Food Quality and Preference 79 (2020) 103758

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Consumer acceptance of blending plant-based ingredients into traditional T

meat-based foods: Evidence from the meat-mushroom blend
Mark Lang
The University of Tampa, 401 W Kennedy Blvd, Tampa, FL 33606, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: There is a growing trend towards shifting from meat-centric to plant-forward diets both within industry and
Meat substitution society today. It is happening to improve impacts on the environment, public health, and animal welfare.
Plant-forward Aligned with this, many new plant-based alternatives to traditional meat based foods and diets are being in-
Food values troduced. Research has focused on testing sensory characteristics and appeal with consumers. The current study
Consumer acceptance
responds to calls in the literature to extend learning about plant-forward foods, beyond sensory testing, and into
consumer acceptance and adoption of these products. The objectives of this study are to examine the nature of
consumer response to blending plant-based ingredients (mushrooms) into traditional meat-based foods and to
understand the individual lifestyle and motivational differences that influence this response. Data is obtained
through an online consumer survey and descriptive and structural equation analyses are employed. Results find
that consumer acceptance is influenced greatly by their assessment of plant-based foods’ taste, health, sus-
tainability, cost, and novelty. Results also find that assessment is influenced by individual differences in food
values and lifestyle including healthy eating and food innovativeness. Contributions to marketing theory include
the integration of new constructs with existing theory to establish new relationships that better explain and
predict the acceptance of blending plant-based ingredients into meat-based foods. Understanding consumer
context and motivations for adopting these products has important consequences for marketing positioning,
messaging and promotion.

1. Introduction behaviors and products range through replacing meat completely or in

There is a consensus across science, industry, government, and
NGOs that increasing the proportion of plant-based foods in diets will
have beneficial impact on environmental sustainability (Hartmann &
Siegrist, 2017), public health (Cheskin et al., 2008; Zhang, Xiao,
Samaraweera, Lee, & Ahn, 2010), and animal welfare (Graça, Calheiros,
& Oliveira, 2015). At the same time, there is an emerging societal trend
toward reducing meat consumption through a shift to more plant-based
or plant-forward diets and foods (Elzerman, Hoek, Van Boekel, &
Luning, 2011; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017; Spencer, Cienfuegos, &
Guinard, 2018). For example, the trade association for the U.S. meat
industry recently acknowledged this shift, reporting that two-thirds of
meat shoppers are now seeking these better-for-me foods (FMI, 2019).
When considering people, behaviors, and products, the plant-based
shift can be represented on a continuum of diet change and corre-
sponding food alternatives and forms (Hoek et al., 2011;
Sirimuangmoon, Lee, Guinard, & Miller, 2016). On such a continuum,
people can be classified as meat avoiders, meat reducers, and regular
meat consumers (Derbyshire, 2017). Correspondingly, dietary
some menus, substituting meat-based dishes with plant-based alter-
natives, and reducing meat consumption (Table 1).
Of these behavioral changes, methods to reduce meat consumption,
rather than replacing or fully substituting meat in diets, could have the
greatest potential appeal to the mainstream population. Consequently,
it could have the greatest positive impact on the environment and so-
ciety. On the one hand, it is generally difficult for the majority of people
to replace or substitute meat from their diet and shift to a fully or
largely plant-based diet (Graça, Oliveira, & Calheiros, 2015; Hartmann
& Siegrist, 2017; Spencer et al., 2018). According to the Economist
(2018, p. 24) for example, “for every active American vegetarian or
vegan there are more than five people who say they have abandoned
such a diet.” Adding to the difficulty in shifting diets, consumer ac-
ceptance of meat substitutes is low. This is primarily because they are
viewed as unappealing and unfamiliar (Elzerman et al., 2011; Graça,
Oliveira et al., 2015; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017; Hoek et al., 2011;
Spencer et al., 2018).
Reduced meat consumption, on the other hand, requires the least
change in behavior, so could have the greatest appeal to and

E-mail address: mlang@ut.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103758
Received 18 April 2019; Received in revised form 12 August 2019; Accepted 13 August 2019
Available online 17 August 2019
0950-3293/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Lang Food Quality and Preference 79 (2020) 103758

Table 1
Continuum of diet change and foods to reduce meat consumption.
Diet change Meat avoiders Meat reducers Meat consumers

Replace meat completely in diet with legumes, vegetables, grains Mandatory for vegetarians and
vegans
Replace meat in some menus with legumes, vegetables, grains Not an option for vegetarians
and vegans
Substitute meat-based menu items with plant-based alternative Appeals to vegetarians and
meat products (full substitution) vegans
Reduce proportion of meat in meat-based menu items with plant- Not an option for vegetarians
based ingredients (partial substitution) and vegans
Reduce serving size of meat-based menu items Not an option for vegetarians
and vegans
Not considered by semi-vegetarians
and flexitarians
Appeals to semi-vegetarians and
flexitarians
Appeals to semi-vegetarians and
flexitarians
Appeals to semi-vegetarians and
flexitarians
Appeals to semi-vegetarians and
flexitarians
Not considered by omnivores
Seldom, if ever, considered by
omnivores
Infrequent consideration for a few
omnivores
Potential option for a subset of
omnivores
Potential option for a subset of
omnivores

penetration of the mainstream population (Spencer et al., 2018). Ac-
cording to Schösler, De Boer, and Boersema (2012), “the most pro-
mising pathways to encourage large-scale shifts towards more plant-
based diets are likely the ones that do not challenge existing meal
formats and hierarchies, in which meat occupies a central role.” As an
alternative to the typical ‘all or nothing’ framing of meat consumption
behavior, meat reduction is an interesting third option for the main-
stream consumer. They can meaningfully reduce meat consumption
without having to completely eliminate meat from their diet. For ex-
ample, decreasing the proportion of meat in meat-based menu items is a
reduction strategy that is easier for people to adopt and maintain
(Elzerman et al., 2011; Spencer et al., 2018).
Partially substituting meat through blending (or mixing) plant-
based ingredients into popular meat-based dishes is an emerging
strategy to reduce the proportion of meat consumed (Spencer &
Guinard, 2018). Meat dishes that are popular with and consumed fre-
quently by the mainstream population include burgers, tacos, meatloaf,
and meatballs (Guinard et al., 2016). The attraction of blending foods is
that their premise is not based on eliminating meat from the diet, rather
making simple adjustments to familiar meat-based foods. This direction
can have more impact on health, the environment, and animal welfare
because of the greater likelihood of the (much larger) mainstream po-
pulation actually adopting these foods (Elzerman et al., 2011).
Blending ground mushrooms into meat has recently been examined
favorably in the extant literature as a form of mixing plant-based in-
gredients into popular meat-based dishes (Guinard et al., 2016; Myrdal
Miller et al., 2014; Sirimuangmoon et al., 2016; Spencer et al., 2018;
Summers et al., 2017). Since these initial studies, there have been nu-
merous reports in the popular and business press of the widespread
adoption of meat-mushroom blended products (aka ‘The Blend’)
(“Mushrooms coming,” 2018; Huen, 2017; Roman, 2018). Blended
foods featured in these articles are traditional meat dishes, most notably
blended burgers, that have 25–30% of the ground meat partially sub-
stituted by an equal part of ground mushrooms. The storylines highlight
how the resulting dishes are healthier and more sustainable without
sacrificing any of the taste and texture that meat eaters (burger lovers)
enjoy. Mushrooms are uniquely considered to have a synergy with meat
that makes them an ideal plant-based blended ingredient based on their
appropriateness with meat (Elzerman et al., 2011), umami flavor
(Guinard et al., 2016), inherent meatiness (Summers et al., 2017) and
healthfulness (Cheskin et al., 2008; Poddar et al., 2013). Mushrooms’
compatibility and paired familiarity with meat make them easy for
consumers to accept together and an extension of recipes and parings
they have likely already experienced (e.g. sautéed mushrooms atop a
grilled steak). There is far less conceptual distance between mushrooms
and meat for the average person than there might be for meat blended
with other plant-based ingredients such as soy, lentils, or artificial ve-
getable or protein derivatives.
The stream of blending oriented research has focused almost en-
tirely on sensory testing; assessing consumer response to the physical
characteristics of these new meat reducing concepts (e.g. taste, texture,
and appropriateness). In their conclusions, many of these studies call
for a next round of research into consumer attitudes and motivations for
accepting and ultimately adopting plant-based variations of traditional
meat-based foods and dishes. Specifically, Elzerman et al. (2011) con-
clude that more emphasis is needed on understanding consumer eva-
luations of these products, beyond sensory testing. Hartmann and
Siegrist (2017) and Hoek et al. (2011) identify insufficient study in this
area and call for further investigations to focus on consumer motiva-
tions to adopt these alternative products and the factors that influence
motivations. Graça, Oliveira et al. (2015) and Graça, Calheirosa et al.
(2015) conclude more research is needed to understand individual
differences and psychological processes underpinning shifts to more
plant-based diets.
Discussions in industry, the press, and academic literature on the
shift away from meat-centric diets toward plant-centric diets are almost
entirely focused on why consumers should make this change. There is
much less discussion and research on whether and why consumers
would personally, actually want to make this change. Many alternative
diets and foods are entering the marketplace in response, but there is
insufficient understanding of the nature of consumer response to them
and what influences that response. To contribute to this understanding,
the current study pursues two research questions called for in the extant
literature:
1. What is the nature of the mainstream consumer response to blending
a plant-based ingredient (mushrooms) into traditional meat-based
foods?
2. What are the individual lifestyle and motivational differences that
influence consumer assessment and acceptance of blending a plant-
based ingredient (mushrooms) into traditional meat-based foods?
To do this, the current study proposes a nomological network to
explain and predict consumer acceptance of blended products specifi-
cally, and plant-based ingredients more generally. The model is em-
pirically tested through a consumer survey and descriptive and struc-
tural equation analyses. Results provide insight into consumer
acceptance of new plant-forward product formats, how consumers as-
sess them, what benefits consumers prioritize, and what influences
these. Contributions to marketing theory include the integration of a
new construct and context with framing and constructs borrowed from
the extant literature. New relationships are established between ac-
ceptance of blending and assessment as a mediating factor, meat con-
sumption as a moderating factor, and individual differences in food
values and lifestyle as antecedents. Consequences for the marketing of
blended products include an understanding of motivations for con-
suming these products that can guide i) positioning and messaging, ii)
opportunities for marketing promotions to drive adoption based on
taste trials, and iii) necessary variations in positioning emphasis based
on differences in how meat consumption fits into people’s lives.

