Acceptance of Cultured Meat in Germany—Application of an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Aims of the Study
2. Theoretical Framework: An Extended TPB
2.1. Variables of the TPB
2.1.1. Attitudes
2.1.2. Subjective Norms
2.1.3. Perceived Behavioural Control
2.2. Extending the TPB
2.2.1. Sociodemographic Data and Meat Consumption
Age, Gender, Education
Meat Consumption
Reduction of Meat Consumption
2.2.2. Nutritional-Psychological Variables
Familiarity
Food Disgust
Food Neophobia
Food Technology Neophobia
Sensation Seeking
Green Consumption Values
2.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses
- H1.1: Specific attitudes towards a cultured meat burger have a positive influence on the willingness to consume a cultured meat burger.
- H1.2: Specific attitudes towards a cultured meat burger act as a mediator between general attitudes towards cultured meat and the willingness to consume a cultured meat burger.
- H1.3: Subjective norms have a positive influence on the intention to consume a cultured meat burger.
- H1.4: Perceived behavioural control has a positive influence on the willingness to consume a cultured meat burger.
- H1.5: Specific attitudes towards a cultured meat burger have the strongest positive influence on the willingness to consume followed by perceived behavioural control and subjective norms.
- H2.1: Younger males and better-educated participants will demonstrate a higher willingness to consume a cultured meat burger.
- H2.2: Respondents with high meat consumption or who do not want to reduce their meat consumption will show a higher intention to consume a cultured meat burger.
- H2.3: Higher familiarity with cultured meat leads to a higher willingness to consume a cultured meat burger.
- H2.4: Food disgust, food neophobia, and food technology neophobia have a negative impact on general attitudes towards cultured meat.
- H2.5: The willingness to consume a cultured meat burger is negatively influenced by food disgust, food neophobia, and food technology neophobia.
- H2.6: Sensation seeking and green consumption values will show a positive impact on general attitudes towards cultured meat.
- H2.7: Sensation seeking and green consumption values positively influence the willingness to consume a cultured meat burger.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Design and Sample
3.2. Measuring Instrument and Variables
3.2.1. Theory of Planned Behaviour
Willingness to Consume a Cultured Meat Burger
Attitudes
General Attitudes towards Cultured Meat
Specific Attitudes towards a Cultured Meat Burger
Perceived Behavioural Control
Subjective Norms
3.2.2. Extension of the Theory of Planned Behaviour
Sociodemographic Data (Gender, Age, Education)
Meat Consumption
Reduction of Meat Consumption
Familiarity with Cultured Meat
Food Neophobia
Food Technology Neophobia
Food Disgust
Sensation Seeking
Green Consumption Values
3.3. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Attitudes
4.2. Mediation Analysis
4.3. Path Model
5. Discussion
5.1. Aptitude of the Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour
5.2. Influence of the Extended Variables
5.2.1. Influence of Sociodemographic Variables and Eating Habits
5.2.2. Influence of Nutritional-Psychological Variables
5.3. Limitations of the Study
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision; ESA Working paper No. 12-03; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Larsson, S.C.; Wolk, A. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int. J. Cancer 2006, 119, 2657–2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Micha, R.; Michas, G.; Lajous, M.; Mozaffarian, D. Processing of meats and cardiovascular risk: Time to focus on preservatives. BMC Med. 2013, 11, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Song, Y.; Manson, J.E.; Buring, J.E.; Liu, S. A prospective study of red meat consumption and type 2 diabetes in middle-aged and elderly Women: The women’s health study. Diabetes Care 2004, 27, 2108–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taylor, E.F.; Burley, V.J.; Greenwood, D.C.; Cade, J.E. Meat consumption and risk of breast cancer in the UK women’s cohort study. Br. J. Cancer 2007, 96, 1139–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Goodland, R.; Anhang, J. Livestock and climate change: What if the key actors in climate change are cows, pigs, and chicken? World Watch 2009, 22, 10–19. [Google Scholar]
- Raschka, A.; Carus, M. Stoffliche Nutzung von Biomasse: Basisdaten für Deutschland, Europa und die Welt; Nova-Institut GmbH: Hürth, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Jetzke, T.; Bovenschulte, M.; Ehrenberg-Silies, S. Fleisch 2.0—Unkonventionelle Proteinquellen; Themenkurzprofile; Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS): Karlsruhe, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilman, D.; Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 2014, 515, 518–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadathur, S.R.; Wanasundara, J.P.D.; Scanlin, L. (Eds.) Sustainable Protein Sources; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; ISBN 9780128027783. [Google Scholar]
- 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; FAO Forestry Paper 171; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013; Volume 171. [Google Scholar]
- Bryant, C.J.; Barnett, J.C. What’s in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite 2019, 137, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Böhm, I.; Ferrari, A.; Woll, S. In-Vitro-Fleisch: Eine Technische Vision zur Lösung der Probleme der Heutigen Fleischproduktion und des Fleischkonsums? Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS): Karlsruhe, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Post, M.J. An alternative animal protein source: Cultured beef. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1328, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Treich, N. Cultured meat: Promises and challenges. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2021, 79, 33–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The Good Food Institute. 2020 State of the Industry Report: Cultivated Meat; The Good Food Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- German Bundestag. Sachstand: In-vitro-Fleisch (WD 5-3000-009/18); German Bundestag: Berlin, Germany, 2018.
