Effect of Informed Conditions on Sensory Expectations and Actual Perceptions: A Case of Chocolate Brownies Containing Edible-Cricket Protein
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Chocolate Brownie Samples Preparation
2.2. Sensory Evaluation
2.2.1. Subjects
2.2.2. Consumer Test
2.2.3. Questionnaire
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Significance of Effects on Sensory Acceptability
3.2. Effects of Formulation and Edible Cricket Protein and Benefits Disclosure on Sensory Acceptability
3.3. Overall Differences in Sensory Acceptability Segmented by Gender
3.4. Consumption and Purchase Intent Segmented by Gender
4. Conclusions and Future Studies
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wu, G.; Fanzo, J.; Miller, D.D.; Pingali, P.; Post, M.; Steiner, J.L.; Thalacker-Mercer, A.E. Production and supply of high-quality food protein for human consumption: Sustainability, challenges, and innovations. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1321, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belluco, S.; Losasso, C.; Maggioletti, M.; Alonzi, C.C.; Paoletti, M.G.; Ricci, A. Edible insects in a food safety and nutritional perspective: A critical review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2013, 12, 296–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glover, D.; Sexton, A. Edible Insects and the Future of Food: A Foresight Scenario Exercise on Entomophagy and Global Food Security; IDS: Sussex, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kouřimská, L.; Adámková, A. Nutritional and sensory quality of edible insects. NFS J. 2016, 4, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ghosh, S.; Jung, C.; Meyer-Rochow, V.B. What governs selection and acceptance of edible insect species? In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 331–351. [Google Scholar]
- Melgar-Lalanne, G.; Hernández-Álvarez, A.J.; Salinas-Castro, A. Edible insects processing: Traditional and innovative technologies. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 1166–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Rumpold, B.A.; Schlüter, O.K. Nutritional composition and safety aspects of edible insects. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2013, 57, 802–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Churchward-Venne, T.A.; Pinckaers, P.J.; van Loon, J.J.; van Loon, L.J. Consideration of insects as a source of dietary protein for human consumption. Nutr. Rev. 2017, 75, 1035–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Imathiu, S. Benefits and food safety concerns associated with consumption of edible insects. NFS J. 2020, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raubenheimer, D.; Rothman, J.M. Nutritional ecology of entomophagy in humans and other primates. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013, 58, 141–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Finke, M.D.; DeFoliart, G.R.; Benevenga, N.J. Use of a four-parameter logistic model to evaluate the quality of the protein from three insect species when fed to rats. J. Nutr. 1989, 119, 864–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Köhler, R.; Kariuki, L.; Lambert, C.; Biesalski, H. Protein, amino acid and mineral composition of some edible insects from Thailand. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2019, 22, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oibiokpa, F.I.; Akanya, H.O.; Jigam, A.A.; Saidu, A.N.; Egwim, E.C. Protein quality of four indigenous edible insect species in Nigeria. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2018, 7, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Castro, R.J.S.; Ohara, A.; dos Santos Aguilar, J.G.; Domingues, M.A.F. Nutritional, functional and biological properties of insect proteins: Processes for obtaining, consumption and future challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 76, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardoin, R.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. Product Appropriateness, Willingness to Try, and Perceived Risks of Foods Containing Insect Protein Powder: A Survey of US Consumers. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 3215–3226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardoin, R.; Romero, R.; Marx, B.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. Exploring New and Modified Rejection-Type Thresholds Using Cricket Snack Crackers. Foods 2020, 9, 1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Huis, A.; Dicke, M.; van Loon, J.J. Insects to feed the world. J. Insects Food Feed 2015, 1, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shelomi, M. Why we still don’t eat insects: Assessing entomophagy promotion through a diffusion of innovations framework. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 45, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giordano, S.; Clodoveo, M.L.; De Gennaro, B.; Corbo, F. Factors determining neophobia and neophilia with regard to new technologies applied to the food sector: A systematic review. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2018, 11, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardoin, R.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. Consumer Perceptions of Insect Consumption: A Review of Western Research since 2015. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardoin, R.; Marx, B.D.; Boeneke, C.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. Effects of cricket powder on selected physical properties and US consumer perceptions of whole-wheat snack crackers. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berger, S.; Bärtsch, C.; Schmidt, C.; Christandl, F.; Wyss, A.M. When utilitarian claims backfire: Advertising content and the uptake of insects as food. Front. Nutr. 2018, 5, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishyna, M.; Chen, J.; Benjamin, O. Sensory attributes of edible insects and insect-based foods–Future outlooks for enhancing consumer appeal. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 95, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, A.R.; Steenbekkers, L.B. All insects are equal, but some insects are more equal than others. Br. Food J. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Megido, R.C.; Gierts, C.; Blecker, C.; Brostaux, Y.; Haubruge, É.; Alabi, T.; Francis, F. Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 52, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addinsoft. XLSTAT Statistical and Data Analysis Solution. Available online: https://www.xlstat.com (accessed on 15 June 2021).