2
M. Lang
2. Theoretical background and conceptual framework
This section is organized around key points presented in the in-
troduction supported by research regarding reduced meat consumption
and adoption of plant-forward diets. Consumer acceptance of blending
a plant-based ingredient (mushrooms) into traditional meat-based foods
is presented as the focal construct in the study with consumer assess-
ment of blending as a primary influencer of acceptance. Individual
differences in food values and lifestyle are then introduced as important
antecedents to assessment and acceptance of blending. Lastly, this
section integrates new and established constructs into a theoretical
model, based on a chain analysis, and proposes key relationships.
2.1. Continuum of change in meat consumption
Table 1 depicts a continuum of meat consumption and diet change
based on consumer types and corresponding food products and forms.
The purpose of the table is to provide context to how meat-centric diets
can and are shifting toward plant-forward diets. It links the corre-
sponding behavioral changes to supporting products and menus. The
table integrates several areas of theory introduced in the extant litera-
ture on this topic thus far. For example, the two primary axes are
adapted from Hoek et al. (2011) who distinguish between person-re-
lated versus product-related factors related to status and change in meat
consumption. Derbyshire (2017) identifies three useful groups of meat
consumers used in the table: meat avoiders, meat reducers, and meat
consumers. These groups have also been classified as vegetarians, semi-
vegetarians/ flexitarians, and omnivores (Cliceri, Spinelli, Dinnella,
Prescott, & Monteleone, 2018; Mullee et al., 2017). Graça, Oliveira
et al. (2015, p. 80) explain these different consumer groups’ willingness
to change their diet as based on patterns of “disgust towards meat”,
“low affective connection towards meat”, and “attachment to meat”
respectively. The conceptual framing of replacing, substituting, or re-
ducing meat in one’s diet with plant-based foods is based on the work of
Hartmann and Siegrist (2017), Spencer et al. (2018), and
Sirimuangmoon et al. (2016). Spencer et al. (2018) introduce the
concept of full versus partial substitution of meat with “vegetables,
legumes, and grains” which serves as an important distinction within
the continuum as presented. In particular, reducing the proportion of
meat in meat-based menu items by blending in ground mushrooms is
distinguished as a partial substitution and is the focus of the present
study.
2.2. Consumer acceptance of blending
The majority of research studying the shift from meat-centric to
plant-centric diets and foods focuses on consumer acceptance of new or
alternative food products and forms (Graça, Oliveira et al., 2015; Graça,
Calheirosa et al., 2015; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017; Hoek et al., 2011;
Spencer et al., 2018). For example, Elzerman et al. (2011, p. 233)
conclude that “the replacement of meat by plant-based meat substitutes
could be an interesting option; however, this is only a realistic option
when consumers accept these new products.” Therefore, research in-
tended to extend understanding of consumer adoption and the factors
that influence this should center first on acceptance as the key outcome
and focal construct.
2.3. Consumer assessment of blending
Elzerman et al. (2011) call for research into how consumers eval-
uate new foods in order to understand what influences acceptance of an
individual product. Graça, Oliveira et al. (2015) and Hoek et al. (2011)
argue that an effective framework or context is needed to understand
what influences consumer acceptance and adoption of plant-based diets
and meat substitutes. This evaluative framework or context can en-
compass several dimensions. Hoek et al. (2011), for example, assert that
3
Food Quality and Preference 79 (2020) 103758
a framework should emphasize consumer evaluation of meal combi-
nations on dimensions such as health and environmental benefits.
Graça, Oliveira et al. (2015) and Graça, Calheirosa et al. (2015) con-
sider impacts including taste, price, environment, and health as a frame
of reference for assessment or evaluation. Siegrist, Visschers, and
Hartmann (2015) stress the importance of understanding how people
evaluate different foods across benefits such as health, taste, cost, and
environment. Lastly, Spencer et al. (2018) present the concept of cu-
linary novelty, and Mullee et al. (2017) the concept of discovering new
tastes as important for plant-forward meals to be appealing to meat
eaters. Based on these findings, the current study proposes that con-
sumer acceptance of blending a plant-based ingredient into traditional
meat-based foods is influenced (and potentially mediated) by con-
sumers’ assessment or evaluation of new concepts. Consequently, as-
sessment will be based on five benefit constructs borrowed from the
literature: taste, health, sustainability, cost, and novelty.
2.4. Individual differences in food values and lifestyle
A shift in diet away from meat toward plant-based alternatives is
driven by multiple motives (Hoek et al., 2011) or reasons why
(Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017) that need to be studied. These have fre-
quently been examined through individual differences in food related
values (Graça, Oliveira et al., 2015; Graça, Calheirosa et al., 2015;
Hayley, Zinkiewicz, & Hardiman, 2015) and lifestyle (Grunert, 2006;
Hoek et al., 2011). For example, Graça, Oliveira et al. (2015, p. 87)
observe that “food habits play numerous other roles in people’s lives.
Likewise, choices and preferences are often anchored in values, mean-
ings and shared conventions going beyond the biological function they
ensure.” Food related values and lifestyle factors identified in the lit-
erature that may be useful in explaining and predicting consumer as-
sessment and acceptance of blending include food knowledge, food in-
volvement, cooking habits, food innovativeness, and healthy eating. Table 2
identifies supporting research in the extant literature for each of these
constructs.
Fig. 1 depicts a nomological network proposed to explain and pre-
dict the chain of relationships that may exist across food values and
lifestyle, assessment of blending, and acceptance of blending by con-
sumers (Lang & Lemmerer, 2019; Memery, Angell, Megicks, &
Lindgreen, 2015). The explanation provided through this structure can
help answer the second question: What are the individual lifestyle and
motivational differences that influence consumer assessment and ac-
ceptance of blending a plant-based ingredient (mushrooms) into
Table 2
Food related values and lifestyle factors.
Supporting research
Food knowledge Hartmann and Siegrist (2017)
Siegrist et al. (2015)
Verain, Dagevos, and Antonides (2015)
Food involvement Kim, Lee, and Kim (2016)
Van Loo, Hoefkens, and Verbeke (2017)
Verain et al. (2015)
Cooking habits Graça, Oliveira et al. (2015)
Grunert (2006)
Hartmann and Siegrist (2017)
Mullee et al. (2017)
Food innovativeness Hartmann and Siegrist (2017)
Hoek et al. (2011)
Verbeke (2015)
Healthy eating Grunert (2006)
Hoek et al. (2011)
Mullee et al. (2017)
Poddar et al. (2013)
Spencer et al. (2018)
M. Lang Food Quality and Preference 79 (2020) 103758

Table 3 3.2. Measures

Blending acceptance results.
Acceptance indicators Mean Std. dev. Seven constructs were measured in this study: i) acceptance of
blending, ii) assessment of blending, iii) food knowledge, iv) food in-
You evaluate it favorably, like it 8.18 2.13 volvement, v) cooking habits, vi) food innovativeness, and vii) healthy
You are interested in it, in knowing more 8.15 2.33
eating. Acceptance of blending was operationalized through three items
You intend to have it in the near future 7.31 2.66
intended to test different dimensions of acceptance: evaluating it fa-
Scale: Not at all = 1 through Very much = 10. vorably, liking it; being interested in it, in knowing more; and intending
to have it in the near future. Using a scale ranging from Not at all = 1
Table 4 through Very much = 10, respondents were asked “How much are the
Blending assessment results. following statements about “Blending” mushrooms into ground meat
(e.g. blended burger or tacos) true for you?” Before seeing these
Assessment indicators Mean Std. dev.
questions, respondents were exposed to a brief explanation and ex-
Be more environmentally sustainable 8.49 1.80 ample of blended products. Assessment of blending was operationalized
Be new and interesting 8.22 2.02 through four items derived from the review of the extant literature
Be healthier 7.97 2.11 presented above: taste, health, sustainability, cost, and novelty. Using a
Cost less 7.33 2.39
Taste better 7.00 2.57
scale ranging from Not at all = 1 through Very much = 10, respondents
were asked “How much do you believe that “Blending” mushrooms into
Scale: Not at all = 1 through Very much = 10. ground meat would…” taste better , be healthier, be more en-
vironmentally sustainable, cost less, and be new and interesting.
Appendix A displays how the five food related values and lifestyle
Food Values constructs were operationalized through items taken from the following
& Lifestyle sources related to the literature on diffusion of innovation and adoption
of new products. Before their use in this study, some of the items were
Knowledge modified slightly to apply to the food context. Food knowledge was
operationalized through items borrowed from the scale developed and
Involvement Assessment Acceptance used by Flynn and Goldsmith (1999), food involvement from Bell and
of Blending of Blending Marshall (2003), cooking habits from Hartmann, Dohle, and Siegrist
Cooking (2013), food innovativeness from Goldsmith (2000), and healthy eating
from Hausman (2012). To measure each of these constructs, re-
Innovativeness spondents were asked “How much do you agree with the following
statements about yourself?” using a scale ranging from Strongly dis-
Healthy Eating agree = 1 through Strongly agree = 10.

