4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

The effects of consumer knowledge on the willingness to buy insect food: An exploratory cross-regional study in Northern and Central Europe

Journal

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
Volume 70, Issue -, Pages 1-10

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.006

Keywords

Insect food; Subjective knowledge; Objective knowledge; Product-related experiences; Willingness to buy; Food neophobia

Funding

  1. Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation (Tekes)
  2. KAUTE Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This exploratory study investigates how consumer knowledge influences willingness to buy (WTB) insect food products. A comparative approach between Northern and Central Europe is adopted to explore whether consumer knowledge has different effects on WTB across cultural areas in Europe. The study analyses consumer survey data collected in Finland, Sweden, Germany, and the Czech Republic (N = 887) with structural equation modelling and multi-group models. The results suggest that the effects of distinct types of knowledge and food neophobia on WTB are mainly indirect and mediated by general attitudes, with these effects differing significantly between Northern and Central Europe. In Northern Europe, the consumers' objective and subjective knowledge of insect food predict WTB as much as previous product-related experiences and food neophobia. In Central Europe, product-related experiences and food neophobia are superior predictors to subjective and objective knowledge. Moreover, consumers in Northern Europe generally have a more positive attitude towards insect food than consumers in Central Europe. Possible explanations for the regional differences are discussed, and implications are suggested on how the region-specific features should be regarded when developing consumer education and promotion strategies for insect food. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available