Consumers' Willingness to Consume Insect-Based Protein Depends on Descriptive Social Norms

Abstract

Eating of insects has been discussed as a more sustainable source of animal protein, but consumer research about uptake behavior of Western consumers is still scarce. Based on previous psychological research highlighting the role of social norms, the present research shows that even subtle cues about descriptive social norms affect Westerners' willingness to eat unprocessed insects. In a series of four studies, we demonstrate that adherence to descriptive social norms underlies eating intention and behavior. Study 1 shows that individual beliefs about the descriptive social norm correlates with the willingness to eat an unprocessed insect, an effect which is replicated in an experiment showing the causal direction from norm beliefs to eating behavior (Study 2). Study 3 establishes that even in the absence of concrete information about social norms, consumers construe norms based on other options. Manipulating the perceived eating-contingent financial rewards for other people from the same population, un-incentivized participants are more readily willing to eat when they believe that others receive a higher incentive, an effect that is mediated by beliefs about the eating frequency of these participants. Study 4, finally, shows that manipulating beliefs about the norms provides the causal explanation as the effect of the incentive disappears when norm information is explicitly given. Taken together, the studies show that descriptive social norms partially underlie Westerns willingness (or reluctance) to consume insects and that behavioral change initiative could focus on the importance of using norms to increase reliance on non-standard sources of animal protein.

Acceptance of Insect-Based Food Products in Western Societies: A Systematic Review

“…Previous reviews have indicated that the concept of eating insects would likely be more appealing to younger people than older people ( 4 , 21 , 22 ). In contrast, the majority of studies (61.1%) in our review concluded that there was no link between age and Westerners' acceptance of edible insects ( 39 , 41 , 42 , 48 , 51 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 66 , 72 – 74 , 86 , 104 – 106 , 108 , 109 , 117 ). However, 36.1% of all studies that evaluated the effect of age on consumers' acceptance observed a negative effect of age ( 2 , 64 , 65 , 67 , 71 , 76 , 77 , 87 , 92 , 93 , 97 , 99 , 115 ), which means that younger people had a higher acceptance of insect-based foods than older people, while two studies (5.6%) identified a positive connection ( 49 , 107 ).…”

“…The most frequently investigated factor affecting the acceptance of insects as food is gender, a variable known to have an effect on dietary habits ( 37 , 110 ). Of the 119 studies reviewed, 52 examined gender ( 2 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 49 , 51 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 64 – 67 , 69 , 71 – 74 , 76 , 77 , 83 , 84 , 86 , 87 , 92 – 94 , 96 , 97 , 99 – 101 , 104 – 109 , 111 – 117 ). Of those 52 studies, 71.2% identified masculinity as a positive influence on acceptance of insects as food ( 2 , 36 , 41 , 44 , 51 , 55 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 65 – 67 , 69 , 71 , 76 , 77 , 83 , 84 , 86 , 87 , 92 – 94 , 96 , 97 , 99 – 101 , 104 , 105 , 112 , 114 ...…”

“…Of the 119 studies reviewed, 52 examined gender ( 2 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 49 , 51 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 64 – 67 , 69 , 71 – 74 , 76 , 77 , 83 , 84 , 86 , 87 , 92 – 94 , 96 , 97 , 99 – 101 , 104 – 109 , 111 – 117 ). Of those 52 studies, 71.2% identified masculinity as a positive influence on acceptance of insects as food ( 2 , 36 , 41 , 44 , 51 , 55 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 65 – 67 , 69 , 71 , 76 , 77 , 83 , 84 , 86 , 87 , 92 – 94 , 96 , 97 , 99 – 101 , 104 , 105 , 112 , 114 , 116 , 117 ), whereas approximately one-third of those studies (34.6%) found no effect of gender ( 37 , …”

Farm to Institution to Farm: Circular Food Systems With Native Entomoculture

“…Past research suggests U.S. consumers often are averse to consuming insects primarily due to (a) a lack of exposure in context as a food source, (b) a lack of social acceptance, and (c) a lack of consumer access (Looy et al, 2014;Caparros Megido et al, 2016;Menozzi et al, 2017). Distribution in universities directly confronts these barriers as it allows for marketing (1) with continual exposure alongside more familiar foods (Gumussoy et al, 2021), (2) among environmentally conscious peers thereby encouraging normative influence (Berger and Wyss, 2020;Russell and Knott, 2021), and (3) without typical barriers to consumer purchasing such as price or preparation (Barska, 2014;Menozzi et al, 2017).…”

Strategies for a Circular Economy in the Construction and Demolition Sector: Identifying the Factors Affecting the Recommendation of Recycled Concrete

“…Social networks are seen as affecting intentions by means of descriptive social influence (what others do), [72][73][74] and the relative influence that the behaviour of others has on the agent. In Giddens' words, "the reflexive monitoring of activity is a chronic feature of everyday action and involves the conduct not just of the individual but also of others" [53].…”