How social norms and dietary identity affect willingness to try cultured meat

Abstract

Purpose

Individuals perceive multiple barriers to consuming cultured meat. This study empirically investigates whether different types of social norms enhance behavioural intentions towards this novel food technology. Specifically, it examines the impact of general norms, in-group norms and out-group norms (based on meat-eaters or non-meat eaters, respectively) on consumers' willingness to try cultured meat.

Design/methodology/approach

A two-factorial between-subject online experiment was conducted using a sample of 431 Austrian consumers. The data were analysed using structural equation modelling in AMOS.

Findings

This study finds empirical support that both general norms and dietary in-group norms enhance consumers' behavioural intentions towards cultured meat, whereas dietary out-group norms do not affect the latter. The effect of in-group norms on behavioural intentions is mediated by identification with the respective dietary in-group. In addition, in-group identification and out-group disidentification as well as dietary identity also directly affect willingness to try cultured meat. Overall, meat-eaters report greater behavioural intentions than non-meat-eaters.

Practical implications

The findings indicate that using normative dietary cues in marketing campaigns might assist in efforts to increase consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Such efforts might be particularly relevant when introducing cultured meat to European markets.

Originality/value

This study is the first to experimentally examine the principles of the focus theory of normative conduct and social identity theory in the context of consumer-oriented cultured meat research. It contributes to the current literature by empirically demonstrating the relevance of social (group) norms in this domain.

Citation

Lewisch, L. and Riefler, P. (2024), "How social norms and dietary identity affect willingness to try cultured meat", British Food Journal, Vol. 126 No. 3, pp. 1014-1031. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-11-2022-1016