3.3. Data analysis

Fig. 1. Influences on the acceptance of blending.
traditional meat-based foods?
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Data collection and sample characteristics
Data was collected via an online survey sampled through Amazon
Mechanical Turks in the USA. Respondents were given a link to the
survey, which was designed in Qualtrics. The sample was screened for
meat consumption. Respondents were excluded if they stated that they
“do not eat meat” and/or if they failed attention and quality check
questions. Some 3.2% of respondents indicated that they did not con-
sume meat. At least some meat consumption was deemed necessary in
order to investigate consumer assessment and acceptance of a product
concept that blends meat with mushrooms. After these checks, 602
complete and usable surveys were included in the analysis. This sample
size was determined to be sufficient for performing Partial Least
Squares-Structural Equation Modeling based on the number of con-
structs and items measured (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2016).
Multiple randomization techniques were employed during the admin-
istration of the survey to reduce common method biases associated with
using survey instruments and to enhance the validity of the responses.
Given the nearly exclusive use of scaled measures, there were no out-
liers identified. Assessment of frequency distributions indicates that the
sample demographic composition can be considered sufficiently re-
presentative of the original population of interest.
Data analysis is organized and results are presented according to the
two research questions presented in the introduction. The first research
question asks what is the nature of the mainstream consumer response
to blending a plant-based ingredient (mushrooms) into traditional
meat-based foods. To answer this question, repeated measures ANOVA,
with Greenhouse-Geisser corrections, in SPSS was used to compare
mean responses to questions on assessment and acceptance of blending.
To further understand these responses, repeated measures ANOVA,
with Greenhouse-Geisser corrections and post hoc mean comparisons,
was conducted on rankings of i) reasons for trying a blended product
and ii) their preferred format of blending. Respondents were asked to
rank their top five reasons why they would (or did) consume blended
products. Respondents were shown 11 benefits of consuming blended
products related to health, culinary, taste, sustainability, and price
(Table 5). Some of the recent sensory research studies of blending plant-
based ingredients into meat consider the influence of consumption
format. To address that here, respondents were asked if they were to
prepare and serve blended products at home 10 times over the next
year, how many times would they serve a ground meat-mushroom
blend in one of seven forms (Table 6).
In order to investigate whether blending assessment and acceptance
varied according to key demographic characteristics, a series of One-
way ANOVAs were run against age, gender, income, and education.
Lastly, due to the central role of meat consumption in this overall topic,
One-way ANOVAs were run comparing means for acceptance and as-
sessment to differences in red meat consumption. Respondents were
divided into two groups based on whether their red meat consumption
was the same or growing versus declining or contemplating declining.
The second research question asks what are the individual lifestyle
and motivational differences that influence consumer assessment and

