity in protein content to conventional meat sources [4,5]. Their high protein, healthy fat, calcium, iron, and zinc content are considered a promising alternative to protein obtained from farm animals [6]. Insect farming is also more land- and resource-efficient compared to traditional livestock farming, with significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions [7,8,9]. For instance, the feed-to-conversion ratio of crickets is double that of chickens, four times that of pigs, and twelve times that of cattle [10]. Insect-based food does, however, face many challenges, primarily in terms of customer acceptance and commercialization [11].

The feeling of disgust is one of the most significant factors that can prevent consumers from consuming insect-based food products and has also been linked with food neophobia, the fear or reluctance to try new foods [12]. The consensus among studies indicates that people who are more easily disgusted and neophobic are more likely to reject the idea of insects as a food source [12,13,14,15,16,17]. To overcome these barriers, ongoing research is developing strategies to increase the acceptance of insects as food. Some of the strategies include incorporating insects into familiar food [18,19], the use of invisible insect ingredients such as flours, extracts, powders, etc. [20,21], the use of sensory panels and tasting experiences to improve familiarity with entomophagy [22,23], and the use of information interventions and product labeling [24,25,26,27,28,29]. Most authors focused on increasing the acceptance of insect-based foods by providing information on their environmental and nutritional benefits [30,31,32].

In Canada, understanding consumers’ awareness, acceptance, and readiness to consume insects has been a major area of research [33,34,35]. Although these research findings indicate Canadians are willing to eat insects, there is still a lack of widespread consumption. Additionally, the regulations and policies surrounding insects as human food and animal feed in Canada were reviewed [36]. The authors found that until 2018, the only mention of insects on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) website was their presence in the food system as a contaminant. With a focus on insect contamination prevention, regulatory agencies have naturally excluded insect consumption from the food chain.

Additionally, Alberta’s strong agricultural roots and easy access to meat may influence the uptake of insects as food. In a price ranking of most to least expensive consumer products, Canada ranked 25th most expensive out of 80 countries [37] for the price of beef and 24th for chicken [38]. This highlights the relatively high cost of traditional meat in Canada, suggesting that incorporating insects into the diet could offer consumers a more affordable and sustainable alternative.

Despite insect consumption’s potential environmental and nutritional benefits, Albertans may be reluctant to transition to entomophagy. Therefore, given the information available and the popularity of insect-based foods in the Western world, it is important to examine consumer perspectives, including assessing personal beliefs related to health, environmental consciousness, and attitudes toward entomophagy on insect-based foods in Canada, particularly Alberta.

Conjoint analysis is a statistical technique commonly used in consumer science research to measure consumer preferences for different products or service attributes. It is used to determine what combination of product or service attributes are most important to customers. It is also helpful to determine how much value a consumer places on each attribute, how much each attribute contributes to overall product acceptance, and how changes to the product or service will affect consumer preferences. This allows researchers to gain insights into consumer preferences and tailor their products accordingly [39,40].

This study examined the acceptance of an insect-based snack using conjoint analysis while assessing the impact of brief informational interventions; product claims highlighting various benefits of insect consumption, the presence of a visual depiction of the product, and two different food product types. This study also explored how the characteristics of a cricket-based snack and the information presented on its packaging impact participants’ overall liking and willingness to try the product. Simultaneously, the secondary objective was to profile participants’ personal beliefs to determine whether a relationship exists between these beliefs and preferences for specific product attributes.

2. Materials and Methods

The study comprised a survey covering demographic data, personal attitudes or orientations, and conjoint analysis of cricket-based food products. Both written and visual information on the packaging of a cricket-based snack was used as a stimulus for participants’ perception of the product. Crickets were chosen for this study because they are one of the most consumed insects worldwide and have been approved for human consumption in many countries, including Canada [41,42], where this study was conducted.

2.1. Recruitment

A total of 548 participants residing in Alberta were recruited through the internet using social networks (Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/, accessed on 4 February 2025), Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/, accessed on 4 February 2025), and Twitter (https://twitter.com/, accessed on 4 February 2025)), as well as through email snowballing. For email snowballing, individuals within the researchers’ personal and professional networks were contacted directly with the survey information, encouraging them to participate and share the survey with others who might be interested. Posts to social media were strategically shared in communities or groups likely to have individuals interested in the topic of the survey, such as gardening clubs, outdoors enthusiasts, fitness groups, hunting clubs, as well as general interest groups that gathered people from specific geographic locations or cities within Alberta. The questionnaire was accessible through a link and a QR code that was distributed within the online recruitment material.