- Smith, M.Q.P.; Ruxton, G.D. Effective use of the McNemar test. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2020, 74, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1995, 57, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woolf, E.; Zhu, Y.; Emory, K.; Zhao, J.; Liu, C. Willingness to consume insect-containing foods: A survey in the United States. LWT 2019, 102, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lammers, P.; Ullmann, L.M.; Fiebelkorn, F. Acceptance of insects as food in Germany: Is it about sensation seeking, sustainability consciousness, or food disgust? Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 77, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Barbera, F.; Verneau, F.; Coppola, A. Entomophagy: A contribution to the understanding of consumer intention. Calitatea 2019, 20, 329–334. [Google Scholar]
- La Barbera, F.; Verneau, F.; Amato, M.; Grunert, K. Understanding Westerners’ disgust for the eating of insects: The role of food neophobia and implicit associations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 120–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, H.S.G.; Fischer, A.R.; van Trijp, H.C.; Stieger, M. Tasty but nasty? Exploring the role of sensory-liking and food appropriateness in the willingness to eat unusual novel foods like insects. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 48, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeke, W. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verneau, F.; La Barbera, F.; Kolle, S.; Amato, M.; Del Giudice, T.; Grunert, K. The effect of communication and implicit associations on consuming insects: An experiment in Denmark and Italy. Appetite 2016, 106, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schouteten, J.J.; De Steur, H.; De Pelsmaeker, S.; Lagast, S.; Juvinal, J.G.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Verbeke, W.; Gellynck, X. Emotional and sensory profiling of insect-, plant-and meat-based burgers under blind, expected and informed conditions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 52, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laguna, L.; Gómez, B.; Garrido, M.D.; Fiszman, S.; Tarrega, A.; Linares, M.B. Do Consumers Change Their Perception of Liking, Expected Satiety, and Healthiness of a Product If They Know It Is a Ready-to Eat Meal? Foods 2020, 9, 1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Santagiuliana, M.; Bhaskaran, V.; Scholten, E.; Piqueras-Fiszman, B.; Stieger, M. Don’t judge new foods by their appearance! How visual and oral sensory cues affect sensory perception and liking of novel, heterogeneous foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 77, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verastegui-Tena, L.; van Trijp, H.; Piqueras-Fiszman, B. Heart rate, skin conductance, and explicit responses to juice samples with varying levels of expectation (dis) confirmation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 71, 320–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, R.E. Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. J. Mark. Res. 1973, 10, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Everitt, M. Consumer-targeted sensory quality. In Global Issues in Food Science and Technology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 117–128. [Google Scholar]
- Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Insects as food: Perception and acceptance. Findings from current research. Ernahr. Umsch. 2017, 64, 44–50. [Google Scholar]
