Reading Journal

Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 148–156

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / f o o d q u a l

The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.013 0950-3293/� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author at: Consumer Behavior, Department Health Science and Technology, Universitaetstrasse 22, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland.

E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Hartmann).

Christina Hartmann a,⇑, Jing Shi a, Alice Giusto b, Michael Siegrist a a Department Health Science and Technology, ETH Zurich, Switzerland b School of Journalism and Communication, Peking University, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 9 February 2015 Received in revised form 17 April 2015 Accepted 24 April 2015 Available online 25 April 2015

Keywords: Food neophobia Attitudes China Germany Willingness to eat Insects

Based on their high nutritional value and low production costs, insects are an excellent and sustainable source of animal protein. In contrast to countries such as China, in Western societies, the consumption of insects is not rooted in traditional diet. Data for the present study was collected from adults in Germany (n = 502) and China (n = 443). A cross-cultural comparison was conducted based on consumers’ willing- ness to eat different insect-based, processed (e.g., cookies based on cricket flour) and unprocessed (e.g., crickets) food. The influence of food neophobia on consumers’ willingness to eat insects was examined. The Chinese rated all insect-based food more favourably with regard to taste, nutritional value, familiar- ity and social acceptance compared with the Germans. Also, they indicated greater willingness to eat the tested food products, and no differences were observed between their ratings of processed and unpro- cessed food. The Germans reported higher willingness to eat the processed insect-based foods compared to the unprocessed foods. Further results revealed that low scores for food neophobia, positive taste expectations, high scores for social acceptance and experiences with eating insects in the past were sig- nificant predictors of consumers’ willingness to eat insects in both countries. Consequently, the introduc- tion of insects as a food source in Western societies seems more likely to succeed if insects are incorporated into familiar food items, which will reduce neophobic reactions and negative attitudes towards insect-based foods.

� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Increases in the global food demand and the accompanying environmental burden necessitate the establishment of food pro- duction systems that are efficient and sustainable. The conven- tional production of animal protein in Western countries consumes significant resources and is ethically questionable. Animal protein is an important dietary component not only for Western societies but also for many demographic groups all over the world. Interest in alternative protein sources of high nutritional value, such as edible insects, has increased remarkably in recent years (Caparros Looy, Dunkel, & Wood, 2014; Megido et al., 2014; Van Huis et al., 2013; Vanhonacker, Van Loo, Gellynck, & Verbeke, 2013). In fact, in varying degrees according to the species, metamorphic stage and feeding, some insects contain high value protein and essential amino acids, have a high vitamin and mineral content, have low cholesterol concentrations compared to some

meat-based animal products and have favourable n�3/n�6 fatty acid and polyunsaturated fatty acid/saturated fatty acid ratios (Belluco et al., 2013; Verkerk, Tramper, van Trijp, & Martens, 2007). At the same time, production requirements for insect farm- ing are low, requiring little water and space, and the biomass con- version rate is better than that of most animals (Van Huis et al., 2013). The combination of high nutritional value, smaller environ- mental footprint and low production costs makes insects particu- larly interesting as ‘mini-livestock’ (De Foliart, 1995) suitable for human and animal nutrition all over the world (Van Huis et al., 2013).

Entomophagy, or the eating of insects, was and still is an impor- tant dietary behaviour in many parts of the world, including Africa, Latin America and Asia (Van Huis et al., 2013). In Western soci- eties’, however, the consumption of insects is not rooted in tradi- tional diet. Thus far, conscious consumption of edible insects is restricted to experimental restaurants as a delicacy (Verkerk et al., 2007); specialised food items based on insect protein (e.g., protein powder for muscle growth); or incorporation into familiar products as a fun ingredient (e.g., insect-embedded lollipops). Previous research on the acceptance of insects as food was

C. Hartmann et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 148–156 149

focussed on European consumers (Caparros Megido et al., 2014; Schösler, de Boer, & Boersema, 2012; Vanhonacker et al., 2013; Verbeke, 2015; Yen, 2009), and lacks cross-cultural studies (Shan et al., 2015). Therefore, a central focus in the present study is a comparison of two countries, i.e. Germany and China, with differ- ent cultural exposures to insects as food (Zhang, Tang, & Cheng, 2008), to explore consumers’ perceptions and cognitive associa- tions with insects. By contrasting the two, we can better under- stand the similarities and differences in evolutionary associations, individual experiences and cultural representations (Lockwood, 2013) of insect-based food, which is paramount to establish its widespread consumption.

1.1. Consumption of insects in China and Western countries

The tradition of eating insects in China dates back more than 3000 years and has outlasted various dynasties (Chen, Feng, & Chen, 2009; Zhi-Yi, 1997). Various insect species, based on local preferences, were collected, prepared and used as a nutritive source, medicine and delicacy in mainly rural parts of China (Harris, 1998; Zhi-Yi, 1997). In the present day, the knowledge and tradition of the consumption of insects has been lost; their reg- ular consumption is now restricted to few regions in China such as the minority area of the Yunnan province (Chen et al., 2009). The globalisation of food markets, improvements in food technology and the Western influence on China’s cuisine have resulted in changes in food customs and the traditional food system (Yen, 2009). Following improvements to the economic conditions in China, people can now afford more varieties of different foods, so their nutrition has undergone a transition, especially in cities were people are exposed to a more diversified food culture. Nowadays, the consumption of insects can no longer be considered a common food practice in China (Zhi-Yi, 1997). Nevertheless, the Chinese respondents are likely to be more familiar with the idea of consum- ing insects because it is part of their culinary tradition and thus manifested in their cultural consciousness.

In Western societies’ nutritional evolution, insects were rarely experienced as an edible food source, and they are compulsively rejected as non-food, unclean and a health risk associated with food contamination and filthiness (Kellert, 1993; Looy et al., 2014). These internalised defensive reactions towards insects are reflected in low willingness-to-eat ratings in previous studies. Studies in this area have focused on people’s willingness to substi- tute meat with insects (Schösler et al., 2012; Vanhonacker et al., 2013; Verbeke, 2015). In a Belgian study, more than 65% of meat consumers disagreed with the idea to substitute meat with insects (Verbeke, 2015). In another study about meat substitution options in the Netherlands, attractiveness ratings and the likelihood of actually preparing the meals were the lowest for dishes including locusts or fried mealworms (Schösler et al., 2012). In addition, insect protein received the lowest ratings compared to other sus- tainable food choices by Flemish consumers in terms of what they were willing to buy and pay for (Vanhonacker et al., 2013). The public aversion towards insects in Western societies makes the establishment of insects as a widespread food source, and meat substitute in particular, very challenging.

