| Summary: | Demand for plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA) has been rising. Given that the food category is new, discussions centered on debates surrounding the PBMA product naming and labelling are rife. Particularly, around whether meat terms traditionally used to describe products of animal origin should be permitted, fearing that these terms could create misperceptions that PBMA products contain meat and possess meat-like nutritional attributes. Usage of the term “plants” may also evoke perceptions about other attributes, which are unclaimed, and which may not be true, signifying halo effects. Grounded on literature in halo effects, framing, product name, and product categorization, this thesis aims to understand the extent and mechanisms through which different components of PBMA product name, i.e., the meat terms (meat-related product format descriptor, e.g., ‘burgers’ / novel term, and absence / presence of animal meat term, e.g., ‘beef’) and qualifier (framed in plant presence, e.g., ‘plant-based’ / meat absence, e.g., ‘meatless’), may affect responses towards the PBMA product quality perceptions (or misperceptions) and behavior.
To fulfill the thesis objective, a series of interview (Study 1a), survey (Study 1b), and experiments (preliminary study in Appendix A, Study 2a, Study 2b) were conducted. In Study 1a, food industry stakeholders’ perspectives were first sought using the mental model approach to further understand the arguments surrounding the PBMA product name. In-depth interviews of 15 expert stakeholders representing diverse interests in enhancing acceptance of PBMAs versus protecting consumers culminated in mental model maps, which identified the convergence and divergences of perspectives regarding PBMA product name and its regulations. Study 1b examined the prevalence of beliefs as identified in Study 1a through a survey of 271 food industry stakeholders. The findings showed a convergence in approval for the use of meat-related product format description, but divergent opinions persisted over the use of animal meat term. The two studies also found a preference for the use of the ‘plant-based’ qualifier, despite agreements for its possibility to produce halo effects related to healthiness and sustainability.
To complement the food industry stakeholders’ perspectives, the next research segment focused on examining consumers’ responses, specifically, the effects of PBMA product name on their quality perceptions and behavioral intention through randomized online experiments. A pilot experiment in Study 2a was conducted with 222 university students to preliminarily assess the utility of the stimuli, measures, and procedure. It employed a 2 (product format descriptor: meat-related vs. novel) x 2 (animal meat term: present vs. absent) x 2 (qualifier: plant present vs. meat absent ‘meatless’) between-subject factorial design. Study 2b, the full experiment with a sample of 702 grocery shoppers, adopted a similar design, but with several improvements, among which, the addition of ’vegan’ as another qualifier representing meat absence qualifier. Findings revealed that exposure to meat-related product format descriptor, when paired with plant present qualifier, and sometimes also with animal meat term, could favorably influence perceptions about sensorial similarities to meat and health-related qualities, and subsequently behavioral intention. The use of animal meat term and novel product format descriptor was more likely to make people believe that the PBMA product contained meat. Interestingly, plant present qualifier could stimulate greater fiber content inference, and when paired with meat terms, could further evoke heightened perceptions of food safety and healthiness. The experiments also offered insights into the pathways in which behavioral intentions could indirectly be influenced by the PBMA product name via quality perceptions.
Overall, the studies found that the use of meat-related product format descriptor, such as ‘burgers’, was more acceptable, less likely to mislead, and tended to produce favorable quality perceptions, supporting the plant-based food industry’s arguments to permit such meat terms. The animal meat term, e.g., ‘chicken’, in contrast, was less accepted and more likely to create misperception about meat content, supporting the meat industry’s arguments to restrict the meat terms. The studies also found health halo effects that could be evoked primarily by the plant present qualifier. Findings from both industry and consumer stakeholders provide critical empirical evidence for regulators and businesses to inform the PBMA product name and labelling debates to prevent consumer misleadingness and shed light into the mechanisms to enhance consumer acceptance of PBMAs.
|
|---|