2.2. Demographic Information

Participants gave demographic information, including their area of residence, gender, age, length of time they have resided in Canada, education level, income, and any previous experience consuming insect-based products at least once. Participants were allowed to submit additional comments at the end of the survey. The survey was conducted between June and September 2021 using the online platforms Compusense^® Cloud sensory software (https://compusense.com/, accessed on 4 February 2025) (Compusense Inc., Guelph, ON, Canada) and Qualtrics software (https://www.qualtrics.com/, accessed on 4 February 2025) (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA) to collect participant responses. Participants who completed the survey could enter their email addresses into a prize draw for one of three CAD 25 gift cards for a local coffee shop.

2.3. Conjoint Analysis

Conjoint analysis was chosen to evaluate characteristics prioritized by participants on the cricket-based snack package. The survey was conducted online and targeted participants residing in the province of Alberta in Canada. Each participant provided informed consent before the study. A conjoint analysis approach was chosen to identify the most appealing attributes of the cricket-based snack for consumers. The attributes and levels for the conjoint study were based on a previous review of the published literature on consumer acceptance of edible insects [43] and conversations with industry stakeholders.

For this study, three attributes were selected: the type of product, the presence of an image of the cricket-based snack on the packaging, and product claims.

Table 1. Attributes and their corresponding levels included in the conjoint analysis.

Attribute	Levels	Text in the Label
Type of product	Cricket-based chips Whole roasted crickets
Image of product	Present Absent
Product claims	Sustainability benefits	Sustainable food source: Low carbon and water footprint
	Hedonic properties	Tasty snack: Delightfully crunchy and deliciously nutty
	Health benefits	Healthy and Nutritious snack: Rich in proteins, vitamins, and minerals
	Food waste reduction	Crickets raised with 100% diverted food waste
	Organic certification	Certified organic

summarizes the attributes and their respective levels used in the conjoint experiment.

The absence or presence of the product image in the packaging was included to determine whether being able to preview the product’s appearance would positively or negatively affect consumers’ ratings of the product. Several studies have found that consumers prefer products in which insects are not visible [11,44,45,46,47]. However, because chips are already a form of invisible inclusion of crickets into a food product, this attribute was used to explore whether the presence of an image on the packaging would produce different results, or if the acceptance of food containing whole crickets would increase if the product was hidden by the packaging.

The five product claims were designed to represent trends and potential drivers of insect-based food product acceptance. The benefits of sustainability and food waste reduction were chosen to represent consumers’ perspectives on consuming environmentally friendly products. The inclusion of hedonic properties addressed one of the most significant barriers to entomophagy: concern about the sensory properties of insect-derived products. The health benefit claim reflects the main nutritional properties of crickets. Finally, organic certification is associated with healthier and less environmentally damaging food products, which consumers are more familiar with and often associated with higher quality products [48,49,50,51].

The combination of these attributes produced a full design with 20 profiles. A balanced incomplete block design was used to form twenty blocks consisting of 5 profiles each, which were then randomly assigned to the participants and presented in a monadic manner. A ratings-based conjoint analysis was chosen for this study for its ease of use and simple analysis; in addition, the rating system is easy to understand and less cognitively demanding for responders [40]. The product pictures used for the product profiles were obtained from the royalty-free website Pixabay. The labels were then designed using Microsoft PowerPoint (Microsoft^® PowerPoint^® for Microsoft 365 MSO, Washington, DC, USA, Version 2308 Build 16.0.16731.20052) and exported as portable network graphics. The base model for the package was obtained from the website Free PSD Templates. Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Photoshop Creative Suite 6, Adobe, CA, USA, Build 13.0.1.1) was used to overlay the label on the base model to create the product profiles. The images were then exported as Joint Photographic Experts Group files to incorporate them into the survey.

For each of the profiles to be evaluated, participants were presented with mock-up images of the hypothetical snack packaging where the different levels of the attributes were illustrated (Figure 1a–c). They were then asked to rate their overall liking of the product on a 9-point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely; 9 = like extremely) and their willingness to try the product on a binomial scale with the options “Yes” and “No”.

2.4. Attitude Scales

In the second part of the survey, participants completed three scales to assess their personal beliefs towards health, entomophagy, and pro-environmental orientation. The health orientation section from the Food Choice Questionnaire by Steptoe et al. [52] was answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). This sub-scale of six questions was chosen to evaluate health consciousness as a driver for food choice. Scores could range from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate that the individual has a greater concern for the health benefits of food.

Pro-environmental orientation was measured using the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) from Dunlap et al. [53]. The NEP scale is one of the most commonly used tools to measure a “pro-ecological” worldview [54,55,56]. It consists of 15 statements encompassing the concepts of reality of limits to growth, anti-anthropocentrism, the fragility of nature’s balance, rejection of exemptionalism, and the possibility of an eco-crisis. For this part of the study, participants were asked to indicate their agreement with each statement on a 5 point-Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Responses to even-numbered statements were reverse-coded so that higher scores represent lower levels of agreement with the corresponding statement. The scores for each statement were then averaged to obtain the total score for the questionnaire. The possible range of the score spans from 1 to 5, in which higher scores correspond to a higher support for pro-environmental behavior.