4
M. Lang
Table 5
Top reasons for consuming blended products.
Benefits ranking Mean rank
Health: gets more vegetables into our diet 5.01
Health: healthier way to consume meat for me and my 5.02
family
Health: avoid things bad for my health e.g. fat, calories, 5.45
etc
Price: reduces the cost of meat, helps with food budget 5.49
Health: acquire things good for my health e.g. nutrients, 5.60
vitamins, etc
Tastes better: makes meat more savory, adds more flavor 5.70
Tastes better: makes meat juicier, improves texture 5.86
Culinary: try a new and interesting food idea 6.43
Culinary: new recipe, new way to use mushrooms 7.01
Sustainability: reduces impact of meat production on the 7.18
environment
Sustainability: addresses concerns over animal welfare 7.26
Scale: Top five reasons for trying with top rank = 1.
Table 6
Most preferred format for consuming blended products.
Blend format Mean count
Burgers 4.04
Stir Fry with ground meat 1.62
Tacos 1.26
Meatloaf 1.26
Chili with ground meat 0.93
Pasta with ground meat sauce 0.70
Other 0.19
Count = number of times out of 10 each format would be consumed.
acceptance of blending a plant-based ingredient (mushrooms) into
traditional meat-based foods. To answer this question, a structural
equation model was specified using SmartPLS 3 (Ringle, Wende, &
Becker, 2015) with blending acceptance as the primary endogenous
construct, blend assessment as an intervening endogenous construct,
and personal food values and lifestyle as antecedent exogenous con-
structs. All constructs were specified for reflective measurement. The
model’s specification enables the estimation of both direct and indirect
effects of personal food values and lifestyle on blending assessment and
acceptance and of blending assessment on acceptance. Given that the
purpose of this study is more explorative and focused on theory de-
velopment, PLS is the more appropriate analysis method compared to
covariance-based structural equation modeling and theory testing
(Grunert, Hieke, & Juhl, 2018).
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive analysis
Table 3 presents mean agreement scores for the three blending ac-
ceptance indicators which are all significantly different from each other
(F = 153.61, p < 0.001). This is confirmed individually through post-
hoc mean comparisons (p ≤ 0.001). The blending concept elicits rela-
tively high favorable evaluation and interest levels and a slightly lower
intention to try in the near future.
Table 4 presents mean agreement scores for the five blending as-
sessment indicators which are all significantly different from each other
(F = 82.37, p < 0.001). This is confirmed individually through post-
hoc mean comparisons (p ≤ 0.006). The blending concept elicits high
believability on environmental sustainability, relatively high on novelty
and healthier, and lower believability on cost and taste.
Results show that there are significantly different mean rankings
across the 11 potential benefits of blended products (F = 40.50,
p ≤ 0.001). Post-hoc mean comparisons indicate that individual mean
Food Quality and Preference 79 (2020) 103758
rankings of reasons for consuming blended products fall into four sig-
nificantly different groups (Table 5). In this table, a lower mean value is
Std. dev. closer to a ranking of one (i.e. the top ranking). The primary reasons are
health benefits: gets more vegetables into our diet and healthier way to
3.00 consume meat for me and my family. The second group of reasons in-
3.09
cludes health, price, and taste benefits. The third reason is the ability to
3.06
try a new and interesting food idea. And the last group of reasons are
culinary and sustainability benefits.
3.08 Results show that there are significantly different mean counts
3.01 across the seven blending formats (F = 344.54, p < 0.001). Post-hoc
mean comparisons indicate that individual mean counts were sig-
3.34
3.18 nificantly different from each other for all formats (p ≤ 0.001) except
3.13 tacos and meatloaf. As an affirmation of prevailing thinking, the burger
2.84 is overwhelmingly the preferred format of consuming blended products.
2.97
Approximately 40% of intended serving occasions would be as a burger
2.96
(Table 6).
Results of the demographic analysis show that acceptance of the
blending concept does not vary by age, gender, income, or education.
Similarly, assessment of the blending concept does not vary by age,
income, or education. Assessment does vary, however, by gender
(F = 6.907, p = 0.001) with females assessing blending more favorably
Std. dev.
(8.0 versus 7.6 for men).
Results of the meat consumption analysis show that means of the
2.43 blending acceptance items (F = 7.154, p < 0.000) and the assessment
1.65 items (F = 5.946, p < 0.001) both vary by a respondent’s red meat
1.41
1.40
consumption orientation. Respondents whose red meat consumption is
1.13 declining or who were contemplating declining exhibit higher mean
1.20 levels of blending acceptance (8.3) and assessment (8.1) compared to
0.79 those whose red meat consumption was the same or growing (7.5 and
7.6 respectively). Due to the importance of these differences, the
structural equation analysis includes a grouping analysis based on dif-
ferences in respondent changes in red meat consumption.
4.2. Explanatory model analysis
Following standard criteria for assessing a measurement model in
SEM-PLS (Hair et al., 2016), the following observations can be made.
Cronbach’s alpha values indicate satisfactory internal consistency for all
of the constructs (ranging 0.790–0.900). Of the original 43 items, six
composite reliability values were below 0.60 and items were removed
with the remaining values exhibiting satisfactory composite reliability
(ranging 0.851–0.932). The majority of outer loadings exceeded 0.70,
signifying satisfactory indicator reliability for most of the items. Six of
the remaining items had outer loadings below 0.70 and were removed.
Six other items with outer loadings below 0.70 were retained for con-
tent validity reasons; they range from 0.633 to 0.691 making them
marginally outside the acceptable range. The model with these six items
retained still achieves average variance extracted values exceeding
0.50, maintaining satisfactory convergent reliability. There we no cross-
loadings for any of the remaining 31 indicators which is one indication
of satisfactory discriminant validity. Inspection of the stricter Fornell-
Larcker criterion further supports discriminant validity of the mea-
surement model; each construct’s AVE square root exceeds its correla-
tion with other constructs. With the adjustments described, the re-
maining 31 indicators comprise a satisfactory measurement model for
the structural analysis. Appendix A presents the retained and removed
items.
Following standard criteria for assessing a structural model in SEM-
PLS (Hair et al., 2016), the following observations can be made. With
all VIF values below 5.0, there are no issues with collinearity within the
model. All values for Stone–Geisser’s Q2 are greater than zero indicating
that constructs display adequate predictive relevance and validity to
predict their indicators (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011; Hair, Sarstedt,
Ringle, & Mena, 2012). The coefficients of determination (R-Square
Adj.), the primary criterion for structural model assessment in PLS-SEM,
are 0.158 for blending assessment and 0.572 for blending acceptance.
5
M. Lang Food Quality and Preference 79 (2020) 103758