- Ruby, M.B.; Rozin, P.; Chan, C. Determinants of willingness to eat insects in the USA and India. J. Insects Food Feed 2015, 1, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schösler, H.; De Boer, J.; Boersema, J.J. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite 2012, 58, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Boer, J.; Schösler, H.; Boersema, J.J. Motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or “hybrid” meat. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 32–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, C.; Shi, J.; Giusto, A.; Siegrist, M. The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 44, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, M.; Brunton, N.P.; Wilkinson, M.G. The influence of salt taste threshold on acceptability and purchase intent of reformulated reduced sodium vegetable soups. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 356–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro Delgado, M.; Chambers IV, E.; Carbonell-Barrachina, A.; Noguera Artiaga, L.; Vidal Quintanar, R.; Burgos Hernandez, A. Consumer acceptability in the USA, Mexico, and Spain of chocolate chip cookies made with partial insect powder replacement. J. Food Sci. 2020, 85, 1621–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Orsi, L.; Voege, L.L.; Stranieri, S. Eating edible insects as sustainable food? Exploring the determinants of consumer acceptance in Germany. Food Res. Int. 2019, 125, 108573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schäufele, I.; Albores, E.B.; Hamm, U. The role of species for the acceptance of edible insects: Evidence from a consumer survey. Br. Food J. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barsics, F.; Megido, R.C.; Brostaux, Y.; Barsics, C.; Blecker, C.; Haubruge, E.; Francis, F. Could new information influence attitudes to foods supplemented with edible insects? Br. Food J. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamerman, E.J. Cooking and disgust sensitivity influence preference for attending insect-based food events. Appetite 2016, 96, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, H.S.G.; Verbaan, Y.T.; Stieger, M. How will better products improve the sensory-liking and willingness to buy insect-based foods? Food Res. Int. 2017, 92, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balzan, S.; Fasolato, L.; Maniero, S.; Novelli, E. Edible insects and young adults in a north-east Italian city an exploratory study. Br. Food J. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caparros Megido, R.; Sablon, L.; Geuens, M.; Brostaux, Y.; Alabi, T.; Blecker, C.; Drugmand, D.; Haubruge, É.; Francis, F. Edible Insects Acceptance by B elgian Consumers: Promising Attitude for Entomophagy Development. J. Sens. Stud. 2014, 29, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamborg, C.; Röcklinsberg, H.; Gjerris, M. Sustainable proteins? Values related to insects in food systems. In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 199–211. [Google Scholar]
- Lensvelt, E.J.; Steenbekkers, L. Exploring consumer acceptance of entomophagy: A survey and experiment in Australia and the Netherlands. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2014, 53, 543–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schiemer, C.; Halloran, A.; Jespersen, K.; Kaukua, P. Marketing Insects: Superfood or Solution-Food? In Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 213–236. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, H.S.G.; Fischer, A.R.; Tinchan, P.; Stieger, M.; Steenbekkers, L.; van Trijp, H.C. Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 42, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostecka, J.; Konieczna, K.; Cunha, L.M. Evaluation of insect-based food acceptance by representatives of polish consumers in the context of natural resources processing retardation. J. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 18, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sogari, G.; Bogueva, D.; Marinova, D. Australian consumers’ response to insects as food. Agriculture 2019, 9, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Van Huis, A.; Van Itterbeeck, J.; Klunder, H.; Mertens, E.; Halloran, A.; Muir, G.; Vantomme, P. Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Delicato, C.; Schouteten, J.J.; Dewettinck, K.; Gellynck, X.; Tzompa-Sosa, D.A. Consumers’ perception of bakery products with insect fat as partial butter replacement. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 79, 103755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Effects | Appearance * | Aroma | Texture | Overall Flavor | Overall Liking | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F Value | Pr > F | F Value | Pr > F | F Value | Pr > F | F Value | Pr > F | F Value | Pr > F | |