1.2. Factors influencing willingness to eat insects

A consumer’s acceptance or non-acceptance of a product is determined by various beliefs and perceived attributes of the pro- duct, which are considered in food decision-making (Tuorila, 1997), and thus are involved in the developmental process of pref- erences. Cultural influences on attitudes and beliefs as well as the meaning and social appeal of food also have a significant impact on consumption (Rozin, 1988). Culture, social norms and previous

experiences shape the boundaries of what is considered edible or inedible (Rozin & Fallon, 1980). Items that are considered inedible, such as insects, can elucidate a strongly affect-laden disgust response when people imagine ingesting them. This socio-cultur- ally transmitted defence mechanism (Rozin, 1996) aims to protect the body from contact with potentially noxious substances (Miller, 2004). The visual appearance of a food can also trigger a disgust- based food rejection. Rozin and Fallon (1987) postulated that prominent reminders of a food’s origin as an animal food (its ‘ani- malness’) are core elicitors of a disgust response. The vision of an entire cricket, with its extraordinarily big legs, in someone’s mouth, or a silkworm with its slimy surface, might elicit fear and disgust in consumers. Next to reminders of animalness, perceived mouth feeling and aversive textural properties are the most impor- tant characteristics that lead to food being rejected based on dis- gust (Martins & Pliner, 2006). Therefore, there is reason to believe that people would be more willing to eat products made with processed insects because the origin and disgusting attributes are less prominent.

Numerous other attributes can influence the acceptance of food, such as nutritional value, quality and beneficial health effects as well as expected taste and geographic origin (Barrena & Sánchez, 2013), but are under-researched constructs as antecedents of will- ingness to eat insects. In the present study, we focused on the fol- lowing four attributes of insects as food: nutritional value, taste, familiarity and social acceptance. Attitudes about the health value of substances can be a driver for consumption. However, health motivation and knowledge about the nutritional value of the pro- duct are important prerequisites. Expected or experienced sensory appeal is another dimension of acceptability (Pilgrim, 1957; Raats, Daillant-Spinnler, Deliza, & McFie, 1995). Of course, negative taste expectation is a strong incentive to avoid a substance. Furthermore, the cuisine within a cultural group is the result of adaptations to a particular environment. Again, cuisine determines cultural food rules and thus what can be served and is socially acceptable. Whether or not a food is socially valued and considered as culturally familiar is likely to have an impact on its acceptance as well. By focussing on these four dimensions, further insights can be gained into whether different cultural exposures to insects as food lead to different attitude ratings. Thus, this study will reveal distinguishing factors in the evaluation of insects as food as well as drivers of their appeal as food.

Previous experiences with a product have an impact on the individual’s attitudes towards a product, of course. Also, underly- ing psychological factors connect attitudes towards a product to consumer behaviour. Insects are a novel, unfamiliar food for European consumers, and unfamiliar food that deviates from cul- tural norms can evoke rejection and avoidance. This ‘innate’ response to the unfamiliar is a characteristic feature of eating organisms, and it was once an important survival mechanism to prevent the ingestion of potentially poisonous substances (i.e., the internal gatekeeper) (Pliner & Hobden, 1992; Rozin, 1990). Consumers can vary greatly in their attitudes towards novel foods (Dovey, Staples, Gibson, & Halford, 2008). Food neophobia as an individuals’ behavioural tendency naturally starts in early child- hood. Although it decreases with age through positive food experi- ences, it can be present in adults as well. Food neophobia is associated with decreased levels of willingness to eat a novel food (Tuorila, Lähteenmäki, Pohjalainen, & Lotti, 2001) and plays a cru- cial role in the establishment of insects as foods (Verbeke, 2015). Food rejection can be motivated by negative taste expectations (Fallon & Rozin, 1983), low levels of expected enjoyment (Raudenbush & Frank, 1999) and uncertainty about the origin of the product (Tuorila, Meiselman, Bell, Cardello, & Johnson, 1994). Unfamiliar food, especially of an animal nature, is likely to be rejected due to feelings of disgust, expected distaste and

150 C. Hartmann et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 148–156

dangerousness (Fallon & Rozin, 1983). Although the danger factor is considered to be less important in Western societies because food products on the market are predominantly safe (Pliner, Pelchat, & Grabski, 1993), uncertainty about the product and its attributes is still a driver for rejecting it (Tuorila et al., 1994). Reducing uncertainty about a product by giving information or by evoking associations with familiar products can enhance its acceptance (Tuorila et al., 1994). For example, a study with Belgian visitors of an insectarium showed that insects prepared with known flavours, such as paprika or chocolate, were preferred to baked or boiled mealworms or crickets (Caparros Megido Rudy et al., 2014). Though it should be noted that these results are based on people already interested in insects, adding familiar spices or flavour profiles to a new food seems to help to decrease the neophobic reaction and increase the willingness to taste (Stallberg-White & Pliner, 1999).

1.3. The present study

Given the information above, there is reason to believe that German and Chinese respondents differ in their attitudes towards insects as food. We hypothesised that the Chinese respondents would be more willing than the German respondents to consume insects and would hold more favourable attitudes towards insects as food. Instead of solely asking about peoples’ willingness to eat insects as a meat substitute (Vanhonacker et al., 2013; Verbeke, 2015), the focus was on various processed and unprocessed insect-based food items. We further expected that food neophobia would be an important predictor for willingness to eat insect- based products for the German respondents, but not for the Chinese. Such cross-cultural studies help to understand the con- cept of food neophobia in different countries and cultural regions. Moreover, investigating peoples’ opinions and attitudes is not only assumed to improve the accuracy of predictions regarding con- sumers’ willingness to eat novel foods but also may be the basis for effective marketing strategies in the establishment of food innovations.

1 Except for Qinghai, Hainan. 2 Except for Ningxia, Tibet. 3 In addition, we analysed the data utilising the full food neophobia scale; virtually e same results were observed. The full scale mean value in the German sample was Germany = 3.34 (SD = 0.77) and in the Chinese sample was MChina = 3.62 (SD = 0.71).

