肉类依恋量表(MEAS)在德国的适应:与新食品恐惧症、对有机食品的偏好、社会信任和对食品技术创新的信任的相互作用

IF 4 2区 经济学 Q1 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY Agricultural and Food Economics Pub Date : 2023-09-19 DOI:10.1186/s40100-023-00278-3
David Kühn, Adriano Profeta, Thomas Krikser, Volker Heinz
{"title":"肉类依恋量表(MEAS)在德国的适应:与新食品恐惧症、对有机食品的偏好、社会信任和对食品技术创新的信任的相互作用","authors":"David Kühn, Adriano Profeta, Thomas Krikser, Volker Heinz","doi":"10.1186/s40100-023-00278-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Meat-based diets are still the norm, and vegans and vegetarians represent only a small minority of the population. A transition, respectively, behavioural change towards a diet with less meat can only occur by adopting a positive attitude towards dietary changes based on reasons and motivations. The main aim of this study is to apply the meat attachment scale (MEAS) in Germany in order to analyse if this construct is a barrier towards a diet with less meat in this country. For this purpose, the impact of meat attachment on the trust in different protein alternatives (plant-based, insects, cultured meat) and related food processing technologies is analysed. The findings reveal that a high level of meat attachment goes along with lower trust in plant-based proteins. Similar holds for cultured meat and insect proteins. Thus it appears that, at least for the moment, cultured meat or proteins from insects are not a logical substitute for the heavily meat attached consumer. Furthermore, in the analysis, we considered if meat attachment as measured by the MEAS is correlated with other scales/preferences such as food neophobia, social trust, and attitude towards respective preference for organic products. Literature shows that all mentioned constructs impact the acceptance, preference or trust in more sustainable food product innovation, respectively, more sustainable food processing techniques. The outcome of the correlation analysis demonstrated that in particular food neophobia and meat attachment are not correlated with each other. That is, the MEAS represents a predictor for trust in food (processing) technologies as e.g. plant-based proteins or cultured meat that is independent of the neophobia construct.","PeriodicalId":37688,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural and Food Economics","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adaption of the meat attachment scale (MEAS) to Germany: interplay with food neophobia, preference for organic foods, social trust and trust in food technology innovations\",\"authors\":\"David Kühn, Adriano Profeta, Thomas Krikser, Volker Heinz\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40100-023-00278-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Meat-based diets are still the norm, and vegans and vegetarians represent only a small minority of the population. A transition, respectively, behavioural change towards a diet with less meat can only occur by adopting a positive attitude towards dietary changes based on reasons and motivations. The main aim of this study is to apply the meat attachment scale (MEAS) in Germany in order to analyse if this construct is a barrier towards a diet with less meat in this country. For this purpose, the impact of meat attachment on the trust in different protein alternatives (plant-based, insects, cultured meat) and related food processing technologies is analysed. The findings reveal that a high level of meat attachment goes along with lower trust in plant-based proteins. Similar holds for cultured meat and insect proteins. Thus it appears that, at least for the moment, cultured meat or proteins from insects are not a logical substitute for the heavily meat attached consumer. Furthermore, in the analysis, we considered if meat attachment as measured by the MEAS is correlated with other scales/preferences such as food neophobia, social trust, and attitude towards respective preference for organic products. Literature shows that all mentioned constructs impact the acceptance, preference or trust in more sustainable food product innovation, respectively, more sustainable food processing techniques. The outcome of the correlation analysis demonstrated that in particular food neophobia and meat attachment are not correlated with each other. That is, the MEAS represents a predictor for trust in food (processing) technologies as e.g. plant-based proteins or cultured meat that is independent of the neophobia construct.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37688,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural and Food Economics\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural and Food Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-023-00278-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural and Food Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-023-00278-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

