A Psychological Framework on the Relationship of Nutritional Knowledge and Entomophagy in Western Societies

Home , Entomophagy

How To Eat The Worm In The Apple – A Psychological Framework On The Relationship Of Nutritional Knowledge And Entomophagy In Western Societies

Masterarbeit

Zur Erlangung des Grades Master of Science (MSc)

an der Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg

Eingereicht von Bettina Anna Franziska Seitz, BSc

Betreuer und Gutachter: Ass. Prof. Dr. Alexander Keul Fachbereich: Psychologie Salzburg, August, 2018

CONTENT INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Theoretical background ...... 3

Hypotheses...... 10

METHODS ...... 14

Data and sample collection ...... 14

Questionnaire ...... 14

Statistical analysis...... 23

RESULTS ...... 25

Descriptive statistics ...... 25

Confirmatory analyses ...... 29

Explorative analyses ...... 36

DISCUSSION ...... 42

Interpretation ...... 42

Limitations and implications ...... 50

Conclusion ...... 52

REFERENCES ...... 53

APPENDICES ...... 61

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Presentation of the cereal bar being rated by participants...... 21 Figure 2. Distribution of country of residence ...... 25 Figure 3. Distribution of nutrition ...... 27 Figure 4. Distribution of participants having tried or not tried insect food before...... 27 Figure 5. Non-normal distribution of answers regarding participant’s willingness to eat the presented product...... 28 Figure 6. Non-normal distribution of answers regarding participant’s expected liking of the presented product...... 29 Figure 7. Illustration of the relationship between food neophobia and people’s attitude toward insect-based food...... 31 Figure 8. Illustration of the nonsignificant relationship between nutrition knowledge and people’s attitude toward insect-based food...... 31 Figure 9. Illustration of the relationship between objective consumer knowledge and people’s attitude toward insect-based food...... 33 Figure 10. Illustration of the relationship between prior consumption and people’s attitude toward insect-based food...... 33 Figure 11. Illustration of the relationship between nation and people’s attitude toward insect-based food...... 34 Figure 12. Illustration of the relationship between promotional element and people’s attitude toward insect-based food...... 35 Figure 13. Illustration of the relationship between sex and people’s attitude toward insect-based food...... 35 Figure 14. Distribution of frequency of picking disgust as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring the least willingness to eat...... 37 Figure 15. Distribution of frequency of picking disgust as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring higher willingness to eat...... 37 Figure 16. Distribution of frequency of picking disgust as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring the least expected liking...... 38

Figure 17. Distribution of frequency of picking disgust as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring high expected liking...... 38 Figure 18. Distribution of frequency of picking pleasant surprise as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring the least willingness to eat...... 39 Figure 19. Distribution of frequency of picking pleasant surprise as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring higher willingness to eat...... 39 Figure 20. Distribution of frequency of picking pleasant surprise as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring least expected liking...... 40 Figure 21. Distribution of frequency of picking pleasant surprise as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring higher expected liking...... 40

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Listing of items of the Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire by Dickson- Spillmann, Siegrist, and Keller (2011)...... 16 Table 2 Listing of items of the Food neophobia scale first introduced by Pliner and Hobden (1992)...... 17 Table 3 Presentation of example trademarks used in the sector of insect food (Folke Dammann SNACK-INSECTS, 2018; Imago Insect Products GmbH, 2018; Nutribug Ltd., 2018)...... 20 Table 4 Listing of items first used by Fenko, Leufkens, and van Hoof (2015) to assess the people’s willingness to eat the fictive insect product...... 22 Table 5 Listing of items first used by Fenko, Leufkens, and van Hoof (2015) to assess the people’s expected liking of the fictive insect product...... 22 Table 6 Listing of items developed by Piha, Pohjanheimo, Lähteenmäki-Uutela, Křečková, and Otterbring (2016) to assess consumer knowledge...... 23 Table 7 Distribution of education level in frequency and percentage...... 26

Table 8 Spearman-Rho correlation coefficients between the two outcome variables and the demographic features age and education. Significant correlations marked with * are significant according to the .05 level...... 36 Table 9 Summary of confirmed or rejected hypotheses. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05., + p < .08 ...... 41

ABSTRACT Objective: According to scientific reports, conventional meat production will not be able to cover the demands of the growing global population, which is predicted to reach 9 billion people in the year 2050. A resource-conserving and eco-friendly solution to this problem lies in eating insects. Several studies have shown that Western societies still possess great reluctance toward insect food. The recent thesis examines the influence of nutrition knowledge on entomophagy. In addition, a new type of promotional text covering controversial facts was introduced. Method: A sample of 322 Austrian, German and American participants took either an online questionnaire or a paper and pencil survey. Included in this form were questions about consumer knowledge, the nutrition knowledge questionnaire, the food neophobia scale and sociodemographic items. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups where either an informative, controversial or neutral text was presented. Afterward, participants had to rate a fictive granola bar with visible insects. Results: Statistical analyses showed a significant effect of food neophobia, consumer knowledge, disgust and sex on entomophagy. Neither nutrition knowledge nor any of the promotional text led to more positive attitudes toward entomophagy. Furthermore, none of the nations showed a significantly more optimistic attitude toward eating insects. Conclusions: In line with previous research, the results of the present study confirm that future surveys must focus on how to reduce the impact of disgust and food neophobia on entomophagy. Furthermore, insect products should be commercialized under a new product category and media coverage should focus on the positive aspects of entomophagy to enhance the image of this newly introduced nutrition style.

Keywords: culture, disgust, emotions, entomophagy, food neophobia, insects, media, nutrition knowledge, promotional element, sex differences

INTRODUCTION

“Food is not only good to eat, but also to think” (C. Fischer 1998)1

In the year 2017, an estimated 324.9 million tons of meat have been produced worldwide. This reflects an increase in meat production of 1.1 % in comparison to 2016. The trading with meat will rise over 1.2 % in the next 12 months due to greater import demands by countries including Japan, Mexico and several Arabian countries. China, one of the global players in meat production, still needs to import tons of meat per year to satisfy the protein demands of its rising population (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2017). This demand will also come from other nations provoked by the population increasing to 9 billion (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016). The resulting health, environmental and animal welfare concerns fuel the need for a new source of sustainable protein. Growing populations and the corresponding food shortage could result in increased malnutrition and undernourishment, especially in third countries. This can only be avoided through effective food production (Delgado, Rosegrant, Steinfeld, Ehui, & Courbois, 1999). A possible solution to these problems lies in the consumption of edible insects (Nadeau, Nadeau, Franklin, & Dunkel, 2014). Ten thousand years ago, entomophagy (from the Greek ἔντομον éntomon, "insect", and φᾰγεῖν phagein, "to eat") already filled up the plates of our prehistoric ancients like American Indian and African tribes who mostly consumed beetles, ants and caterpillars (Fontaneto et al., 2011; van Itterbeeck & van Huis, 2012). Residues of this ancient nutrition can still be found in African, Asian, and Latin American countries. A variety of insects deriving from the group of beetles, caterpillars, and bees are consumed in these states (van Huis, 2016).

To most of Westerners it seems absurd, but entomophagy holds many advantages for the planet and its human beings. First, certain insect species possess a great nutritional value via abundance of amino acids and polyunsaturated fatty acids, as well as higher levels in

1 Giordano, Clodoveo, Gennaro, and Corbo (2018)

2 minerals (iron, zinc) and vitamins like thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin compared to conventional meat products (Belluco et al., 2013; Testa et al., 2017; van Huis, 2013), the latter being crucial for energy metabolism and brain function. Disabilities caused by a lack of vitamins can often be seen in pregnant women and children in developing countries, where conventional meat is not affordable, and entomophagy does not depict a common diet (Strohm, Bechthold, Isik, Leschik-Bonnet, & Heseker, 2016). In the next 35 years, these problems might also arise in developed countries due to an increasing population. Second, farming insects not only benefits mankind but also the ecosphere itself. Conventional livestock production not only occupies great parts of cultivable acreage, it also features ten times lower conversion efficiency (Deroy, Reade, & Spence, 2015) in comparison to insect production (Oonincx & Boer, 2012). Ecologists especially criticize the high contribution to global carbon dioxide (CO2, 9 %), methane (CH4, 35 – 40 %) and nitrous oxides emissions (NH2, 65 %) mainly caused by the energy demand of farms, gaseous ejections of cattle and urine deposits in soil (Oonincx et al., 2010). Nevertheless, the production of insect food also demands high amounts of energy. Insects require high ambient temperatures to adjust their body temperature for growth and reproduction (due to poikilothermal characteristics). These energy demands exceed the requirements of chicken and milk production but is less than that of cattle and pig farms (Oonincx & Boer, 2012). Lastly, the huge variety of edible insect species enables diversified meals on the dinner tables of humankind in the future. Researchers not only found 250 edible species in Africa and over 500 in Mexico, they collected almost 2000 species worldwide.

Theoretical background The odds of picking a food product within the blink of an eye are rather low as food choice decisions are highly complex processes which underly a plurality of factors. According to Furst, Connors, Bisogni, Sobal, and Falk (1996), these factors are summarized by the three main components life course, influences and personal system and build up a chronological model, which converge in the choice of a food product. The person’s exposure to a specific environment (social, cultural, and physical) as well as the people’s role in life make up the life course of a person which itself frames the influences (ideals, personal attributes, and food context). These variables effect the value considerations of a potential consumer regarding money and convenience and influence the extent to which unconscious strategies determine a consumer’s decision. In the end, food choice processes can either consist of dynamic sequences, if value considerations are conducted actively; or automatic processes, if heuristic strategies are applied. In summary, food choice decisions are complex operations composed of multiple interactions between various factors. When combined with psychological factures, such as a person’s attributes, knowledge and beliefs toward a certain product, a comprehensive understanding of why specific food products are commonly consumed is established (Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014; Roininen, 2001). Lensvelt and Steenbekkers (2014) drafted a concept that specifically accounts for the decision to consume insect food and considers psychological factors. Based on previous literature, identifying factors related to entomophagy and the acceptance of novel food products in general, the research group identified important factors regarding people`s willingness to eat insect food: attributes of the product (e.g. price and quality, benefits, health risks), social norms, and people’s prior attitude toward insect food as well as neophobia and cultural background. In 2015, a Belgian research group conducted an experiment to assess the individual influences of these factors on entomophagy. Participants answered scales about personality traits, eating motives and sociodemographic variables after being presented with information about the nutritional benefits of insects. Results showed that a specific type of neophobia accounted for the largest unwillingness to eat insects, namely food neophobia, the fear toward novel and unknown food products (Verbeke, 2015b). According to anthropological science, the reluctance toward novel food is a deeply rooted behavior and prevents individuals to consume harmful and potentially fatal aliments (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). Nowadays, globalization and industrial food production keeps most of the global population from asking themselves which food might be edible or not by providing

4 convenient and healthy food products. Consequently, one could assume that food neophobia is a historical relict of our ancient days and most people do not possess a high neophobia. However, a part of mankind is facing the odds of being strongly neophobic toward novel food. The variety in expression of this specific attribute might also explain why some studies, e.g. the previously mentioned one, confirm food neophobia to be relevant regarding the acceptance of insect food and other research only partially corroborate these results. An example is the study by a Swiss research team who claimed to have made a comprehensive overview of all variables determining entomophagy. In addition to food neophobia, they investigated further aspects, like familiarity with insects as food, ethics, and expected food healthiness. Interestingly, food neophobia did not significantly predict entomophagy as sole variable, because food technology neophobia (fear toward unknown food production techniques), salience of insects in meals and familiarity with insects as food showed the same predictive value (Schlup & Brunner, 2018). Hence, the role of certain variables, especially food neophobia in enhancing entomophagy, does not seem clear yet and requires further investigation. Furthermore, the results of Schlup and Brunner (2018) did not fulfill completeness in investigating factors related to entomophagy, as several variables including preparation method were missing. In addition, the study did not assess if people had tried insects before and how much they knew about this specific type of nutrition. Another study investigated these factors and assessed the consumer’s knowledge on entomophagy in the EU. Piha, Pohjanheimo, Lähteenmäki-Uutela, Křečková, and Otterbring (2016) therefore developed a questionnaire with items on subjective knowledge (what people think they know about entomophagy), objective knowledge (what people really know about entomophagy) and previous experiences with insect products. Moreover, they assessed food neophobia scores and the general opinion toward entomophagy. The results showed that in some countries (Sweden, Finland), consumer knowledge played a crucial role in predicting entomophagy, even more than food neophobia. The researchers explained this circumstance with the strong impact of knowledge on the general attitude toward entomophagy. The more people knew about the nutritious benefits of insects, the more positive engagement was shown. The superior psychological factor to entomophagy knowledge is general nutrition knowledge. None of the previous studies has examined the effects of general nutrition knowledge on entomophagy, which possibly plays a further important role in accepting insect foods as people with higher knowledge might know more about the importance of dietary protein intake etc. and are therefore more willing to try insects. Participants with high

5 nutrition knowledge are seen to know important information about nutrient requirements of the human body, nutrient content of certain food products including fat, vitamins, and energy as well as an understanding of the connection between food production and sustainability. Even though other factors like perceived consequences of buying a product, attitudes and beliefs about a product, cooking skills, or environmental respectively social norms are determining consumption behavior and food choice too, nutritional knowledge might be the most important predictor (Worsley, 2002). Promising results have been found in a metaanalysis which was conducted to investigate the relationship between nutrition knowledge and general food behavior. The majority of 29 studies found significant relations between food behavior, especially dietary intake and nutrition knowledge. The more participants in these specific studies knew about required nutrient intake and the nutrient contents of food products, the more they tended to consume and buy healthy and nutritious products (Spronk, Kullen, Burdon, & O'Connor, 2014). A further study revealed that promotional elements, including nutritional information about healthy diets etc., improved the nutrition knowledge of people and led them to eat more sustainable and healthy food. Overall, people with greater nutrition knowledge tend to accept promotional information more thoroughly (Brinberg, Axelson, & Price, 2000) and are more willing to change their diet. Therefore, it seems obvious that nutrition knowledge might also play a crucial role in entomophagy and its influence will be examined in the present study. According to Lensvelt and Steenbekkers (2014), culture should also be considered when talking about factors influencing entomophagy. Previous studies that included food neophobia and other factors such as disgust and familiarity mostly compared countries where entomophagy is practiced or legally accepted (Thailand, China, Netherlands) with states like Germany and Australia where insect food is a novelty (Hartmann, Shi, Giusto, & Siegrist, 2015; House, 2016; Lensvelt & Steenbekkers, 2014; Tan et al., 2015). As expected, people in countries where insects are eaten are already familiar with related products and rate them significantly more positively. But future research should also investigate if countries where entomophagy is not practiced differ regarding general attitude and which individual measures should be taken to enhance the acceptance of insect products. Therefore, the following study will compare three different countries where entomophagy is not a common diet, namely Austria, Germany, and USA. When speaking of individual measures, it becomes clear that not only the investigation of factors determining entomophagy is relevant but also the development of promotional

6 campaigns to facilitate the implementation of entomophagy in societies where insect products are still discussed controversially. These campaigns have always played an important role in generally implementing new food products in the Western diet. One of the theories constituting the development of such campaigns consists in the framing theory first defined by Gregory Bateson in 1972. According to his opinion, psychological frames consist of a temporary collection of different messages. A similar message can be imbedded in different frames to enhance salience of and attention to a specific topic (Arowolo, 2017; Scheufele, 1999). Researchers of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem adapted this theory and applied it to consumption behavior (Ganzach & Karsahi, 1995). They examined which differences occur when consumers are presented with a positive frame implying gain by using a product or a negative frame implicating a loss by avoiding the product. Furthermore, they tried to investigate if these framed messages could lead people to adopt a specific behavior or not (regular use of a credit card) and how convincing the presented arguments seemed to the participants. Presentation of the messages indeed led to an increase in usage of credit cards, which appeared to be the highest when being presented with the loss frame and indeed lasted longer than expected. In a six-months follow up participants still showed increased use of their credit card. The researchers explained these facts by the salience of negative information which might probably be processed deeper as positive information (Rozin & Royzman, 2001) due to its consequences of loss or danger. One year earlier, Tuorila, Meiselman, Bell, Cardello, and Johnson (1994) examined, as one of the first research teams, how distinct information statements and framing processes alter the acceptance of novel food products and whether there is a difference in processing of this information by participants with high neophobia scores. Results showed a main effect of information on the liking of a novel product specifically in the condition with no information where participants were showing the lowest liking rates. Simple label information led to better liking scores and the descriptive condition, where participants were informed about the ingredients of a product, was followed by a strong increase. Similar conclusions were made by Tuorila, Andersson, Martikainen, and Salovaara (1998) who examined the effects of different information statements on the liking (hedonic measures, etc.) and recommendation of a product and willingness to eat it. They found that certain information is processed deeper in participants with product-related interest (better rating of a fat-reduced product in health-interested people). In a recent experiment, participants had to rate a fictive product regarding newness, familiarity, attractiveness and intention to buy the food product,