To evaluate participants’ attitudes toward the consumption of insects, the Entomophagy Attitude Questionnaire (EAQ) from La Barbera et al. [14] was included. This scale explores consumers’ attitudes towards entomophagy in three areas: their disgust towards direct entomophagy, their interest in trying novel food and experiences, and their attitude towards indirect entomophagy. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with the statements in the questionnaire on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly; 7 = agree strongly). Items 1 to 5 were reverse-coded.

2.5. Data Analysis

All analyses were performed using XLSTAT software (version 2021.4.1, Addinsoft, New York, NY, USA). Demographic data and personal beliefs scores were analyzed using descriptive statistics. For the willingness to try responses, a Chi-square test was used with a 0.05 level of significance. The relative importance values and part-worth utilities of the Conjoint Analysis were calculated using Ordinary Least Squares regression with the Conjoint analysis tool from XLSTAT. The part-worth utilities were used to form clusters using Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering analysis with Euclidean Distances and Ward’s Method for aggregation. The clusters were then described using the Personal Belief Scales’ scores and demographic data. The demographic information from the clusters was compared using the Chi-square test at a significance level of 0.05. ANOVA was used to compare the Personal Belief scale scores and utilities from each cluster at a 0.05 level of significance. Subsequently, pairwise comparisons of the means were conducted using the Tukey–Kramer test to identify differences between clusters at a significance level of 0.05.

3. Results

About 742 responses were initially received; 409 of them were excluded from the analysis because they were either incomplete or deemed as not genuine (Supplementary Figure S1). Responses were excluded if incomplete, contained missing sections, or if the same participant submitted multiple entries. Duplicate entries were identified and verified by cross-referencing identical comments and response patterns. These measures were implemented to minimize selection bias and to ensure that the remaining dataset reflected genuine and thoughtful responses. After this data-refining process, a total of 333 valid responses were included in the analysis.

This large influx of questionable responses led to a change in the response collection platform. Qualtrics was thereafter chosen because their security protocols were deemed more appropriate to counter the irregularities encountered. An additional 215 responses were collected through Qualtrics leading to a total number of 548 responses. Various criteria were employed to refine the dataset. Firstly, duplicate responses were removed, identified by Qualtrics using their duplicate scores parameter, set at 75 or higher, or manually by cross-referencing identical comments with matching responses throughout the survey.

Additionally, responses were eliminated if at least one section of the survey was left unanswered. Furthermore, responses were filtered out if they had a Qualtrics fraud score exceeding 30 or a Qualtrics reCAPTCHA score below 0.5, indicating potential issues with respondent authenticity. Short response times of less than 3 min were also flagged as potential indicators of careless or insincere responses and thus excluded. Responses that skipped reCAPTCHA verification or consent sections were likewise excluded to ensure compliance with ethical standards and study protocols. Lastly, responses with unintelligible comments, particularly if they were identical or similar to other unintelligible comments, were disregarded to ensure data quality and coherence in analysis.

3.1. Sociodemographic Characteristics

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (n = 548).

Characteristics		Percentage	n
Alberta region	South	14.0	84
	Calgary	20.0	120
	Central	16.0	96
	Edmonton	42.0	252
	North	8.0	48
Gender	Male	48.3	290
	Female	48.3	290
	Other	2.3	14
	Prefer not to answer	1.0	6
Age	18–29 years	42.0	252
	30–39 years	40.7	244
	40–49 years	12.2	73
	Over 50 years	4.8	29
	Prefer not to answer	0.3	2
Education level	Some or all high school	21.2	127
	Post-secondary studies (e.g., technical training, college, university)	63.7	382
	Graduate studies	13.5	81
	Prefer not to answer	1.7	10
Household income *	Less than CAD 36,600	10.8	65
	CAD 36,601–71,000	23.2	139
	CAD 71,000–115,000	28.5	171
	More than CAD 115,000	27.0	162
	Prefer not to answer	10.5	63
Previous experience consuming insects	Yes	45.3	272
	No	54.7	328

* Annual income categories based on 2020 Canadian tax brackets.

shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants. The highest proportion of study participants (42%) were from the Edmonton region. Participants were evenly split between male and female, with a minority identifying as neither male nor female.

The majority of participants (82.7%) were between the ages of 18 and 39; 63.7% had completed post-secondary education and 13.5% had completed graduate studies. Participants who indicated some prior experience made up 45.3% of the sample, while the remaining 54.7% had no prior experience consuming edible insects.

