Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10451/44418 |
Resumo: | Understanding consumer perceptions of meat alternatives is key to facilitating a shift toward more sustainable food consumption. Importantly, these perceptions may vary according to the characteristics of the consumer (e.g., preferences, motivations), the product (e.g., sensory attributes) and the encounter (e.g., how the meat alternative is presented/framed). Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied to examine consumer perceptions of five proposed alternatives to meat: legumes, tofu, seitan, lab-grown meat, and insects. In Study 1, 138 participants provided free associations with regards to conventional animal proteins (e.g., red/white meat, fish) and the five alternatives. Three profiles of consumers were identified: (1) hedonically motivated meat eaters uninterested in meat substitutes; (2) health-oriented meat eaters open to some meat substitutes; and (3) ethically conscious meat avoiders positively oriented to most meat alternatives. In Study 2, the presentation of the product was experimentally manipulated: 285 participants evaluated the same five meat alternatives along several dimensions (e.g., edibility, healthiness), either when framed as an individual product or as part of a larger meal. Overall, most meat alternatives benefited from a meal framing, with the notable exception of legumes, which benefited from an individual framing, and insects which were evaluated quite negatively regardless of framing. The present findings suggest that there is not a single way to frame all meat alternatives that will improve their appeal to all consumers. |
id |
RCAP_52b51f46774f5718f7085e6e29dba197 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.ul.pt:10451/44418 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framingMeat alternativesMeat substitutesPlant-based foodMeal framingLab-grown meatUnderstanding consumer perceptions of meat alternatives is key to facilitating a shift toward more sustainable food consumption. Importantly, these perceptions may vary according to the characteristics of the consumer (e.g., preferences, motivations), the product (e.g., sensory attributes) and the encounter (e.g., how the meat alternative is presented/framed). Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied to examine consumer perceptions of five proposed alternatives to meat: legumes, tofu, seitan, lab-grown meat, and insects. In Study 1, 138 participants provided free associations with regards to conventional animal proteins (e.g., red/white meat, fish) and the five alternatives. Three profiles of consumers were identified: (1) hedonically motivated meat eaters uninterested in meat substitutes; (2) health-oriented meat eaters open to some meat substitutes; and (3) ethically conscious meat avoiders positively oriented to most meat alternatives. In Study 2, the presentation of the product was experimentally manipulated: 285 participants evaluated the same five meat alternatives along several dimensions (e.g., edibility, healthiness), either when framed as an individual product or as part of a larger meal. Overall, most meat alternatives benefited from a meal framing, with the notable exception of legumes, which benefited from an individual framing, and insects which were evaluated quite negatively regardless of framing. The present findings suggest that there is not a single way to frame all meat alternatives that will improve their appeal to all consumers.Repositório da Universidade de LisboaPossidónio Da Silva, CatarinaPrada, MaríliaGraça, JoãoPiazza, Jared Raymond2020-09-23T13:03:22Z20212021-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10451/44418engPossidónio, C., Prada, M., Graça, J., Piazza, J. (2021). Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing. Appetite, 156 (1), 10486010.1016/j.appet.2020.104860info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-08T16:45:27Zoai:repositorio.ul.pt:10451/44418Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T21:57:00.034517Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing |
title |
Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing |
spellingShingle |
Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing Possidónio Da Silva, Catarina Meat alternatives Meat substitutes Plant-based food Meal framing Lab-grown meat |
title_short |
Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing |
title_full |
Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing |
title_fullStr |
Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing |
title_full_unstemmed |
Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing |
title_sort |
Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing |
author |
Possidónio Da Silva, Catarina |
author_facet |
Possidónio Da Silva, Catarina Prada, Marília Graça, João Piazza, Jared Raymond |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Prada, Marília Graça, João Piazza, Jared Raymond |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Possidónio Da Silva, Catarina Prada, Marília Graça, João Piazza, Jared Raymond |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Meat alternatives Meat substitutes Plant-based food Meal framing Lab-grown meat |
topic |
Meat alternatives Meat substitutes Plant-based food Meal framing Lab-grown meat |
description |
Understanding consumer perceptions of meat alternatives is key to facilitating a shift toward more sustainable food consumption. Importantly, these perceptions may vary according to the characteristics of the consumer (e.g., preferences, motivations), the product (e.g., sensory attributes) and the encounter (e.g., how the meat alternative is presented/framed). Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied to examine consumer perceptions of five proposed alternatives to meat: legumes, tofu, seitan, lab-grown meat, and insects. In Study 1, 138 participants provided free associations with regards to conventional animal proteins (e.g., red/white meat, fish) and the five alternatives. Three profiles of consumers were identified: (1) hedonically motivated meat eaters uninterested in meat substitutes; (2) health-oriented meat eaters open to some meat substitutes; and (3) ethically conscious meat avoiders positively oriented to most meat alternatives. In Study 2, the presentation of the product was experimentally manipulated: 285 participants evaluated the same five meat alternatives along several dimensions (e.g., edibility, healthiness), either when framed as an individual product or as part of a larger meal. Overall, most meat alternatives benefited from a meal framing, with the notable exception of legumes, which benefited from an individual framing, and insects which were evaluated quite negatively regardless of framing. The present findings suggest that there is not a single way to frame all meat alternatives that will improve their appeal to all consumers. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-09-23T13:03:22Z 2021 2021-01-01T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10451/44418 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10451/44418 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Possidónio, C., Prada, M., Graça, J., Piazza, J. (2021). Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing. Appetite, 156 (1), 104860 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104860 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799134512638066688 |