7 and were required to answer questions about food neophobia. They were confronted with slogans implying either familiarity or newness of a product or both, all being relevant factors influencing the acceptance of novel food. Interestingly and contrary to previous studies, results showed that neophilics gave significant better ratings of attractiveness when products were labelled and rated as new (Fenko, Leufkens, & van Hoof, 2015). The same results were also found in a study investigating the effects of ingredients, names and stories being new to costumers on rating of unfamiliar ethnic products and restaurants. Indeed, the researchers revealed a significantly better liking of ethnic products when being new to consumers as these products were rated more authentic. Furthermore, these ratings were enhanced by presenting fictive stories about the origin or history of a product. Sometime after, a study tried to investigate the potential of similar framing contents in the field of entomophagy. Participants were confronted with different videos showing social and individual benefits of eating insect products, and a control condition showing the benefits of implementing digital media in school. Afterwards, they got the chance to try a chocolate bar including crickets and had to give several ratings about the product. Their findings suggested that information about insects as food does not only enhance the willingness to try corresponding products but also changes the behavior of people in tasting insect food (Verneau et al., 2016). In another experiment, scientists presented information about entomophagy to a group of high school and university students in a lecture format. They were confronted with information, pictures and videos of people eating invertebrates and afterward dishes including crickets or mealworms were placed in front of the students. Before and after the bug banquet, students had to fill in a questionnaire about different aspects of their attitude toward insect products (concerns about environment, scientific, aesthetic, & negativistic opinion, etc.). Results revealed that students rated insect products more appealing and less negative after the bug banquet (Looy & Wood, 2006). Further results were also obtained in an experiment where participants were able to taste burgers with meat, plant or insects being the main ingredient of the burger patties. Before trying the burger and evaluating it on a sensory and emotional scale (for further information please refer to Schouteten et al., 2015), participants were confronted with information including intellectual appeals about the nutrition benefits and regulatory rules for entomophagy in their respective country. The informative condition slightly enhanced people’s attitude toward entomophagy but did not show the same impact strength as in previous studies (Schouteten et al., 2016). In a further study, researchers compared the effect of reading a similar intellectual appeal being

8 presented with a social appeal video showing people whilst trying insect food. Interestingly, participants being confronted with the social appeal video did show a better liking of products in comparison to before watching. The informational text did not enhance the rating as in similar studies (Sheppard & Frazer, 2015). Therefore, it still seems quite unclear whether cognitive informational elements solely informing about the nutritional benefits do lead to a sufficient change in attitude required to implement insect products in Western nutrition. According to Yates-Doerr (2015), confronting people with the fact that insects are already eaten on a regular basis due to being coproducts in conventional food production could be an effective way to enhance the acceptance of insect products. In most processing mechanisms, insect products cannot be avoided as an unwanted ingredient. They are collected during harvesting and subsequent processing. Every person eats around one pound of insect parts in a year, consequently insect parts have already been a regular part of the daily nutrition (Die Presse, 2015). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) already allows by law that chocolate, coffee, and raspberries contain whole insects and insect parts (Focus Online, 2017). The idea behind confronting people with this information might consist in a potential enhancement of familiarity with insects as food as they are already consumed daily. Consumers tend more towards buying or eating products they already know and don’t define as dangerous because of experience. Regarding this impact of familiarity on attitude and behavior toward insect food, the research of Verbeke (2015b) showed that in his experiment, participants being familiar with eating insects, tend to be more willing to try and eat insect foods on a regular basis as a meat substitute. Hence, the present study will furthermore compare the efficiency of two different promotional campaigns and examine how the attitude of potential consumers changes after being presented with beneficial information and facts about the daily consumption of insects. Last, the influence of different sociodemographic factors will be examined. Especially age, sex and education will be investigated as previous studies have shown that some of these variables play an important role in the acceptance of entomophagy.

A lot of factors can determine whether somebody is willing to consume or buy insect products or not (e.g. food neophobia, familiarity with products or severe emotions like disgust). It seems clear that quite a few studies have already tried to find a general way how to diminish the impact of these factors and convince consumers about the plurality of positive aspects of insect products. Some factors like nutrition knowledge are assumed to have an impact on the willingness to try insect products but have been neglected in recent

9 research. Furthermore, a great amount of studies has examined which promotional elements might be the most effective in changing attitudes and how this effect is diminished or enhanced by specific personality or social attributes (especially food neophobia, culture). An aim of the present study consists in finding a way to advance familiarity of western customers with insect products by using a novel type of informational element and reducing the impact of other variables like food neophobia. Most of the previous studies used information about nutrition benefits, sensory experiencing or social appeals. In the present experiment, a new type of promotional element will be used which is meant to enhance familiarity with insect products through emphasizing the fact that insects are already eaten on a regular basis. Due to the amount of research fields being investigated in the current study, a number of research questions and hypotheses arise which will be listed in the next chapter.

Hypotheses In the following section, the nine research questions and corresponding hypotheses of the present study will be listed.

R1: Are food neophobia, nutrition knowledge and consumer knowledge related? The aim of the present study is to investigate the last factors constituting to entomophagy in Western societies which have not been examined in previous studies before. The relationship between food neophobia, nutrition knowledge and consumer knowledge has not been examined before. It is assumed that higher scores in nutrition knowledge correspond to higher scores in consumer knowledge. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that higher scores in nutrition as well as consumer knowledge accord with lower rates in food neophobia.

H1.1: Higher scores in nutrition knowledge correspond to higher scores in consumer knowledge. H1.2: Higher scores in nutrition knowledge correspond to lower scores in food neophobia. H1.3: Higher scores in consumer knowledge correspond to lower scores in food neophobia.

R2: Does food neophobia influence people’s rating of insect-based food? Previous studies have shown that food neophobia plays a crucial role in the acceptance of entomophagy. Still, most studies did not compare groups with different grades of expression regarding entomophagy. Therefore, the influence of food neophobia will also be investigated in this study. The following relationship between food neophobia and entomophagy is hypothesized:

H2.1: Participants with higher scores in food neophobia show lower willingness to eat insect-based food than participants with lower scores. H2.2: Participants with higher scores in food neophobia show lower expected liking of insect-based food than participants with lower scores.

R3: Does nutrition knowledge influence people’s rating of insect food? In a next step, it will be determined if a high rate in knowledge enhances the two dependent variables: willingness to eat and expected liking. Consequently, the following hypotheses will be examined:

H3.1: Participants with higher scores in nutrition knowledge show greater willingness to eat insect-based food than participants with lower knowledge scores. H3.2: Participants with higher scores in nutrition knowledge show higher expected liking of insect-based food than participants with lower knowledge scores.

R4: Does consumer knowledge about entomophagy influence people’s rating of insect food? When investigating the influence of general nutrition knowledge on entomophagy it is also important to consider the participants’ specific knowledge about entomophagy. In the present study, scores of objective consumer knowledge and subjective consumer knowledge will be assessed and its influence on people’s willingness to eat and expected liking of insect products will be examined.

H4.1: Participants with higher scores in objective consumer knowledge show greater willingness to eat insect-based food than participants with lower knowledge scores. H4.2: Participants with higher scores in objective consumer knowledge show higher expected liking of insect-based food than participants with lower knowledge scores. H4.3: Participants with higher scores in subjective consumer knowledge show greater willingness to eat insect-based food than participants with lower knowledge scores. H4.4: Participants with higher scores in subjective consumer knowledge show higher expected liking of insect-based food than participants with lower knowledge scores.

R5: Is there a difference in the rating of insect products between North Americans and Europeans? Further studies have revealed that major differences consist between different countries (China, Germany, Scandinavian countries) regarding factors underlying entomophagy. In the present study, three samples of American and European citizens (Austria and Germany) will be collected and compared.

H5.1: Intercultural differences in willingness to eat insect-based food are assumed. No direction is presumed. H5.2: Intercultural differences in expected liking of insect-based food are assumed. No direction is presumed.

R6: Does the presentation of the two promotional elements – rational text vs. controversial text – lead to a change in opinion about entomophagy? Some research presented participants with more or less efficient strategies to overcome the reluctance toward entomophagy. In the present study, we introduce a new type of promotional element in the form of presenting mundane information about the daily (mostly involuntary) consumption of insects due to being byproducts in harvesting and processing mechanisms in food production.

H6.1: Participants being confronted with controversial information show greater willingness to eat insect products than participants in the group of neutral arguments. H6.2: Participants being confronted with controversial information show greater expected liking of insect products than participants in the group of neutral arguments. H6.3: Participants being confronted with rational information show greater willingness to eat insect products than participants in the group of neutral arguments. H6.4: Participants being confronted with rational information show greater expected liking of insect products than participants in the group of neutral arguments.

R7: Does sex influence the rating of insect-based food? According to previous research it is assumed that specific demographic attributes play an important role in how willing people are to eat or like an insect product.

H7.1: Men show higher willingness to eat insect products than women. H7.2: Men show higher expected liking of insect products than women.

R8: Does age influence the rating of insect-based food? According to previous research it is assumed age plays an important role in how willing people are to eat or like an insect product. Therefore, the following hypotheses are made:

H8.1: Younger people show higher willingness to eat insect products than older ones. H8.2: Younger people show higher expected liking of insect products than older ones.

R9: Does education influence the rating of insect-based food? According to previous research it is assumed that education plays an important role in how willing people are to eat or like an insect product. Therefore, the following hypotheses are made:

H9.1: People with higher educational level show higher willingness to eat insect products than people with lower ones. H9.2: People with higher educational level show higher expected liking of insect products than people with lower ones.

R10: Do people with very low willingness to eat and expected liking of insect products differ from the remaining participants regarding their emotional responses? Following older studies, one of the major contributors to food neophobia toward insect-based food consists in disgust and other emotional responses that are related to nutrition. Therefore, it will be examined which feelings are involved in rating the product presented in the recent study. No directions are assumed.

METHODS

Data and sample collection Participants were randomly recruited via e-mail services and social media (Facebook, Whatsapp, etc.) for an online survey in the United States of America as well as Austria and Germany. To obtain a greater age range and more heterogenous sample (considering economic status, nutrition style, etc.), the questionnaire was also distributed in the public sector of the municipal area of Salzburg and Munich. Furthermore, the questionnaire was handed out in a paper pencil format to employees and workers in academic, social, and natural science fields to obtain a greater range of socioeconomic status. In addition, people were asked to forward the questionnaire to friends, family, and coworkers to obtain bigger and mixed samples. Overall, the survey was constructed with the online computer software Soscisurvey (SoSci Survey GmbH)2. Participants indicated informed consent at the beginning of the questionnaire as well as received information about the anonymity of the answers. At the end of the questionnaire, the purpose of the study was clarified. The questionnaire was developed in German and translated into English. The English translation was checked and approved by a native-speaker. Pretests of both versions were applied to five people per questionnaire and only minor improvements occurred to be necessary. All items originally included in the questionnaire were comprehensible and functional. The survey took approximately 20 minutes and consisted of answering questions about nutrition knowledge, food neophobia, nutrition style and entomophagy. Furthermore, participants were randomly confronted with one of three different informational elements. After presentation they were asked to indicate their willingness to eat a fictive insect product and had to rate the expected taste of the product.

Questionnaire The questionnaire was developed to ensure effective data collection of different subsequent scales and the adequate implementation of the product presentation. First, a German version was developed (please refer to Appendix E) and then translated into English (please refer to Appendix B). The translation and retranslation were reviewed by two native speakers ensuring no differences in meaning and comprehensiveness of different items. First, a short introduction about the purpose of the study (research about nutrition styles and consume

2 The paper-pencil questionnaire did not differ from the online survey regarding formal requirements, language, and content. Still it cannot be fully ruled out that a method bias might have appeared.

15 preferences) was given. Furthermore, participants were informed that anonymity is guaranteed and no references to their identity can be made.

Nutrition knowledge In order to assess the nutrition knowledge score of people, a modified version of the nutrition knowledge questionnaire of Dickson-Spillmann, Siegrist, and Keller (2011) was used in the present study (please refer to Table 1). Originally developed in English, the items were translated into German. Both versions were furthermore approved by respective native- speakers. The relatively new scale was developed to investigate nutrition knowledge based on common language which people use to describe and talk about food. Questions included in the scale were asking about the nutrient and fat content as well as cooking procedures of certain dishes, thus, combining declarative and procedural nutrition knowledge in one questionnaire. In comparison to older questionnaires like the General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire (Parmenter & Wardle, 1999), the present scale stands out because of its briefness and comprehensibility. It obtains high internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .73) as well as construct validity (GNKQ; r = .67) thus showing good test parameters and the ability to distinguish between people having good knowledge about dietary intake and healthy nutrition versus respondents with low scores in knowledge. Whilst analyzing the items for suitability with the present study design it became clear that several questions obtain information which refer to local delicacies served only in Switzerland where the scale was validated. As one example the term “Greyerzer” cheese refers to a typical Swiss cheese also known as “Gruyere” cheese in other parts of Europe. To avoid possible misunderstandings of the respective questions, five items were not used in the present survey therefore diminishing the number of questions of the nutrition knowledge part to 15. Answer options to these questions consisted of correct, false and no answer and the score was calculated based on a one-point system to every correctly answered item. In total, the nutrition knowledge score ranged between 0 and 15 with the latter indicating a good nutrition knowledge score. The nutrition knowledge score was then used as an independent variable in the following statistical analysis.

Table 1 Listing of items of the Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire by Dickson- Spillmann, Siegrist, and Keller (2011).

Correct Item answer Lentils contain only few useful nutrients, therefore their health benefit is not great. False If you have eaten high-fat foods, you can reverse the effects by eating apples. False A healthy meal should consist of half meat, a quarter vegetables and a quarter side dishes. False Fat contains fewer calories than the same amount of fiber. False Fat is always bad for your health; you should therefore avoid it as much as possible. False Pasta with tomato sauce is healthier than pasta with mushroom and cream sauce. True A balanced diet implies eating all foods in the same amounts. False The health benefit of fruit and vegetables lies alone in the supply of vitamins and minerals. False Bacon contains more calories than ham. True Oily fish (salmon, mackerel) contain healthier fats than red meat. True To eat healthily, you shoud eat less fat. Whether you also eat more fruit and vegetables does not matter. False The same amount of sugar and fat contains equally many calories. False For a healthy nutrition, dairy products should be consumed in the same amounts as fruit and vegetables. False Skimmed milk contains fewer minerals than full-fat milk. False Brown sugar is much healthier than white sugar. False

Food Neophobia Scale The construction process of the first food neophobia scale consisted of several steps. The research group around Pliner and Hobden (1992) first asked individuals to think about words and statements they relate to food neophobia which was previously described to them. Then, multiple item sets were compared regarding comprehensiveness and item correlations. The final ten items were then presented to three different samples for validation purposes (cf. Table 2). Participants were answering the questionnaire prior to a tasting event of different unknown and known foods. Statistical analyses revealed good predictive qualities regarding food consumption and liking behavior of individuals. Ever since the scale was developed, many studies made use of it. In the present experiment the food neophobia scale translated

17 by Siegrist, Hartmann, and Keller (2013) was used. The Swiss research team examined the effects of food neophobia on everyday food choices in Switzerland and therefore developed a German and French version of the items. Most items were simply translated but a few had to be adapted regarding language differences as for example the wording “ethnic food”, meaning food from foreign countries, is known in English speaking nations but there is no direct equivalent in German. The translated German scale showed good internal validity (Cronbach’s alpha of .79) and was therefore used in the present experiment. All ten items were rated on a 7-point anchored Likert scale with categories ranging from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree all being verbally described. High scores in most questions implied high neophobia. Five questions were rated in reverse, as a high score on these was associated with low food neophobia. A total score of 10 to 70 could be obtained through giving 1 to 7 points on each statement and summing them up.

Table 2 Listing of items of the Food neophobia scale first introduced by Pliner and Hobden (1992).

Item I am constantly sampling new and different foods. I do not trust new foods. If I do not know what is in a food, I won’t try it. I like foods from different countries. Ethnic food (food from other cultures) looks too weird to eat. At dinner parties, I will try a new food. I am afraid to eat things I have never had before. I am very particular about the foods I will eat. I will eat almost anything. I like to try new ethnic restaurants.

General nutrition questions To receive an overview of the general nutrition behavior of the participants multiple questions about food style and daily food choices were asked. To be able to distinguish between different food styles, participants were requested to indicate their nutrition style in the form of being omnivore, vegetarian, vegan etc. Furthermore, meat-eaters were asked to specify the frequency of their meat and meat substitute product consumption and which motives underlie their consumption of meat. Vegetarians were asked not to answer any of these questions as their answers might bias the results. They were only asked about the motives underlying their nutrition style. Furthermore, people were asked if they could think

18 of eating synthetic meat products and insect products as meat substitutes. The latter being answered on a 7-point anchored scale ranging from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree.

Experimental manipulation For the experimental part, participants were presented with a newspaper article about entomophagy or insects. Similar to Sheppard and Frazer (2015) who presented an intellectual and social appeal, different versions of texts were presented in the current study. The titles were collected based on an extensive web research with the google search machine using keywords like “entomophagy”, “eating insects”, and “insect products” etc. It was an explicit search for newspaper article about the advantages of entomophagy (rational text), the number of insects eaten unintentionally (controversial text) and a baseline text in form of a simple description of an insect. The latter serving as a control group. It was meant to contain information about insects without informing about entomophagy. It was used to produce a connection between the participants and insects to avoid an abrupt transition between general nutrition and entomophagy. Several articles were found and presented to a small group of individuals which were told to name the most comprehensible and informative texts. Beforehand, the papers were checked for content correctness also via google research. One of the texts had to be slightly adapted. The headline of the informative text “Der Würmer- Burger kommt auch bald nach Deutschland” meaning “The worm burger will soon be available in Germany” had to be changed as it might provoke disgust in participants before reading due to the uncommon link of insects and food products. It was changed into “Insekten als Vitaminlieferanten auch bald in Österreich und Deutschland?“ meaning “Insects as vitamin providers soon available in Austria and Germany?” summarizing the content of the article in a more general way (please refer to Appendix F). The controversial text can be found in Appendix E and the baseline text in Appendix G. For the English version of the questionnaire, three other texts with similar content were picked (please refer to Appendix B for the entire questionnaire including the baseline text, Appendix C for the controversial text, and Appendix D for the informative text). None were adapted in any way. All participants were asked to read the newspaper article thoroughly and rethink the information for at least sixty seconds before turning to the next page. Therefore, it was ensured that people would not skip the text or read it carelessly otherwise the main aim of

19 the study consisting in the investigation of the efficacy of given information would have been jeopardized. All corresponding texts are enclosed in the appendices.

