Health- or Environmental-Focused Text Messages to Increase Consumption of a Sustainable Diet among Young Adults: Importance of Expected Taste
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Text-Message Intervention
2.3. Questionnaires and Dietary Assessments
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jahn, S.; Furchheim, P.; Strässner, A.-M. Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Motivational Adoption Barriers and Solutions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onwezen, M.C.; 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]
- International Food Information Council. 2022 Food & Health Survey; International Food Information Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Köster, E.P. Diversity in the Determinants of Food Choice: A Psychological Perspective. Food Qual. Prefer. 2009, 20, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leiserowitz, A.; Ballew, M.; Rosenthal, S.; Semaan, J. Climate Change and the American Diet; Yale Program on Climate Change Communication: New Haven, CT, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Hoek, A.C.; Luning, P.A.; Weijzen, P.; Engels, W.; Kok, F.J.; de Graaf, C. Replacement of Meat by Meat Substitutes. A Survey on Person- and Product-Related Factors in Consumer Acceptance. Appetite 2011, 56, 662–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryant, C.J. We Can’t Keep Meating Like This: Attitudes towards Vegetarian and Vegan Diets in the United Kingdom. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fehér, A.; Gazdecki, M.; Véha, M.; Szakály, M.; Szakály, Z. A Comprehensive Review of the Benefits of and the Barriers to the Switch to a Plant-Based Diet. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Short, E.C.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.A. Plant-Based Cheeses: A Systematic Review of Sensory Evaluation Studies and Strategies to Increase Consumer Acceptance. Foods 2021, 10, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiorentini, M.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.A. Role of Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Meat Extenders: A Scoping Review. Foods 2020, 9, 1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knaapila, A. Sensory and Consumer Research Has a Role in Supporting Sustainability of the Food System. Foods 2022, 11, 1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rust, N.A.; Ridding, L.; Ward, C.; Clark, B.; Kehoe, L.; Dora, M.; Whittingham, M.J.; McGowan, P.; Chaudhary, A.; Reynolds, C.J.; et al. How to Transition to Reduced-Meat Diets That Benefit People and the Planet. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 137208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Colla, K.; Keast, R.; Hartley, I.; Liem, D.G. Using an Online Photo Based Questionnaire to Predict Tasted Liking and Amount Sampled of Familiar and Unfamiliar Foods by Female Nutrition Students. J. Sens. Stud. 2021, 36, e12614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wanich, U.; Sayompark, D.; Riddell, L.; Cicerale, S.; Liem, D.G.; Mohebbi, M.; Macfarlane, S.; Keast, R. Assessing Food Liking: Comparison of Food Liking Questionnaires and Direct Food Tasting in Two Cultures. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Piqueras-Fiszman, B.; Spence, C. Sensory Expectations Based on Product-Extrinsic Food Cues: An Interdisciplinary Review of the Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Accounts. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 40, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Food Information Council. A Consumer Survey on Plant Alternatives to Animal Meat 2.0; IFIC: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Raghunathan, R.; Naylor, R.W.; Hoyer, W.D. The Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition and Its Effects on Taste Inferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 170–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lemken, D.; Knigge, M.; Meyerding, S.; Spiller, A. The Value of Environmental and Health Claims on New Legume Products: A Non-Hypothetical Online Auction. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Warne, T.; Ahmed, S.; Byker Shanks, C.; Miller, P. Sustainability Dimensions of a North American Lentil System in a Changing World. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fernqvist, F.; Ekelund, L. Credence and the Effect on Consumer Liking of Food—A Review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 32, 340–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pew Research Center. Mobile Fact Sheet. 2021. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/ (accessed on 5 November 2021).