2. Methods

2.1. Data collection

Data collection in Germany and China occurred in October 2014. Internet panels from commercial providers of sampling ser- vices were used for recruiting the study participants (Germany: Respondi AG; China: InterfaceAsia Holden). Participants received a small financial reward for filling out the whole questionnaire. Excluded were respondents who did not complete the survey and whose total survey duration was less than half of the median of the total survey duration, which indicates that a respondent did not seriously answer the questions (nChina = 94; nGermany = 27). Quota samples were used with the quota variables gender and age. The two samples did not significantly differ in regard to these two vari- ables after exclusion of the participants as indicated above.

2.2. Participants

The German sample consists of 502 respondents (48% men) ranging in age between 20 and 69 (M = 44.3 years; SD = 14.2). Three categories of education level—low, middle and high—had the following distribution: 7.6% low (primary school, lower sec- ondary school), 60.4% middle (secondary school, vocational school, senior high school) and 31.9% high (vocational academy, college, undergraduate and above). Of the German sample, 67.5% lived in a city, 6.5% in a suburb and 25.9% in a rural area.

The Chinese sample consists of 443 respondents (49% men) ranging in age between 20 and 69 (M = 44.2; SD = 13.1). Education levels were distributed as follows: 2.9% low (elementary school, junior high school), 14.7% middle (secondary vocational school, senior high school) and 82.4% high (college, undergraduate and above). Slightly over half of the sample (53.7%) lived in Shanghai, Beijing (Peking), Guangdong or Shandong. The other half of the sample was distributed among the other provinces,1 auton- omous regions2 and direct-controlled municipalities. Of the Chinese sample, 94.1% lived in a city, 4.7% in a suburb and 1.1% in a rural area (see Table 1).

2.3. Questionnaire

For most of the questions used in the survey, English and German versions were available. The items were not available in Chinese, however. Therefore, the English versions were translated by the third co-author into Chinese. The second author translated the items from Chinese back into English; both are fluent in English and Chinese. The two co-authors worked independently from each other. The few differences between the back-translation and the original wording of the items were discussed by the authors of the paper until there was agreement that the Chinese version had the same meaning as the English version.

2.3.1. Food neophobia All items from the food neophobia scale (Pliner & Hobden,

1992) were translated into Chinese and German. The wording of some items had to be slightly changed in order to make them meaningful for the study participants. The term ‘ethnic food’ is not used in German or Chinese, for example. In the German ver- sion, the term was replaced by ‘food from other cultures’ and in the Chinese version by ‘non-Chinese food (e.g., Italian cuisine, French cuisine)’. The German version has been validated for the German language in a previous study (Siegrist, Hartmann, & Keller, 2013). As in the original, participants answered on a seven-point response scale ranging from �3 (‘do not agree at all’) to +3 (‘totally agree’). The extreme categories were verbally anchored, and the other categories were only numerically anchored. Various authors have found that the food neophobia scale, though it has respectable reliability coefficients, is not unidi- mensional (e.g., Choe & Cho, 2011; Siegrist et al., 2013; Tuorila et al., 2001). Only a subset of the items was found to form a one- dimensional scale in cross-national research (Ritchey, Frank, Hursti, & Tuorila, 2003). The inclusion of invalid items certainly creates the risk of invalid conclusions. The item analysis for the present study suggested that three of the original items (3, 8 and 9) should be excluded in order to have acceptable item-total corre- lations (>.30).3 The final seven items built a unidimensional scale and were averaged into one food neophobia score. Cronbach’s alpha for the German sample was a = .78 and for the Chinese sample was a = .73.

2.3.2. Willingness to eat insect-based products Based on the procedure by Verbeke (2015), participants were

informed prior to the questioning the following ideas about insects: they are a good source for high-value protein; their pro- duction requires little space; their feed conversion is efficient; and the eating of insects provides benefits in terms of sustainabil- ity. Respondents indicated their willingness to eat six different

th M

Table 1 Food neophobia, willingness to eat processed and unprocessed insects (scale) and percentage of respondents who previously consumed insects in the German (N = 502) and Chinese (N = 443) sample.

Range Germany China

M or % SD M or % SD

Age (years) 20–69 44.3 14.2 44.2 13.1 Gender (men) 48% 49% Education

Low 7.6% 2.9% Middle 60.4% 14.7% High 31.9% 82.4%

Living rural 25.9% 1.1% Food neophobia 1–7 3.0 1.0 3.2* 0.9 Willingness to eat

insect-based fooda 1–10 3.3 2.4 5.6** 2.5

Insects consumption previously (yes)

13.3% 67.7%

** p < .001. * p < .01. a Variable is based on averaged items related to willingness to eat insects as meat

substitute, deep-fried silkworm, deep-fried crickets, silkworm drink and cookies made with cricket flour.

C. Hartmann et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 148–156 151

insect-based food items. Respondents indicated (1) their willing- ness to adopt insects as a meat substitute (Verbeke, 2015) as well as their willingness to eat (2) deep-fried silkworms,4 (3) deep-fried crickets, (4) cookies based on cricket flour and (5) chocolate chip cookies based on cricket flour. The questions related to deep-fried silkworms, deep-fried crickets and chocolate chip cookies based on cricket flour were displayed with a picture of the corresponding food item. Then, respondents indicated (6) their readiness to consume a drink containing silkworm protein. Respondents were informed prior to this question that silkworm protein is a by-product of silk production and has various health benefits, such as helping to lower cholesterol and slow the aging of the brain (e.g., Limpeanchob et al., 2010; Sasaki, Yamada, & Kato, 2000). All six items were answered on a ten-point scale ranging from 1 (‘do not agree at all’) to 10 (‘totally agree’). The extreme categories were verbally anchored; the other categories were only numerically anchored. The five items related to insects as a meat substitute, silkworms, crickets, silkworm drinks and cookies made with cricket flour were averaged into the willing- ness-to-eat-insects scale (a = .94).

2.3.3. Previous consumption of insects Participants responded to the following statements: ‘I regularly

eat insects’ (yes/no)5 and ‘I have eaten insects in the past’ (yes/no).6

Participants who answered ‘yes’ to at least one of the two questions were coded as having been exposed to insects in the past regardless of the duration or intensity of the exposure.