Product presentation The present research tried to find a way how to convince people of entomophagy and how the acceptance of such products can be measured. A common way is to present a fictive product which must be rated by participants. There’s already a variety of insect products available in the grocery stores of several European countries like Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland, as the corresponding national laws have allowed the distribution of insect food already. In contrast, supermarkets in Germany and Austria have been offering insect products since the beginning of 2018 as the regulation of novel food products has been renewed by the European Union. It now includes insect food and entered into force as from January 1st (Tagesschau.de, 2018). This law enables the sale of insect products like insect burgers, bars or pasta in all European countries including Germany and Austria. Nevertheless, only a few supermarkets have been selling insect food ever since and most products can be purchased through online shops. Common groceries being available are e.g. pasta made of cricket flour, energy bars containing different insects, and snack bags filled with grasshoppers or mealworms. In the present experiment, a fictive cereal bar was designed which depicts a common product in German supermarkets. Similar to previous studies (Fenko et al., 2015), a prototype of a bar was designed through morphing several existing products being available on the market. The design of the packaging was slightly altered through changing color and outlines. It was aimed to design an authentic product which could be available in local supermarkets. The main ingredients of the granola bar consisted of dried buffalo worms, hazelnut and sesame. This content was legibly written on the lower part of the front of the packaging. Furthermore, next to the boxed bar, the plain cereal bar without any packing was visible. Therein, several insect parts as well as nuts etc. were visible. Even though this circumstance of non-processed insects might have led to stronger disgust in participants, it was important to show people how such products can look like and how insects are integrated as regular ingredients in such food. The product itself was rated first by several persons on authenticity, comprehensibility, and attractiveness. The corresponding entire short questionnaire can be found in the Appendix H.

For the brand of the product, an extensive research in the German, Austrian, and American databases of the respective Patent and Trademark Offices was conducted. Examples of trademarks used for products containing insects are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Presentation of example trademarks used in the sector of insect food (Folke Dammann SNACK-INSECTS, 2018; Imago Insect Products GmbH, 2018; Nutribug Ltd., 2018).

By Nutribug Ltd By Imago Insect Products GmbH By SNACK-INSECTS

Based on the existing trademarks a new, fictive label was designed consisting of a black circle comprising the short brand name “BUG BAR” on the bottom and several in black silhouette illustrated insect animals (grasshopper, worm, and ant) above. Together with the product itself, the first draft of the trademark was also rated beforehand on attractiveness and authenticity. Minor adjustments were necessary as for example the first label only contained the silhouette of a grasshopper. This might lead to confusion as grasshopper are no ingredients of the presented cereal bar whereas buffalo worms are. Therefore, two other species of insects were added including the picture of a buffalo worm. The final product only contained information about the type of product, its main ingredients and the label. No information about price or other properties were given to avoid any bias. Like the results of the study by French et al. (2001) demonstrated, pricing affects the willingness to try food products in that even less favorable products are consumed more often. Therefore, no price information was given to prevent people from indicating higher willingness to try products just because of prices being perceived as low. In the questionnaire, the cereal bar was presented with a short text serving to inform and explain the presented product. Information about the fictive company “Bug Bar” was given as well as about buffalo worms to avoid questions coming up whilst rating the product. The product was presented in a size of approximately 12 cm to be fully identifiable (cf. Figure 1).

Figure 1. Presentation of the cereal bar being rated by participants.

The product in the German version of the questionnaire only differed in terms of language. The product can be found in Appendix E.

Product rating In the subsequent sections, participants were instructed to rate the product whilst keeping in mind the newspaper article they just read. An overall assessment of all responses related to consumption of the insect product was made including affective, cognitive, and emotional factors. In accordance to the affective responses in the study of Fenko, Leufkens, and van Hoof (2015) individuals indicated the expected taste of the product and their willingness to eat and buy it. Preliminary correlational analysis of the three dependent variables indicated an overlap regarding construct between willingness to eat and willingness to buy. Due to a significant perfect correlation of .92 the two variables could not be considered as independent and it was assumed that participants did not differentiate between the two factors. Therefore, the subsequent analyses will only be held regarding one of the two variables namely willingness to eat and expected liking. For each variable, three items were asked differing in assessing the certainty determining e.g. the willingness to eat such products in the present and in the future (cf. Table 4 and Table 5). All items were answered on a 7-point-anchored scale ranging from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree. The

22 total score in the three variables ranged from 3 to 21 with great scores meaning expectation of a good taste and a high willingness to eat the product.

Table 4 Listing of items first used by Fenko, Leufkens, and van Hoof (2015) to assess the people’s willingness to eat the fictive insect product.

Item I'll definitely try this product. I'm thinking about trying this product. It is very likely that I will try this product.

Table 5 Listing of items first used by Fenko, Leufkens, and van Hoof (2015) to assess the people’s expected liking of the fictive insect product.

Item I expect a delicious taste from the product. I think the product is tasty. The product seems to be tasty.

In a next step, based on the emotional terms used by Schouteten et al. (2015), the emotional response of participants was assessed. Therefore, individuals were asked to imagine which emotions they would show if they consumed the insect bar and tick them in a chart of specified emotions (for further information please refer to results).

Knowledge about entomophagy Last, in accordance to the study of Piha, Pohjanheimo, Lähteenmäki-Uutela, Křečková, and Otterbring (2016), the consumer knowledge about entomophagy was assessed. The researchers had operationalized this construct into three different dimensions: product- related experiences, objective knowledge, and subjective knowledge. In the present study, the objective knowledge included factual knowledge about entomophagy whereas the subjective knowledge included the previous experience with insect food. The first containing direct contact with specific products as well as having heard or read about it. These answers were given on a 7-point-anchored scale ranging from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree. The objective knowledge includes how much knowledge people have about the products. Therefore, participants were presented with 11 statements about entomophagy and had to indicate if a fact was correct or wrong (cf. Table 6). Having no clue, they could tick no answer. The knowledge score was then calculated through summing up the points in the

23 questions. Each correct answer gave one point, all others zero. Higher scores meaning greater overall knowledge.

Table 6 Listing of items developed by Piha, Pohjanheimo, Lähteenmäki-Uutela, Křečková, and Otterbring (2016) to assess consumer knowledge.

Item Correct answer Any American or European could grow insects in his or her home and cook. True In some countries in the European Union, there is already insect food for sale. True In Thailand, insects are already eaten commonly. True Insect food can be bought in a regular grocery store in Belgium. True Insects can be industrially grown also in the States and other countries of the European Union. True The protein content of 100 g chicken meat is smaller than the protein content of 100 g edible crickets. True Approximately 200 edible insect species have been listed. False Growing insects produces approximately the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions as growing pigs. False One kilogram of edible crickets contains approximately the same amount of calories as one kilogram of minced beef. False Only insects that have been grown in the appropriate laboratory facilities are edible for humans. False The nutritional values are approximately the same for all edible insects. False

Demographic questionnaire The end of the questionnaire consisted of a standard demographic questionnaire including e.g. sex, age, nutrition, and country of residence. The questionnaire ended with a short text clarifying the background of the survey.

Statistical analysis Data was checked on completeness and statistical analyses were conducted using the program IBM SPSS Statistics 25. First, a confirmatory analysis was conducted. Second, exploratory hypotheses were investigated. Over all calculations, values p < .05 and p < .08 are defined as significant and marginally significant, respectively. Calculations with Kolmogorow-Smirnov-Tests indicated missing normal distribution of the two dependent variables willingness to eat and expected liking. Therefore, nonparametric calculations such

24 as Kruskal-Wallis Tests, Mann-Whitney U Tests, and Spearman rank correlations will be used throughout the entire statistical analysis. The final scores of the independent variables nutrition knowledge, consumer knowledge and food neophobia were obtained by ranking all participants into the groups low, medium, and high. These groups are calculated by assessing the mean and drawing the line one standard deviation above and under the mean. First, Spearman rank correlations were calculated for the two dependent variables willingness to eat and expected liking. In a further step, Kruskal-Wallis Tests with the factors nutrition knowledge [LOW vs MEDIUM vs HIGH], consumer knowledge [LOW vs MEDIUM vs HIGH] and food neophobia [LOW vs MEDIUM vs HIGH] were calculated to examine any main effect on willingness to eat and expected liking of an insect-based product. Next, further Kruskal-Wallis Tests were calculated for the dependent variables promotional element [NEUTRAL INFO vs BENEFICIAL INFO vs CONTROVERSIAL INFO] and nation [AUSTRIA vs GERMANY vs USA]. The effects in the single groups were tested through Post Hoc tests and results were corrected for multiple comparisons using the Dunn- Bonferroni method. Mann-Whitney U Tests were calculated for subjective consumer knowledge [PRIOR CONSUMPTION vs NO PRIOR CONSUMPTION] and gender [FEMALE vs MALE]. Last, Spearman rank correlations including the relationship of the two dependent variables and age as well as education were calculated and an explorative analysis for emotions was conducted.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics

Sample Approximately 532 individuals had called the survey of whom 287 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria of answering the last page of the questionnaire which results in a high response rate of 50 %. Further 35 participants took the paper-pencil test resulting in an overall sample of 322 individuals.

Place of residence The three countries which will be compared in the following statistical analysis are Austria, Germany and the United States of America. Each country depicts a subsample. A total of 137 individuals (48.2 %) stated Germany as their country of residence, 59 participants (20.8 %) were living in Austria and 78 (27.5 %) in the U.S. Another ten persons (3.5 %) indicated other countries like Holland, India, and Chile and the remaining 38 participants did not answer this question. The participants from other countries as well as without an answer will be excluded from further analysis as intercultural differences between these countries and the three main sub samples might bias the results. All three subsamples showed similar demographic backgrounds which is of great importance to the cross-cultural comparison. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of countries.

Figure 2. Distribution of country of residence

Sex The sample showed a gender imbalance consisting of 215 females (66.8 %) and 107 males (33.2 %). This might be explained by a potentially higher interest of women in social and nutrition sciences. Furthermore, the questionnaire was answered by many psychology students who are predominantly females.

Age To follow the standards of psychological assessment, participants had to be over 18 years old. None of the individuals willing to take part in the study had to be excluded because of minority. All participants had to indicate their age in choosing an age category. The most frequently chosen one was 25 to 29 years with 91 participants (29.7 %) followed by 20 to 24 years with 91 participants (28.2 %). All other categories were represented between 1.2 % to 9 %. The age is not normally distributed (Z = .28, p < .001) and is skewed to the right. This represents a frequent distribution in student surveys. As the current study does not depend in general on the factor age, the skewed age distribution will be accepted.

Education Participants were asked to indicate the highest educational level they possess. Three participants (0.9 %) were still at school. Two persons (0.6 %) had completed primary education, ten persons (3.2 %) had qualifications from secondary school and 65 people (20.2 %) had completed their A-Levels. Over 200 participants (62 %) had university degrees (bachelor’s, master’s or PhD degrees) or had successfully completed an apprenticeship (23 persons; 7.2 %). 17 people (5.3 %) indicated other education levels and two persons did not answer this question (0.6 %). These persons are therefore excluded from corresponding calculations. Table 7 summarizes the results.

Table 7 Distribution of education level in frequency and percentage.

Frequency Percentage (%) Pupil 3 0.9 Primary education 2 0.6 Secondary education 10 3.2 A-Levels 65 20.2 Apprenticeship 23 7.2 University degrees 200 62 Other 17 5.3 No answer 2 0.6

Nutrition Most participants (171 participants; 53.2 %) indicated to be omnivorous and therefore eat meat as well as fish. 84 participants (26 %) ticked flexitarian meaning not to buy meat or fish on their own but eat it in e.g. restaurants. 18 participants (5.6 %) answered to be pescatarian (sole consumption of fish) and 31 indicated to be vegetarian (9.6 %) which is slightly more than in general samples. Remaining people chose veganism (8 persons; 2.5 %) and paleo (2 persons; 0.6 %). Eight individuals (2.5 %) did not answer this question. Figure 3 summarizes the results.

Figure 3. Distribution of nutrition

Prior consumption 74 participants (23 %) had already tried insect food before. Overall, 238 (74 %) have not made experiences with entomophagy. The remaining 10 persons (3 %) did not answer this question and are therefore excluded from related calculations. Figure 4 shows the corresponding distribution.

Figure 4. Distribution of participants having tried or not tried insect food before.

Willingness to eat The distribution of willingness to eat was not normal with a skewedness to the right (Z = .144, p < .001). 79 participants (25 %) indicated the lowest willingness to eat the presented product whereas 14 (4 %) answered with the highest willingness to eat the product. 40 participants (12.4 %) indicated to agree with consumption. A further 29 participants (9 %) agreed strongly to the consumption of insects. The corresponding non-normal distribution will be examined in the confirmatory analysis. Therefore, the participants will be divided into a first group of lowest willingness to eat and a second group of all other answers.

Figure 5. Non-normal distribution of answers regarding participant’s willingness to eat the presented product.

Expected liking The distribution of expected liking was not normal with a skewedness to the right (Z = .142, p < .001). 50 participants (15 %) indicated the lowest expected liking of the presented product whereas the remaining percentage answered with higher expected liking. 51 participants (15.8 %) answered to agree with a potential consumption of the product. 10 persons (3.1 %) gave the product the highest rating. This non-normal distribution will be examined in the confirmatory analysis. Therefore, the participants will be divided into a first group of lowest willingness to eat and a second group of all other answers.

Figure 6. Non-normal distribution of answers regarding participant’s expected liking of the presented product.

Confirmatory analyses The first part of inference statistics consisted in checking if a sufficient differentiation between the dependent variables willingness to eat, willingness to buy, and expected liking is possible so that they can be handled as being independent. Inter-Item-Correlations showed a significant medium-sized r for the variables expected liking and willingness to eat (r = .63, p < .001) as well as expected liking and willingness to buy (r = .68, p < .001). Furthermore, willingness to eat and willingness to buy correlated highly (r = .92, p < .001). Because of the significantly high correlation, only the two dependent variables willingness to eat and expected liking will be included in further analyses. The variables willingness to eat and buy might not be differentiated by participants and answers are given on the same construct. In the next section, statistical analyses are reported to confirm or reject the previously mentioned hypotheses of all ten research questions.

R1: Are food neophobia, nutrition knowledge and consumer knowledge related? Calculations show a significant relationship between the scores in nutrition knowledge and consumer knowledge. It is assumed that the more people know generally about food, the more they know about entomophagy. The medium correlation between nutrition knowledge and consumer knowledge is highly significant, r = .38, p < .001. Consequently, people who know more about nutrition also tend to show greater knowledge about entomophagy. Therefore, hypothesis 1.1 is confirmed.

The correlation between nutrition knowledge and food neophobia is not significant (r = -.07, p = .083). It was falsely assumed that people knowing more about nutrition are more

30 interested in novel food and are therefore less phobic. Consequently, hypothesis 1.2 must be rejected.

Analyses show a significant relationship between the scores in consumer knowledge and food neophobia. It is assumed that people knowing more about entomophagy are generally more interested in novel food products. The correlation between consumer knowledge and food neophobia is not significant (r = - .10, p = .064) but is regarded as a trend toward a small relationship. Consequently, higher consumer knowledge might correspond with lower food neophobia. Therefore, hypothesis 1.3 is partially confirmed.

R2: Does food neophobia influence people’s rating of insect-based food? A Kruskall-Wallis-H-Test did show a significant effect of food neophobia on willingness to eat (χ² = 31.83, df = 2, p < .001). Post-Hoc Tests show that individuals being somewhat phobic toward novel food products and showing medium fear differ (z = 47.18, p = .002) as well as people with low and high phobia (z = 98.31, p < .001). A difference was also found between medium and high neophobia (z = 51.14, p = .001) regarding willingness to eat insect products. More specifically, participants who had medium-sized phobia were less willing to eat insect products (M = 3.43, SD = 1.91) than people with low phobia (M = 4.44, SD = 1.73). Participants with great phobia also showed less willingness (M = 2.38, SD = 1.61) than people with low phobia (M = 4.44, SD = 1.73). Furthermore, participants scoring high neophobia (M = 2.38, SD = 1.61) were less willing to eat insect food than people scoring middle-sized neophobia (M = 3.43, SD = 1.91). Consequently, hypothesis 2.1 is confirmed.

Statistics also showed a significant effect of food neophobia on expected liking (χ² = 21.33, df = 2, p < .001). Nevertheless, expected liking only differed significantly between low and high neophobia scores (z = 76.50, p < .001) as well as medium and high scores (z = 56.40, p < .001). More specifically, participants with great phobia (M = 2.53, SD = 1.42) indicated less positive liking of the product than people with low phobia (M = 3.80, SD = 1.24). Furthermore, participants scoring high in neophobia (M = 2.53, SD = 1.42) gave less positive ratings than people having middle-sized neophobia (M = 3.48, SD = 1.46). Consequently, hypothesis 2.2 is confirmed.