Gender | 1.54 | 0.22 | 0.01 | 0.91 | 4.33 | 0.04 | 3.49 | 0.06 | 2.54 | 0.11 |
Liking moment | - | - | 0.51 | 0.48 | 15.46 | <0.01 | 13.22 | <0.01 | 17.95 | <0.01 |
Formulation | 39.34 | <0.01 | 13.38 | <0.01 | 50.79 | <0.01 | 39.64 | <0.01 | 35.00 | <0.01 |
Informed condition | 0.79 | 0.37 | 5.78 | 0.02 | 0.23 | 0.63 | 4.67 | 0.03 | 3.07 | 0.08 |
Liking moment*Formulation | - | - | 0.80 | 0.37 | 6.57 | 0.01 | 19.95 | <0.01 | 15.58 | <0.01 |
Liking moment*Informed condition | - | - | 14.40 | <0.01 | 13.96 | <0.01 | 26.81 | <0.01 | 29.10 | <0.01 |
Formulation*Informed condition | 2.79 | 0.10 | 4.09 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.93 | 1.81 | 0.18 | 2.84 | 0.09 |
Gender*Formulation | 0.04 | 0.84 | 1.61 | 0.20 | 1.31 | 0.25 | 6.64 | 0.01 | 6.32 | 0.01 |
Gender*Informed condition | 0.03 | 0.87 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.03 | 0.85 | 0.21 | 0.65 | 0.35 | 0.55 |
Liking moment*Formulation*Informed condition | - | - | 1.25 | 0.26 | 1.00 | 0.32 | 0.22 | 0.64 | 0.00 | 0.98 |
Gender*Formulation*Informed condition | 0.11 | 0.74 | 1.14 | 0.29 | 0.00 | 0.96 | 0.25 | 0.62 | 0.16 | 0.69 |
Treatments | CBWO− | CBWO+ | CBW− | CBW+ | SEM § | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Likings | Expected | Actual | Expected | Actual | Expected | Actual | Expected | Actual | |
Appearance | 6.67A | 6.64A | 6.33B | 6.44AB | 0.28 | ||||
Aroma | 6.90A | 6.77AB | 6.52BCD | 6.67ABCD | 6.70ABC | 6.36D | 6.42CD | 6.60ABCD | 0.25 |
Texture | 6.58A | 6.21BCD | 6.33ABC | 6.53AB | 6.25ABC | 5.68E | 6.10CD | 5.87DE | 0.31 |
Overall Flavor | 6.83A | 6.60ABC | 6.34BCD | 6.67AB | 6.67AB | 5.84E | 6.28CD | 6.13DE | 0.28 |
Overall Liking | 6.86A | 6.53AB | 6.35BC | 6.65AB | 6.65AB | 5.87D | 6.33BC | 6.17CD | 0.28 |
Moment | Treatments | CBWO− | CBWO+ | CBW− | CBW+ | SEM § | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | |
Expected (before tasting) | Appearance | 6.56A | 6.78A | 6.54A | 6.74A | 6.24A | 6.41A | 6.33A | 6.54A | 0.30 | 0.31 |
Aroma | 7.10AC | 6.96ABE | 6.64BDEF | 6.65ABCDEF | 6.90ABCD | 6.74ABCDEF | 6.54EF | 6.55CDF | 0.27 | 0.28 | |
Texture | 6.49A | 6.73A | 6.21AB | 6.50AB | 6.16AB | 6.38AB | 5.89B | 6.38AB | 0.31 | 0.32 | |
Overall Flavor | 6.74AB | 6.89A | 6.26C | 6.38BC | 6.57ABC | 6.71ABC | 6.18C | 6.33BC | 0.28 | 0.29 | |
Overall Liking | 6.83AB | 6.93A | 6.34C | 6.40BC | 6.61ABC | 6.71ABC | 6.27C | 6.43BC | 0.28 | 0.29 | |
Actual (after tasting) | Aroma | 6.75A | 6.53AB | 6.54AB | 6.55AB | 6.09B | 6.39AB | 6.45AB | 6.50AB | 0.30 | 0.31 |
Texture | 6.00ABC | 6.36ABC | 6.37AB | 6.63A | 5.34D | 5.98BCD | 5.67CD | 6.01BCD | 0.37 | 0.38 | |
Overall Flavor | 6.57A | 6.67A | 6.62A | 6.77A | 5.44C | 6.31AB | 5.85BC | 6.47AB | 0.34 | 0.35 | |
Overall Liking | 6.45A | 6.58AB | 6.56A | 6.69A | 5.46C | 6.26AB | 5.90BC | 6.41AB | 0.34 | 0.36 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gurdian, C.E.; Torrico, D.D.; Li, B.; Tuuri, G.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. Effect of Informed Conditions on Sensory Expectations and Actual Perceptions: A Case of Chocolate Brownies Containing Edible-Cricket Protein. Foods 2021, 10, 1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10071480
Gurdian CE, Torrico DD, Li B, Tuuri G, Prinyawiwatkul W. Effect of Informed Conditions on Sensory Expectations and Actual Perceptions: A Case of Chocolate Brownies Containing Edible-Cricket Protein. Foods. 2021; 10(7):1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10071480
Chicago/Turabian StyleGurdian, Cristhiam E., Damir D. Torrico, Bin Li, Georgianna Tuuri, and Witoon Prinyawiwatkul. 2021. "Effect of Informed Conditions on Sensory Expectations and Actual Perceptions: A Case of Chocolate Brownies Containing Edible-Cricket Protein" Foods 10, no. 7: 1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10071480