2.3.4. Attitudes Respondents’ explicit attitudes towards different insect-based

food items (i.e., deep-fried crickets, deep-fried silkworms) were assessed. The four different attitudes focussed on were nutritional value, taste, social acceptance and familiarity. Ratings were given on a 10-point bipolar adjective scale: low nutritional value – high nutritional value, disgusting – tasty, exotic – familiar and primitive – civilised. The two extreme categories were verbally anchored.

Analyses were performed using the SPSS statistics software package version 22 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Results with p < .01 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Willingness to eat insects

A two-way mixed ANOVA was conducted with country (Germany, China) as the between-subjects factor and readiness to eat insects in the different food contexts (insects as a meat sub- stitute, deep-fried silkworms, deep-fried crickets, drinks contain- ing silkworm protein, cookies based on cricket flour and chocolate chip cookies based on cricket flour) as the within- subjects factor. Subsequently, simple effects were analysed to examine whether readiness to eat the different foods varied both within and between the countries (see Table 2).

The mixed ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of country (F[1, 943] = 172.67; p < .001), which shows that respondents in China and Germany differ in their willingness to eat the various insect products. There was also a significant main effect of food

4 There are many species of edible insects (e.g., ants, termites and wasps consumed in different developmental stages (e.g., larvae and eggs) (Chen et al. 2009; Zhi-Yi, 1997). In the present study, we focus on two edible insect species crickets and silkworms. The silkworm is one of the most domesticated insects cultivated for thousands of years in China and prepared in many ways (e.g., steamed boiled and deep-fried) (De Foliart, 1995). Crickets are also common edible insects (Chen et al., 2009). The most common preparation methods for insects include deep frying, boiling, stewing, braising and roasting (Chen et al., 2009).

5 Regular insect consumption: China: 12.9%, Germany: 0%. 6 Previous insect consumption: China: 54.8%, Germany: 13.3%.

7 Tested interaction effects of country vs. food neophobia and food neophobia vs previous insect consumption did not explain a significant amount of variance in the willingness to eat.

) , : , ,

product (F[5, 4715] = 158.48; p < .001), which indicates that the willingness to eat differs significantly between the different food products. The interaction of country and food type was also signif- icant (F[5, 4715] = 57.94; p < .001), which indicates that the will- ingness to eat the different foods varied significantly in Germany and China. The most interesting results, however, are based on the simple effects analysis. The simple effects of food type within the level of country were significant (FGermany[5, 4715] = 102.84; p < .001 and FChina[5, 4715] = 112.95; p < .001), showing that par- ticipants’ ratings of their willingness to eat varied by food type within both Germany and China. The mean values and 95% CI for willingness to eat insects in the different food contexts indicate that, within Germany, the willingness to eat was significantly higher for processed food items (i.e., drinks and cookies) than for unprocessed food items (i.e., crickets and silkworms). In contrast, the willingness-to-eat ratings in China did not differ significantly between processed and unprocessed food items, with the excep- tion of silkworm protein, which was rated exceptionally high. The lowest rating occurred for crickets. In addition, the simple effects of country within the level of foods revealed that the will- ingness to eat significantly differed between countries for all foods (Table 2), with the differences being smaller for processed food items than for unprocessed food items.

3.2. The influence of socio-demographic and psychological variables

The impact of gender, age, education, country and food neopho- bia on the willingness to eat insects-based food was examined by multiple linear regression analyses (Table 3). Since a high percent- age of respondents in the Chinese sample indicated that they had already consumed insects in the past, previous insect consumption was included as control variable. Model 1 was significant and explained 33.4% of the variance in the willingness to eat insects- based food (F[6, 944] = 78.23; p < .001). Including food neophobia into the model helped to explain an additional 3.4% of the variance (F[7, 944] = 79.56; p < .001).7 The Chinese respondents indicated a higher willingness to eat insects-based food than the German respondents. Even though insect consumption is much more cultur- ally grounded in China than in Germany, the analysis revealed that

.

Table 2 Means values and 95% confidence intervals for willingness to eat the different insect-based foods. Simple effects indicate significant differences in willingness to eat between countries.

Willingness to eat Germany (N = 502) China (N = 443) Simple effects

M SD 95% CI M SD 95% CI F(df1, df2)

Insects as meat substitute 3.04 2.51 [2.82, 3.26] 5.51 2.77 [5.25, 5.77] F(1, 943) = 206.87*

Silkworm (deep-fried) 2.80 2.49 [2.58, 3.02] 5.69 3.20 [5.39, 5.99] F(1, 943) = 243.27*

Crickets (deep-fried) 2.78 2.53 [2.56, 3.01] 4.72 2.98 [4.45, 5.00] F(1, 943) = 117.19*

Silkworm drink 4.10 2.86 [3.85, 4.35] 6.96 2.45 [6.73, 7.19] F(1, 943) = 269.55*

Cricket cookies 3.93 3.03 [3.66, 4.20] 5.25 2.90 [4.98, 5.52] F(1, 943) = 46.66*

Cricket cookies choco chip 4.20 3.13 [3.92, 4.47] 5.45 2.94 [5.18, 5.73] F(1, 943) = 40.06*

Respondents indicated their willingness to eat on a ten-point scale ranging from 1 (‘do not agree at all’) to 10 (‘totally agree’). * p < .001.

Table 3 Linear hierarchical regression with willingness to eat insect-based food (scale) as dependent variable.

Variables Model 1 Model 2

B SE B b B SE B b

Constant 2.99* 0.42 4.89* 0.48 Gender (1 = men) 0.19 0.14 0.04 0.35 0.14 0.07 Age (years) �0.01 0.01 �0.04 �0.01 0.01 �0.04 Country (1 = China) 0.79* 0.19 0.15 1.16* 0.19 0.21 Education (low vs. high) 0.46 0.34 0.09 0.11 0.33 0.02 Education (low vs. middle) 0.18 0.33 0.03 0.05 0.32 0.01 Insects consumption

previously (1 = yes) 2.49* 0.18 0.45 2.19* 0.18 0.40

Food neophobia �0.59* 0.08 �0.21

R2 = .37 (N = 945, p < .001). * p < .001.