In summary, participants who are more phobic toward novel food products are also more reluctant toward insect-based food. Respective results are summarized in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Illustration of the relationship between food neophobia and people’s attitude toward insect-based food.

R3: Does nutrition knowledge influence people’s attitude toward entomophagy? A Kruskall-Wallis-H-Test did not show any significant effect of nutrition knowledge on willingness to eat (χ² = 2.00, df = 2, p = .367). Consequently, people having a broad knowledge about nutrition and protein do not tend to be more willing to eat insect food. Hence, hypothesis 3.1 must be rejected.

Last, no significant effect was found for nutrition knowledge on expected liking (χ² = 3.28, df = 2, p = .194). Participants with greater knowledge don’t rate insect food more positively. Therefore, hypothesis 3.2 must also be rejected.

Overall, the knowledge about nutrition and food does not influence people’s attitude toward insect-based food. Figure 8 summarizes the results for all two dependent variables.

Figure 8. Illustration of the nonsignificant relationship between nutrition knowledge and people’s attitude toward insect-based food.

R4: Does consumer knowledge about entomophagy influence people’s rating? A Kruskall-Wallis-H-Test did show a significant effect of objective consumer knowledge on willingness to eat (χ² = 10.21, df = 2, p = .006). Post-Hoc Tests showed that individuals with low and medium knowledge (z = -36.39, p = .006) and participants with low and high knowledge (z = -55.10, p = .005) differ regarding their willingness to eat insect food. Participants who had medium-sized knowledge about entomophagy were more willing to eat insect products (M = 3.52, SD = 1.92) than people with low knowledge (M = 2.82, SD = 1.76). Participants with great knowledge also showed more willingness (M = 3.94, SD = 1.97) than people with low knowledge (M = 2.82, SD = 1.76). Consequently, hypothesis 4.1 is confirmed.

Furthermore, calculations revealed a significant effect of objective consumer knowledge on expected liking (χ² = 11.08, df = 2, p = .004). Significant differences were found for expected liking in that groups with low and medium knowledge (z = -35.75, p = .021) and groups with low and high knowledge (z = -60.49, p = .002) differ significantly in rating insect products. More specifically, people with middle-sized knowledge indicated to possibly like products more (M = 3.42, SD = 1.46) in comparison to participants knowing very little about entomophagy (M = 2.91, SD = 1.42). Similarly, people with great knowledge indicating stronger liking of insect food (M = 3.86, SD = 1.39) than participants knowing the least (M = 2.91, SD = 1.42). Therefore, hypothesis 4.2 is confirmed.

A Mann-Whitney U Test did show a significant effect of subjective consumer knowledge on willingness to eat (Z = - 6.08, p < .001). People who had tried insects before were more willing to eat insect food (M = 4.57, SD = 1.68) than people without prior experience with insect products (M = 3.02, SD = 1.85). Consequently, hypothesis 4.3 is confirmed.

Furthermore, calculations revealed a significant effect of subjective consumer knowledge on expected liking (Z = - 5.00, p < .001). People who had tried insects before rated insect food more positively (M = 4.12, SD = 1.25) than people without prior experience with insect products (M = 3.10, SD = 1.46). Therefore, hypothesis 4.4 is confirmed.

Hence, participants who generally know more about entomophagy rate insect products more positively regarding their willingness to eat and the expected liking of a product. Respective results are summarized in Figure 9 and Figure 10.

Figure 9. Illustration of the relationship between objective consumer knowledge and people’s attitude toward insect-based food.

Figure 10. Illustration of the relationship between prior consumption and people’s attitude toward insect-based food.

R5: Is there a difference in the rating of insect products between Austrians, Germans and North Americans? A Kruskall-Wallis-H-Test did not show any significant effect of nation on willingness to eat (χ² = .22, df = 2, p = .894). Consequently, hypothesis 5.1 must be rejected.

The variable nation also did not influence the expected liking (χ² = 2.719, df = 2, p = .257). Hence, hypothesis 5.2 must also be rejected.

In conclusion, differences in the acceptability of insect protein cannot be referred to intercultural differences. Figure 11 summarizes the results.

Figure 11. Illustration of the relationship between nation and people’s attitude toward insect-based food.

R6: Does the presentation of the two promotional elements – rational text vs. controversial text – lead to a change in opinion about entomophagy? A Kruskall-Wallis-H-Test did not show any significant effect of the controversial text on willingness to eat (χ² = 1.56, df = 2, p = .458). Consequently, hypothesis 6.1 must be rejected.

Furthermore, the controversial text did not significantly influence the expected liking of people (χ² = 1.51, df = 2, p = .470). Therefore, hypothesis 6.2 must be rejected.

Additionally, the informative text did not significantly affect the willingness to eat of insect food (χ² = 1.56, df = 2, p = .458). Consequently, hypothesis 6.3 must be rejected.

Last, the informative text did not influence the variable expected liking (χ² = 1.70, df = 2, p = .492). Hence, hypothesis 6.4 must be rejected.

In conclusion, neither the informative nor the controversial text did influence the people’s rating of insect food in comparison to the presentation of the neutral text. Figure 12 presents the results.

Figure 12. Illustration of the relationship between promotional element and people’s attitude toward insect-based food.

R7: Does sex influence the rating of insect products? A Mann-Whitney-U-Test revealed a significant influence of sex on the willingness to eat insect products (Z(n1 = 106, n2 = 215) = 13.44, p = .008). More specifically, men are more willing to eat insect food (M = 3.84, SD = 1.93) than women (M = 3.25, SD = 1.93). Consequently, hypothesis 7.1 is confirmed.

The variable expected liking was not influenced by sex (Z(n1 = 107, n2 = 215) = 12.42, p = .243). Accordingly, the expected liking of the product did not differ between men and women and hypothesis 7.2 must be rejected.

Overall, men seem to be more open toward insect-based food. Therefore, Figure 13 summarizes the results.

Figure 13. Illustration of the relationship between sex and people’s attitude toward insect-based food.

R8: Does age influence the rating of insect products? Correlation analysis with Spearman did not show any relationship between age and willingness to eat or expected liking. Thus, neither younger participants nor older showed a

36 more positive attitude toward insect food. Consequently, hypotheses 8.1 and 8.2 must be rejected. Corresponding results can be seen in Table 8.

R9: Does educational background influence the rating of insect products? The correlation between education and willingness to eat as well as expected liking did not obtain significance. Hence, people with a higher educational level such as university degrees did not show a more positive attitude toward entomophagy. Consequently, hypotheses 9.1 and 9.2 must be rejected. Corresponding results can be seen in Table 8.

Demographic feature Willingness to eat Expected liking Age -.08 -.00 Education .06 .03

Explorative analyses In the following section it will be examined how the non-normal distribution of the two dependent variables willingness to eat and expected liking are formed, and which factors can be of possible help to explain corresponding outliers.

First, the frequency of emotional responses between the group of participants ticking the lowest score of a dependent variable and the group of all remaining individuals are compared. The overall table of comparison can be seen in the Appendix A. Descriptive analyses show a considerable difference for the emotional responses of pleasant surprise and disgust. All other responses (Worried, glad, energetic, happy, discontented, dissatisfied, pleasant, disappointed, contented, fear, and merry) only differ marginally between the two groups and are therefore not investigated.

93 % of participants with the lowest score had ticked disgust (M = 1.94, SD = 0.25). In comparison, only 45 % of the remaining individuals chose disgust (M = 1.44, SD = 0.50; cf. Figure 14 and Figure 15).

Similar findings were also made for the lowest score of expected liking (M = 1.96, SD = 0.20) in comparison to all other participants (M = 1.49, SD = 0.50). 96 % of individuals who indicated the lowest expected liking of insect food ticked disgust (cf. Figure 16 and Figure 17).

Figure 14. Distribution of frequency of picking disgust as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring the least willingness to eat.

Figure 15. Distribution of frequency of picking disgust as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring higher willingness to eat.

Figure 16. Distribution of frequency of picking disgust as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring the least expected liking.

Figure 17. Distribution of frequency of picking disgust as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring high expected liking.

9 % of participants with the lowest score had ticked pleasant surprise (M = 1.09, SD = 0.29). In comparison, 55 % of the remaining individuals chose pleasant surprise (M = 1.56, SD = 0.50; cf. Figure 18 and Figure 19).

Similar findings were made for the lowest score of expected liking (M = 1.04, SD = 0.20) in comparison to all other participants (M = 1.51, SD = 0.50). Of the first group 4 % had chosen pleasant surprise (cf Figure 20) whereas 51 % of the second group ticked it (cf. Figure 21).

Therefore, it is assumed that most of the unwilling group did not feel a positive attitude toward insect food and moreover felt disgust. Hence, it is assumed that disgust plays a crucial role in entomophagy.

Figure 18. Distribution of frequency of picking pleasant surprise as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring the least willingness to eat.

Figure 19. Distribution of frequency of picking pleasant surprise as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring higher willingness to eat.

Figure 20. Distribution of frequency of picking pleasant surprise as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring least expected liking.

Figure 21. Distribution of frequency of picking pleasant surprise as emotion related to consumption of the product in the group of participants scoring higher expected liking.

Table 9 summarizes all previous results and gives an overview of the confirmation or rejection of hypotheses:

Table 9 Summary of confirmed or rejected hypotheses. *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05., + p < .08

H1.1 *** Nutrition knowledge - Consumer knowledge H1.2 Nutrition knowledge - Food neophobia H1.3 + Consumer knowledge - Food neophobia H2.1 *** Food neophobia - Willingness to eat H2.2 *** Food neophobia - Expected liking H3.1 Nutrition knowledge - Willingness to eat H3.2 Nutrition knowledge - Expected liking H4.1 ** Objective consumer knowledge - Willingness to eat H4.2 ** Objective consumer knowledge - Expected liking H4.3 ** Subjective consumer knowledge - Willingness to eat H4.4 ** Subjective consumer knowledge - Expected liking H5.1 Nation - Willingness to eat H5.2 Nation - Expected liking H6.1 Controversial text – Willingness to eat H6.2 Controversial text – Expected liking H6.3 Informative text – Willingness to eat H6.4 Informative text – Expected liking H7.1 ** Sex - Willingness to eat H7.2 Sex - Expected liking H8.1 Age - Willingness to eat H8.2 Age - Expected liking H9.1 Education - Willingness to eat H9.2 Education - Expected liking

DISCUSSION

Interpretation The aim of the current study was to research the influence of three of the most important factors namely food neophobia, nutrition knowledge and disgust regarding entomophagy and to investigate the persuasive power of controversial information as a new promotional element. First, the effects of food neophobia, nutrition and consumer knowledge were investigated. Second, different styles of informative arguments were compared regarding their efficiency in changing consumers attitudes. Last, overall demographics were assessed and their influence on consumers behavior examined. Previous studies have shown that food neophobia, the fear toward unknown food products and dishes, might prevent people from adopting a positive attitude toward entomophagy. In the present study, the common food neophobia scale developed by Pliner and Hobden (1992) was used to assess the food neophobia score. Significant differences between distinct groups of food neophobia scores were found. This is well in line with previous research which came to similar conclusions in the field of novel and ethnic food as well as new food technologies. Giordano, Clodoveo, Gennaro, and Corbo (2018) conducted a literature review on the extent of people’s fear toward novel food technologies like genetic modification or nanotechnology. This study confirmed that people being afraid of novel food products were also scared of the production techniques which were necessary to obtain such aliments. In another recent study, the scientists investigated the direct and indirect influence of food neophobia and implicit associations on people’s willingness to eat insect food. Remarkably, they stated that food neophobia does explain differences in willingness to eat but disgust itself accounts for the greatest part of variety of willingness to eat. The great influence by food neophobia on entomophagy and food choice behavior in general can be explained by the fact that food neophobia restricts the variety of products being consumed. This might be due to the greater cultural identification of people with higher food neophobia scores. They stick to the food that is commonly consumed in their social environment and enlarge thereby their sense of belonging (Siegrist et al., 2013). This could also be an explanation for the cultural differences found in the study of Piha, Pohjanheimo, Lähteenmäki-Uutela, Křečková, and Otterbring (2016) regarding the impact of food neophobia on entomophagy. They compared how different aspects like food neophobia, disgust, etc. influence entomophagy in different countries of central and northern Europe. Interestingly, people in central Europe were less willing to eat insect food. The researchers

43 theorized that in central Europe, food has longer been an essential part of the nation’s identity for hundreds of years whereas in Northern Europe, the culinary understanding has been underlying changes over the decades and therefore new food is accepted more easily. Contrary to expectations, food neophobia did not interact with the nutrition knowledge of participants but did significantly correlate with their specific knowledge about entomophagy. This is not in line with findings of a Finnish study where people with higher education obtained lower food neophobia scores than participants with higher education levels (Tuorila, Lähteenmäki, Pohjalainen, & Lotti, 2001). In addition, the present results could not confirm the assumed role of nutrition knowledge regarding entomophagy. In a study of 2005, a hierarchical composition of factors constituting nutrition knowledge was developed. This composition is represented by two levels, namely attribute-related nutrition knowledge (which features does a food possess) and perceived consequences of consumption of the respective product. The latter being the hierarchical closest step to consumption in the pyramid of nutrition knowledge. Results showed that people who possessed high scores in both attribute-related and consequence- related knowledge obtained the greatest changes in dietary behavior. A combination of both knowledges especially led to a change in consumption intentions. When only one type of knowledge was present or improved by given information, no change in attitude or intentions occurred (Wansink, Westgren, & Cheney, 2005). Regarding the individual benefits of consuming insect food, the participants in the present study were not well versed as entomophagy has only been introduced lately to society and has not yet been practiced in Germany, Austria and the U.S. Therefore, they showed a lack in consequence-related knowledge and no change in potential consumption behavior was possible. In another study, nutrition knowledge also only explained a small variation of dietary intake (4 to 22 %) which might be due to insufficient information of participants regarding consequence-related knowledge (Wardle, Parmenter, & Waller, 2000). It is assumed if people would have shown more scores in the highest level of nutrition knowledge, better outcomes of predicting food choices could have occurred. One could assume that also low attribute-related knowledge might have pretended participants from rating insect food positively. But results showed that most of them possessed a surprisingly good objective and subjective consumer knowledge. An explanation for these results could be the recent trend of travelling to Asian countries. Travel expenses have been lowered in the last couple of years and students, who form a majority of the present sample, can afford to travel around the globe. One main event whilst staying in

Asia lies in eating insects on a dare. Therefore, lots of students have already tried insect food which is reflected by the high number of people having experiences with insect food. Because these people were already familiar with eating insects they were more eager to try related products again. Furthermore, the experience with insect food might have led people to inform themselves about entomophagy which constitutes the in average high objective knowledge. Consequently, participants who knew more about the preparation and pros of insect food were more willing to eat insect food than people with lower knowledge. This confirms the results of Piha et al. (2016), that specific knowledge plays an important role in implementing entomophagy in the Western diet. But contrary to their findings, the nations asked in the present study did not differ regarding their attitude toward entomophagy. Hence, neither Austria nor Germany or the U.S. differed from each other. This could be explained by the culinary influences all three countries receive to a similar extent from neighboring states or citizens with migration background and which form a similar multicultural cuisine with its roots in old, stable food preferences that bring people to be reluctant toward novel foods like insect products. This natural avoidance of novel food might have led to missing efficiency of any promotional element presented to the participants. A third of the participants were presented with a newspaper article about the health and environmental benefits of insect products. Indeed, the material did include information which could enhance attribute-related knowledge but did not enable any combination with consequence-related knowledge as no information on the specific influence of insect products on one’s individual health was presented. Consequently, when people would have been confronted with information about their own personal consequences, higher scores in WTE might have resulted. In a similar study, people were interviewed about their opinion toward entomophagy. Some part of the sample was confronted with information about the environmental and nutritional benefits of insect products. Although, half of the participants had received such positive information, it didn’t have any significant effect on their attitude towards trying insect products. The given information rather evoked major doubts whether the benefits would be sufficient enough to solve sustainability and health issues (Myers & Pettigrew, 2018) like presumably atmospheric pollution and nutrient deficiency etc. Evidence to the contrary was presented by few studies in the last couple of years. In Italy, a research team presented young adults studying gastronomy and food science with information about entomophagy. First, they only received a brief written statement about the cultural aspects of entomophagy and to which extent some nations daily consume insect