- Jetzke, T.; Richter, S.; Keppner, B.; Domröse, L.; Wunder, S.; Ferrari, A. Die Zukunft im Blick: Fleisch der Zukunft—Trendbericht zur Abschätzung der Umweltwirkungen von Pflanzlichen Fleischersatzprodukten, Essbaren Insekten und In-Vitro-Fleisch; Umweltbundesamt: Dessau-Roßlau, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- German Bundestag. Ausarbeitung: Einzelfragen zu In-vitro-Fleisch (WD 5-3000-151/18); German Bundestag: Berlin, Germany, 2019.
- Datar, I.; Betti, M. Possibilities for an in vitro Meat production system. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2010, 11, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hocquette, J.-F. Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Sci. 2016, 120, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuomisto, H.; Ellis, M.; Haastrup, H. Environmental impacts of cultured meat: Alternative production scenarios. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–10 October 2014; pp. 1360–1366. [Google Scholar]
- Sinke, P.; Odegard, I. LCA of Cultivated Meat Future Projections for Different Scenarios; CE Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Gerbhardt, C.; Donnan, D.; Ziemßen, F.; Kühnle, H.-J.; Warschun, M. How will Cultured Meat and Meat Alternatives Disrupt the Agricultural and Food Industry? Kearney: Chicago, IL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Onwezen, M.; van den Puttelaar, J.; Verain, M.; Veldkamp, T. Consumer acceptance of insects as food and feed: The relevance of affective factors. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 77, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onwezen, M.; Bouwman, E.P.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H. A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite 2021, 159, 105058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Staats, H. Understanding pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. An analysis and review of research based on the theory of planned behavior. In Psychological Theories for Environmental Issues; Bonnes, M., Lee, T., Bonaiuto, M., Eds.; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2003; pp. 171–201. [Google Scholar]
- Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. Consumer attitudes and behavior: The theory of planned behavior applied to food consumption decisions. Ital. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2016, 70, 121–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Swidi, A.; Mohammed Rafiul Huque, S.; Haroon Hafeez, M.; Noor Mohd Shariff, M. The role of subjective norms in theory of planned behavior in the context of organic food consumption. Br. Food J. 2014, 116, 1561–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, D.; Arnold, J.; Kremer, K. Consumption-intention formation in education for sustainable development: An adapted model based on the theory of planned behavior. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Leeuw, A.; Valois, P.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 42, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lobb, A.E.; Mazzocchi, M.; Traill, W.B. Modelling risk perception and trust in food safety information within the theory of planned behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 384–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparks, P.; Hinds, J.; Curnock, S.; Pavey, L. Connectedness and its consequences: A study of relationships with the natural environment. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 44, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, A.; Hahn, S.C.; Fiebelkorn, F. Teach what you Eeat: Student biology teachers’ intention to teach sustainable nutrition. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2021, 53, 1018–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weber, A.; Büssing, A.G.; Jarzyna, R.; Fiebelkorn, F. Do German student biology teachers intend to eat sustainably? Extending the theory of planned behavior with nature relatedness and environmental concern. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, A.; Fiebelkorn, F. Nachhaltige Ernährung, Naturverbundenheit und Umweltbetroffenheit von angehenden Biologielehrkräften—Eine Anwendung der Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens. Z. Didakt. Nat. 2019, 25, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cattaneo, C.; Lavelli, V.; Proserpio, C.; Laureati, M.; Pagliarini, E. Consumers’ attitude towards food by-products: The influence of food technology neophobia, education and information. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 54, 679–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.-P.; Ma, C.-C.; Chen, H.-S. Climate change and consumer’s attitude toward insect food. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Elorinne, A.-L.; Niva, M.; Vartiainen, O.; Väisänen, P. Insect consumption attitutes among vegans, non-vegan vegetarians, and omnivores. Nutrients 2019, 11, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lucchese-Cheung, T.; de Aguiar, L.K.; da Silva, R.F.F.; Pereira, M.W. Determinants of the intention to consume edible insects in Brazil. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2020, 26, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menozzi, D.; Sogari, G.; Veneziani, M.; Simoni, E.; Mora, C. Eating novel foods: An application of the theory of planned behaviour to predict the consumption of an insect-based product. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 59, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vartiainen, O.; Elorinne, A.