Table 7 increased. The group labeled transitional consumers has or considered

Results of PLS-SEM analysis. reducing their red meat consumption. Mean scores were calculated
Direct effects Indirect effects Total effects across the items for each construct and then means calculated across the
respondents in each group. T-tests were then performed for these
Assessment Acceptance Acceptance Acceptance means. From this analysis, transitional meat consumers exhibit sig-
2
nificantly higher scores on the parameters except cooking habits,
Adj. R 0.158 0.572
healthy eating, and food innovativeness.
Assessment 0.713*** 0.713*** To ensure that a multiple group analysis is valid, measurement in-
Cooking habits 0.003 0.021 0.002 0.023 variance analysis was conducted following the three step MICOM pro-
Healthy eating 0.195*** 0.014 0.139*** 0.153*** cedure outlined in Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2016). For the first
Food innovativeness 0.244*** 0.073 0.174*** 0.247***
step, the configural invariance requirement is satisfied by both models
Food involvement 0.164** 0.059 0.117** 0.176***
Food knowledge −0.113 −0.05 −0.081 −0.131** having i) identical indicators, ii) identical data treatment, and iii)
identical algorithm settings. For the second step, compositional in-
Note: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05. variance was tested through a permutation procedure with 1000 per-
mutations and a 5% significance level. Permutation results indicate
These indicate modest and moderate explanatory strength for assess- original correlation scores ranging from 0.986 to 1.000 which all ex-
ment and acceptance (Hair et al., 2016). ceed their corresponding 5.0% test threshold to establish compositional
Table 7 can be used to aide in interpreting the structural model. As invariance. Satisfying steps one and two establishes partial measure-
proposed in the model, with a path coefficient of 0.713, consumer as- ment invariance and allows the comparison of path coefficients be-
sessment of blending has a substantial influence on blending accep- tween the two groups as presented later. For the third and final step,
tance. Based on the standard PLS-SEM bootstrapping procedure (Hair full measurement invariance requires equality of composite mean va-
et al., 2011, 2012), this relationship is also highly significant lues and variances between the two groups. Results from the permu-
(p < 0.001). tation procedure indicate equality of composite mean values for all of
As predicted by the model, three of the five personal values and the constructs in the model except involvement and knowledge (p-va-
lifestyle constructs have significant and material direct influences on lues = 0.052 and 0.015 respectively). Given that neither of these con-
blending assessment: healthy eating (β = 0.195, p < 0.001), food in- structs was significant in the group structural analysis, this does not
novativeness (β = 0.244, p < 0.001), and food involvement affect the interpretation of the model. Permutation results indicate
(β = 0.164, p = 0.016). Cooking habits (p = 0.966) and food knowl- equality of variances for all of the constructs in the model except atti-
edge (p = 0.065) do not have an influence on blending assessment. As tude (difference = 0.364, p-value = 0.018). This means that re-
expected, if blending assessment is in fact an intervening endogenous spondents in group one (regular meat consumers) have higher varia-
construct, the personal values and lifestyle constructs should have little bility in their answers for attitude towards blended products than group
to no direct impact on blending acceptance. This was the case for all of two (transitional meat consumers). Because equality of composite
the constructs. The role of blending assessment as a partially mediating variance was not established for acceptance, full measurement in-
construct is reinforced by the statistically significant but modest in- variance cannot be established. As a result, based on partial invariance,
direct and resulting total effects of three of the personal values and emphasis of interpretation should be placed on the structural differ-
lifestyle constructs on blending acceptance: healthy eating (β = 0.139, ences between the two groups in the models rather than the results
p < 0.001), food innovativeness (β = 0.174, p < 0.001), and food based on pooled data (Garson, 2016).
involvement (β = 0.117, p = 0.016). Table 9 presents path coefficients for the two different groups.
To fully explore the role of assessment in the model, this construct Based on the group analysis, consumer assessment of blending still has
was tested as a potential moderator following the procedure detailed in a substantial influence on blending acceptance, but it is stronger for the
Hayes (2012). Per Hayes, assessment was recoded by quartiles and transitional (β = 0.745) than for regular (β = 0.644) meat consumers
treated as part of an interaction term in a regression analysis with each of (p < 0.001 for both). Other group differences include the following.
the five food values and lifestyle antecedents. Results of the analysis Healthy eating continues to be a highly significant influence on as-
indicate that assessment does not moderate the relationship between any sessment for both groups (p < 0.001), but is much more influential for
of the five antecedents and acceptance. This is evidenced by none of the transitional (β = 0.293) than for regular (β = 0.148) consumers. Food
five interaction terms being significant (p-values ranging 0.126–0.997). Innovativeness continues to be a significant influence on assessment for
Because shifting from meat to plant-based diets and meals varies by a both groups, but is much more influential for regular (β = 0.322,
consumer’s dietary orientation toward meat, it was prudent to investigate p < 0.001) than for transitional (β = 0.144, p = 0.099) consumers.
possible heterogeneity in model results with red meat consumption as a Food Innovativeness also has a direct influence on acceptance for
grouping variable (SEM PLS 3 MGA-Multiple Group Analysis). transitional consumers (β = 0.170, p = 0.017). Based on the results of
Table 8 presents differences in model parameters between two dif- this group analysis, change in meat consumption acts as a moderating
ferent groups within the sample based on how their red meat con-
sumption has changed over the past year. The group labeled regular
Table 9
consumers indicated their meat consumption has stayed the same or Results of PLS-SEM group analysis based on meat consumption behavior (direct
effects).
Table 8
Transitional consumer Regular consumer
Parameter differences between groups (SEM group analysis).
Transitional consumer Regular consumer p-value Assessment Acceptance Assessment Acceptance

Acceptance 8.35 7.54 0.000 Assessment 0.745*** 0.644***

Assessment 8.13 7.58 0.000 Cooking habits −0.006 0.101 0.020 −0.008
Cooking habits 6.51 6.37 0.465 Healthy eating 0.293*** 0.069 0.148*** 0.011
Healthy eating 7.46 7.41 0.747 Food innovativeness 0.144 0.170** 0.322*** 0.009
Food innovativeness 6.72 6.52 0.191 Food involvement 0.167 −0.048 0.145 0.114
Food involvement 7.64 7.34 0.046 Food knowledge −0.063 −0.069 −0.155 −0.055
Food knowledge 6.90 6.44 0.010
Note: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05.