45 products. Then, two experts were holding a seminar about entomophagy, its benefits, possibilities, and safety and presented a cookie made of cricket flour which could voluntarily be tasted by the participants. Interestingly, 94 % of the students did agree on trying the product and 25 % indicated to rate entomophagy as being a sustainable way of nutrition. Furthermore, people who tried the insect-based product were afterwards even more willing to buy insect food if available on the market (Sogari, Menozzi, & Mora, 2017). These results imply that informative arguments might be effective when combined with a positive tasting experience. Nevertheless, it must be considered that people studying food science might be less neophobic and eager to try novel food products. Therefore, such results cannot be generalized to the broader public. This is well in line with the findings of Caparros Megido et al. (2014) that education in combination with frequent exposure enhances people’s attitude in the best way. In 2000, a research team investigated the efficiency of tailored and general informative messages on food choice. In the tailored message, condition participants were asked in a pretest about the most important attributes food products need to fulfill (health benefits, costs, caloric intake) to be rated positively by them. Based on these attributes, an individualized message including information about the mentioned attributes were presented to each participant. Interestingly, these people were more willing to change their dietary behavior and food product choices more often than people being confronted with general or no messages at all (Brinberg et al., 2000). It would be interesting if this type of informative persuasion works also with insect food by realizing individualized arguments including the most important attributes participants previously mentioned. Still, it is not yet clear which information should be presented to potential consumers as the informative degree of the present statement did not provoke a modification in opinion. In the present study, a second type of persuasive argument was randomly presented which has not been used in a previous study before. People were confronted with controversial information about the number of insects consumed through manufacturing processes of different aliments. Statistical analysis showed that the second argument did not lead to higher willingness to eat in participants. Even though it could have been assumed that the knowledge about insects being integrated in our diet could have enlarged the perceived familiarity with related products, no such effects appeared. According to our principal assumptions, Tan et al. (2015) stated familiarity with products to be an essential factor in determining the willingness to try insect products. If people were having knowledge about a certain insect species or even possess previous tasting experiences with it, future attitudes

46 were especially built on these memories and erased the impact of other information. If people were unversed in entomophagy, they mostly rated products based on visual attributes. Giving the mundane information, people may have had the feeling of being confronted with insect food every day, have greater knowledge about entomophagy, and therefore rate future products more positively. Still, the presented verbal information did not positively influence people’s purchase intentions. Supporting results were found by Kim and Lennon (2008) who conducted an experiment where participants had to indicate their willingness to buy an apparel product based on visual or verbal information. Interestingly and contrary to the researchers’ assumption, the verbal description influenced peoples’ purchase intentions significantly stronger than visual stimuli. Therefore, it still seems unclear why the type of given information did not influence people’s decision at all. One could have also assumed a mere negative effect of such description. The fact that no such results were present are well in line with the findings of Waldman and Kerr (2018) who let consumers indicate their willingness to buy different types of cheese which were made by controversial or conventional production techniques. In addition, they gave positive (e.g. information about sustainable production) and negative (e.g. information about reduced safety) verbal descriptions about these sorts of cheese. Interestingly, the negative information did not have any effect on the people’s willingness to buy the controversial product. As this circumstance was also present in the following study, the situation about which information should be presented to persuade potential consumers of insect products remains unclear. This inconsistent state of the art should be carefully examined by future studies. One option would also be to use longer texts which provide more information to potential consumers. The length of the presented texts might have not been informative enough to change the attitude and feelings of disgust of inexperienced people. Demographic influences especially age, sex, and education have widely been investigated in previous studies. In the present research, the bigger part of the total sample consisted of women resulting in a slightly skewed sample. In the present survey, similar sex differences as in previous studies were found. In a recently published study, researchers investigated the willingness of Hungarian consumers to try insect products. The results suggested lower willingness to try insect food in females as they indicated greater concerns regarding health risks in comparison to men (Gere, Székely, Kovács, Kókai, & Sipos, 2017). Furthermore, an Italian study came to similar conclusions. In their study, males showed a higher likeliness to try insect products in comparison to females (Cicatiello, Rosa, Franco, & Lacetera, 2016).

The prehistoric, evolutionary role of females being the primary caregiver of their offspring might have led them to restrict the number of food products to be consumed. The less novel food is tried, the less are the chances of consuming poisonous and hazardous goods. In contrary, males were responsible for hunting and providing their family with enough food to survive. Hence, it was reasonable to be able to choose from a broader variety of food if other products were not available due to drought or coldness. Therefore, males are nowadays still less reluctant toward novel foods in comparison to women. Most of the total sample consisted in young participants between the age of 18 to 29 which is a common skewed distribution in student surveys. Still, enough people showing higher ages participated. The two age groups young adults and elderly were then compared regarding WTB of insect products. Interestingly, no significant differences were detectable between the two groups. This is well in line with previous research stating age not to be relevant regarding entomophagy (Cicatiello et al., 2016; Verbeke, 2015a). Another study stated younger people to be more willing towards trying insect products. When they were asked on how much they would like insect food or be ready to buy it, no significant results were obtained (Tan, Fischer, van Trijp, & Stieger, 2016). The same results were obtained in a study with elderly people who showed a higher readiness to try insect products but could not imagine including them in their nutrition plan (Myers & Pettigrew, 2018). This might be true, since spending valuable money on an unknown product can lead to more reluctance. Products need to be fully convincing and possess a positive future merit for potential consumers otherwise they do not see insect food as worth enough to spend money on. A study which came to similar conclusions was conducted in urban and rural areas of Kenya, Africa. Even though one could assume that entomophagy is widely spread in this country, some parts, particularly urban areas, do not practice this nutrition style. The researchers explained this fact by the distrust of individuals in cities toward natural products as they have never been confronted with farming processes. Due to availability of all food products in stores around town, no necessity of producing food themselves is present. Consequently, townspeople tend to rate natural food products as being unsafe and link them to potentially infectious biological hazards like faeces or decaying organic material. Regarding insects, they especially rate them as being contaminated with bacteria (because of their role in decomposition processes) and perceive great disgust toward corresponding products. These consumers usually rely heavily on officials’ recommendations and only tend to eat products which are approved to be safe and nonharmful (Alemu, Olsen, Vedel, Pambo, & Owino, 2017). Similar circumstances could also have accounted for the participants in the present

48 study as officials’ information was missing to implement entomophagy in diet. Therefore, the official food administration in respective countries should inform the public about food safety and diminish safety concerns regarding entomophagy to decrease distrust and enhance people’s willingness at least to try insect food and therefore convince themselves about the safety of insect food. The education of the present sample ranged for the most part from medium to high educational state. No significant differences between the levels of education regarding WTB could be find. An ambiguous state of art occurs when it comes to education. Cicatiello, Rosa, Franco, and Lacetera (2016) found high education to be a strong factor increasing the willingness to try insect products. In contrary, Verbeke (2015a) stated education not to be significant. Recent results were also found in other fields of environmental and sustainability research. Fοx et al. (2018) compared how individuals with different educational background showed sustainable behavior regarding food waste. Equal to our study, the educational background of their total sample mostly ranged between medium and high educational level and no major differences could be found. Even though the greatest part of participants showed similar higher education, a big variety regarding food waste knowledge scores appeared. The greater knowledge individuals showed the more likely they were to behave environmentally acceptable. Still, almost all individuals indicated low food waste prevention behavior which was explained by an underestimation of their personal role and responsibility regarding food waste and other environmental matters. People had sufficient knowledge about the impact of environmentally-friendly actions but did not depict their behavior to exert a dominating influence. Consequently, people did not regulate their behavior appropriately. Due to the analogies between the two topics of food waste and sustainable nutrition like entomophagy, the explanations could also be relevant in the present study. Overall, the impact of education on entomophagy remains unclear. Furthermore, some problems might be caused by crime scenes displayed in TV series. Whenever a corps or decaying matter is shown in connection with insects decomposing the organic material, peoples’ contamination disgust toward insects is enlarged. This might be explained by the fact that societies in the western part of the world have not yet been confronted with insect products by officials and the food industry and as a result do not trust insect products enough. The distribution of results in the present study evoked the question where the general reluctance toward insect food was based on. A large part of the sample had either indicated not to be willing to eat the presented insect product at all or rate it strongly negative.

According to van Huis (2016), the total reluctance is built on socially acquired disgust toward insect food. A study which investigated the effects of emotional compounds, especially disgust accompanying the consumption of insect products, was conducted by Hamerman (2016). Based on Olatunji, Haidt, McKay, and David (2008), the researchers separated disgust of eating unfamiliar products into the three aspects core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust. The first being evoked by the consumption of potentially hazardous goods, the second deriving from a reminder about own animalistic attributes and the latter having its base in the fear toward contamination through interacting with infected and ill people. The researchers presented college students with a newspaper article about cooking insects and how to convert disgusting ingredients into delicious meals. They found that people with low ratings in disgust toward insect food were more convinced of corresponding products when being integrated in cooked meals. Especially people with strong animal reminder disgust were not susceptible to manipulation by educational elements. Furthermore, women as the primary food shopper were more animal reminder disgust sensitive and tended to rate insect products more negatively as shown by the present results. The researchers assume that the involved type of disgust is socially learned by imitation from parents’ attitude, preferences and behavior toward novel food (La Barbera, Verneau, Amato, & Grunert, 2018). Disgust represents a deep-seated behavior which is not easily controllable and needs a long time to be overcome. To do so, Hamerman (2016) suggested that the promotion of how to cook insect food would be more effective than presenting rational information alone. It helps to integrate newly received knowledge about insect food through presenting an alternative where skills can be implemented (Brinberg et al., 2000). This is well in line with research of Tan, Fischer, van Trijp and Stieger (2016) who showed that consumers orientate their meal plan more on positive previous experiences and available preparation skills than on personal knowledge and belief toward a novel food. This also results in a higher acceptance regarding insect food. Another study which also stated disgust not to be natural and hereditary but induced by culture, presented another way to overcome disgust toward insect food. According to the researchers, novel products which are combined with meals within known food categories like crickets in a cereal bar, burgers made of buffalo worms or pasta with grasshoppers, are more prone to evaluation of the novel food against the taste of the familiar product. Due to deviation from the expected familiar taste, the new product might get rated negatively and a successful implementation hampered. Therefore, establishing a new product category and not category extension is suggested (Deroy et al., 2015).

Limitations and implications Several factors may have influenced the outcome of the present study. First, due to briefness it was not possible to investigate all factors being related to entomophagy in this master’s thesis as a comprehensive examination would have gone beyond the scope of such a thesis. First, the participants of the conducted experiment were gathered through convenience sampling. The link of the study was forwarded via social network means and the email distribution service of the university. Participants were asked to spread the study among their friends and family. Hence, it cannot be ruled out that people with the same interest or socio- economical background took part in the survey which can be seen in the high educational level and number of students. Furthermore, the study was announced as dealing with nutrition and consumer tendencies. Because of this, the sample may be skewed toward people being interested in nutrition and environmental sciences who tend to be more open regarding novel food products and technologies. Therefore, results cannot be fully generalized to the broad public.

The most important factor that might have altered results however may lie in the study concept. The product to be rated consisted of a granola bar which was designed similar as products already existing in the European market. The unpacked bar showed whole insects, more specifically buffalo worms, which may have elicited a strong feeling of disgust as some people connect worms with decaying matter or insanitary conditions. Previous studies have shown that people tend more to try insect food if they comprise nonvisible insect parts (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2016; Tan et al., 2016). In a further study, scientists at the University of Zurich conducted an experiment about the emotional perceptions and feelings participants had toward insect meals. Products with distinct degrees of processed insect products had been prepared and implemented as photographs in an online survey. Ratings about emotional experience and willingness to eat where then asked in a short post-presentation questionnaire. Also, in this study, results showed that different conditions might enhance acceptability of insect products. To specify, greater processing of the ingredient insect led to less negative and more positive emotions associated with corresponding products. Interestingly, no significant difference in rating between the product with visible spots of insect parts and that with insects in nonvisible flour shape were found. As expected, participants showed a lower willingness to eat for products with whole insects in comparison to the reference product with processed parts (Gmuer, Nuessli Guth, Hartmann, & Siegrist, 2016).

The product in the present study did contain whole insect parts which may have evoked strong feelings of disgust and lower tasting intentions. This assumption is also confirmed by the frequent comment made by participants who would be more eager to try and buy insect food which doesn’t contain any whole insects. Indeed, this circumstance could have been considered by the investigators of the present study beforehand, but the aim of the current experiment consisted in letting people rate products that are already officially available on the market. These products must fulfill the requirement of the EU novel food3 regulation EU 2015/2283 (European Union and Council, 2015) which requires novel foods to have high visualizations of the ingredients of a product. Therefore, it needs to be fully displayed which condiments are contained by a product and in this case, which type of insect is used to produce the food. An additional regulation has established the Union list of novel foods (European Union and Council, 2017) which lists insect food as newly allowed food products and therefore enables better commercialization of insect-based products. Still, novel insect products must fulfill the standards of the novel food regulation. Therefore, the product in the present study represents the standards of the European Union and does depict the consumers rating of a realistic product. Consequently, the current food regulators should challenge the task of providing a new food regulation that enables the manufacturing of a bigger array of inset products and to meet consumers demands and not to constrain a successful implementation of insect-based food in European and Western markets. Because of fulfillment of the EU regulation, no product with nonvisible insect ingredients was used in the present study. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that participants might have rated other products in a better way and that the two promotional elements may have evoked a more positive rating. Even though the influence of disgust was obvious in the present results, a major amendment must be completed if future studies want to replicate the present findings. In the present survey, disgust was only assessed through descriptive analysis. Future studies should make use of a newly developed scale that directly measures the food disgust of people via multidimensional calculations to ensure a better assessment of disgust in people (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2018). In summary, a successful implementation of insect food in Western markets might require a better commercialization of insect food by providing regular tasting events in supermarkets

3 Novel food is defined as food that had not been consumed “to a significant degree by humans in the EU before 15 May 1997”, when the first Regulation on novel food came into force (European Union and Council, 2017).

52 and selling products with insects being processed to invisible parts. After enabling people to get used to processed insect food, the marketing of products with whole insects might begin. Furthermore, media and public officials should focus on how to commercialize entomophagy. So far, the eating of insects has been presented as being a test of courage and an act evoking disgust in people’s social surroundings. Beneficial to this circumstance have been TV shows like the German “Dschungelcamp” or the American TV show “I’m a celebrity - get me out of here” where celebrities must fulfill tasks in a jungle boot camp and deal with the presumably disgusting act of eating a worm or cricket. Future media shows should hold against this development of conveying a negative picture of entomophagy. Indeed, some media already covers the positive sites of eating insects in serious TV productions and the overall growing presentation of insects as food or tests of courage might have enlarged the attention and knowledge of people about entomophagy. Therefore, it would be interesting to assess in a future study how media have covered entomophagy as a topic so far and how it possibly has shaped people’s opinion toward it.

Conclusion The present experiment confirmed previous findings that food neophobia, disgust and gender play an important role in determining people’s willingness to try insect products. Further aspects were also examined in the present study: age as well as nutrition knowledge did not significantly determine people’s opinion toward entomophagy. As previous studies have found evidence to the contrary, future research should clarify the state of the art regarding these important attributes of consumers. To top it off, the present investigation not only examined the influence of factors on willingness to try insect-based products but also on the overall expected liking of them. Overall, the current data suggest a general positive attitude toward entomophagy, as according to descriptive analyses 13.3 % of the participants were willing to try insect products, but still too many hurdles seem to exist to enhance people’s purchase intentions. These promising results should motivate future research and politics to find new ways to convince and inform the broader public of insect products and help entomophagy to be implemented in the people’s nutrition plans. As Platon (Laches or Courage, 380 B.C.) once said:

“A good decision is placed on knowledge”

REFERENCES Alemu, M. H., Olsen, S. B., Vedel, S. E., Pambo, K. O., & Owino, V. O. (2017). Combining product attributes with recommendation and shopping location attributes to assess consumer preferences for insect-based food products. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.009 Arowolo, S. O. (2017). Understanding framing theory. Research Gate. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25800.52482 Belluco, S., Losasso, C., Maggioletti, M., Alonzi, C. C., Paoletti, M. G., & Ricci, A. (2013). Edible Insects in a Food Safety and Nutritional Perspective: A Critical Review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 12(3), 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12014 Brinberg, D., Axelson, M. L., & Price, S. (2000). Changing food knowledge, food choice, and dietary fiber consumption by using tailored messages. Appetite. (35), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0335 Caparros Megido, R., Sablon, L., Geuens, M., Brostaux, Y., Alabi, T., Blecker, C.,. . . Francis, F. (2014). Edible Insects Acceptance by Belgian Consumers: Promising Attitude for Entomophagy Development. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12077 Cicatiello, C., Rosa, B. de, Franco, S., & Lacetera, N. (2016). Consumer approach to insects as food: barriers and potential for consumption in Italy. British Food Journal, 118(9), 2271–2286. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2016-0015 Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfeld, H., Ehui, S., & Courbois, C. (1999). Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution. Deroy, O., Reade, B., & Spence, C. (2015). The insectivore’s dilemma, and how to take the West out of it. Food Quality and Preference, 44, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.02.007 Dickson-Spillmann, M., Siegrist, M., & Keller, C. (2011). Development and validation of a short, consumer-oriented nutrition knowledge questionnaire. Appetite, 56(3), 617–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.034 Die Presse. (2015, September 2). Motten, Maden, Mehlwürmer: Wir alle essen täglich Insekten. Retrieved from http://diepresse.com/home/alpbach/4812345/Wir-alle-essen- taeglich-Insekten

