Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan 31;11(3):424.
doi: 10.3390/foods11030424.

Acceptance of Cultured Meat in Germany-Application of an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour

Jacqueline Dupont  1 , Tess Harms  1 , Florian Fiebelkorn  1
Affiliations

Acceptance of Cultured Meat in Germany-Application of an Extended Theory of Planned Behaviour

Jacqueline Dupont et al. Foods. .

Abstract

This study examines the willingness to consume a cultured meat burger in Germany. Based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), we assessed attitudes, perceived behavioural control, and subjective norms via an online questionnaire. Attitudes were operationalized in this research as general attitudes towards cultured meat and specific attitudes towards a cultured meat burger. Furthermore, the TPB was extended with nutritional-psychological variables including food (technology) neophobia, food disgust, sensation seeking, and green consumption values. In total, 58.4% of the participants reported being willing to consume a cultured meat burger. Using a path model, the extended TPB accounted for 77.8% of the variance in willingness to consume a cultured meat burger. All components of the TPB were significant predictors except general attitudes. The influence of general attitudes was completely mediated by specific attitudes. All nutritional-psychological variables influenced general attitudes. Food technology neophobia was the strongest negative, and green consumption values were the strongest positive predictor of general attitudes. Marketing strategies should therefore _target the attitudes of consumers by encouraging the natural perception of cultured meat, using a less technological product name, enabling transparency about the production, and creating a dialogue about both the fears and the environmental benefits of the new technology.

Keywords: attitudes; cultured meat; food technology neophobia; path model; perceived behavioural control; subjective norms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Theoretical framework of the study based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (grey) and its extended variables (white). Black arrows indicate hypothesised relationships. The grey dashed lines represent the anticipated exploratory relationships in the model. Grey double arrows represent correlations between the variables. Note: CM = Cultured meat, CMB = Cultured meat burger.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Polarity profile displaying the eight adjective pairs describing the attitudes towards a cultured meat burger. The solid black line at scale point 4 marks the scale centre. The pairs of adjectives represent the scale endpoints (e.g., 1 = unhygienic and 7 = hygienic).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Model of mediation of the influence of general attitude towards cultured meat on the willingness to consume a cultured meat burger by specific attitude with a significant indirect effect: ß = 0.53, 95% BCa CI [0.46,0.60]. *** p < 0.001. Note: c = total effect of general attitudes towards cultured meat on willingness to consume without specific attitudes towards a cultured meat burger; c′ = direct effect of general attitudes towards cultured meat on willingness to consume with specific attitudes towards a cultured meat burger in the model.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Path diagram examining interrelations between the TPB constructs (grey) and extended variables (white) and their influence on the willingness to consume a cultured meat burger. Listed values appear in order of the listed variables. Directional arrows represent relationships, and grey double arrows show correlations between the variables. Fit: CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.03. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; n.s. = Not Significant. Note: CM = Cultured meat, CMB = Cultured meat burger, R2 = explained variance.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. 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.
    1. Alexandratos N., Bruinsma J. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Rome, Italy: 2012. ESA Working paper No. 12-03.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22170. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Micha R., Michas G., Lajous M., Mozaffarian D. Processing of meats and cardiovascular risk: Time to focus on preservatives. BMC Med. 2013;11:136. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-136. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.2337/diacare.27.9.2108. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

  NODES
COMMUNITY 1
Note 3
twitter 2