6
M. Lang
condition on the relationships across personal values and lifestyle and
blending assessment and acceptance.
5. Discussion
This study advances learning regarding the rapidly expanding and
evolving phenomena of replacing or reducing meat consumption through
the adoption of plant-forward diets and foods. With the extant literature
having favorably tested the sensory characteristics of dishes that substitute
meat with plant-based ingredients, there are several calls in the literature
to investigate the nature of consumer response to them. As one of the first
papers to respond these calls, a consumer survey was fielded and de-
scriptive analysis conducted to understand the consumer response to a
new and emerging plant-forward concept. Structural equation modeling
was conducted to understand the antecedent factors that influence this
response. The specific product format tested in this study is traditional
meat-based dishes that have a large portion of the meat partially sub-
stituted with ground mushrooms (e.g. 70/30% meat-mushroom blends).
Descriptive results show that consumers have a relatively high ac-
ceptance of blending a plant-based ingredient (mushrooms) into tradi-
tional meat-based foods. This is especially true for a favorable overall
evaluation and interest in knowing more. In terms of assessment, re-
spondents have a high belief that these products would be en-
vironmentally sustainable, new and interesting, and healthier; and
moderate belief that they would cost less and taste better. When asked
to rank why they would try blended products, consumers prioritize
health then taste and price benefits. This indicates that if blended
products were demonstrated to taste better and cost less, acceptance
would be even higher. Interestingly, the stream of research thus far
offers much evidence that these product do in fact taste as good as or
better than the comparable, traditional meat-based dishes. Contrary to
industry research and press that prioritize the environment as one of the
primary reasons why consumers are seeking meat alternatives, en-
vironmentally sustainable was ranked in the last two of eleven benefits.
Much of the industry focus on new plant-based products has been on
burgers. Significant support for this idea was found in the current study.
Burgers were identified as the most frequent intended format for
blending a plant-based ingredient (mushrooms) into traditional meat-
based foods: twice more than the next most frequent format.
Results from the structural model show that acceptance of blending
depends heavily on consumers’ combined assessment of healthfulness,
cost, taste, novelty, and environmental sustainability (listed in order of
benefit ranking). The model also found that assessment serves as a med-
iating factor in the influence that personal food values and lifestyle factors
have on acceptance. Considering total affects, individual differences in
food innovativeness, food involvement, healthy eating, and food knowl-
edge were established as determinants of acceptance (listed in order of
impact). Differences in cooking habits were not found to influence ac-
ceptance. This is likely do to results showing exposure and trial of blended
products occurring with equal frequency in home and in restaurants.
Descriptive results indicate that shifting from meat to plant-based
diets and meals varies by a consumer’s dietary orientation toward meat.
For this reason, the model was run comparing differences between
regular meat consumers and transitional meat consumers who are re-
ducing their red meat consumption, but are not vegetarians or vegans
(aka flexitarians). Group analysis finds the effects within the model
remain largely the same, but healthy eating shifts to the dominant
factor behind acceptance for transitional meat consumers and food in-
novativeness for regular meat consumers.
5.1. Contributions
The results of this study make several contributions to food mar-
keting theory. A continuum is introduced that integrates current in-
dustry trend information with theories borrowed from academic lit-
erature. It provides needed context for understanding where and how
7
Food Quality and Preference 79 (2020) 103758
new dietary behaviors and alternative foods fit into the sphere of re-
duced meat consumption and plant-forward diets. Most importantly,
the continuum identifies an underexplored gap or third option that is a
middle-ground for mainstream consumers between the polar options of
‘eat or don’t eat’ meat. The current study responds to calls in the lit-
erature for a next round of research into better explaining and pre-
dicting consumer acceptance and ultimately adoption of new alter-
native foods and dishes and understanding the factors that influence
acceptance. To provide this understanding, the current study combines
literatures across reduced meat consumption, adoption of plant-forward
diets, and diffusion of innovation and adoption of new products. New
and established constructs for food values and lifestyle, assessment, and
acceptance are integrated to build and empirically test an explanatory
model. In building the model, the new construct assessment is formed
by borrowing and assembling established items from the extant litera-
ture. Results from model analysis establish a new series of relationships
across these constructs and the role of blending assessment as a par-
tially mediating construct. Results also provide important context for
the findings by establishing dietary orientation towards meat as a
moderating condition of how consumers respond to blending and the
factors that influence acceptance.
The current article corresponds with and contributes to the study of
novel foods in the following ways. Analyzing acceptance as the primary
dependent variable is consistent with numerous studies of novel foods (e.g.
Fischer & Reinders, 2016; House, 2016; Mancini, Moruzzo, Riccioli, &
Paci, 2019; Verbeke, 2005). One of the items within the blend acceptance
scale used here was you are interested in it, in knowing more. In-
corporation of this item corresponds with Martins and Pliner (2005)
finding that acceptance of novel foods was predicted by the interest
evoked at the thought of consuming them. The mediating role of assess-
ment, based on the belief that blended products will perform in specific
ways, reinforces the role of expectancies and beliefs matching with ex-
perience found with novel foods (Cardello, Maller, Masor, Dubose, &
Edelman, 1985; Martins & Pliner, 2005). The influence of the assessment
construct comprising taste, health, environment, cost, and new/interesting
corresponds with and reinforces previous findings for novel foods (House,
2016; Martins & Pliner, 2005; Mancini et al., 2019; Verbeke, 2005).
The significance of the factors healthy eating and food innovative-
ness here corresponds with and reinforces findings in novel foods study
of the influence of health effects and food neophobia (Barrena &
Sánchez, 2013; Verbeke, 2005). The influence of food values and life-
styles in the current study extend findings regarding the influence of
practical and contextual factors in the acceptance of novel foods
(Fischer & Reinders, 2016; House, 2016). The prominence of the burger
as the most likely product form for blend trial could be explained by the
concepts of familiarity (Mancini et al., 2019) and appropriateness
(Cardello, Schutz, & Lesher, 2007) from the study of novel foods.
There are several contributions to food marketing practice. From a
segmentation and targeting perspective, the study establishes important
differences between regular meat consumers and what could be con-
sidered transitional meat consumers. For the transitional meat con-
sumer, there is a stronger relationship between assessment and accep-
tance and healthy eating values and lifestyle. For the regular meat
consumer, there is a stronger relationship between assessment and
personal food innovativeness indicating the current trend power of new
alternative foods. Considering the market potential for the new pro-
ducts, it is interesting to learn that regular meat eaters are not inter-
ested as much in reducing their meat consumption as they are in trying
new ideas and techniques for eating healthier through ways to in-
corporate more plant-based foods and ingredients into their diets. This
provides a new way to position these foods for mainstream market
penetration. Taste had the lowest believability within assessment, but a
middle ranking within benefits or reasons for trying blended products.
The fact that previous sensory studies have demonstrated a superiority
or parity on actual taste may explain a high conversion or adoption rate
for blended products when tried (i.e. performance exceeding
M. Lang Food Quality and Preference 79 (2020) 103758

expectations). This would prioritize promotional strategies that drive
trial of these products. There is a consensus across many stakeholders
that sustainability issues related to industrialized meat production are a
primary driver of reducing or adopting alternatives to red meat con-
sumption. Contrary to this assumption, results from this study show
sustainability at the bottom of reasons to adopt these new products.
This finding has significant implications for how these products are
positioned within the marketplace. It is interesting to note that price is
not as important as some other benefits; this signals a non-price value
proposition and positioning opportunity.
5.2. Limitations and future research
There are a few limitations to the current study and its findings that
should be mentioned and could lead to opportunities for extending this
stream of learning further. With a coefficient of determinations of
0.572, there are clearly other important factors that influence blending
acceptance. Adding these to the model presented would add to further
explanation of this phenomenon. Given that consumers try these
products to realize different benefits suggests interesting opportunities
to further explore differences across groups through segmentation
analysis. Dietary meat orientation played an important role in this
study, but it was only simply introduced and measured. This concept
could be further explored in the broader context of meat consumption
overall and the attitudes and behaviors affecting changes in meat
consumption. For example, group analysis may also be enhanced by
investigating the higher variance in attitudes reported by regular meat
consumers versus transitional meat consumers. This may suggest a re-
levant dynamic within that group related to this topic. Other important
outcomes such as willingness to pay and to recommend were not stu-
died here. These are interesting outcomes that could be investigated,
especially given that cost was a middle ranked (but not primary) factor
and innovativeness and trending were influential factors.
Funding
This research was supported by funding from the Mushroom
Council, United States.

Appendix A. Indicators and sources for measurement model.