Table 4 Differences in attitudesa towards unprocessed insects in Germany and China.

Germany (N = 502) China (N = 443)

M SD 95% CI M SD 95% CI

Silkworm (deep-fried) Low – high nutritional

value 6.93 2.47 [6.71,

7.15] 8.31* 1.82 [8.14,

8.48] Disgusting – tasty 3.86 2.47 [3.64,

4.07] 6.31* 2.96 [6.04,

6.59] Exotic – familiar 2.66 2.18 [2.66,

2.85] 5.98* 2.96 [5.71,

6.26] Primitive – civilized 4.53 2.16 [4.34,

4.72] 5.70* 2.74 [5.44,

5.95]

Crickets (deep-fried) Low – high nutritional

value 6.54 2.63 [6.31,

6.77] 7.12* 2.24 [6.91,

7.33] Disgusting – tasty 3.70 2.56 [3.48,

3.93] 5.36* 2.90 [5.09,

5.63] Exotic – familiar 2.84 2.28 [2.64,

3.04] 5.09* 2.78 [4.83,

5.35] Primitive – civilized 4.40 2.28 [4.20,

4.60] 5.05* 2.66 [4.80,

5.30]

* p < .001 (independent t-test). a Ratings were given on a 10-point bipolar adjective scale: low nutritional value–

high nutritional value, disgusting–tasty, exotic–familiar, primitive–civilized. The two extreme categories were verbally anchored.

152 C. Hartmann et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 148–156

food neophobia plays a significant role in people’s willingness to eat in both countries. People in both countries who scored higher on the food neophobia scale were less likely to eat insect-based food. No significant effect was observed for gender, age and education.

Attitudes related to the different unprocessed insect-based foods (i.e., deep-fried crickets and deep-fried silkworms) were tested for significant differences between countries (independent t-test, Table 4). Significant differences were observed for nutri- tional value, taste, familiarity and social acceptance for both food items, with more positive attitudes reported by the Chinese. In order to examine whether the four assessed attitudes towards deep-fried crickets and deep-fried silkworms are related to a par- ticipant’s willingness to eat them, a hierarchical linear regression was conducted (Table 5). The dependent variable was the willing- ness to eat deep-fried crickets or deep-fried silkworms. Gender, country, previous insect consumption and food neophobia were entered into the model in the first step and the four attitudes in the second step.

Model 1 was significant for both insect species (Fsilkworm[4, 942] = 164.86; p < .001 and Fcricket[4, 940] = 99.63; p < .001). Country, gen- der, food neophobia and previous insect consumption explained 41% of the variance in the willingness to eat silkworms and 30% of the variance in the willingness to eat crickets. Entering the four attitudes into the models helped to explain an additional 30% of the variance in the willingness to eat crickets and 25% of the variance in the willingness to eat silkworms. Good taste expectation is the most important predictor for silkworms and crickets over and above food neophobia, previous consumption and country. Social acceptance was positively associated with the consumption of both insect species as well, which indicates that the more people consider insect-based food as civilised rather than primitive, the more likely it is that they would eat them.

We also tested for interaction effects for country and the different attitudes. However, the interactions did not help to explain a satisfactory amount of variance, and hence we decided to present the simpler model. Overall, the models predicting the willingness to eat crickets and silkworms based on psychological factors, country and previous consumption of insects helped to explain a substantial amount of variance (66% for silkworms and 60% for crickets).

4. Discussion

The results of this study indicate that country, food neophobia and previous insect consumption significantly predicted the will- ingness to eat processed and unprocessed insects. Previous studies showed that education has no impact on peoples’ willingness to adopt insects as a meat substitute (Schösler et al., 2012; Verbeke, 2015), and the present study’s results are in line with these find- ings. In contrast to previous findings (Verbeke, 2015), age was not associated with the willingness to eat insects. In accordance with previous research, women in the present study were less likely to accept insects as food, probably because women have higher insect aversions than men (Kellert, 1993). After we con- trolled for the different attitudes towards insects, however, the effect disappeared.

Table 5 Hierarchical regression predicting willingness to eat unprocessed insects based on socio-demographic variables, food-neophobia and attitudes towards the corresponding insect as food (N = 945).

Predictors Silkworm (deep-fried)a Crickets (deep-fried)b

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b B SE B b

Constant 4.00* 0.29 0.16 0.35 3.67** 0.29 0.38 0.31 Gender (1 = men) 0.45* 0.16 0.07 0.26 0.12 0.04 0.48* 0.16 0.08 0.27 0.12 0.05 Country (1 = China) 1.35** 0.20 0.21 0.55** 0.17 0.09 0.69** 0.20 0.12 0.44* 0.15 0.08 Insects consumption previously (1 = yes) 2.96** 0.20 0.45 1.31** 0.17 0.20 2.49** 0.20 0.42 1.14** 0.16 0.19 Food neophobia �0.60** 0.09 �0.18 �0.20* 0.07 �0.06 �0.50** 0.09 �0.16 �0.14 0.07 �0.05 Nutritional value 0.02 0.03 0.01 �0.01 0.03 �0.01 Taste 0.55** 0.03 0.51 0.60** 0.04 0.59 Familiarity 0.03 0.03 0.02 �0.06 0.03 �0.05 Social acceptance 0.15** 0.04 0.12 0.11* 0.04 0.10

R2silkworm = .66 (N = 943, p < .001); R 2 crickets = .60 (N = 941, p < .001).

a,b Cases with standardized residual > 3.5 were excluded from the analysis (na = 2, nb = 4). * p < .01.

** p < .001.

C. Hartmann et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 148–156 153

As expected, our results showed that the Chinese respondents indicated a higher willingness to eat all insect-based foods com- pared to the German respondents. Even though eating insects is not a common food practice in China anymore (Zhi-Yi, 1997), the vast majority of the Chinese respondents reported that they had already consumed insects in the past; hence, they seem to be much more familiar with the idea of eating insects. Independent of whether or not people had consumed insects in the past, food neo- phobia is a significant predictor for people’s willingness to eat insects. Contrary to our expectations, the impact of food neophobia on the willingness to eat was equally high in both countries (i.e., the interaction was not significant). In line with previous findings from European consumers, food neophobia is a barrier for the establishment of novel foods in general (Siegrist et al., 2013) and the consumption of insects in particular (Verbeke, 2015). With regard to China, the results suggest that eating insects is experi- enced as an unfamiliar and uncommon food practice, too. Even though eating insects is anchored in tradition in China, food neophobia that by definition encompasses the rejection of non- traditional ethnic food (‘non-Chinese food’ in the present study) is associated with the rejection of food that deviates from the present cultural norms in China. Thus, there seems to be some ambiguity with regard to eating insects in China.