3.2. Personal Beliefs

3.2.1. Health Consciousness

The health consciousness score was a mean of 3.9 ± 0.64 and a median of 4 out of the maximum score of 5. This indicates a high level of involvement from the participants towards the impact of food on their health.

3.2.2. Entomophagy Attitude Questionnaire (EAQ)

Participants had a mean score of 5.1 ± 1.31. The results indicated a positive attitude toward entomophagy. Participants with previous experience consuming insects had significantly higher scores on the EAQ (5.4 ± 1.15) than their counterparts without previous experience consuming insects (4.8 ± 1.41).

The subscales of the EAQ revealed a secondary trend concerning participants’ attitudes towards different facets of entomophagy; the subscale EAQ-Feed had the highest score (5.6 ± 1.23), suggesting the most support towards using insects as feed for livestock. EAQ-Interest followed with a mean of 5.3 ± 1.51, and EAQ-Disgust with a mean of 4.8 ± 1.65. These findings suggest that participants were more inclined to support indirect entomophagy through the use of insects as feed rather than for human consumption.

3.2.3. New Environmental Paradigm (NEP)

Scores for the NEP scale had a mean of 3.9 ± 0.64. This indicates a high tendency towards an ecocentric worldview, which indicates participants value the intrinsic value of nature, the need for sustainability and conservation, and the importance of living in equilibrium with the natural environment.

3.3. Conjoint Analysis

3.3.1. Overall Liking

The results show that both “Product” (37.8% ± 27.3) and “Claim” (38.3% ± 25.8) were the most important attributes that dictated participant liking, with the levels “Chips” and “Tasty” being the preferred levels for each, respectively (Figure 2). The attribute “Image” (23.8 ± 22.4) was the least important for product liking in this scenario. A summary of the mean importance is shown in

Table 3. Mean importance for the attributes of the cricket-based snacks.

Attribute	Mean	Std. Deviation
Product	37.8	27.33
Image	23.8	22.39
Claim	38.3	25.85

below.

The average utility values for the attributes and their levels are depicted in Figure 2. The values represent how much each level of the attributes contributes to the participant’s acceptance of the insect-based snack.

For the “Product” attribute, “Chips” was the preferred level. That is, given that everything else remained the same, the product “Chips” is preferred to “Whole crickets.” This outcome could be interpreted as participants preferring a more processed, familiar food in which the insect ingredient is not visible.

For the “Image” attribute, the product was preferred when an image of the contents was present on the package.

The benefit claim indicating the tasty characteristics of the product was the most preferred, followed by the claim of an organic certification. Reduction and food waste were tied as the third most preferred claims, and the claim about health benefits was the least preferred.

3.3.2. Willingness to Try (WTT)

A Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test identified 12 profiles whose proportions of positive and negative WTT were statistically significant. The product profiles with the highest WTT were those that presented an image of the cricket-based chips product. There was a substantial drop in the proportion of positive WTT when the image was absent from the profiles that contained chips as their product. On the other hand, the product profiles with the lowest WTT were the whole roasted crickets presented with an image of the product. As with the OL results, the WTT results do not identify a distinct pattern of preference among the product claims.

3.4. Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering Analysis

Three clusters were identified using the utility values as the clustering variable to perform an Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering analysis. A differentiating factor among the clusters was the proportion of participants that had previously consumed edible insects; clusters 1 and 2 had an approximately even distribution of participants with and without experience with entomophagy; however, the proportion of participants without previous experiences was slightly higher. In contrast most of the participants from cluster 3 had previously consumed insects. Participants in the three clusters were not significantly different in age, income, education level, and region of residence (

Table 4. Demographic information and conjoint analysis results for each cluster (n = 548).

	Cluster 1		Cluster 2		Cluster 3
	n = (204)	%	n = (248)	%	n = (96)	%
Alberta region of residence
South	23	11.3	36	14.5	18	18.8
Calgary	34	16.7	57	23.0	18	18.8
Central	33	16.2	37	14.9	21	21.9
Edmonton	95	46.6	100	40.3	33	34.4
North	19	9.3	18	7.3	6	6.3
Gender
Male	83	40.7	131	52.8	54	56.3
Female	114	55.9	111	44.8	39	40.6
Other	6	2.9	3	1.2	3	3.1
Prefer not to answer	1	0.5	3	1.2	0	0.0
Age
18–29 years old	82	40.2	116	46.8	35	36.5
30–39 years old	88	43.1	92	37.1	38	39.6
40–49 years old	26	12.7	30	12.1	16	16.7
Over 50 years old	8	3.9	9	3.6	7	7.3
Prefer not to answer	0	0.0	1	0.4	0	0.0
Highest education level
Some or all high school	47	23.0	53	21.4	17	17.7
Post-secondary studies	123	60.3	156	62.9	67	69.8
Graduate studies	29	14.2	35	14.1	12	12.5
Prefer not to answer	5	2.5	4	1.6	0	0.0
Annual household income (CAD)
Less than CAD 36,600	21	10.3	28	11.3	10	10.4
CAD 36,601–71,000	46	22.5	52	21.0	34	35.4
CAD 71,000–115,000	59	28.9	72	29.0	23	24.0
More than CAD 115,000	56	27.5	66	26.6	23	24.0
Prefer not to answer	22	10.8	30	12.1	6	6.3
Previous insect consumption	82	40.2 a	111	44.8 a	67	69.8 b

Superscript letters denote statistically significant differences among clusters (p < 0.05).