European Union and Council. (2015). REGULATION (EU) 2015/ 2283 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. Official Journal of the European Union. European Union and Council. (2017). COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/ 2470. Official Journal of the European Union. Fenko, A., Leufkens, J.-M., & van Hoof, J. J. (2015). New product, familiar taste: Effects of slogans on cognitive and affective responses to an unknown food product among food neophobics and neophilics. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.021 Focus Online. (2017, December 14). Studie: Wie viele Insekten essen Sie jährlich? Retrieved from http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/videos/insektenteilchen-im-essen-studie-wie- viele-insekten-essen-sie-jaehrlich_id_7264826.html Folke Dammann SNACK-INSECTS. (2018, July 10). Markenlogo SNACK-INSECTS. Retrieved from http://snackinsects.com/epages/a1912e88-af41-44f3-a576- 4706265b1d46.sf/de_DE/?ObjectPath=/Shops/a1912e88-af41-44f3-a576- 4706265b1d46/Categories/Imprint Fontaneto, D., Tommaseo-Ponzetta, M., Galli, C., Risé, P., Glew, R. H., & Paoletti, M. G. (2011). Differences in fatty acid composition between aquatic and terrestrial insects used as food in human nutrition. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 50(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2011.586316 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2016). Climate change, agriculture and food security. The state of food and agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2017). Food Outlook: Biannual Report on Global Food Markets. French, S. A., Jeffery, R. W., Story, M., Breitlow, K. K., Baxter, J. S., Hannan, P., & Snyder, M. P. (2001). Pricing and promotion effects on low-fat vending snack purchases: the CHIPS Study. American Journal of Public Health, 91(1), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.1.112 Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J., & Falk, L. W. (1996). Food choice: a conceptual model of the process. Appetite, 26(3), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1996.0019

Fοx, D., Ioannidi, E., Sun, Y.-T., Jape, V. W., Bawono, W. R., Zhang, S., & Perez-Cueto, F. J.A. (2018). Consumers with high education levels belonging to the millennial generation from Denmark, Greece, Indonesia and Taiwan differ in the level of knowledge on food waste. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 11, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2017.11.005 Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment. Journal of Business Research. (32), 11–17. Gere, A., Székely, G., Kovács, S., Kókai, Z., & Sipos, L. (2017). Readiness to adopt insects in Hungary: A case study. Food Quality and Preference, 59, 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.02.005 Giordano, S., Clodoveo, M. L., Gennaro, B. D., & Corbo, F. (2018). Factors determining neophobia and neophilia with regard to new technologies applied to the food sector: A systematic review. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 11, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2017.10.001 Gmuer, A., Nuessli Guth, J., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Effects of the degree of processing of insect ingredients in snacks on expected emotional experiences and willingness to eat. Food Quality and Preference, 54, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.07.003 Hamerman, E. J. (2016). Cooking and disgust sensitivity influence preference for attending insect-based food events. Appetite, 96, 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.029 Hartmann, C., Shi, J., Giusto, A., & Siegrist, M. (2015). The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Quality and Preference, 44, 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.013 Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Becoming an insectivore: Results of an experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 51, 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.003 Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2018). Development and validation of the Food Disgust Scale. Food Quality and Preference, 63, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.013 House, J. (2016). Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands: Academic and commercial implications. Appetite, 107, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.023

Ifl Science. (2018, July 10). Will we all be eating insects? Retrieved from www.iflscience.com/environment/will-we-all-be-eating-insects-50-years/ Imago Insect Products GmbH. (2018, July 10). Markenlogo Imago. Retrieved from https://www.imago-insects.com/pages/impressum Kim, M., & Lennon, S. (2008). The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes and purchase intentions in internet shopping. Psychology and Marketing, 25(2), 146–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20204 La Barbera, F., Verneau, F., Amato, M., & Grunert, K. (2018). Understanding Westerners’ disgust for the eating of insects: The role of food neophobia and implicit associations. Food Quality and Preference, 64, 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.002 Lensvelt, E. J. S., & Steenbekkers, L. P. A. (2014). Exploring Consumer Acceptance of Entomophagy: A Survey and Experiment in Australia and the Netherlands. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 53(5), 543–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2013.879865 Looy, H., & Wood, J. R. (2006). Attitudes Toward Invertebrates: Are Educational “Bug Banquets” Effective? The Journal of Environmental Education, 37(2), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.37.2.37-48 Myers, G., & Pettigrew, S. (2018). A qualitative exploration of the factors underlying seniors’ receptiveness to entomophagy. Food Research International (Ottawa, Ont.), 103, 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.10.032 Nadeau, L., Nadeau, I., Franklin, F., & Dunkel, F. (2014). The Potential for Entomophagy to Address Undernutrition. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2014.930032 National Geographic. (2013, May 14). U.N. Urges Eating Insects. Retrieved from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130514-edible-insects- entomophagy-science-food-bugs-beetles/ National Geographic. (2010, September 10). Insect of the year 2017. Retrieved from www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/invertebrates/p/praying-mantis/ Naturschutzbund Österreich. (2017, May 1). Insekt des Jahres 2017. Retrieved from https://naturschutzbund.at/insekt-leser/items/id-2017-gottesanbeterin.html Nutribug Ltd. (2018, July 10). Nutribug Ltd. Retrieved from http://nutribug.com/contact-us/

Olatunji, B. O., Haidt, J., McKay, D., & David, B. (2008). Core, animal reminder, and contamination disgust: Three kinds of disgust with distinct personality, behavioral, physiological, and clinical correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1243– 1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.03.009 Oonincx, D. G. A. B., & Boer, I. J. M. de. (2012). Environmental impact of the production of mealworms as a protein source for humans - a life cycle assessment. PloS One, 7(12), e51145. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051145 Oonincx, D. G. A. B., van Itterbeeck, J., Heetkamp, M. J. W., van den Brand, H., van Loon, J. J. A., & van Huis, A. (2010). An exploration on greenhouse gas and ammonia production by insect species suitable for animal or human consumption. PloS One, 5(12), e14445. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014445 Parmenter, K., & Wardle, J. (1999). Development of a general nutrition knowledge questionnaire for adults. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 53(4), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600726 Piha, S., Pohjanheimo, T., Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A., Křečková, Z., & Otterbring, T. (2016). The effects of consumer knowledge on the willingness to buy insect food: An exploratory cross-regional study in Northern and Central Europe. Food Quality and Preference. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.006 Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195- 6663(92)90014-W Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296 – 320. Roininen, K. (2001). Evaluation of food choice behavior: Development and validation of health and taste attitude scales (Dissertation). Universität Helsinki. Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/49.1.103 Schlup, Y., & Brunner, T. (2018). Prospects for insects as food in Switzerland: A tobit regression. Food Quality and Preference, 64, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.010 Schouteten, J. J., Steur, H. de, Pelsmaeker, S. de, Lagast, S., Bourdeaudhuij, I. de, & Gellynck, X. (2015). An integrated method for the emotional conceptualization and

sensory characterization of food products: The EmoSensory®Wheel. Food Research International (Ottawa, Ont.), 78, 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.11.001 Schouteten, J. J., Steur, H. de, Pelsmaeker, S. de, Lagast, S., Juvinal, J. G., Bourdeaudhuij, I. de,. . . Gellynck, X. (2016). Emotional and sensory profiling of insect-, plant- and meat- based burgers under blind, expected and informed conditions. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.011 Sheppard, B., & Frazer, P. (2015). Comparing social and intellectual appeals to reduce disgust of eating crickets. Studies in Arts and Humanities, 58(01), 1–23. Siegrist, M., Hartmann, C., & Keller, C. (2013). Antecedents of food neophobia and its association with eating behavior and food choices. Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.06.013 knowledge and ׳Sogari, G., Menozzi, D., & Mora, C. (2017). Exploring young foodies attitude regarding entomophagy: A qualitative study in Italy. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 7, 16–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2016.12.002 Spronk, I., Kullen, C., Burdon, C., & O’Connor, H. (2014). Relationship between nutrition knowledge and dietary intake. The British Journal of Nutrition, 111(10), 1713–1726. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114514000087 Strohm, D., Bechthold, A., Isik, N., Leschik-Bonnet, E., & Heseker, H. (2016). Revised reference values for the intake of thiamin (vitamin B1), riboflavin (vitamin B2), and niacin. NFS Journal, 3, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nfs.2016.02.003 Tagesschau.de (2017, December 26). Retrieved from https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/insekten-im-essen-101.html Tan, H. S. G., Fischer, A. R.H., Tinchan, P., Stieger, M., Steenbekkers, L.P.A., & van Trijp, H. C.M. (2015). Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 42, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.01.013 Tan, H. S. G., Fischer, A. R.H., van Trijp, H. C.M., & Stieger, M. (2016). Tasty but nasty? Exploring the role of sensory-liking and food appropriateness in the willingness to eat unusual novel foods like insects. Food Quality and Preference, 48, 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.11.001 Testa, M., Stillo, M., Maffei, G., Andriolo, V., Gardois, P., & Zotti, C. M. (2017). Ugly but tasty: A systematic review of possible human and animal health risks related to

entomophagy. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 57(17), 3747–3759. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1162766 Tuorila, H., Meiselman, H. L., Bell, R., Cardello, A. V., & Johnson, W. (1994). Role of sensory and cognitive information in the enhancement of certainty and liking for novel and familiar foods. Appetite. (23), 231–246. Tuorila, H., Andersson, Å., Martikainen, A., & Salovaara, H. (1998). Effect of product formula, information and consumer characteristics on the acceptance of a new snack food. Food Quality and Preference, 9(5), 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950- 3293(98)00015-9 Tuorila, H., Lähteenmäki, L., Pohjalainen, L., & Lotti, L. (2001). Food neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods. Food Quality and Preference, 12(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00025-2 Van Huis, A. (2013). Edible Insects - Future prospects for food and feed security: A. van Huis; J. van Itterbeeck; Harmke Klunder; Esther Mertens; Afton Halloran; Giulia Muir; Paul Vantomme. Van Huis, A. (2016). Edible insects are the future? The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 75(3), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000069 Van Itterbeeck, J., & van Huis, A. (2012). Environmental manipulation for edible insect procurement: a historical perspective. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-3 Verbeke, W. (2015a). Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.008 Verbeke, W. (2015b). Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.008 Verneau, F., La Barbera, F., Kolle, S., Amato, M., Del Giudice, T., & Grunert, K. (2016). The effect of communication and implicit associations on consuming insects: An experiment in Denmark and Italy. Appetite, 106, 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.02.006

Waldman, K. B., & Kerr, J. M. (2018). Does safety information influence consumers’ preferences for controversial food products? Food Quality and Preference, 64, 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.013 Wansink, B., Westgren, R. E., & Cheney, M. M. (2005). Hierarchy of nutritional knowledge that relates to the consumption of a functional food. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.), 21(2), 264–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2004.06.022 Wardle, J., Parmenter, K., & Waller, J. (2000). Nutrition knowledge and food intake. Appetite, 34(3), 269–275. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0314 Welt. (2017, August 22). Der Würmer Burger kommt auch bald nach Deutschland. Retrieved from https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article167900690/Der-Wuermer-Burger-kommt- bald-auch-nach-Deutschland.html Worsley, A. (2002). Nutrition knowledge and food consumption: can nutrition knowledge change food behaviour? Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (11), 579–585. Yates-Doerr, E. (2015). The world in a box? Food security, edible insects, and “One World, One Health” collaboration, 129, 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.06.020

APPENDICES APPENDIX A

Percentage of people who ticked an emotion: High willingness to eat / expected liking vs low willingness to eat / expected liking

Willingness to eat Expected liking Pleasant surprise 91 % vs 45 % 96 % vs 50 % Worried 73 % vs 80 % 72 % vs 80 % Glad 100 % vs 95 % 100 % vs 96 % Energetic 99 % vs 84 % 100 % vs 85 % Happy 100 % vs 94 % 100 % vs 95 % Discontented 89 % vs 91 % 88 % vs 91 % Dissatisfied 82 % vs 90 % 84 % vs 89 % Pleasant 100 % vs 92 % 100 % vs 93 % Disappointed 86 % vs 89 % 84 % vs 89 % Contented 98 % vs 87 % 100 % vs 88 % Fear 70 % vs 83 % 72 % vs 80 % Merry 98 % vs 88 % 98 % vs 89 % Disgust 6 % vs 56 % 4 % vs 51 % Distrust 64 % vs 53 % 66 % vs 54 %

APPENDIX B

English questionnaire including baseline text

Nutrition and consumption

Dear participant,

I thank you very much for participating in this online-survey, which contributes to my master’s thesis and the environmental psychological science at the University of Salzburg in Austria.

A couple of questions about your nutrition style and consume preferences of groceries will be asked. Please answer those questions as honest as possible. All your information and answers will be held anonymous. There is no possibility in referring to your person.

You can navigate the pages through clicking the next button to get to the next page. The survey will take approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

Thank you and best regards Bettina Seitz and the Environmental Psychology Team of the

University of Salzburg

Below a couple of statements about nutritional facts will be presented. You can either pick "wrong", "correct" or "no answer" as responses. If you think a statement is true please pick "correct", if it's false choose "wrong" and if you do not have an answer please pick "no answer". Please try not to guess.

Correct Wrong No answer

Lentils contain only few useful nutrients, therefore their health benefit is not great.

If you have eaten high-fat foods, you can reverse the effects by eating apples. A healthy meal should consist of half meat, a quarter vegetables and a quarter side dishes. Fat contains fewer calories than the same amount of fiber. Fat is always bad for your health; you should therefore avoid it as much as possible. Pasta with tomato sauce is healthier than pasta with mushroom and cream sauce. A balanced diet implies eating all foods in the same amounts. The health benefit of fruit and vegetables lies alone in the supply of vitamins and minerals. Bacon contains more calories than ham. Oily fish (salmon, mackerel) contain healthier fats than red meat. To eat healthily, you shoud eat less fat. Whether you also eat more fruit and vegetables does not matter. The same amount of sugar and fat contains equally many calories. For a healthy nutrition, dairy products should be consumed in the same amounts as fruit and vegetables. Skimmed milk contains fewer minerals than full-fat milk. Brown sugar is much healthier than white sugar.

Next a couple of questions about your nutritional style will be asked. Please answer these questions as honest and fast as possible. You're able to indicate your answer on a scale ranging from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree.

Very Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Very strongly disagree agree strongly disagree agree I am constantly sampling new and different foods. I do not trust new foods. If I do not know what is in a food, I won’t try it. I like foods from different countries. Ethnic food (food from other cultures) looks too weird to eat. At dinner parties, I will try a new food. I am afraid to eat things I have never had before. I am very particular about the foods I will eat. I will eat almost anything. I like to try new ethnic restaurants.

As a next step a couple of questions about your overall nutrition will be posed. Please answer those as honest and fast as possible.

1. Which nutritional style do you practice? Omnivor (Meat, fish, etc.) ○ Flexitarian (Sometimes meat and fish products) ○ Ovo-lacto vegetarianism (No meat and fish, but animal products like eggs ○ and milk) Lacto vegetarianism (No meat, fish, and eggs, but consumption of milk ○ products) Pescetarianism (Fish but not meat) ○ Veganism (Solely vegetable food) ○ Fruitarianism (Solely consumption of food that has fallen naturally from a ○ plant) Paleo ○ Other ○

2. Please answer these questions if you have ticked vegetarianism (ovo-lacto- vegetarianism, lacto-vegetarianism, etc.) or veganism. How long have you been practicing this nutritional style? In years.

Please indicate the motive(s) underlying your decision to become a vegetarian/vegan. (Taste, allergies, animal Welfare, environmental concerns, etc.)

3. How often do you eat meat? Please do not answer this question if you've ticked vegetarianism etc. Please choose only one of the following: Never ○ Only exceptional ○ Once a month ○ Several times a month ○ Once a week ○ Several times a week ○

Daily ○ Several times a day ○

4. Please indicate the motive(s) for consuming meat being the most important to you (e.g. taste, nutritional value, to eat one's fill, habit, etc.). This question does not need to be answered if you have ticked vegetarianism etc.

5. How often do you eat meat substitute products like soy, seitan, tofu? Please choose only one of the following:

Never ○ Only exceptional ○ Once a month ○ Several times a month ○ Once a week ○ Several times a week ○ Daily ○ Several times a day ○

6. How often do you buy organic meat? Please do not answer this question if you've ticked vegetarianism etc. Never ○ Only exceptional ○ Once a month ○ Several times a month ○ Once a week ○ Several times a week ○ Daily ○ Several times a day ○

7. Do you consider it possible to implement a veggie day every week? (To disclaim from meat products the entire day). Please do not answer this question if you've ticked vegetarianism etc. Yes ○ No ○

8. Please indicate how much this statement can be related to you.

Very Strongly Dis- Agree Strongly Very strongly disagree agree agree strongly disagree agree I live in close touch with the nature.

I can think of abstaining fully from meat. I would eat synthetic meat products made in a laboratory. I can think of buying groceries containing insects as their main ingredient. I would try groceries containing insects.

You're going to be presented with an English newspaper or online magazine article now. Please read it thoroughly. Take your time (about 60 sec) and continue to the next page afterwards.

Insect Of The Year 2017

The praying mantis is named for its prominent front legs, which are bent and held together at an angle that suggests the position of prayer.

By any name, these fascinating insects are formidable predators. They have triangular heads poised on a long "neck," or elongated thorax. Mantids can turn their heads 180 degrees to scan their surroundings with two large compound eyes and three other simple eyes located between them.

Typically green or brown and well camouflaged on the plants among which they live, mantis lie in ambush or patiently stalk their quarry. They use their front legs to snare their prey with reflexes so quick that they are difficult to see with the naked eye. Their legs are further equipped with spikes for snaring prey and pinning it in place.

Moths, crickets, grasshoppers, flies, and other insects are usually the unfortunate recipients of unwanted mantid attention. However, the insects will also eat others of their own kind. The most famous example of this is the notorious mating behavior of the adult female, who sometimes eats her mate just after—or even during—mating. Yet this behavior seems not to deter males from reproduction.

Females regularly lay hundreds of eggs in a small case, and nymphs hatch looking much like tiny versions of their parents.