- Brown, O.N.; O’Connor, L.E.; Savaiano, D. Mobile MyPlate: A Pilot Study Using Text Messaging to Provide Nutrition Education and Promote Better Dietary Choices in College Students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2014, 62, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santo, K.; Hyun, K.; de Keizer, L.; Thiagalingam, A.; Hillis, G.S.; Chalmers, J.; Redfern, J.; Chow, C.K. The Effects of a Lifestyle-Focused Text-Messaging Intervention on Adherence to Dietary Guideline Recommendations in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: An Analysis of the TEXT ME Study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Brien, L.M.; Palfai, T.P. Efficacy of a Brief Web-Based Intervention with and without SMS to Enhance Healthy Eating Behaviors among University Students. Eat. Behav. 2016, 23, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, T.J.; Okine, R.N.; Kershaw, J.C. Health- or Environment-Focused Text Messages as a Potential Strategy to Increase Plant-Based Eating among Young Adults: An Exploratory Study. Foods 2021, 10, 3147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nadricka, K.; Millet, K.; Verlegh, P.W.J. When Organic Products Are Tasty: Taste Inferences from an Organic = Healthy Association. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 83, 103896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Loo, E.J.; Hoefkens, C.; Verbeke, W. Healthy, Sustainable and Plant-Based Eating: Perceived (Mis)Match and Involvement-Based Consumer Segments as Targets for Future Policy. Food Policy 2017, 69, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, D.A.; Maxwell, S.E. Testing Mediational Models With Longitudinal Data: Questions and Tips in the Use of Structural Equation Modeling. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2003, 112, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Riordan, T.; Stoll-Kleemann, S. The Challenges of Changing Dietary Behavior Toward More Sustainable Consumption. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2015, 57, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mora, M.; Romeo-Arroyo, E.; Torán-Pereg, P.; Chaya, C.; Vázquez-Araújo, L. Sustainable and Health Claims vs Sensory Properties: Consumers’ Opinions and Choices Using a Vegetable Dip as Example Product. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, M.W.; Gupta, R.; Monnier, A. The Interactive Effect of Cultural Symbols and Human Values on Taste Evaluation. J. Consum. Res. 2008, 35, 294–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enax, L.; Krapp, V.; Piehl, A.; Weber, B. Effects of Social Sustainability Signaling on Neural Valuation Signals and Taste-Experience of Food Products. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2015, 9, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Boer, J.; Schösler, H.; Aiking, H. “Meatless Days” or “Less but Better”? Exploring Strategies to Adapt Western Meat Consumption to Health and Sustainability Challenges. Appetite 2014, 76, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaller, J.R. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion; Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992; ISBN 978-0-521-40449-5. [Google Scholar]
- Nakagawa, S.; Hart, C. Where’s the Beef? How Masculinity Exacerbates Gender Disparities in Health Behaviors. Socius 2019, 5, 2378023119831801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hopwood, C.J.; Bleidorn, W.; Schwaba, T.; Chen, S. Health, Environmental, and Animal Rights Motives for Vegetarian Eating. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Elzerman, J.E.; van Boekel, M.A.J.S.; Luning, P.A. Exploring Meat Substitutes: Consumer Experiences and Contextual Factors. Br. Food J. 2013, 115, 700–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tijssen, I.O.J.M.; Zandstra, E.H.; den Boer, A.; Jager, G. Taste Matters Most: Effects of Package Design on the Dynamics of Implicit and Explicit Product Evaluations over Repeated in-Home Consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 72, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trope, Y.; Liberman, N.; Wakslak, C. Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2007, 17, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- ElHaffar, G.; Durif, F.; Dubé, L. Towards Closing the Attitude-Intention-Behavior Gap in Green Consumption: A Narrative Review of the Literature and an Overview of Future Research Directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 122556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sorqvist, P.; Hedblom, D.; Holmgren, M.; Haga, A.; Langeborg, L.; Nöstl, A.; Kågström, J. Who Needs Cream and Sugar When There Is Eco-Labeling? Taste and Willingness to Pay for Eco-Friendly” Coffee. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e80719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Samant, S.S.; Seo, H.-S. Quality Perception and Acceptability of Chicken Breast Meat Labeled with Sustainability Claims Vary as a Function of Consumers’ Label-Understanding Level. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 49, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratanova, B.; Vauclair, C.