).

3.4.1. Conjoint Analysis: Utilities by Cluster

Participants in all clusters preferred the product profiles of Cricket Chips with an image of the product. Cluster 1 preferred the claim about the health and nutritional benefits of eating insects, Cluster 2 preferred the organic certification, and Cluster 3, the claim that the product provides a pleasant taste and texture. For Clusters 2 and 3, the health claim was the least preferred, while Cluster 1 preferred the organic certification the least. Cluster 3 was characterized by a high baseline for overall liking, with the various attribute levels having little influence over their liking of the profiles. In contrast, the overall liking ratings from Cluster 1 were largely influenced by the type of product, with a preference for Cricket chips.

In summary, the ideal product profiles for each cluster are as follows: For Cluster 1, Cricket chips with a health claim and the product visible on the packaging; for Cluster 2, Cricket chips with an organic certification and an image of the product on the packaging, and for Cluster 3, Cricket chips with an appeal to the sensory characteristics of the product and an image of the product on the packaging.

3.4.2. Overall Liking by Cluster

Clusters 1 and 2 had statistically similar overall liking ratings when calculating the average rating across all samples. However, when looking at the average overall liking of each product profile, a pattern emerges: cluster 1 only gave high ratings to product profiles that included an image on the packaging and the product inside was cricket chips, and cluster 2 gave average ratings around the middle point of the scale to all profiles that contained cricket chips as the product. Both clusters assigned low ratings to the rest of the profiles not described previously. Cluster 3 assigned the highest ratings to all profiles. All product profiles were rated above 5 points on the hedonic scale, which indicates that all profiles were liked by this cluster.

3.4.3. Willingness to Try

The same pattern as with overall liking was observed with the willingness to try the different product profiles. Clusters 1 and 2 tended to prefer profiles that included chips and images while rejecting other profiles, and Cluster 3 was significantly more willing to try all profiles regardless of their characteristics. A summary of the responses from each cluster is shown in

Table 5. Overall liking (OL) ratings and percentage of willingness to try (WTT) for the product profiles by each cluster.

Product Profile		Cluster 1 (n = 204)		Cluster 2 (n = 248)		Cluster 3 (n = 96)
		OL	WTT%	OL	WTT%	OL	WTT%
Product = Cricket chips
Image present
	Food waste	6.06 ± 1.72	87.5 *	4.51 ± 2.16	48.9	7.47 ± 1.24	93.8 *
	Health	5.81 ± 1.73	90.7 *	5.28 ± 1.83	87.3	7.75 ± 1.18	100 *
	Organic	6.60 ± 1.59	84 *	5.16 ± 1.81	67.2	7.41 ± 1.07	100 *
	Sustainable	6.08 ± 1.64	90.8 *	4.84 ± 1.92	75	7.52 ± 0.95	100 *
	Tasty	6.10 ± 1.51	86.3 *	5.24 ± 1.85	65.8	7.52 ± 1.08	95.2 *
Image absent
	Food waste	4.43 ± 2.17	57.1	4.22 ± 1.73	50	6.42 ± 1.14	83.3 *
	Health	4.48 ± 1.55	63.6	4.27 ± 1.70	54.7	6.77 ± 0.77	100 *
	Organic	4.11 ± 1.36	50.9	3.89 ± 1.61	46.9	6.94 ± 1.25	94.1 *
	Sustainable	4.39 ± 1.45	67.9	4.52 ± 1.68	64.8	6.09 ± 1.00	95.7 *
	Tasty	4.67 ± 1.63	62.8	4.58 ± 1.74	60.9	6.50 ± 1.18	91.7 *
	Overall Score	5.24 ± 1.64	74.0 *	4.55 ± 1.79	62.1	7.18 ± 1.09	95.3 *
Product = Whole roasted crickets
Image present
	Food waste	3.18 ± 1.78	25 *	3.05 ± 1.91	30.8	6.13 ± 1.01	86.7 *
	Health	2.43 ± 1.12	27.7 *	3.00 ± 1.54	43.4	5.87 ± 1.10	95.7 *
	Organic	2.55 ± 1.47	26.7 *	3.17 ± 1.91	35.6	6.20 ± 1.32	93.3 *
	Sustainable	2.54 ± 1.25	31.5 *	3.36 ± 1.89	36.2	6.68 ± 1.28	84 *
	Tasty	2.05 ± 1.36	20.6 *	3.23 ± 1.64	41.7	6.63 ± 1.38	94.7 *
Image absent
	Food waste	3.45 ± 1.69	34.2	4.01 ± 1.71	46.4	6.68 ± 1.52	86.4 *
	Health	3.51 ± 1.53	41.9	3.95 ± 1.67	44.4	6.91 ± 1.15	90.9 *
	Organic	4.13 ±1.89	46.4	4.07 ± 1.79	44.4	6.26 ± 1.10	85.2 *
	Sustainable	3.75 ± 1.86	46.2	4.23 ± 1.78	58.3	6.96 ± 1.15	92.3 *
	Tasty	3.35 ± 1.84	45	4.00 ± 1.71	53.2	6.29 ± 0.95	83.3 *
	Overall Score	3.27 ± 1.58	34.5 *	3.66 ± 1.76	43.4	6.46 ± 1.20	89.2 *