以肉类为基础的饮食仍然是常态,纯素食者和素食者只占人口的一小部分。相应地,只有基于理由和动机对饮食变化采取积极态度,才能实现向少吃肉饮食的行为转变。本研究的主要目的是在德国应用肉类依恋量表(MEAS),以分析这种结构是否在这个国家成为减少肉类饮食的障碍。为此,分析了肉类依恋对不同蛋白质替代品(植物、昆虫、人造肉)和相关食品加工技术的信任的影响。研究结果表明,高度依赖肉类的人对植物性蛋白质的信任度较低。同样的道理也适用于人造肉和昆虫蛋白质。因此,至少在目前看来,人造肉或昆虫蛋白质并不能合理地替代那些严重依赖肉类的消费者。此外,在分析中,我们考虑了MEAS测量的肉类依恋是否与其他量表/偏好相关,如食物恐惧症、社会信任和对各自偏好有机产品的态度。文献表明,上述所有构式分别影响对更可持续的食品产品创新、更可持续的食品加工技术的接受度、偏好或信任。相关性分析的结果表明,特别是新食物恐惧症和肉类依恋之间不存在相关性。也就是说,MEAS代表了对食品(加工)技术的信任预测,例如植物性蛋白质或培养肉,独立于新恐惧症结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Adaption of the meat attachment scale (MEAS) to Germany: interplay with food neophobia, preference for organic foods, social trust and trust in food technology innovations
Abstract Meat-based diets are still the norm, and vegans and vegetarians represent only a small minority of the population. A transition, respectively, behavioural change towards a diet with less meat can only occur by adopting a positive attitude towards dietary changes based on reasons and motivations. The main aim of this study is to apply the meat attachment scale (MEAS) in Germany in order to analyse if this construct is a barrier towards a diet with less meat in this country. For this purpose, the impact of meat attachment on the trust in different protein alternatives (plant-based, insects, cultured meat) and related food processing technologies is analysed. The findings reveal that a high level of meat attachment goes along with lower trust in plant-based proteins. Similar holds for cultured meat and insect proteins. Thus it appears that, at least for the moment, cultured meat or proteins from insects are not a logical substitute for the heavily meat attached consumer. Furthermore, in the analysis, we considered if meat attachment as measured by the MEAS is correlated with other scales/preferences such as food neophobia, social trust, and attitude towards respective preference for organic products. Literature shows that all mentioned constructs impact the acceptance, preference or trust in more sustainable food product innovation, respectively, more sustainable food processing techniques. The outcome of the correlation analysis demonstrated that in particular food neophobia and meat attachment are not correlated with each other. That is, the MEAS represents a predictor for trust in food (processing) technologies as e.g. plant-based proteins or cultured meat that is independent of the neophobia construct.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agricultural and Food Economics
Agricultural and Food Economics Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
5.10%
发文量
29
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Agricultural and Food Economics (AFE) is an international peer-reviewed and open access journal published on behalf of the Italian Society of Agricultural Economics. AFE welcomes research articles from economists, scholars and researchers from all over the world to publish problem-oriented and high-quality articles. AFE publishes only original articles from a wide variety of economic perspectives that address current and relevant issues related to the agricultural and food system. AFE publishes articles focused on applied analysis, the discussion of innovative results, and relevant policy and managerial implications. AFE seeks clearly written articles from experts in the field, to promote insightful understanding of the current trends in the agri-food system. Topics of specific interest to AFE include agricultural and food market analysis, agri-food firm management and marketing, organization of the agri-food chains, consumer behavior, food quality and safety issues, economics of nutrition and food security, food and health economics, agri-food policy and trade, sustainable rural development, natural and marine resource economics and land economics.
期刊最新文献
The implications of governance factors for economic and social upgrading in Ghana’s cocoa value chain Seed market dynamics and diffusion of new wheat varieties in Bihar, India: a supply-side perspective. The coexistence of psychological drivers and deterrents of consumers’ willingness to try cultured meat hamburger patties: evidence from South Africa Conventional versus organic olive farming: which has a better economic performance? The distortion in the EU feed market due to import constraints on genetically modified soy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1