-M.; Kervyn, N.; Schumann, S.; Wood, R.; Klein, O. Savouring Morality. Moral Satisfaction Renders Food of Ethical Origin Subjectively Tastier. Appetite 2015, 91, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jiang, R.; Sharma, C.; Bryant, R.; Mohan, M.S.; Al-Marashdeh, O.; Harrison, R.; Torrico, D.D. Animal Welfare Information Affects Consumers’ Hedonic and Emotional Responses towards Milk. Food Res. Int. 2021, 141, 110006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, B.; Meskin, A.; Blundell-Birtill, P. Delicious but Immoral? Ethical Information Influences Consumer Expectations and Experience of Food. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Poor, M.; Duhachek, A.; Krishnan, H.S. How Images of Other Consumers Influence Subsequent Taste Perceptions. J. Mark. 2013, 77, 124–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, E.; Higgs, S. Liking Food Less: The Impact of Social Influence on Food Liking Evaluations in Female Students. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e48858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zandstra, E.H.; Carvalho, Á.H.P.; van Herpen, E. Effects of Front-of-Pack Social Norm Messages on Food Choice and Liking. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 58, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liem, D.G.; Russell, C.G. The Influence of Taste Liking on the Consumption of Nutrient Rich and Nutrient Poor Foods. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Outcome (Postintervention) | Baseline Expected Taste | Std β | p |
---|---|---|---|
Animal-protein-consumption intention | Meat images | −0.044 | 0.535 |
Plant-protein images | −0.042 | 0.565 | |
Plant-based diets | −0.043 | 0.558 | |
Meat consumption | Meat images | 0.062 | 0.402 |
Plant-protein images | 0.080 | 0.285 | |
Plant-based diets | 0.053 | 0.482 | |
Plant-protein-consumption intention | Meat images | −0.017 | 0.796 |
Plant-protein images | 0.234 | <0.001 | |
Plant-based diets | 0.219 | 0.001 | |
Plant-protein consumption | Meat images | 0.045 | 0.573 |
Plant-protein images | 0.190 | 0.017 | |
Plant-based diets | 0.120 | 0.129 |
Outcome (Postintervention) | Baseline Perceived Health | Std β | p |
---|---|---|---|
Animal-protein-consumption intention | Meat images | −0.044 | 0.535 |
Plant-protein images | −0.107 | 0.129 | |
Plant-based diets | −0.234 | 0.001 | |
Meat consumption | Meat images | 0.119 | 0.132 |
Plant-protein images | −0.081 | 0.303 | |
Plant-based diets | 0.063 | 0.425 | |
Plant-protein-consumption intention | Meat images | −0.017 | 0.796 |
Plant-protein images | 0.082 | 0.210 | |
Plant-based diets | 0.125 | 0.059 | |
Plant-protein consumption | Meat images | 0.045 | 0.573 |
Plant-protein images | 0.144 | 0.070 | |
Plant-based diets | 0.086 | 0.276 |
Outcome (Postintervention) | Baseline Perceived Environmental Impact | Std β | p |
---|---|---|---|
Animal-protein-consumption intention | Meat images | −0.167 | 0.016 |
Plant-protein images | −0.232 | 0.001 | |
Plant-based diets | −0.151 | 0.033 | |
Meat consumption | Meat images | 0.078 | 0.330 |
Plant-protein images | −0.029 | 0.710 | |
Plant-based diets | −0.002 | 0.980 | |
Plant-protein-consumption intention | Meat images | −0.017 | 0.794 |
Plant-protein images | 0.003 | 0.958 | |
Plant-based diets | 0.114 | 0.082 | |
Plant-protein consumption | Meat images | −0.065 | 0.414 |
Plant-protein images | 0.091 | 0.25 | |
Plant-based diets | 0.123 | 0.119 |
Expected Taste (Postintervention) | Baseline Characteristics | Std β | p |
---|---|---|---|
Images of animal protein | Moral satisfaction | −0.049 | 0.309 |
Subjective norms | 0.005 | 0.923 | |
Values (health or environment) | 0.008 | 0.877 | |
Images plant protein | Moral satisfaction | 0.015 | 0.771 |
Subjective norms | 0.049 | 0.341 | |
Values (health or environment) | 0.065 | 0.265 | |
Plant-based diets generally | Moral satisfaction | 0.180 | 0.003 |
Subjective norms | 0.248 | <0.001 | |
Values (health or environment) | 0.212 | 0.001 |
Gender | Education | Income | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Δ | p | r | p | r | p | |
Meat images | 0.17 | 0.032 | 0.010 | 0.903 | −0.123 | 0.122 |
Plant-protein images | −0.03 | 0.724 | −0.052 | 0.511 | −0.046 | 0.566 |
Plant-based diets | −0.07 | 0.632 | 0.119 | 0.136 | −0.053 | 0.505 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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
Kershaw, J.C.; Lim, T.J.; Nolden, A.A. Health- or Environmental-Focused Text Messages to Increase Consumption of a Sustainable Diet among Young Adults: Importance of Expected Taste. Foods 2023, 12, 1297. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12061297
Kershaw JC, Lim TJ, Nolden AA. Health- or Environmental-Focused Text Messages to Increase Consumption of a Sustainable Diet among Young Adults: Importance of Expected Taste. Foods. 2023; 12(6):1297. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12061297
Chicago/Turabian StyleKershaw, Jonathan C., Tze Joo Lim, and Alissa A. Nolden. 2023. "Health- or Environmental-Focused Text Messages to Increase Consumption of a Sustainable Diet among Young Adults: Importance of Expected Taste" Foods 12, no. 6: 1297. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12061297
APA StyleKershaw, J. C., Lim, T. J., & Nolden, A. A. (2023). Health- or Environmental-Focused Text Messages to Increase Consumption of a Sustainable Diet among Young Adults: Importance of Expected Taste. Foods, 12(6), 1297. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12061297