OL is expressed as mean ± standard deviation. WTT is expressed as the percentage of participants who indicated they would be willing to try each product profile. Product profiles marked with an asterisk (*) have statistically significant differences in WTT compared to chance (p < 0.05). OL was evaluated on a 9-point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely; 9 = like extremely).

. Cluster 3 stands out from the other clusters because all profiles had a positive WTT equal to or higher than 83%. Three product profiles received statistically significant and positive WTT from all clusters. The common characteristics among these profiles were the type of product “Chips”, and the presence of an image of the product in the packaging. The profiles with the lowest proportion of positive WTT presented the image of the product “Roasted whole crickets”.

3.4.4. Consumer Beliefs by Cluster

There were no statistically significant differences among the cluster scores for health and environmental consciousness (

Table 6. Scores for the Entomophagy Attitude Questionnaire (EAQ) and subscales, Food Choice Health subscale, and New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) questionnaire and subscales for each cluster.

Scale	Cluster 1 n = (204)	Cluster 2 n = (248)	Cluster 3 n = (96)
EAQ	5.17 ± 1.22 b	4.84 ± 1.36 a	5.70 ± 1.15 c
EAQ-Disgust	4.81 ± 1.53 a	4.50 ± 1.71 a	5.58 ± 1.48 b
EAQ-Interest	5.39 ± 1.40 b	5.02 ± 1.60 a	5.81 ± 1.26 b
EAQ-Feed	5.75 ± 1.12 b	5.42 ± 1.23 a	5.83 ± 1.30 b
Health	3.85 ± 0.64 a	3.86 ± 0.68 ab	4.04 ± 0.57 b
NEP	3.81 ± 0.53	3.80 ± 0.58	3.74 ± 0.59
NEP-Limits	3.33 ± 0.73	3.40 ± 0.82	3.45 ± 0.85
NEP-Antianthro	3.76 ± 0.81	3.67 ± 0.89	3.72 ± 0.88
NEP-Balance	3.91 ± 0.75	3.96 ± 0.71	3.88 ± 0.78
NEP-Exemptionalism	3.67 ± 0.70	3.64 ± 0.70	3.47 ± 0.77
NEP-Ecocrisis	4.39 ± 0.73	4.32 ± 0.80	4.20 ± 0.82

Superscript letters denote statistically significant differences among clusters (p < 0.05). Each cluster is expressed as Mean ± Standard Deviation. EAQ (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly Agree). NEP (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree). Health (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree).

). On the other hand, the entomophagy attitude scores were significantly different among clusters. Cluster 3 showed the highest average (5.69 ± 1.150), while Cluster 2 (4.84 ± 1.361) had the lowest. Thus, participants in Cluster 3 had a greatly positive attitude towards entomophagy.

4. Discussion

Participants’ preference for chips could be interpreted as participants preferring a more processed, familiar food in which the insect ingredient is not visible. This is a recurrent finding in research concerning insects as food. A cross-country study by Bartkowicz and Babicz-Zielinska [57] found that across the five countries included in their study (Belgium, China, Italy, Mexico, and the United States), participants preferred processed mealworms to whole mealworms for inclusion in the diet. In another study of the same five countries, Sogari et al. [17] noted that participants were more willing to eat insects when they were incorporated as flour into food products rather than eating whole insects. In this study, participants commented as follows:

“I don’t like the idea of eating a whole insect because their digestive tract is intact, I would eat anything if bugs were prepared and processed though”

“More likely to eat insect flour, or insects as part of other foods than as a recognizable centerpiece of a dish, at least to start with”

“It would need to be processed to the point where it wasn’t at all recognizable as an insect. Chips that look like regular tortilla chips or potato chips. Flour. Not whole crickets”

The results from this conjoint experiment yielded three participant clusters according to their preferred product characteristics. Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 demonstrated a general reluctance to like and try the product profiles presented in the conjoint analysis, except for select profiles that included cricket-based chips.

