Search

Background: For accelerating the protein shift we need to normalize plant-based products. Shifting (plant-based) meat shelf organization from source to function is in line with categorization theory. The two most used categorization strategies are taxonomic vs. goal-derived categories (Felcher et al., 2001). Taxonomic categorizations are based on similar physical external attributes (e.g., source: meat, chicken, plant-based). Goal-derived categorisations are based on aspects related to the fulfilment of common consumption goals within salient contexts (e.g., function, meal type: minced meat, schnitzel, shoarma). The aim of this study is to test the impact of changing the shelf organization from source (i.e. taxonomic; e.g. chicken, meat, PB) to function/texture (i.e. goal-derived, e.g. minced, schnitzel, shoarma) on consumers’ shopping behaviour, categorization and perception of plant-based (PB) proteins. Objectives/research questions - Does the change in shelf organization shift sales towards PB products? o ... within intervention store (baseline vs. during intervention vs. post-intervention)? o ... in intervention stores compared to control stores (cross-sectional)? o ... within- and between store comparison at three timepoints (diff-in-diff)? o ... and how do sales differ per consumer group (omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans) or segment (meat vs. non-meat eaters; in case no loyalty card data available)? o ... do we see different effects for type of PB products: analogues vs. non-analogues (e.g. nuts, beans, tofu)? o ... what is the impact on animal-based products, including meat/fish/dairy (replacing/substituting/spill-over effects or only complementing)? o ... sales of type of PB products or alternative animal-derived products specified per consumer group? - Does the change in shelf organization change consumer perception of PB products? o ... increase in positive perception for meat-eaters (i.e. omnivores, flexitarians)? o ... in terms of findability (positive and negative: frustration/annoyance) of PB products? o ... in terms of knowledge/familiarity (past experience PB products) of PB products? o ... in terms of categorization (does alternative shelf positioning act as information/reminder which assimilates consumers’ category of “meat”)? o ... in terms of future buying intention of PB products?

Background: For accelerating the protein shift we need to normalize plant-based products. Shifting (plant-based) meat shelf organization from source to function is in line with categorization theory. The two most used categorization strategies are taxonomic vs. goal-derived categories (Felcher et al., 2001). Taxonomic categorizations are based on similar physical external attributes (e.g., source: meat, chicken, plant-based). Goal-derived categorisations are based on aspects related to the fulfilment of common consumption goals within salient contexts (e.g., function, meal type: minced meat, schnitzel, shoarma). The aim of this study is to test the impact of changing the shelf organization from source (i.e. taxonomic; e.g. chicken, meat, PB) to function/texture (i.e. goal-derived, e.g. minced, schnitzel, shoarma) on consumers’ categorization and perception of plant-based (PB) proteins. Objectives/research questions - Does the change in shelf organization shift sales towards PB products? o ... within intervention store (baseline vs. during intervention vs. post-intervention)? o ... in intervention stores compared to control stores (cross-sectional)? o ... within- and between store comparison at three timepoints (diff-in-diff)? o ... and how do sales differ per consumer group (omnivores, flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans) or segment (meat vs. non-meat eaters; in case no loyalty card data available)? o ... do we see different effects for type of PB products: analogues vs. non-analogues (e.g. nuts, beans, tofu)? o ... what is the impact on animal-based product, including meat/fish/dairy (replacing/substituting/spill-over effects or only complementing)? o ... sales of type of PB products or alternative animal-derived products specified per consumer group? - Does the change in shelf organization change consumer perception of PB products? o ... increase in positive perception for meat-eaters (i.e. omnivores, flexitarians)? o ... in terms of findability (positive and negative: frustration/annoyance) of PB products? o ... in terms of knowledge/familiarity (past experience PB products) of PB products? o ... in terms of categorization (does alternative shelf positioning act as information/reminder which assimilates consumers’ category of “meat”)? o ... in terms of future buying intention of PB products?

A dietary shift to more plant-based and less animal-derived proteins is needed to counter climate change, maintain and increase public health and animal welfare. Although many consumers indicate to find this important, consumers do not widely recognize and consume the variety of plant-based proteins as alternatives replacing animal-derived proteins (ranging from analogues [e.g. vegetarian mince] to non-analogues [e.g. nuts, legumes, mushrooms]). Consumers perceive and infer individual products differently based on the categories the products belong to, and these inferences result in different intentions to buy and try these products. The aim of the research is to gain insight into consumer categorizations of 5 types of plant-based alternative meat products, and how categorization relates to inferences and subsequent acceptance of these products. Five products are selected which vary in the extent to which they mimic meat, are processed, and are plant-based (i.e. mushrooms, minced mushrooms, plant-based minced meat, hybrid minced meat and minced meat). We explore how these products relate to categorization dimensions (analogy, processing, novelty and origin) and inferences (associations) (price, taste, convenience, familiarity, sustainability and health). To disentangle the extent to which different goals and contexts influence categorisation and inferences, we include three scenarios (protein-rich, tasty and control scenario). Potential moderators (diet preference, neophobia, and cooking enjoyment) are also measured to explore differences among consumers.

This study investigates whether a feedback intervention to evoke subjective ambivalence, i.e., experiencing and being aware of having mixed feelings or thoughts, leads to (intended) behavioural change in the domain of mobility.

Duurzaamheidslabels en -classificeringen kunnen een positief effect hebben op consumenten en verhogen het bewustzijn. Het leidt echter nog niet tot duurzaam gedrag. Het effect kan mogelijk vergroot worden door labels en labelsystemen te combineren, ze te koppelen aan andere gedragsmechanismen en de nadruk te leggen op voordelen, zoals gezondheid.

Understanding consumer food choices is crucial to stimulate sustainable food consumption. Food choice motives are shown to be relevant in understanding consumer food choices. However, there is a focus on product motives, such as price and taste, whereas process motives (i.e. environmental welfare) are understudied. The current study aims to add to the existing literature by investigating the added value of sustainable process motives (environmental welfare, animal welfare and social justice) above product motives. Two on-line surveys of representative Dutch samples tested whether process motives increase the explained variance of sustainable consumption. The results indicate that sustainable process motives are of added value above product motives in the understanding of consumer food choices. In addition, product categories differ in the sustainable process motives that are most useful in explaining sustainable purchases in that category (Study 1), and different types of sustainable products (organic versus fair trade) differ in the sustainable process motives that are most useful in explaining these purchases (Study 2). In conclusion, this paper shows that understanding of sustainable consumption can be improved by considering sustainable process motives above product motives. Thereby, it is important to take the sustainability dimension (e.g., social justice versus environmental welfare) and the product category (e.g., meat versus fruit) into account.