(National Geographic, 2018)

E As a next step you'll be presented with a product which should be rated afterwards.

A product in German as well as English language is presented. Please refer to the one described in English.

Please have a close look at the product and bear in mind the newspapers article which you've just read. Please take your time before continuing to the next page.

Further information: The following product is distributed by the company "Bug Bar", which is specialized on the production and sales of insect products containing e.g. crickets, grasshoppers, buffalo worms, etc. The product shown represents a cereal bar containing buffalo worms, hazelnuts and sesame as its main ingredients. Buffalo worms are the larvae of the small, black buffalo bugs which grow up to a size of 5 - 6 mm.

F Please rate the previously shown product now. Please indicate your answers as honest as possible.

Important: Always bear in mind the newspaper article you've just read.

1. Have you seen in this product in a shop before or tasted it? Yes ○ No ○

2. Please indicate how much every statement can be related to you. Very Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Very strongly disagree agree strongly disagree agree

The product seems familiar to me. I'd rather name this product exotic. The nutritional value of this product is very high. It is healthy to eat this product. Eating this product would disgust people around me. In my opinion the product is attractive.

Would you buy this product for your children/famil y/parents/etc. ?

3. Please indicate how much every statement can be related to you. Very Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Very strongly disagree agree strongly disagree agree I expect a delicious taste from the product.

I think the product is tasty. The product seems to be tasty. I'll buy this product. I'm thinking about buying this product. It is very likely that I will buy this product. I'll try this product. I'm thinking about trying this product. It is very likely that I will try this product.

4. Please indicate how much every statement can be related to you. Very Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Very strongly disagree agree strongly disagree agree In my opinion insect food represents adequat meat substitute products.

In my opinion, groceries containing insects are an attractive meat substitute. I can think of buying groceries containing insects as their main ingredient. I would try groceries containing insects.

5. Are you allergic to one of the ingredients of the product? If yes, could you imagine consuming a similar product with insects but without said ingredients? In my opinion insect food represents adequate meat substitute products. ○

Yes, I am allergic and can imagine consuming similar products. ○

No, I'm not allergic. ○

6. Which feelings do you link to a possible consumption of this product. Several answers can be picked. Pleasant surprise ○ Worried ○ Glad ○ Energetic ○ Happy ○ Discontented ○ Dissatisfied ○ Pleasant ○ Disappointed ○ Contented ○ Fear ○ Merry ○ Disgust ○

Distrust ○

7. Please indicate how the following statements relate to you. Please answer as honest and fast as possible. Very Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Very strongly disagree agree strongly disagree agree If I could buy insect food in grocery stores, I'd definitely buy it. In general, my attitude towards insect food is positive. I am interested in insect food. I have eaten or tasted insect food in the past. I'd implement insect food into my daily nutrition. I know much about insects as food. In comparison to other people, I know less about insect food.

Below further statements about nutritional facts will be presented. Again, you can either pick "wrong", "correct" or "no answer" as responses. If you think a statement is true please pick "correct", if it's false choose "wrong" and if you do not have any answer please pick "no answer". Please try not to guess.

Correct Wrong No answer

Any American or European could grow insects in his or her home and cook. them as food.

In some countries in the European Union, there is already insect food for sale. In Thailand, insects are already eaten commonly. Insect food can be bought in a regular grocery store in Belgium. Insects can be industrially grown also in the States and other countries of the European Union. The protein content of 100 g chicken meat is smaller than the protein content of 100 g edible crickets. Approximately 200 edible insect species have been listed. Growing insects produces approximately the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions as growing pigs. One kilogram of edible crickets contains approximately the same amount of calories as one kilogram of minced beef. Only insects that have been grown in the appropriate laboratory facilities are edible for humans. The nutritional values are approximately the same for all edible insects. H In the end a couple of demographic questions will be posed. There is no possibility in referring to your person. The entire study is held anonymous.

1. Please indicate your sex. ○ Female ○ Male

2. Please indicate your age. Between 18 and 19 years ○ 20 to 24 years ○ 25 to 29 years ○ 30 to 34 years ○ 35 to 39 years ○ 40 to 44 years ○ 45 to 49 years ○ 50 to 54 years ○ 55 to 59 years ○ 60 to 64 years ○ 65 years or older ○

3. In which country do you live? Germany Austria USA Other

4. Which is your highest educational achievement? Still at school ○ No graduation ○ Middle school ○ High school ○ Other school certificates ○ A-levels ○ Professional training or apprenticeship ○ Bachelor's degree ○ Master's degree ○ PhD/ Professorship ○ Further university degrees ○

5. Are you gainfully employed?

Yes, I'm working. ○ I'm working part-time. ○ No, I'm not working at the moment. ○ No, I'm retired. ○ No, I'm a housewife or househusband. ○ Other ○

6. What do you do for a living? Student ○ In training ○ College student ○ Employee ○ Public official ○ Freelancer ○ Unemployed ○ Other ○

7. Please indicate your occupation and/or your study program.

8. Please indicate your monthly net income. Less than 250 $ ○ 250 $ to 500 $ ○ 500 $ to 1000 $ ○ 1000 $ to 1500 $ ○ 1500 $ to 2000 $ ○ 2000 $ to 3000 $ ○ 3000 $ to 4000 $ ○ 4000 $ to 5000 $ ○ More than 5000 $ ○ No answer ○

9. How much money do you spend on groceries a month? Please estimate.

○ No answer

10. Are you responsible for grocery shopping in your household? ○ Yes ○ No

11. Please specify your current marital status. Single ○ In a relationship ○ Married ○ Widowed ○ Divorced ○

12. How many people are living with you in your household? Alone ○ One other individual ○ (girl/boyfriend/wife/husband/child etc.) Two other individuals ○ Three other individuals ○ More than five other individuals ○

13. In which area do you live? Village (Less than 500 inhabitants) ○ Rural area (less than 5000 inhabitants) ○ Small city (5000 to 20,000 inhabitants) ○ Middle sized city (20,000 to 100,000 ○ inhabitants) Big city (100,000 to 500,000 inhabitants) ○ Metropolis (more than 500,000 ○ inhabitants)

Dear participant,

You have reached the end of the survey.

We thank you again for participating in this study, promoting the research about entomophagy (eating of insects) in Western societies.

The United Nations have already known for years that in the year 2050 almost 9 billion people will be living on our planet. Current and future meat productions won't be able to satisfy the hunger and need of proteins of the prospective world population. Present nutritional research tries to find alternatives to regular meat factories. One of these options consists in eating insects as a natural protein source. Most of Asian and African countries have eaten insects for over centuries as a regular part of their diet. The aim of the present study therefore consists to find a way how to convince potential western consumers in trying and adapting insects as a part of their nutrition.

If we have piqued your curiosity about this topic, there's lots of information about entomophagy in the web.

Best regards Bettina Seitz and the Environmental Psychology team of the University of Salzburg

APPENDIX C

Controversial text of English questionnaire

You’ve been eating bugs for years

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization recently produced an in-depth report about edible insects which is worth checking out if you’re interested in the subject.

If the idea of eating insects disgusts you, you might be surprised to find out that you already regularly eat them.

If you check out the FDA’s Defect Levels Handbook, you can see just how many buggies you could be eating on an everyday basis. Take beer for example—the acceptable limit of insect infestation in hops is 2,500 aphids per 10 grams. Canned fruit juices are allowed up to 1 maggot per 250 ml, curry powder is allowed up to 100 insect fragments (head, body, legs) per 25 grams and chopped dates are allowed up to 10 whole dead insects.

The list goes on and on. Is this churning your stomach? It shouldn’t, because you’ve been eating them for years and it hasn’t bothered you.

(Ifl Science, 2018)

APPENDIX D

Informative text of English questionnaire

U.N. Urges Eating Insects

This information will come in handy for those of us following the latest recommendation from the United Nations: Consume more insects.

A report released Monday by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reminds us that there are more than 1,900 edible insect species on Earth, hundreds of which are already part of the diet in many countries.

In fact, some two billion people eat a wide variety of insects regularly, both cooked and raw; only in Western countries does the practice retain an "ick" factor among the masses.

Why eat something that we usually swat away or battle with insecticides? For starters, many insects are packed with protein, fiber, good fats, and vital minerals—as much or more than many other food sources.

One example: mealworms, the larval form of a particular species of darkling beetle that lives in temperate regions worldwide. Mealworms provide protein, vitamins, and minerals on par with those found in fish and meat. Another healthful treat: small grasshoppers rank up there with lean ground beef in protein content, with less fat per gram.

And raising and harvesting insects requires much less land than raising cows, pigs, and sheep. Insects convert food into protein much more efficiently than livestock do—meaning they need less food to produce more product. They also emit considerably fewer greenhouse gases than most livestock (think gassy cows).

Entomophagy, the consumption of insects as food, is also a safe and healthy way to help reduce pest insects without using insecticides. Plus, gathering and farming insects can offer new forms of employment and income, especially in developing tropical countries where a lot of "edibles" live.

(National Geographic, 2013)

APPENDIX E

German questionnaire with controversial text

Ernährung und Konsum

Sehr geehrte Teilnehmerin, sehr geehrter Teilnehmer, vielen Dank für Ihre Teilnahme an dieser Studie, die einen wertvollen Beitrag zu meiner Masterarbeit und der umweltpsychologischen Forschung an der Universität Salzburg in Österreich leistet.

Im Folgenden werden Ihnen ein paar Fragen zu Ihrem Ernährungsverhalten und Konsumpräferenzen von Lebensmitteln gestellt. Bitte beantworten Sie diese Fragen so ehrlich wie möglich. Auf Ihre Person kann kein Rückschluss gezogen werden. Alle Teilnahmen und Antworten werden anonym gespeichert.

Bitte markieren Sie jeweils zutreffende Antworten mit einem X oder tragen Sie auf den dafür vorgesehenen Feldern handschriftlich Antworten ein. Diese Umfrage wird circa 15 bis 20 Minuten dauern.

Wir bedanken uns für Ihre Teilnahme.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen Bettina Seitz und die Abteilung Umweltpsychologie

A Im Folgenden werden Ihnen ein paar Fragen zu ernährungswissenschaftlichen Fakten präsentiert. Als Antwort kann jeweils „Richtig“, „Falsch“ oder „Keine Angabe“ gewählt werden. Wenn Sie davon ausgehen, dass eine Aussage zutrifft und korrekt ist, kreuzen Sie bitte das Feld „Richtig“ an. Bei Nichtzutreffen der Aussage, kreuzen Sie das Feld „Falsch“ an. Sollten Sie einmal keine Antwort auf eine Frage haben, kreuzen Sie bitte das Feld „Keine Angabe“ an.

1. Bitte wählen Sie die zutreffende Antwort für jeden Punkt aus:

Richtig Falsch Keine Angabe Linsen enthalten nur wenige nützliche Nährstoffe, daher ist ihr gesundheitlicher Nutzen nicht groß. Wenn Sie fettreiche Lebensmittel gegessen haben, können Sie das durch den Verzehr von Äpfeln ausgleichen. Eine gesunde Mahlzeit sollte eine halbe Portion Fleisch, ein Viertel Gemüse und ein Viertel Beilagen enthalten. Fett enthält weniger Kalorien als die gleiche Menge an Ballaststoffen. Fett ist immer schlecht für ihre Gesundheit, Sie sollten es daher so weit wie möglich vermeiden. Pasta mit Tomatensauce ist gesünder als Pasta mit Pilz Sahne-Sauce. Eine ausgewogene Ernährung bedeutet, dass alle Nahrungsmittel in denselben Mengen verzehrt werden. Der gesundheitliche Nutzen von Obst und Gemüse liegt allein in der Versorgung mit Vitaminen und Mineralstoffen. Speck enthält mehr Kalorien als Schinken. Öliger Fisch (Lachs, Makrele) enthält gesünderes Fett als rotes Fleisch. Um gesund zu essen, sollten Sie weniger Fett essen. Was auch immer Sie an Obst und Gemüse mehr essen ist egal. Die gleiche Menge an Zucker und Fett enthält ebenso viele Kalorien. Für eine gesunde Ernährung sollten Milchprodukte in gleichen Mengen wie Obst und Gemüse konsumiert werden. Magermilch enthält weniger Mineralstoffe als Vollmilch.

Brauner Zucker ist viel gesünder als weißer Zucker.

B Als Nächstes werden Ihnen ein paar Fragen zu Ihrem Ernährungsverhalten gestellt. Bitte beantworten Sie die kommenden Fragen so ehrlich und schnell wie möglich. Ihre Antwort können Sie auf einer Skala zwischen „Trifft überhaupt nicht zu“ und „Trifft voll und ganz zu“ abgeben.

1. Bitte wählen Sie die zutreffende Antwort für jeden Punkt aus:

Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft über- eher eher weder eher zu voll haupt nicht we- zu zu und nicht zu zu niger noch ganz zu nicht zu zu Ich probiere ständig neue und verschiedene Lebensmittel aus. Ich traue neuen Lebensmitteln nicht. Wenn ich nicht weiß, was in einem Lebensmittel enthalten ist, probiere ich es nicht aus. Ich mag Essen aus unterschiedlichen Kulturen. Das Essen aus anderen Kulturen sieht eigenartig aus, so dass ich es nicht esse. Bei sozialen Anlässen probiere ich neue Speisen aus. Ich fürchte mich davor, Speisen zu essen, die ich nie vorher gegessen habe.

Ich bin sehr wählerisch in Bezug auf Essen. Ich esse fast alles. Ich gehe gerne an Orte, wo Essen aus anderen Kulturen serviert wird.

C Im nächsten Schritt werden Ihnen ein paar allgemeine Fragen zu Ihrer Ernährung gestellt. Bitte beantworten Sie diese so ehrlich und schnell wie möglich.

1. Welche Ernährungsform trifft auf Sie zu? Bitte wählen Sie nur eine der folgenden Antworten aus. ○ Omnivor (Fleisch, Fisch, etc.) ○ Flexitarier (Ab und zu Fleisch- und Fischprodukte) ○ Ovo-Lacto-Vegetarismus (Kein Fleisch und Fisch, aber tierische Produkte wie Milch, Eier, etc.) ○ Lacto-Vegetarismus (Kein Fleisch, Fisch und Eier, aber Konsum von Milchprodukten) ○ Pescetarismus (Kein Fleisch, aber Fisch) ○ Veganismus (Ausschließlich Pflanzenkost) ○ Fructarismus (Ausschließlich Konsum von Fallobst) ○ Paleo ○ Andere

2. Bitte beantworten Sie folgende Fragen, falls Sie Vegetarismus (inkl. Ovo-Lacto- und Lacto-Vegetarismus, etc.) angekreuzt haben. 2.1 Wie lange gehen Sie dieser Ernährungsweise bereits nach? In Jahren. 2.2 Welcher Grund/ Welche Gründe haben Sie dazu bewegt VegetarierIn zu werden? (Geschmack, Allergien, Tierschutz, Umweltschutz, etc.)

3. Wie häufig essen Sie Fleisch? Bitte nicht beantworten, falls Sie Vegetarismus etc. ausgewählt haben. Bitte wählen Sie nur eine der folgenden Antworten aus: ○ Nie ○ Nur als Ausnahme ○ Einmal im Monat ○ Mehrmals im Monat ○ Einmal pro Woche ○ Mehrmals pro Woche ○ Täglich ○ Mehrmals täglich

4. Bitte geben Sie im Folgenden den Grund/die Gründe an, die am meisten für Sie den Konsum von Fleisch begründen (Beispiele sind Geschmack, Nährstoffbedarf des Körpers, Sättigung, Gewohnheit, Status-Symbol, etc.). Diese Frage ist nicht bei fleischloser Ernährung zu beantworten. (Gründe bitte hier eintragen)

5. Wie häufig essen Sie Fleisch-Ersatz-Produkte wie Tofu, Soja, Saitan, etc.? Bitte wählen Sie nur eine der folgenden Antworten aus. ○ Nie ○ Nur als Ausnahme ○ Einmal im Monat ○ Mehrmals im Monat ○ Einmal pro Woche ○ Mehrmals pro Woche ○ Täglich ○ Mehrmals täglich

6. Wie oft kaufen Sie Bio-Fleisch? Bitte nicht beantworten, falls Sie Vegetarismus etc. ausgewählt haben. Bitte wählen Sie nur eine der folgenden Antworten aus:

○ Nie ○ Nur als Ausnahme ○ Einmal im Monat ○ Mehrmals im Monat ○ Einmal pro Woche ○ Mehrmals pro Woche ○ Täglich ○ Mehrmals täglich

7. Könnten Sie sich vorstellen einen Tag in der Woche einen Veggie-Day einzuplanen? (Es wird den ganzen Tag auf Fleisch-Produkte verzichtet). Bitte nicht beantworten, falls Sie Vegetarismus etc. ausgewählt haben. Bitte wählen Sie nur eine der folgenden Antworten aus: ○ Ja ○ Nein ○ Keine Angabe

8. Bitte geben Sie an, inwiefern folgende Aussagen auf Sie zutreffen.

Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft über- eher eher weder eher zu voll haupt nicht weniger zu zu und nicht zu zu noch ganz zu nicht zu zu Ich bin eine naturverbundene Person. Ich kann mir vorstellen, vollständig auf Fleisch zu verzichten. Ich würde synthetische Fleischprodukte aus dem Labor essen. Ich kann mir vorstellen, Lebensmittel mit Insekten als Hauptbestandteil zu kaufen. Ich würde Lebensmittel mit Insekten als Zutat probieren.