Cluster 1 consistently assigned high overall liking ratings to profiles that featured cricket chips and an accompanying product image. These profiles received a high willingness to try, with over 84% of participants in this cluster indicating that they would be willing to try these products. The high utilities for the product type suggest that, for Cluster 1, the overall liking of the product profiles was heavily influenced by the type of product being presented. The combination of presenting a familiar product (chips) along with a visual representation appears to have positively influenced the acceptance of the product profiles with these characteristics. However, when the product was Chips without an accompanying image, both the OL ratings and WTT decreased significantly. The absence of the product image could have increased the focus on the descriptions in the labeling and the word “cricket”, highlighting the presence of insects in the product. Puteri et al. [47] argued that when introducing new unknown products such as insect-based foods, it is important to consider the potential impact of the product image. However, studies have shown that the mere presence of the word ‘insect’ on a food product’s label can evoke a negative attitude [58,59,60]. This is in agreement with Modlinska et al. [46] who found that participants ate products labeled as containing insects with more hesitance and in lower quantities even when the products did not contain insects in their ingredients. This led Kosonen [61] to believe that cultural discourses and representations shape emotions, conceptions, and norms—including thoughts related to what is disgusting. A significant portion of participants in Cluster 1 lacked prior experience consuming insects, exhibiting a higher degree of aversion towards edible insects compared to other clusters, as shown by their EAQ-D scores.

Cluster 2 displayed an ambivalent attitude towards insect-based food products (IBFP). Their average overall liking ratings were clustered around the midpoint of the 9-point hedonic scale, and their WTT responses were also more evenly distributed rather than having a clear acceptance or rejection of the profiles. Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 displayed higher disgust towards directly consuming insects. A participant expressed in one comment:

“leave the bugs for [other] countries; we have real meat here”

However, the results showed greater acceptance of using insects as feed for livestock. This finding aligns with recent reports that consumers find using insects as animal feed more acceptable than their use for human consumption [62,63,64]. In Alberta’s case, edible insects for human consumption might make more sense as a side stream of the rearing of edible insects for feed. As a participant commented:

“Using insects for farmed fish is absolutely brilliant”

Cluster 3’s profile includes participants with a predisposition to accept edible insects, which could be explained by the high percentage of participants with previous experience consuming insects, and their positive attitude towards entomophagy (measured by the average scores for the EAQ) in its three dimensions (disgust, interest, and use as feed). This explanation is supported by the comments provided by some participants such as:

“I’ve read insect-based proteins are a good, sustainable, efficient way to feed people. Eating bugs kind of grosses me out, but I like to keep an open mind and try it. It would need to be processed to the point where it wasn’t at all recognizable as an insect”

“I have no issue with insects as an ingredient in my food, as long as the food itself does not look like insects”

“Eating a plain roasted cricket is unappetizing, but if it’s in the form of a chip or other shape, I’m all for it”

This phenomenon has been observed by Hartmann and Siegrist [65], who found that participants with no previous experience with insect consumption had a lower willingness to eat unprocessed insects. Similarly, Palmieri et al. [66] reported that participants who had previous experiences with entomophagy were 10% more likely to be willing to eat insect-based food. Cluster 3’s baseline was much higher than the other clusters, and an almost negligible magnitude of the utilities across the product attributes and their levels suggests that the product and its packaging minimally influenced this cluster; instead, their liking for the product profiles appear to have been influenced by a pre-existing positive attitude towards entomophagy, and concern for health and the environment. The beliefs of the participants in this cluster carry more weight than the product itself.

Alberta’s economy heavily relies on livestock production, with nearly half of Canadian beef produced in the province [67,68] commercialized locally and internationally [69]. The comparatively low price of meat, along with the abundance of land and low population density in Alberta and Canada in general, lessens the pressure on consumers to look for other food sources. Albertans may feel less urgency to adopt insect-based diets as a sustainable alternative, unlike countries with high land-use demands, such as the Netherlands. The acceptance of insects as livestock feed may stem from the province’s reliance on beef production, aligning with established economic activities.