-L.; Niva, M.; Väisänen, P. Finnish consumers’ intentions to consume insect-based foods. J. Insects Food Feed. 2020, 6, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breckler, S.J. Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 47, 1191–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilks, M. Consumer attitudes and acceptance of clean meat. In Reference Module in Food Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dupont, J.; Fiebelkorn, F. Attitudes and acceptance of young people toward the consumption of insects and cultured meat in Germany. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 85, 103983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroesen, M.; Chorus, C. The role of general and specific attitudes in predicting travel behavior—A fatal dilemma? Travel Behav. Soc. 2018, 10, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maio, G.R.; Haddock, G.; Verplanken, B. The Psychology of Attitudes and Attitude Change, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bryant, C.; Szejda, K.; Parekh, N.; Deshpande, V.; Tse, B. A survey of consumer perceptions of plant-based and clean meat in the USA, India, and China. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graf, D. Die Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens. In Theorien in der Biologiedidaktischen Forschung; Krüger, D., Vogt, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 33–43. [Google Scholar]
- La Barbera, F.; Ajzen, I. Control interactions in the theory of planned behavior: Rethinking the role of subjective norm. Eur. J. Psychol. 2020, 16, 401–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryant, C.; Barnett, J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Sci. 2018, 143, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bryant, C.; van Nek, L.; Rolland, N.C.M. European markets for cultured meat: A comparison of Germany and France. Foods 2020, 9, 1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mancini, M.C.; Antonioli, F. Exploring consumers’ attitude towards cultured meat in Italy. Meat Sci. 2019, 150, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slade, P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite 2018, 125, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilks, M.; Phillips, C.J.C.; Fielding, K.; Hornsey, M.J. Testing potential psychological predictors of attitudes towards cultured meat. Appetite 2019, 136, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinrich, R.; Strack, M.; Neugebauer, F. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat in Germany. Meat Sci. 2020, 162, 107924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilks, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bekker, G.A.; Fischer, A.R.H.; Tobi, H.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite 2017, 108, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Development and validation of the Food Disgust Scale. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 63, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C. Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured meat acceptance in ten countries. Appetite 2020, 155, 104814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pliner, P.; Hobden, K. Development of a Scale to Measure the Trait of Food Neophobia in Humans. Appetite 1992, 19, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, D.N.; Evans, G. Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale. Food Qual. Prefer. 2008, 19, 704–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Luciano, C.A.; de Aguiar, L.K.; Vriesekoop, F.; Urbano, B. Consumers’ willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat proteins in the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil and the Dominican Republic. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 78, 103732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryant, C.; Dillard, C. The impact of framing on acceptance of cultured meat. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siegrist, M.; Sütterlin, B.; Hartmann, C. Perceived naturalness and evoked disgust influence acceptance of cultured meat. Meat Sci. 2018, 139, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlup, Y.; Brunner, T. Prospects for insects as food in Switzerland: A tobit regression. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 64, 37–46. [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]
- Zuckerman, M.; Eysenck, S.B.; Eysenck, H.J. Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1978, 46, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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]
- 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]
- Kusch, S.; Fiebelkorn, F. Environmental impact judgments of meat, vegetarian, and insect burgers: Unifying the negative footprint illusion and quantity insensitivity. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 78, 103731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorissen, K.; Weijters, B. The negative footprint illusion: Perceptual bias in sustainable food consumption. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 50–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laestadius, L.I.; Caldwell, M.A. Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 2457–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verbeke, W.; Marcu, A.; Rutsaert, P.; Gaspar, R.; Seibt, B.; Fletcher, D.; Barnett, J. ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Sci. 2015, 102, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Circus, V.E.; Robison, R. Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachment. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 533–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Consumerfieldwork. Panel Book Germany; Consumerfieldwork: Hamburg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). Statistisches Jahrbuch: Deutschland und Internationales 2019; Statistisches Bundesamt: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019.
- Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit: Bevölkerungsfortbeschreibung auf Grundlage des Zensus 2011; Statistisches Bundesamt: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2016.
- Veganz. Europäischer Ernährungsreport 2020; Veganz Group AG: Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Appinio. Welcher der Folgenden Typen Beschreibt Deine Momentane Ernährung am Ehesten? Zitiert Nach de.statista.com. 2020. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/941967/umfrage/umfrage-zur-ernaehrungsweise-in-deutschland/ (accessed on 9 December 2021).
- Post, M.J. Cultured beef: Medical technology to produce food. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 1039–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. In The Handbook of Attitudes; Albarracín, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 173–221. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- De Groot, J.; Steg, L. General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: The role of environmental concerns in the TPB. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 37, 1817–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). Statistik und Wissenschaft: Demographische Standards Ausgabe 2016, 6th ed.; Statistisches Bundesamt: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2016.
- Siegrist, M.; Hartmann, C.; Keller, C. Antecedents of food neophobia and its association with eating behavior and food choices. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 30, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyle, R.H.; Stephenson, M.T.; Palmgreen, P.; Lorch, E.P.; Donohew, R.L. Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2002, 32, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haws, K.L.; Winterich, K.P.; Naylor, R.W. Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 336–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nayebi, H. Advanced Statistics for Testing Assumed Casual Relationships—Multiple Regression Analysis Path Analysis Logistic Regression Analysis, 1st ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2020; ISBN 978-3-030-54753-0. [Google Scholar]
- Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed.; Sage: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Field, A.P.; Wilcox, R.R. Robust statistical methods: A primer for clinical psychology and Experimental psychopathology researchers. Behav. Res. Ther. 2017, 98, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.-H. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav. Res. Methods 2016, 48, 936–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rosseel, Y. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Schermelleh-Engel, K.; Moosbrugger, H.; Müller, H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol. Res. 2003, 8, 23–74. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forsa Politik-und Sozialforschung GmbH. So will Deutschland Essen—Ergebnisse Einer Repräsentativen Bevölkerungsbefragung; Forsa Politik-und Sozialforschung GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Moors, G.; Kieruj, N.D.; Vermunt, J.K. The effect of labeling and numbering of response scales on the likelihood of response bias. Sociol. Methodol. 2014, 44, 369–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goldsmith, R.E.; Hofacker, C.F. Measuring consumer innovativeness. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1991, 19, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laestadius, L.I. Public perceptions of the ethics of in-vitro meat: Determining an appropriate course of action. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015, 28, 991–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vegconomist. Erste Deutsche Studie zur Verbraucherwahrnehmung des Begriffs “Laborfleisch”. Available online: https://vegconomist.de/studien-und-zahlen/erste-deutsche-studie-zur-verbraucherwahrnehmung-des-begriffs-laborfleisch/ (accessed on 9 December 2021).
- Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 542–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McEachan, R.R.C.; Conner, M.; Taylor, N.J.; Lawton, R.J. Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychol. Rev. 2011, 5, 97–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Keefe, L.; McLachlan, C.; Gough, C.; Mander, S.; Bows-Larkin, A. Consumer responses to a future UK food system. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 412–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Good Meat—Frequently Asked Questions. Available online: https://goodmeat.co/faq (accessed on 6 December 2021).
- De Paula Soares Valente, J.; Fiedler, R.A.; Sucha Heidemann, M.; Molento, C.F.M. First glimpse on attitudes of highly educated consumers towards cell-based meat and related issues in Brazil. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0221129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vanhonacker, F.; van Loo, E.J.; Gellynck, X.; Verbeke, W. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 2013, 62, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rimbach, G.; Nagursky, J.; Erbersdobler, H.F. Lebensmittel-Warenkunde für Einsteiger; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; ISBN 978-3-662-46279-9. [Google Scholar]
- Bryant, C.J.; Anderson, J.E.; Asher, K.E.; Green, C.; Gasteratos, K. Strategies for overcoming aversion to unnaturalness: The case of clean meat. Meat Sci. 2019, 154, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pliner, P.; Pelchat, M.; Grabski, M. Reduction of neophobia in humans by exposure to novel foods. Appetite 1993, 20, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustonen, S.; Tuorila, H. Sensory education decreases food neophobia score and encourages trying unfamiliar foods in 8–12-year-old children. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, B.-K.; Cho, M.-S. Taste education reduces food neophobia and increases willingness to try novel foods in school children. Nutr. Res. Pract. 2016, 10, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marcu, A.; Gaspar, R.; Rutsaert, P.; Seibt, B.; Fletcher, D.; Verbeke, W.; Barnett, J. Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Underst. Sci. 2015, 24, 547–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verbeke, W.; Sans, P.; van Loo, E.J. Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. J. Integr. Agric. 2015, 14, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baur, N.; Blasius, J. (Eds.) Handbuch Methoden der Empirischen Sozialforschung; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2014; ISBN 978-3-531-17809-7. [Google Scholar]
- Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude—behavioral intention” gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 169–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 121 | 131 | 141 | 151 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) Age | 1 | −0.27 *** | −0.04 | 0.09 | −0.08 | 0.17 *** | 0.14 ** | 0.03 | −0.29 *** | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.01 | −0.05 | −0.16 *** | −0.09 * |
(2) EDU | 1 | −0.01 | −0.02 | 0.24 *** | −0.14 ** | −0.09 * | −0.11 * | 0.14 ** | 0.12 ** | 0.07 | −0.01 | −0.01 | 0.03 | −0.00 | |
(3) MCON | 1 | 0.10 * | 0.04 | −0.07 | 0.01 | −0.15 *** | 0.03 | −0.31 *** | 0.03 | −0.06 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.04 | ||
(4) MRED | 1 | −0.12 ** | 0.10 * | 0.12 ** | −0.04 | −0.18 *** | −0.30 *** | −0.09 | −0.23 *** | −0.17 *** | −0.23 *** | −0.22 *** | |||
(5) FAM | 1 | −0.12 ** | −0.13 ** | −0.18 *** | 0.11 * | 0.18 *** | 0.25 *** | 0.21 *** | 0.12 ** | 0.12 ** | 0.13 ** | ||||
(6) FN | 1 | 0.31 *** | 0.36 *** | −0.29 *** | −0.15 ** | −0.30 *** | −0.28 *** | −0.28 *** | −0.33 *** | −0.35 *** | |||||