Adding familiarity to an insect-based food is likely to result in higher acceptance of the product. In particular, the Germans were more willing to eat insects incorporated into familiar foods and fla- vour profiles (e.g., cookies). As discussed in the introduction, acceptance is likely to be higher when the insect-origin of the pro- duct is less obvious, which holds true for the silkworm drink and cricket cookies in the present study. In contrast to Germany, there were no substantial differences in the willingness to eat processed and unprocessed items in China. One explanation could be that cookies are considered a Western food and might not be that famil- iar to the Chinese. Products from another food category that are more familiar to the Chinese might have resulted in a higher will- ingness to eat the processed items. Additionally, the Chinese might consider the combination of insects with a sweet-tasting food unu- sual and might favour more savoury varieties of insect-based food.

The highest willingness-to-eat rating in the Chinese sample was observed for the silkworm drink that promises an additional health benefit. A silkworm drink might be a more familiar food than cook- ies for the Chinese. Alternatively, the Chinese held strong beliefs rooted in tradition regarding the health effects of food (Anderson, 1988). Food that is considered to provide positive health benefits might encourage the Chinese to accept them, probably

independent of taste expectations. For the Germans, however, it seems not to make much of a difference whether the processed insect-based food promises additional health benefits or hedonic pleasure in the willingness-to-eat ratings.

Respondents in the German sample rated silkworms and crick- ets less favourably with regard to taste, nutritional value, familiar- ity and social acceptance. In particular, low taste expectations were held for these unprocessed insects. Various factors drive people’s food choices and expected sensory appeal is not necessarily the main driver (Wang, Steur, Gellynck, & Verbeke, 2015). However, perceived sensory properties play a significant role in food accep- tance, and expectations of good taste are a powerful determinant for people’s willingness to eat (Pliner & Hobden, 1992; Pliner et al., 1993). Unsurprisingly, perceived taste emerged as the stron- gest predictor for the willingness to eat crickets and silkworms in relation to the other examined predictors, regardless of food neo- phobia, nationality and past insect consumption.

Social acceptance was also a significant predictor for willing- ness to eat, although less so than taste. There is reason to believe that the eating of insects is considered uncivilised and primitive because the practice is thought to belong to the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution (De Foliart, 1999; Looy et al., 2014; Van Huis et al., 2013) and because insects were an important nutri- tional source in times of low economic wealth in China (Harris, 1998; Yen, 2009). People who consider insects a primitive food source that are not culturally and sociably acceptable are more likely to reject them.

The perceived nutritional value of crickets and silkworms was not a significant predictor for willingness to eat in the regression analysis. Other researchers who assessed the acceptance of eating insects found no effect of health interest on the readiness to adopt insects as a meat substitute (Verbeke, 2015). They concluded that people are not convinced of the additional health benefits of the consumption of insects in comparison to meat. The results of the present study suggest that perceived nutritional value is not the most important barrier that needs to be overcome. In a study by McFarlane and Pliner (1997), only those people who are interested in nutrition and health indicated a higher willingness to eat novel food after receiving health information. Consequently, it seems unlikely that simply informing people about the high nutritional value of insects will result in a widespread acceptance of insects as food.

Surprisingly, familiarity was not a significant predictor for will- ingness to eat. Familiarity was measured as the opposite of exotic on the bipolar adjective scale. One explanation for the observed

154 C. Hartmann et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 148–156

results might be that exotic food is associated with food from another country, such as exotic fruits (e.g., bananas). This attribute seems to be ambivalent and may not necessarily reveal a negative affect and rejection. In further studies, it might be worth modifying the scale by using the terms exotic/native or familiar/unfamiliar to reduce ambiguity.

Overall, results of the present study suggest that high scores for food neophobia and negative taste expectation and low scores for social acceptance and no previous experience with insect con- sumption lead to a lower willingness to eat unprocessed insects (i.e., crickets and silkworms) in both countries. Following this, an advertisement of insects as a food source solely based on its nutri- tive advantages is unlikely to be an effective strategy to reach var- ious consumer groups. Instead, consumers need to be convinced by the hedonic characteristics and social acceptability of insects as food, and marketing strategies should focus on taste education and public image modelling. Insect-based food might attract con- sumers who seek new food choice options and who constantly search for new, adventurous taste experiences (De Boer, Schösler, & Boersema, 2013). However food neophobic behaviour in con- sumers needs to be considered because it prevents the incorpora- tion of novel foods into an individual’s diet. The food industry should focus on processed insect-based foods within a familiar product category or flavour profile, which would presumably reduce neophobic reactions and lead to a higher willingness to eat.

The spread of Japanese cuisine in Europe shows that ‘ethnic’ food, thought to be unfamiliar, exotic and unpalatable in the begin- ning, can become a popular food for the young and eventually a convenience food in the super market (Cwiertka, 2005). Japanese cuisine’s healthy image, high aesthetics, clever marketing strate- gies and incorporation of Western food culture led to its wide- spread acceptance and establishment. The safety evaluation and thus the acceptance of insects as food by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are still pending. Once insects are more widely available in supermarkets or delicacy shops and consumers are exposed to insects as food, through restaurants, snack bars or catering services, for example, negative responses and prejudice are likely to decrease.