Incorporation of edible insects into livestock diets [70,71] could promote commercial production of insects as feed, addressing rising feed costs [72,73,74] due to factors of dry weather and global grain shortages [75,76,77,78]. Cluster 3 reveals a small consumer niche that is enthusiastic about IBFP. In addition, all the clusters were willing to try products that included chips with an image of the product on the package, even when they rejected other product profiles. This presents the possibility of successfully introducing chips as a gateway to IBFP to the general population. Comments from participants in the study expressed interest in promoting entomophagy for its benefits but were hesitant to consume insects themselves. Participants from all clusters expressed interest in promoting entomophagy due to their awareness of the benefits of consuming insects; however, they expressed hesitation in consuming insects personally. While they endorsed the benefits of IBFPs, they were not the main reason to consume such products. In other words, while people may advocate for healthier and more sustainable food choices in principle, their practical openness to incorporating insects into their diets may not always align with these ideals. This suggests that there may be other factors or barriers at play when accepting insect-based foods beyond just the desire for healthy and eco-friendly options.

A consensus among participants from all clusters is that to consume IBFP, the insect ingredients would need to be hidden. The visibility of the insects was the most mentioned attribute. Participants expressed that using processed insects (e.g., in the form of flour) could mark the difference between acceptance and rejection. These findings suggest that while people may support sustainable food options in principle, practical acceptance of insect-based foods may be influenced by various factors beyond health and environmental benefits.

4.1. Study Strengths and Limitations

For strengths, the use of conjoint analysis provides insights into how different product attributes (such as type of product, presence of images, and product claims) influence customer preferences. This approach helps understand complex consumer decision-making processes.

The study also uses validated measures, like the Entomophagy Attitude Questionnaire (EAQ) and the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP), to explore the relationship between attitudes toward insects, environmental consciousness, and willingness to adopt insect-based food products. This deepens the analysis and links consumer attitudes to broader sustainability issues.

One limitation of this study is that the survey was conducted entirely online, making it reliant on participants self-reporting their demographic information and opinions regarding the product. The nature of online anonymity made the survey vulnerable to including fraudulent data, which could have altered some of the results despite our best efforts to filter out disingenuous responses.

In addition, this study did not ask participants about the frequency and type of interactions with IBFP. It is impossible to distinguish between participants who have had a single experience consuming insects and participants who are recurrent consumers of IBFP. Future studies should also consider whether these experiences were viewed as positive or negative by participants.

4.2. Future Research Recommendations

Future research should explore how different wording strategies can influence consumer attitudes and preferences. Studying meat attachment and consumption habits could help researchers understand the emotional barriers that may exist when trying to replace meat with insects. Future studies can explore how to effectively communicate the benefits of insect-based foods to different segments of the population based on their meat-related attitudes and behaviors. Livestock producers are increasingly exploring sustainable and cost-effective protein sources for animal feed, with edible insects emerging as a promising alternative to traditional options. Future studies should investigate the feasibility of incorporating insects into livestock diets and assess their impact on animal health and growth, as well as the economic viability of insect-based feed. Quantification of the environmental benefits of insect-based feed compared to conventional options is crucial for encouraging the adoption of insects as a viable and sustainable source of livestock feed.

5. Conclusions

A conjoint analysis aimed at evaluating how various product attributes (type of product, presence or absence of a product image, and product claims) influenced participants’ acceptance of cricket-based snacks revealed that the type of product was the main driver of Overall Liking (OL) and Willingness to Try (WTT) among all participants, particularly in participant clusters with fewer individuals with experience consuming insects. Across all clusters, cricket chips emerged as the preferred product option. Product claims were marginally effective in persuading participants to like or try the cricket-based snacks and could not be used to override aversion towards visible insect ingredients.

There were no significant differences among clusters in their scores for the NEP scale as well as in its subscales, which indicates a similar perception towards the environment. As shown by their NEP scores, participants demonstrated a pro-ecological worldview through their commitment to sustainability and environmental issues and expressed support for the use of insects as a suitable feed for livestock. In a region like Alberta, where low population density, affordable meat access, and economic dependence on livestock production are prominent, using insects as livestock feed may represent a fitting level of sustainable engagement for the population.

The participant cluster comprising the greatest number of individuals with prior exposure to insect consumption had the greatest overall liking and willingness to try the cricket-based snacks. despite marginal effects from all product attributes on their liking. In this instance, it became evident that previous experiences had the most significant influence on the perception of cricket snacks, highlighting the role of familiarity and exposure in shaping consumer preferences. The findings of this study highlight the significant role of product images on packaging in shaping consumer preferences for cricket-based snacks. Across all clusters, the presence of an image on the packaging was associated with higher OL scores and a greater WTT. These results suggest that visual cues on packaging can effectively reduce the perceived aversion to insect-based foods, potentially by making the product appear more familiar and appealing. The positive influence of images underscores the importance of strategic packaging design in promoting consumer acceptance of novel protein sources such as edible insects. As consumers are more inclined to try and like products that visually resemble familiar snack foods, incorporating attractive and informative images on packaging could be a valuable strategy for enhancing the marketability of insect-based products.