(7) FTN | 1 | 0.12 ** | −0.10 * | −0.10 * | −0.58 *** | −0.55 *** | −0.45 *** | −0.51 *** | −0.55 *** | ||||||
(8) FD | 1 | −0.18 *** | 0.00 | −0.18 *** | −0.09 | −0.08 | −0.09 * | −0.08 | |||||||
(9) BSS | 1 | 0.18 *** | 0.02 | 0.11 * | 0.19 *** | 0.22 *** | 0.19 *** | ||||||||
(10) GCV | 1 | 0.17 *** | 0.34 *** | 0.21 *** | 0.18 *** | 0.24 *** | |||||||||
(11) ATT | 1 | 0.71 *** | 0.50 *** | 0.53 *** | 0.62 *** | ||||||||||
(12) SATT | 1 | 0.66 *** | 0.71 *** | 0.79 *** | |||||||||||
(13) SN | 1 | 0.65 *** | 0.73 *** | ||||||||||||
(14) PBC | 1 | 0.80 *** | |||||||||||||
(15) WTC | 1 | ||||||||||||||
Items | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
α | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.73 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 0.85 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.94 | ||||||
M | 49.93 | 4.87 | 3.71 | 1.47 | 2.02 | 2.54 | 3.19 | 3.33 | 2.40 | 3.54 | 3.44 | 4.63 | 4.12 | 4.15 | 4.34 |
SD | 16.23 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 0.63 | 0.79 | 0.60 | 0.84 | 0.63 | 0.75 | 0.88 | 0.75 | 1.20 | 1.63 | 1.96 | 1.92 |
Skewness | −0.04 | −0.37 | −0.08 | 0.99 | −0.04 | 0.33 | −0.12 | 0.11 | 0.40 | −0.53 | −0.19 | −0.29 | −0.31 | −0.23 | −0.41 |
Kurtosis | −1.08 | −1.35 | 0.27 | −0.10 | −1.40 | 0.45 | −0.00 | −0.23 | −0.11 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.07 | −0.65 | −1.07 | −1.02 |
Variable 1 | Response Format 2,3 | Mean Value (SD) |
---|---|---|
Willingness to try a cultured meat burger (WTT) | 7-point bipolar scale (−3 = very unlikely; +3 = very likely) | 4.88 (2.03) |
Willingness to buy a cultured meat burger (WTB) | 7-point bipolar scale (−3 = very unlikely; +3 = very likely) | 4.06 (2.05) |
Willingness to use a cultured meat burger as a substitute (WTS) | 7-point bipolar scale (−3 = very unlikely; +3 = very likely) | 4.08 (2.02) |
Willingness to consume a cultured meat burger | 4.34 (1.92) |
Item | Mean (SD) |
---|---|
No animals have to suffer when cultured meat is produced. | 4.03 (0.90) |
Cultured meat carries harmful microbes. R | 3.73 (0.92) |
It is unconscionable to produce cultured meat. R | 3.63 (1.08) |
Cultured meat contains harmful toxins. R | 3.56 (0.94) |
Eating cultured meat will increase the risk of infectious disease. R | 3.54 (1.00) |
Eating cultured meat is disgusting. R | 3.39 (1.09) |
Cultured meat is highly nutritious. | 2.99 (0.83) |
It is not natural for humans to eat cultured meat. R | 2.68 (1.17) |
Adjective Pairs | Mean (SD) 1 |
---|---|
unhygienic—hygienic | 5.22 (1.35) |
environmentally harmful—environmentally helpful | 5.15 (1.44) |
unsustainable—sustainable | 5.15 (1.51) |
dirty—clean | 5.14 (1.37) |
not interesting—interesting | 4.86 (1.87) |
disgusting—delicious | 4.43 (1.56) |
unhealthy—healthy | 4.32 (1.47) |
Categories | Frequency (Mentions) |
---|---|
Television | 53.8% (184) |
Internet | 51.2% (175) |
Newspaper/Trade magazine | 20.2% (69) |
Friends/Acquaintances | 12.% (41) |
Radio | 0.3% (1) |
Cinema | 0.3% (1) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Dupont, J.; Harms, T.; Fiebelkorn, F. Acceptance of Cultured Meat in Germany—Application of an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour. Foods 2022, 11, 424. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030424
Dupont J, Harms T, Fiebelkorn F. Acceptance of Cultured Meat in Germany—Application of an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour. Foods. 2022; 11(3):424. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030424
Chicago/Turabian StyleDupont, Jacqueline, Tess Harms, and Florian Fiebelkorn. 2022. "Acceptance of Cultured Meat in Germany—Application of an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour" Foods 11, no. 3: 424. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030424