D Nun wird Ihnen ein Zeitungsartikel aus einer deutschsprachigen Tageszeitung oder Magazins präsentiert. Bitte lesen Sie den unten liegenden Text aufmerksam durch.

Studie - Wie viele Insekten essen Sie jährlich?

Es ist eine unangenehme Wahrheit: Mit dem morgendlichen Kaffee oder dem Gemüse nehmen Menschen immer auch kleine Insekten zu sich – oder zumindest Spuren von ihnen.

Das amerikanische Unternehmen Terro, das sich auf Insektenbekämpfung spezialisiert hat, hat nun in einer Studie ermittelt, wie viele Insekten beziehungsweise Insektenteilchen ein Amerikaner im Jahr über Lebensmittel verzehrt.

Als Grundlage für die Berechnung wählte Terro die maximale Menge an Insekten und Insektenteilchen, die die staatliche U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in Lebensmitteln erlaubt.

Über Schokolade verzehren Amerikaner der Statistik zufolge bis zu 6.000 Spuren von Insekten pro Jahr. Im Weizen sind es gar bis zu 91.650 Insektenteilchen. Und mit dem Kaffee spülen Amerikaner pro Jahr ganze 136.000 davon hinunter.

In Brombeeren und Himbeeren aus der Dose oder aus der Tiefkühltruhe tummeln sich durchschnittlich 84 vollständige Insekten, im gefrorenen Broccoli sind es sogar 1.660.

Keine gesundheitlichen Folgen Zur Beruhigung: Die Insektenteilchen lassen sich dabei nicht herausschmecken und bleiben vermutlich auch stets unsichtbar. Auch für die Gesundheit haben die kleinen Biester keine Folgen.

(Focus Online, 2017)

Bitte lassen Sie den Inhalt des Textes nochmals kurz durch Ihren Kopf gehen (ca. eine Minute) und blättern Sie dann weiter.

E Im Folgenden wird Ihnen ein Lebensmittelprodukt präsentiert, welches Sie im nächsten Schritt bewerten sollen. Betrachten Sie das Produkt, und behalten Sie dabei den soeben gelesenen Zeitungsartikel im Hinterkopf. Lassen Sie sich ausreichend Zeit, bevor Sie im nächsten Schritt mit den Fragen fortfahren.

Zur weiteren Erläuterung: Das folgende Produkt wird durch die Firma "Bug Bar" (siehe das betreffende Markenlogo) vertrieben, die sich auf die Produktion und den Verkauf von Lebensmitteln spezialisiert hat, welche Insekten in Form von Heuschrecken, Grillen, Buffalowürmern etc. beinhalten. Bei dem vorliegenden Produkt handelt es sich um einen Müsliriegel mit den Hauptzutaten getrocknete Buffalowürmer, Haselnuss und Sesam. Buffalowürmer sind die Larven des kleinen, schwarzen Buffalokäfers, der eine Körpergröße von 5 – 6 mm erreicht.

F Bitte bewerten Sie nun das soeben gezeigte Produkt so ehrlich wie möglich.

Wichtig: Behalten Sie dabei immer die Informationen aus dem soeben präsentierten Zeitungsartikel im Hinterkopf.

1. Haben Sie dieses Produkt schon einmal in einem Geschäft gesehen oder probiert? ○ Ja ○ Nein

2. Bitte geben Sie an, inwiefern folgende Aussagen auf Sie zutreffen.

Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft über- eher eher weder eher zu voll haupt nicht weniger zu zu und nicht zu zu zu noch ganz nicht zu zu Ich denke das Produkt wird lecker sein. Das Produkt erscheint mir lecker. Ich erwarte einen leckeren Geschmack des Produkts. Ich werde dieses Produkt probieren. Ich denke darüber nach dieses Produkt zu probieren. Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass ich dieses

Produkt probieren werde. Ich werde dieses Produkt kaufen. Ich denke darüber nach dieses Produkt zu kaufen. Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass ich dieses Produkt kaufen werde.

3. Bitte geben Sie an, inwiefern folgende Aussagen auf Sie zutreffen.

Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft über- eher eher weder eher zu voll haupt nicht weniger zu zu und nicht zu zu zu noch ganz nicht zu zu Das Produkt kommt mir bekannt vor. Ich würde das Produkt eher als exotisches Lebensmittel bezeichnen. Der Proteingehalt des Produkts ist sehr hoch. Das Produkt zu verzehren ist gesund. Beim Essen des Produkts würde man von

umstehenden Personen schief angeschaut werden. Ich finde das Produkt attraktiv. Würden Sie dieses Produkt für Ihre Kinder/Familie/E ltern kaufen? Ich bin der Meinung, dass Insekten als vollwertiger Fleischersatz dienen können. Ich bin der Meinung, dass Lebensmittel mit Insekten als Fleischersatz ansprechend sind. Ich kann mir vorstellen, Lebensmittel mit Insekten als Hauptbestandtei l zu kaufen. Ich würde Lebensmittel mit Insekten als Zutat probieren.

4. Welche Gefühle verbinden Sie mit einem möglichen Verzehr des Produkts? Es können mehrere Antworten ausgewählt werden: ○ Angenehme Überraschung ○ Besorgnis

○ Dankbarkeit ○ Energiegeladenheit ○ Fröhlichkeit ○ Unbefriedigtheit ○ Unzufriedenheit ○ Angenehm ○ Enttäuschung ○ Zufriedenheit ○ Angst ○ Vergnügung ○ Ekel ○ Mistrauen

Bitte geben Sie an, inwiefern folgende Aussagen auf Sie zutreffen. Bitte antworten Sie so ehrlich und schnell wie möglich.

5. Bitte wählen Sie die zutreffende Antwort für jeden Punkt aus:

Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft Trifft über- eher eher weder eher zu voll haupt nicht weniger zu zu und nicht zu zu zu noch ganz nicht zu zu Wenn es Produkte mit Insekten in Geschäften zu kaufen gebe, würde ich diese mit großer Sicherheit kaufen. Im Allgemeinen ist meine Einstellung gegenüber Insekten in Produkten positiv. Ich interessiere mich für Produkte, welche Insekten als

Bestandteil haben. Ich habe bereits Insekten probiert bzw. gegessen. Ich würde Insektenprodukte in meinen Ernährungsplan aufnehmen. Ich weiß sehr viel über Insekten als Nahrung. Im Vergleich zu anderen Personen, weiß ich eher wenig über Insekten als Nahrung.

G Im Folgenden werden Ihnen ein paar Fragen zu weiteren ernährungswissenschaftlichen Fakten präsentiert. Als Antwort kann wieder jeweils „Richtig“, „Falsch“ oder „Keine Angabe“ angekreuzt werden. Wenn Sie davon ausgehen, dass eine Aussage zutrifft und korrekt ist, kreuzen Sie bitte das Feld „Richtig“ an. Bei Nichtzutreffen der Aussage, kreuzen Sie das Feld „Falsch“ an. Sollten Sie einmal keine Antwort auf eine Frage haben, kreuzen Sie bitte das Feld „Keine Angabe“ an.

1. Bitte wählen Sie die zutreffende Antwort für jeden Punkt aus:

Richtig Falsch Keine Angabe Jeder Europäer könnte zuhause Insekten züchten und diese als Kochzutat verwenden. In manchen Ländern in der EU kann man bereits Insektenprodukte kaufen. In Thailand werden Insekten bereits als übliches Nahrungsmittel gehandelt. Insekten können in einem regulären Lebensmittelgeschäft in Belgien gekauft werden. Insekten können in Österreich und Deutschland industriell gezüchtet werden. Der Proteingehalt von 100 g Hühnerfleisch ist kleiner als der von 100 g essbaren Grillen. Es gibt circa 200 essbare Insektenarten. Die Zucht von Insekten produziert Treibhausgase im gleichen Ausmaß wie die Schweinezucht. Einzig Insekten welche in kontrollierten Laboranlagen gezüchtet wurden, sind für den menschlichen Verzehr geeignet. Die Nährstoffangaben sind für alle essbaren Insektenarten circa die gleichen.

H Zum Schluss werden Ihnen noch ein paar Fragen zu Ihrer Person gestellt. Es können keine Rückschlüsse auf Sie gezogen werden. Die Daten werden anonym erhoben und ausgewertet.

1. Welches Geschlecht haben Sie? ○ weiblich ○ männlich

2. Wie alt sind Sie? ○ Jünger als 15 Jahre ○ 15 – 19 Jahre ○ 20 – 24 Jahre ○ 25 – 29 Jahre ○ 30 – 34 Jahre ○ 35 – 39 Jahre ○ 40 – 44 Jahre ○ 45 – 49 Jahre ○ 50 – 54 Jahre ○ 55 – 59 Jahre ○ 60 – 64 Jahre ○ 65 Jahre oder älter

3. In welchem Land leben Sie derzeit? ○ Deutschland ○ Österreich ○ USA ○ Anderes Land:

4. Welches ist der höchste Bildungsabschluss, den Sie haben? ○ Noch Schüler ○ Schule beendet ohne Abschluss ○ Hauptschulabschluss/Volksschulabschluss

○ Realschulabschluss (Mittlere Reife) ○ Fachhochschulreife (Abschluss einer Fachoberschule) ○ Abitur/ Matura/Allgemeine oder fachgebundene Hochschulreife (Gymnasium bzw. EOS) ○ Berufsausbildung/Abgeschlossene Berufsausbildung ○ Bachelor ○ Master/Diplom ○ Promotion/Habilitation ○ Anderer Schulabschluss:

5. Sind Sie momentan erwerbstätig? ○ Ja, ich bin erwerbstätig. ○ Ich gehe einem Nebenberuf nach. ○ Nein, ich gehe derzeit keiner Tätigkeit nach. ○ Nein, ich bin Rentner. ○ Nein, ich bin Hausfrau oder Hausmann. ○ Nein, ich bin nichts von alledem.

100

6. Was machen Sie beruflich? ○ Schüler/in ○ In Ausbildung ○ Student/in ○ Angestellte/r ○ Beamte/r ○ Selbstständig ○ Arbeitslos/Arbeitsuchend ○ Sonstiges:

7. Bitte geben Sie gegebenenfalls Ihre Beschäftigung und/oder Studienrichtung an. ○ Ich bin noch Schüler bzw. in der Ausbildung

8. Wie hoch ist ungefähr Ihr monatliches Nettoeinkommen? (Gemeint ist der Betrag, der sich aus allen Einkünften zusammensetzt und nach Abzug der Steuern und Sozialversicherungen übrigbleibt.) ○ Weniger als 250 € ○ 250 bis unter 500 € ○ 500 bis unter 1000 € ○ 1000 € bis unter 1500 € ○ 1500 € bis unter 2000 € ○ 2000 bis unter 3000 € ○ 3000 € bis unter 4000 € ○ 4000 € bis unter 5000 € ○ 5000 € und mehr ○ Ich will darauf nicht antworten.

9. Wie viel Geld geben Sie im Monat geschätzt für Lebensmittel aus?

Euro ○ Keine Angabe

101

10. Sind Sie zuständig für die Einkäufe im Haushalt? ○ Ja ○ Nein ○ Keine Angabe

11. Bitte geben Sie ihren aktuellen Beziehungsstatus an. ○ Ledig ○ In einer Partnerschaft lebend ○ Verheiratet ○ Verwitwet ○ Geschieden

12. Mit wie vielen Personen leben Sie im Haushalt? ○ Alleine ○ Mit einer weiteren Person ○ Mit zwei weiteren Personen ○ Mit drei weiteren Personen ○ Mit mehr als fünf weiteren Personen

13. In welcher Umgebung wohnen Sie? ○ Dörfliche Gegend (Weniger als 500 Einwohner) ○ Landgemeinde (weniger als 5000 Einwohner) ○ Kleinstadt (5000 bis 20.000 Einwohner) ○ Mittelstadt (20.000 bis 100.000 Einwohner) ○ Großstadt (100.000 bis 500.000 Einwohner) ○ Metropole (Mehr als 500.000 Einwohner)

102

Sehr geehrte Teilnehmerin, sehr geehrter Teilnehmer,

Sie sind nun am Ende der Umfrage angekommen.

Wir bedanken uns vielmals für Ihren Beitrag zu unserer Forschung bezüglich Entomophagie, das Essen von Insekten.

Bereits seit einigen Jahren ist den Vereinten Nationen (UN) bekannt, dass die menschliche Bevölkerung im Jahre 2050 auf über 9 Milliarden Individuen ansteigen wird. Heutige und zukünftige Fleischproduktionen werden nicht dazu im Stande sein, die kommende Weltbevölkerung ausreichend mit Nahrung und insbesondere wichtigen Proteinen zu versorgen. Daher wird bereits heute nach alternativen Möglichkeiten gesucht. Dazu zählt das Essen von Insekten, welches bereits in vielen asiatischen und afrikanischen Staaten betrieben wird. Einzig die westliche Kultur kann ihren gesellschaftlichen Ekel gegenüber Heuschrecke, Grille und Co. nicht überwinden. Da dies jedoch unabdingbar ist, versucht die heutige Forschung die Hintergründe dieser Abneigung und mögliche Wege zur Überzeugung der positiven Seite der entomophagischen Ernährung zu finden. Hierzu trägt diese Studie bei, indem psychologische Faktoren untersucht werden, die Abneigung oder Bereitwilligung bedingen.

Wenn wir nun Ihre Neugierde geweckt haben, lassen sich im Internet viele Ressourcen zu dieser Thematik finden.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen Bettina Seitz und die Abteilung Umweltpsychologie

103

APPENDIX F

Informative text of German questionnaire

Insekten als Vitaminlieferanten auch bald in Deutschland und Österreich?

„Insekten gelten als gute Nährstofflieferanten, denn sie enthalten hochwertiges Eiweiß, Fett mit hohem Anteil an ungesättigten Fettsäuren, Vitamine und Mineralstoffe wie Kupfer, Eisen, Magnesium, Mangan, Selen und Zink“, schreibt das Bayerische Landesamt für Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit. Hochwertige Aminosäuren im Insekten-Eiweiß seien für bestimmte Verbrauchergruppen wie Sportler oder Vegetarier zur Ergänzung der Ernährung oder als Alternative zu Fleisch interessant.

Dazu kommen ökologische Vorteile bei der Erzeugung. Während Rinder im Schnitt acht Kilo und Schweine fünf Kilo Futter brauchten, um ein Kilo Biomasse aufzubauen, reichen dem Insekt im Durchschnitt zwei Kilo, so das bayerische Landesamt. Hauptgrund: Insekten passen als wechselwarme Tiere ihre Körpertemperatur stets der Umgebung an und leben damit von Natur aus energieeffizient, verglichen mit gleichwarmen Lebewesen wie Säugetiere oder Vögel. Dazu kommt laut Bugfoundation die bessere Verwertungsquote. So seien rund 80 Prozent einer Heuschrecke essbar, beim Rind sind es nur 40 Prozent.

(Naturschutzbund Österreich, 2017; Welt, 2018)

104

APPENDIX G

Baseline text of German questionnaire

Insekt des Jahres 2017

Mit der Ernennung der Gottesanbeterin zum Insekt des Jahres 2017 will der Naturschutzbund auf die Ausbreitung des charismatischen Insekts im Zuge des Klimawandels aufmerksam machen. Seit Jahrtausenden sind die Menschen von der Gestalt der Gottesanbeterin fasziniert, so gilt sie beispielsweise in der japanischen Mythologie als Symbolträger der Geduld, Beständigkeit und Wachsamkeit, zudem ist sie Vorbild für einen Kung-Fu Kampfstil. Ursprünglich stammt die Fangschrecke aus Afrika, inzwischen ist sie auch in Österreich heimisch. Johannes Gepp vom Naturschutzbund berichtet, dass diese einzige europäische Fangschrecke im pannonischen Raum vom Neusiedlersee bis Wien – also in den Ebenen - seit Jahrhunderten bekannt ist. Seit 1980 wandert sie zudem flächendeckend über Slowenien in die Steiermark und nach Kärnten bis zum südlichen Alpenrand ein. Seit der Jahrtausendwende kann man sie auch in günstigen Gebieten der südlichen Alpentäler finden. Das höchste bekannte Vorkommen liegt in der Steiermark bei 1150 m. Typischerweise findet man sie an sonnenexponierten Lagen in Gras- und Buschlandschaften, Halbtrockenrasen und Ruderalflächen mit lockerer Vegetation. Sie ist an wärmebegünstigte Gebiete gebunden, damit ihre Nachkommen im Frühjahr ein ausreichendes Nahrungsangebot finden können.

(Naturschutzbund Österreich, 2017)

105

Appendix H

Questionnaire for pretest product rating

Produktbewertungsfragebogen

Sehr geehrte Teilnehmerin, sehr geehrter Teilnehmer, im Folgenden finden Sie einige Fragen zur Produktbewertung des eben gezeigten Insektenmüsliriegels der Marke „Bug Bar“. Bitte beantworten Sie diese so ehrlich wie möglich. Ihre Antwort können Sie auf einer fünfstufigen Skala zwischen „Trifft überhaupt nicht zu“ und „Trifft voll und ganz zu“ angeben. Bitte kreuzen Sie jeweils nur eine Antwort an. Nach jeder Frage finden Sie einen leeren Bereich vor, der für weitere Anmerkungen zur Verfügung steht.

1. Design - Finden Sie das Produkt authentisch?