When thinking critically about the potential of insects as a sustainable food source in Europe, some considerations need to be addressed. Insects might present a strategy to solve global food shortages. In regions or countries where animal protein is scarce and expensive, insects might increase food security and help to prevent protein-based malnutrition. However, food secu- rity is not an issue in most parts of Europe, so there does not seem to be a necessity to consume insects to ensure an adequate protein supply. The major potential benefit for Western countries in eating insects might be the lower environmental impact of production. However, as concluded by other authors as well (Verbeke, 2015), it seems unlikely that insects will find their way into the European diet as a meat substitute. The hedonically motivated meat consumer, whose attention to the environmental impact of food choices is low and who believes that meat is nutritious and healthy, is less likely to adopt insects as a meat substitute (Verbeke, 2015). Moreover, consumer who prefer con- ventional meals with meat as the dominant component (e.g., a cutlet, potatoes and a vegetable) are generally less attracted by meat-substitution options (Schösler et al., 2012). Nevertheless, in searching for environmentally friendly and ethically acceptable alternatives to conventional animal protein, processed insects and insect protein might be a promising strategy. Additionally, subgroups, such as people with increased nutritive requirements, might benefit from protein-dense insect-based food; these peo- ple’s consumption might be highly motivated by the health effects.

4.1. Limitations and further directions

A limitation of this study is related to the mode of data collec- tion. Quota samples were used and data were collected from an Internet survey. The majority of the Chinese respondents live in cities, where they are exposed to a higher variety of food and changes in food habits are expected to occur faster. People living in rural areas may have different attitudes towards insects as food. Another aspect to consider is that in some cultures, such as Asian cultures, people might favour answering on the middle of the scale (Hui & Triandis, 1989). However, when cross-cultural differences are large—as in the present study—the influence of response bias on the significance of the differences has been found to be small (Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1995). Additionally, most of the response scales were even-numbered, which reduces the central tendencies of the respondents (Si & Cullen, 1998).

Willingness to eat a sweet alternative and an alternative that promises additional health benefits was tested in the present study. People might be less resistant when introduced to sweet varieties of insect-based food (e.g., cookies), because of humans’ innate preference for sweet-tasting foods (Drewnowski, 1997). Apart from a sweet flavour or functional benefit, it is unclear whether Europeans’ willingness to eat processed insect-based food is equally high for a savoury variety of processed insects (e.g., cricket chips). Further studies might test this. Moreover, further studies might examine the relationship between hedonic responses and emotional reactions to insect-based food. For exam- ple, the unfamiliar taste of insect-based food might elicit rejection, and taste neophobia could occur. People might strongly reject the insect food because the unfamiliar taste incites disgust. Furthermore, safety concerns (e.g., disease carrying), risk percep- tion and perceived food quality are all aspects that have not yet been examined in relation to willingness to eat; these factors are worth exploring in further studies.

The view of insects and the attitudes towards them are socio- culturally determined. Elicitors of rejection, however, seem to vary by species within China. Chinese respondents indicated a higher willingness to eat silkworms, and they hold more favourable atti- tudes towards silkworms compared to crickets. In the German sample, no substantial differences were observed, in terms of atti- tudes towards and the willingness to eat, between silkworms and crickets. It has been postulated that Westerners categorise all insects into one broad stereotype (‘bugs’) associated with potential threats (Kellert, 1993; Looy et al., 2014). However, we only tested for two popular edible insect species, and it seems worth exploring whether Europeans have more favourable attitudes towards any particular insect species. For example, cockroaches might be asso- ciated with dirt and contamination, while butterflies or bamboo caterpillars might be perceived as clean. A better image of the insect and a more appealing appearance might be beneficial in overcoming rejection.

Instead of asking about people’s willingness to eat a particular meal with insects, we asked about their willingness to eat insects independently from the meal context (e.g., snack food) or format (e.g., traditional meal composition). We can therefore rule out that different conceptualisations of the meal context or format have influenced our results. Nevertheless, it would be worth exploring whether insects receive higher acceptance ratings when presented as a snack food as opposed to a dominant part of a main meal. Additionally, consumers low in experiences with insects as food might make inferences about taste based on visual and contextual presentations of the food (Shan et al., 2015). Consequently, insects presented in different meal formats and contexts might elicit dif- ferent associations and taste expectations and thus might lead to different levels of consumers’ willingness to eat.

C. Hartmann et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 148–156 155

With regard to traditional Chinese cuisine, meat was not a con- sistent component; rather, it was used as a flavouring or condi- ment (Nam, Jo, & Lee, 2010). The nutrition transition in China has been accompanied by increases in the consumption of animal pro- tein, including meat (Zhai et al., 2009). Today, meat is partially incorporated into traditional Chinese meals or consumed in a typ- ically Western style. Nevertheless, Chinese respondents might have interpreted the questions related to their readiness to substi- tute meat with insects differently than the German respondents.

5. Conclusion

Attempts to establish insects as a nutritive source and meat substitute in Western cultures face the obstacle of widespread internalised aversions and negative attitudes towards insects (De Foliart, 1999), which are reflected in the low willingness to eat rat- ings. Overcoming attitudinal barriers, such as negative taste expec- tations and neophobic reactions, through familiarity enhancement and taste education is paramount to establishing insects as a food source. The biggest challenge to the consumption of insects is the strong, socio-culturally defined public bias towards insects. As the widespread acceptance of other ethnic foods has shown, insect-based foods and dishes that are Westernised and adapted to European flavour profiles, textural preferences and food aesthet- ics are more likely to find their way into consumers’ diets.

References

Anderson, E. N. (1988). The food of China. Yale University Press. Barrena, R., & Sánchez, M. (2013). Neophobia, personal consumer values and novel

food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 72–84. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.06.007.

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. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12014.

Chen, X., Feng, Y., & Chen, Z. (2009). Common edible insects and their utilization in China. Entomological Research, 39(5), 299–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1748-5967.2009.00237.x.

Chen, C., Lee, S.-y., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6(3), 170–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9280.1995.tb00327.x.

Choe, J. Y., & Cho, M. S. (2011). Food neophobia and willingness to try non- traditional foods for Koreans. Food Quality and Preference, 22(7), 671–677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.05.002.

Cwiertka, K. J. (2005). From ethnic to hip: Circuits of Japanese cuisine in Europe. Food & Foodways, 13(4), 241–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 07409710590931294.

De Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Boersema, J. J. (2013). Motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or ‘‘hybrid’’ meat. Food Quality and Preference, 28, 32–35. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.07.008.

De Foliart, G. R. (1995). Edible insects as minilivestock. Biodiversity and Conversation, 4, 306–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00055976.

De Foliart, G. R. (1999). Insects as food: Why the western attitude is important. Annual Review of Entomology, 44(80), 21–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.ento.44.1.21.

