Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shape of my likes: how explicit and implicit reference frames shape the liking of insect-based protein bar

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Food Science and Biotechnology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A high-protein bar incorporating mealworm powder was developed. The impact of explicit and implicit frame formation on the acceptance and sensory characteristics of this target bar was investigated by comparing it with four commercial protein bars for a total of 275 consumers. To construct the explicit frame, consumers watched a video clip about each frame (environment/nutrition/meal replacement) just before the evaluation. In the no-explicit-frame group, five protein bars were evaluated without video priming. The control group tasted the target sample only without any information. The implicit framework formed during the progress of exposure to various protein bar samples had a greater influence than explicit cues on the acceptance of the target. Promoting the nutritional and environmental merits of edible insects was not sufficient to improve the acceptability of the insect-incorporated protein bar. The liking decreased significantly with the inclusion of the commercial samples during the progress of sequential monadic serving.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson RE. Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. Journal of Marketing Research. 10: 38-44 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bello A, Calvo Dopico D. The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: An empirical application for beef. Food Quality and Preference. 11: 229-238 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boustani P, Mitchell VW. Cereal bars: A perceptual, chemical and sensory analysis. British Food Journal. 92(5): 17-22 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caparros Megido R et al. Edible insects acceptance by B elgian consumers: promising attitude for entomophagy development. Journal of Sensory Studies. 29(1): 14-20 (2013)

  • DeFoliart GR. Insects as human food: Gene DeFoliart discusses some nutritional and economic aspects. Crop Protection. 11: 395-399 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Houwer J. What are implicit measures and why are we using them. The handbook of implicit cognition and addiction. 11-28 (2006)

  • Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. How to feed the world in 2050 (2009). https://www.fao.org/3/ak542e/ak542e00.htm

  • Galak J, Redden JP. The Properties and antecedents of hedonic decline. Annual Review of Psychology. 69: 1-25 (2018)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grunert KG, Hieke S, Wills, J. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy. 44: 177-189 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann C, Shi J, Giusto A, Siegrist M. The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Quality and Preference. 44: 148-156 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helson H. Adaptation-level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. The American Journal of Psychology. 60: 1-29 (1947)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppert K, Mai R, Zahn S, Hoffmann S, Rohm H. Integrating sensory evaluation in adaptive conjoint analysis to elaborate the conflicting influence of intrinsic and extrinsic attributes on food choice. Appetite. 59: 949-955 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horgen KB, Brownell KD. Comparison of price change and health message interventions in promoting healthy food choices. Health Psychology. 21: 505-512 (2002)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Inman JJ. The role of sensory-specific satiety in attribute-level variety seeking. Journal of Consumer Research. 28(1): 105-120 (2001)

  • Jaeger SR. Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Quality and Preference. 17: 132-144 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen M, Busch C, Rödiger M, Hamm U. Motives of consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite. 105:643-51 (2016)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson J, Vickers Z. Effect of flavor and macronutrient composition of food servings on liking, hunger and subsequent intake. Appetite. 21(1): 25-39 (1993)

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A. The psychology of preferences. Scientific American. 246(1): 160-173 (1982)

  • Kim G, Oh JE, Cho MS. An exploratory research for development of Korean protein bar-analysis on labeling of commercial protein bars in Korea and USA. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association. 18: 648-657 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko MJ, Choi YJ, Choi SB. A study on the food consumption culture of young generation. Consumer Culture Research. 20: 49-78 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J. The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 78: 204-231 (1999)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lensvelt EJS, Steenbekkers LPA. Exploring consumer acceptance of entomophagy: A aurvey and experiment in Australia and the Netherlands. Ecology of Food and Nutrition. 53: 543-561 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li M, Chung SJ. Flavor principle as an implicit frame: Its effect on the acceptance of instant noodles in a cross-cultural context. Food Quality and Preference. 93: 104293 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi A, Vecchio R, Borrello M, Caracciolo F, Cembalo L. Willingness to pay for insect-based food: The role of information and carrier. Food Quality and Preference. 72: 177-187. (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mermelstein NH. Top executives analyze food R&D in 2001 and beyond. Food Technology (Chicago). 55(9): 36-58 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Food Labeling Standards, Ministry of Food and Drug Safety Notice. (2019) Retreieved August 12 from https://www.mfds.go.kr/brd/m_211/view.do?seq=14378.

  • Nachay K. Pack a product development punch with protein. Food Technology. 69(4): 93-94 (2015)

  • Oonincx DGAB, van Itterbeeck J, Heetkamp MJW, van den Brand H, van Loon JJA, van Huis A. An exploration on greenhouse gas and ammonia production by insect species suitable for animal or human consumption. PLOS ONE. 5: e14445 (2010)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Orsi L, Voege LL, Stranieri S. Eating edible insects as sustainable food? Exploring the determinants of consumer acceptance in Germany. Food Research International. 125: 108573 (2019)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Park J, Motoki K, Velasco C, Spence C. Celebrity insects: Exploring the effect of celebrity endorsement on people’s willingness to eat insect-based foods. Food Quality and Preference. 97: 104473 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piqueras-Fiszman B, Spence C. Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food Quality and Preference. 40A:165-179 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblatt DH, Dixon H, Wakefield M, Bode S. Evaluating the influence of message framing and graphic imagery on perceptions of food product health warnings. Food Quality and Preference. 77: 32-42 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruby MB. Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite. 58:141-50 (2012)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rumpold BA, Schï OK. Nutritional composition and safety aspects of edible insects. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research. 57: 802-823 (2013)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan AE et al. The top ten food trends. Food Technology (Chicago). 69(4): 24-43 (2013)

  • Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite. 25: 267-284 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tan HSG, Fischer ARH, Tinchan P, Stieger M, Steenbekkers LPA, van Trijp HCM. Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Quality and Preference. 42: 78-89 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan HSG., Fischer ARH, van Trijp, HCM, Stieger M. 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 (2016).

  • Tan HSG, Verbaan YT, Stieger M. How will better products improve the sensory-liking and willingness to buy insect-based foods? Food Research International. 92: 95-105 (2017)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • The World Bank. Population, total. (2020). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL

  • Tuorila H, Lähteenmäki L, Pohjalainen L, Lotti L. Food neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods. Food Quality and Preference. 12: 29-37 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. The 17 Goals. Sustainable Development. (2020). https://sdgs.un.org/goals

  • Verbeke W. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference. 39: 147-155 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinnari M, Tapio P. Sustainability of diets: From concepts to governance. Ecological Economics. 74: 46-54 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardle J, Haase AM, Steptoe A, Nillapun M, Jonwutiwes K, Bellisle F. Gender differences in food choice: The contribution of health beliefs and dieting. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 27: 107-116 (2004)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E. J. Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Chemistry. 2(2): 149-168 (1949)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, J., Hwang, J. S., Goo, T. W., & Yun, E. Y. (2013). Comparative analysis of nutritional and harmful components in Korean and Chinese mealworms (Tenebrio molitor). Journal of the Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition, 42(2), 249-254.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) [Grant Number 2019R1A2C100366213].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nutritional Science and Food Management, Ewha Womans University, 52, Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03760, Republic of Korea

    HyoIn Jang & Seo-Jin Chung

Authors
  1. HyoIn Jang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seo-Jin Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seo-Jin Chung.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jang, H., Chung, SJ. Shape of my likes: how explicit and implicit reference frames shape the liking of insect-based protein bar. Food Sci Biotechnol 32, 1193–1203 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-023-01257-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-023-01257-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation