Search

• A vegetarian default versus a meat default increases vegetarian food choice. • Vegetarian defaults increase vegetarian choice relatively the most for non-reducers. • Indulgent labeling can be supportive but is a weak intervention on its own. • Activating a consumer or a citizen role did not affect our interventions. Reduced meat intake by Western consumers would benefit public health and the environment. However, meat consumption is notoriously difficult to change, among other things because it is often the outcome of automatic and habitual behavior. Interventions that make use of automatic decision-making processes are therefore promising, but these too vary in their success. The effectiveness of interventions may be improved if different types of meat-eaters are separated. Thus, the aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of two kinds of intervention (namely, changing to a vegetarian default on a menu and changing the attractiveness of a food label) on vegetarian food choice for two distinct groups: meat-eaters who are not reducing their meat intake (non-reducers) and meat-reducers. We also explored whether the effect of these interventions could be strengthened by activating different roles (i.e. a consumer role versus a citizen role). The online study included two European countries, Denmark (n = 740) and the Netherlands (n = 749), and involved two experiments. It was found that a vegetarian default significantly increased vegetarian food choice among the non-reducers but did not significantly do so among meat-reducers. Attractive labeling marginally increased vegetarian food choice for non-reducers but had no impact on meat-reducers. The activation of roles did not influence food choice. We conclude that meat-reducing interventions, especially where the menu default is concerned, could benefit from increased focus on a more specific target audience (i.e. non-reducers). More generally, we recommend that future meat-reducing interventions should consider different groups of meat-eaters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We explore whether and why consumers become more acceptant of alternative proteins. • Seaweed, pulses, and cultured meat are more accepted in 2019 than in 2015. • Consumption is stable across 2015 and 2019, indicating an intention-behaviour gap. • The intention-behaviour gap is smaller for individuals with higher initial intentions in 2015. • Positive emotions are the most relevant driver of intention to consume alternative proteins. Transitions in consumer diets towards a more 'meat-less' diet are stated to result in various health and environmental benefits. Consumption of alternative proteins provides one of the alternatives towards more meat-less diets. Alternative proteins receive a lot of attention, however it is unclear whether consumer acceptance is changing over time. Moreover, changing consumers' dietary habits is harsh. The current study explores with a longitudinally study whether trends are visible in consumer acceptance of alternative proteins, and which drivers are relevant to understand acceptance of alternative proteins over time. An online survey was conducted in the Netherlands resulting in two types of samples: a longitudinal sample (500 respondents) that answered the same survey in 2015 and 2019, and cross-sectional samples that answered the survey in 2015 (2,461 respondents) or in 2019 (2,000 respondents). The survey addressed a range of possible drivers, including personal norms, food innovation traits (i.e. food neophobia and domain-specific innovativeness), food-choice motives and positive and negative emotions. Respondents were randomly divided into five groups and presented with specific questions on: fish, seaweed, insects, legumes and cultured meat. The results reveal an increase in the intention to consume seaweed, legumes, and cultured meat over time, though self-reported consumption remains stable indicating an intention-behaviour gap. Positive emotions appear to be the most relevant driver for intention (beyond all other included variables), and intentions in turn are the most relevant driver of consumption. Thus indicating the relevance of positive emotions as joy, content and pride. Implicating that interventions, promotions and communications should not only focus on cognitive added values as environmental impact though also include affective communication messages, e.g., consumption of alternative proteins feels good. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Including more locally grown products in our diet is a way to reduce our diets' environmental impact. Therefore, it is important to investigate how this can be effectively communicated on food products to increase consumer acceptance. We propose that product communication that focuses on decreasing the physical and social distance between the food producer and the consumer can result in consumers identifying more with the food producer, which, in turn, can increase the buying intention of food products. The current research comprises an online survey that includes an experimental design and a real-life assessment among 825 Dutch participants. Results of the experiment show that decreasing physical distance, but not social distance, increases consumers' intention to buy a food product. This effect can be explained by increased feelings of identification with a food producer. Moreover, the real-life assessment provides a first indication that both having a food producer living close by (physical distance) and personally knowing a food producer (social distance) might increase acceptance of the producer and the product, and highlights the relevance of perceived connection. These findings give insights into how food producers can market local food products to increase acceptance; communication on a decreased distance between consumers and the food producer is only effective when it results in more identification with the food producer. Perceived connection seems to be an essential part of the acceptance of local products., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors report there are no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)