Dovey, T. M., Staples, P. a., Gibson, E. L., & Halford, J. C. G. (2008). Food neophobia and ‘‘picky/fussy’’ eating in children: A review. Appetite, 50(2-3), 181–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.009.

Drewnowski, a. (1997). Taste preferences and food intake. Annual Review of Nutrition, 17, 237–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.17.1.237.

Fallon, A. E., & Rozin, P. (1983). The psychological bases of food rejections by humans. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 13(1), 15–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 03670244.1983.9990728.

Harris, M. (1998). Good to eat: Riddles of food and culture. New York: Waveland Press. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1989). Effects of culture and response format on extreme

response style. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(3), 296–309. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022189203004.

Kellert, S. R. (1993). Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conservation Biology, 7(4), 845–855.

Limpeanchob, N., Trisat, K., Duangjai, A., Tiyaboonchai, W., Pongcharoen, S., & Sutheerawattananonda, M. (2010). Sericin reduces serum cholesterol in rats and cholesterol uptake into Caco-2 cells. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58, 12519–12522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf103157w.

Lockwood, J. (2013). The infested mind: Why humans fear, loathe, and love insects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Looy, H., Dunkel, F. V., & Wood, J. R. (2014). How then shall we eat? Insect-eating attitudes and sustainable foodways. Agriculture and Human Values, 31(1), 131–141.

Martins, Y., & Pliner, P. (2006). ‘‘Ugh! That’s disgusting!’’: Identification of the characteristics of foods underlying rejections based on disgust. Appetite, 46, 75–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.09.001.

McFarlane, T., & Pliner, P. (1997). Increasing willingness to taste novel foods: Effects of nutrition and taste information. Appetite, 28, 227–238. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1006/appe.1996.0075.

Megido Rudy, C., 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. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/joss.12077.

Miller, S. B. (2004). Disgust the gatekeeper emotion. New York/London: Routledge. Nam, K. C., Jo, C., & Lee, M. (2010). Meat products and consumption culture in the

East. Meat Science, 86(1), 95–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04. 026.

Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). The components of food acceptance and their measurement. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 5(2), 171–175.

Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19, 105–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0195- 6663(92)90014-W.

Pliner, P., Pelchat, M. L., & Grabski, M. (1993). Reduction of food neophobia by exposure to novel food. Appetite, 20(2), 111–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ appe.1993.1013.

Raats, M., Daillant-Spinnler, B., Deliza, R., & McFie, H. (1995). Food choice and the consumer. In D. W. Marshall (Ed.), Food choice and the consumer (1sth ed., pp. 239–259). Glassgow: Blackie Academic & Professional.

Raudenbush, B., & Frank, R. A. (1999). Assessing food neophobia: The role of stimulus familiarity. Appetite, 32(2), 261–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0229.

Ritchey, P. N., Frank, R. a., Hursti, U.-K., & Tuorila, H. (2003). Validation and cross- national comparison of the food neophobia scale (FNS) using confirmatory factor analysis. Appetite, 40(2), 163–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195- 6663(02)00134-4.

Rozin, P. (1990). Acquisition of stable food preferences. Nutrition Reviews, 48(2), 106–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.1990.tb02912.x.

Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. (1980). The psychological categorization of foods and non- foods: A preliminary taxonomy of food rejections. Appetite, 1(3), 193–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(80)80027-4.

Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94(1), 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.23.

Rozin, P. (1996). The socio-cultural context of eating and food choice. In H. L. Meiselman & H. J. H. MacFie (Eds.), Food choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 83–104). London: Chapman & Hall. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613- 1221-5.

Rozin, P. (1988). Cultural approaches to human food preferences. In J. E. Morley, M. B. Sterman, & J. H. Walsh (Eds.), Nutritional modulation of neural function (pp. 137–153). San Diego: Academic Press San Diego.

Sasaki, M., Yamada, H., & Kato, N. (2000). Consumption of silk protein, sericin elevates intestinal absorption of zinc, iron, magnesium and calcium in rats. Nutrition Research, 20(10), 1505–1511.

Schösler, H., de Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2012). Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite, 58(1), 39–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.009.

Shan, H., Tan, G., Fischer, A. R. H., Tinchan, P., Stieger, M., Steenbekkers, L. P. A., et al. (2015). Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Quality and Preferences, 42, 78–89.

Si, S., & Cullen, J. (1998). Response categories and potential cultural bias: Effects of an explicit middle point in cross-cultural surveys. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(3), 218–230.

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.

Stallberg-White, C., & Pliner, P. (1999). The effect of flavor principles on willingness to taste novel foods. Appetite, 33(2), 209–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ appe.1999.0263.

Tuorila, H. (1997). Attitudes as determinants of food consumption. Encyclopedia of Human Biology, 1, 599–606.

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950- 3293(00)00025-2.

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 linking for novel and familiar foods. Appetite, 23(3), 231–246.

Van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Vantomme, P. (2013). Edible insects. Future prospects for food and feed security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (Vol. 171). Rome: BioOne.

Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E. J., Gellynck, X., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite, 62, 7–16. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.11.003.

Verbeke, W. (2015). Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 147–155. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.008.

156 C. Hartmann et al. / Food Quality and Preference 44 (2015) 148–156

Verkerk, M. C., Tramper, J., van Trijp, J. C. M., & Martens, D. E. (2007). Insect cells for human food. Biotechnology Advances, 25(2), 198–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.biotechadv.2006.11.004.

Wang, O., Steur, H. De., Gellynck, X., & Verbeke, W. (2015). Motives for consumer choice of traditional food and European food in mainland China. Appetite, 87, 143–151.

Yen, A. L. (2009). Edible insects: Traditional knowledge or western phobia? Entomological Research, 39(5), 289–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748- 5967.2009.00239.x.

Zhai, F., Wang, H., Du, S., He, Y., Wang, Z., Ge, K., et al. (2009). Prospective study on nutrition transition in China. Nutrition Reviews, 67(29), 56–61. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00160.x.

Zhang, C.-X., Tang, X.-D., & Cheng, J.-A. (2008). The utilization and industrialization of insect resources in China. Entomological Research, 38, 38–47. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5967.2008.00173.x.

Zhi-Yi, L. (1997). Insects as food in China. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 36(2–4), 201–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03670244.1997.9991515.