Exploring the association of personal factors with affective responses to plant-based meat alternatives with consideration of their perceived similarity to meat.
Caroline Giezenaar , Annu Mehta , Rebekah E. Orr , A. Jonathan R. Godfrey , Meika Foster , Joanne Hort
{"title":"Exploring the association of personal factors with affective responses to plant-based meat alternatives with consideration of their perceived similarity to meat.","authors":"Caroline Giezenaar , Annu Mehta , Rebekah E. Orr , A. Jonathan R. Godfrey , Meika Foster , Joanne Hort","doi":"10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) have gained popularity as perceived sustainable replacements for meat, yet consumption remains limited. Understanding how personality traits shape PBMA consumption experience is therefore essential. This study surveyed 140 New Zealand consumers, assessing behavioural traits and attitudes related to willingness to reduce meat consumption/increase PBMA consumption. Participants completed tasting sessions evaluating commercially available PBMA products, based on flavour, texture, overall liking and emotions evoked, and sample perceived similarity to meat. Participants reported their demographic information, dietary habits, and frequency of meat and PBMA consumption. Results showed that higher social status derived from PBMA consumption were linked with higher liking ratings and citation proportion of ‘hungry’ for PBMAs. However, high negative attitude towards vegetarianism/veganism was linked to higher citation proportion for ‘unhappy’ for wholefood samples, while lower citation proportion for ‘unhappy’ for somewhat meat-like samples. High meat attachment was associated with lower perceived similarity to meat in both meat-like and somewhat meat-like samples. Additionally, the high meat consumption group reported lower texture and overall liking for meat-like samples. High variety seeking consumers (VARSEEK scores) were positively associated with flavour and overall liking for wholefood samples. Based on dietary groups, meat avoiders, generally driven by environmental and animal welfare concerns, reported more negative emotions such as ‘unhappy’ when tasting wholefood PBMAs compared to omnivores and flexitarians, despite their strong ethical and environmental motivations. The research highlights the impact of consumer behavioural traits and attitudes on their PBMA perception and acceptance, providing valuable insights for improving product development.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":322,"journal":{"name":"Food Quality and Preference","volume":"133 ","pages":"Article 105636"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Quality and Preference","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329325002113","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) have gained popularity as perceived sustainable replacements for meat, yet consumption remains limited. Understanding how personality traits shape PBMA consumption experience is therefore essential. This study surveyed 140 New Zealand consumers, assessing behavioural traits and attitudes related to willingness to reduce meat consumption/increase PBMA consumption. Participants completed tasting sessions evaluating commercially available PBMA products, based on flavour, texture, overall liking and emotions evoked, and sample perceived similarity to meat. Participants reported their demographic information, dietary habits, and frequency of meat and PBMA consumption. Results showed that higher social status derived from PBMA consumption were linked with higher liking ratings and citation proportion of ‘hungry’ for PBMAs. However, high negative attitude towards vegetarianism/veganism was linked to higher citation proportion for ‘unhappy’ for wholefood samples, while lower citation proportion for ‘unhappy’ for somewhat meat-like samples. High meat attachment was associated with lower perceived similarity to meat in both meat-like and somewhat meat-like samples. Additionally, the high meat consumption group reported lower texture and overall liking for meat-like samples. High variety seeking consumers (VARSEEK scores) were positively associated with flavour and overall liking for wholefood samples. Based on dietary groups, meat avoiders, generally driven by environmental and animal welfare concerns, reported more negative emotions such as ‘unhappy’ when tasting wholefood PBMAs compared to omnivores and flexitarians, despite their strong ethical and environmental motivations. The research highlights the impact of consumer behavioural traits and attitudes on their PBMA perception and acceptance, providing valuable insights for improving product development.
期刊介绍:
Food Quality and Preference is a journal devoted to sensory, consumer and behavioural research in food and non-food products. It publishes original research, critical reviews, and short communications in sensory and consumer science, and sensometrics. In addition, the journal publishes special invited issues on important timely topics and from relevant conferences. These are aimed at bridging the gap between research and application, bringing together authors and readers in consumer and market research, sensory science, sensometrics and sensory evaluation, nutrition and food choice, as well as food research, product development and sensory quality assurance. Submissions to Food Quality and Preference are limited to papers that include some form of human measurement; papers that are limited to physical/chemical measures or the routine application of sensory, consumer or econometric analysis will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution in line with the journal''s coverage as outlined below.