Blend Acceptance You Evaluate it favorably, like it

You are Interested in it, in knowing more
You Intend to have it in the near future

Blend Assessment Taste better

Be healthier
Be more environmentally sustainable
Cost less
Be new and interesting

Food Knowledge (Flynn & Goldsmith, 1999)
I know pretty much about foods and cooking
Among my circle of friends, I’m one of the “experts” on foods and cooking
(I feel very knowledgeable about foods and cooking)
Compared to most other people, I know less about foods and cooking
When it comes to foods and cooking, I really don’t know a lot

Food Involvement (Bell & Marshall, 2003)
I don’t think much about food each day
Cooking or barbequing is not much fun
Talking about what I ate or am going to eat is something I like to do
(Compared with other daily decisions, my food choices are not very important)
(When I travel, one of the things I anticipate most is eating the food there)
(I do most or all of the clean up after eating)
I enjoy cooking for others and myself
(When I eat out, I don’t think or talk much about how the food tastes)
I do not like to mix or chop food
(I do most or all of my own food shopping)
(I do not wash dishes or clean the table)
(I care whether or not a table is nicely set)

Cooking Habits (Hartmann et al., 2013)
Preferably, I spend as little time as possible on meal preparation
(At home, I preferably eat meals that can be prepared quickly)
(Cooking means physical effort that I try to avoid if possible)
Cooking is an important type of relaxation for me
Preparing a meal brings joy in my life
While preparing a meal I can play out my creativity
Preparing a meal is a satisfactory activity for me

Food Innovativeness (Goldsmith, 2000)
In general, I am among the last in my circle of friends to purchase a new food or ingredient
If I heard that a new food or ingredient was available in my local store, I would be interested enough to buy it
(Compared to my friends, I do little shopping for new foods or ingredients)
I would consider buying a new food or ingredient, even if I hadn’t heard of it yet
In general, I am the last in my circle of friends to know about the latest new food or ingredient trends
I know more about new foods and ingredients than other people do

Healthy Eating (Hausman, 2012)
I find nutritional information very useful and easy to understand
I think consuming healthy foods are easy for me to do
(I think giving up unhealthy foods are easy for me to do)
It's easy to decide which foods to avoid when I'm trying to eat healthy
Cooking healthy foods is easy

Respondents were asked “How much do you agree with the following statements about yourself?” using a scale ranging from Strongly disagree = 1 through Strongly
agree = 10.
Indicators removed during the analysis are shown in parentheses.

8
M. Lang
Appendix B. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103758.
References
Barrena, R., & Sánchez, M. (2013). Neophobia, personal consumer values and novel food
acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 27(1), 72–84.
Bell, R., & Marshall, D. W. (2003). The construct of food involvement in behavioral re-
search: Scale development and validation. Appetite, 40(3), 235–244.
Cardello, A. V., Maller, O., Masor, H. B., Dubose, C., & Edelman, B. (1985). Role of
consumer expectancies in the acceptance of novel foods. Journal of Food Science,
50(6), 1707–1714.
Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., & Lesher, L. L. (2007). Consumer perceptions of foods
processed by innovative and emerging technologies: A conjoint analytic study.
Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 8(1), 73–83.
Cheskin, L. J., Davis, L. M., Lipsky, L. M., Mitola, A. H., Lycan, T., Mitchell, V., ... Adkins,
E. (2008). Lack of energy compensation over 4 days when white button mushrooms
are substituted for beef. Appetite, 51(1), 50–57.
Cliceri, D., Spinelli, S., Dinnella, C., Prescott, J., & Monteleone, E. (2018). The influence
of psychological traits, beliefs and taste responsiveness on implicit attitudes toward
plant-and animal-based dishes among vegetarians, flexitarians and omnivores. Food
Quality and Preference, 68, 276–291.
Derbyshire, E. J. (2017). Flexitarian diets and health: A review of the evidence-based
literature. Frontiers in Nutrition, 3, 55.
Elzerman, J. E., Hoek, A. C., Van Boekel, M. A., & Luning, P. A. (2011). Consumer ac-
ceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context. Food Quality and
Preference, 22(3), 233–240.
Fischer, A. R. H., & Reinders, M. J. (2016). Chapter 14: Consumer acceptance of novel
foods. In Charis M. Galanakis (Ed.). Innovation Strategies in the Food Industry (pp. 271–
292). Academic Press.
Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge.
Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57–66.
Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and North American Meat Institute’s Foundation for Meat
and Poultry Research and Education. (2019). Power of Meat 2019. Retrieved from
www.meatconference.com/powermeat19.
Garson, G. D. (2016). Partial least squares: Regression and structural equation models.
Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates Publishers.
Goldsmith, R. E. (2000). Identifying wine innovators: A test of the domain specific in-
novativeness scale using known groups. International Journal of Wine Marketing,
12(2), 37–46.
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2015). Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and
intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite, 95, 113–125.
Graça, J., Oliveira, A., & Calheiros, M. M. (2015). Meat, beyond the plate. Data-driven
hypotheses for understanding consumer willingness to adopt a more plant-based diet.
Appetite, 90, 80–90.
Grunert, K. G. (2006). Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat con-
sumption. Meat Science, 74(1), 149–160.
Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Juhl, H. J. (2018). Consumer wants and use of ingredient and
nutrition information for alcoholic drinks: A cross-cultural study in six EU countries.
Food Quality and Preference, 63, 107–118.
Guinard, J. X., Miller, A. M., Mills, K., Wong, T., Lee, S. M., Sirimuangmoon, C., ...
Drescher, G. (2016). Consumer acceptance of dishes in which beef has been partially
substituted with mushrooms and sodium has been reduced. Appetite, 105, 449–459.
Hair, J. F., Jr, Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.
Hartmann, C., Dohle, S., & Siegrist, M. (2013). Importance of cooking skills for balanced
food choices. Appetite, 65, 125–131.
Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2017). Consumer perception and behaviour regarding
sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 61, 11–25.
Hausman, A. (2012). Hedonistic rationality: Healthy food consumption choice using
muddling-through. Journal of Business Research, 65(6), 794–801.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved
from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
Hayley, A., Zinkiewicz, L., & Hardiman, K. (2015). Values, attitudes, and frequency of
meat consumption. Predicting meat-reduced diet in Australians. Appetite, 84, 98–106.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Testing measurement invariance of
composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3),
405–431.
Food Quality and Preference 79 (2020) 103758
Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., & De Graaf, C. (2011).
Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person-and product-related
factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite, 56(3), 662–673.
House, J. (2016). Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands:
Academic and commercial implications. Appetite, 107, 47–58.
Huen, E. (2017, July). 7 Food Buzzwords (And What They Really Mean). Forbes.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/eustaciahuen/2017/07/31/foodbuzz/
#280201161992.
Kim, S.-E., Lee, S. M., & Kim, K.-O. (2016). Consumer acceptability of coffee as affected by
situational conditions and involvement. Food Quality and Preference, 52(Suppl. C),
124–132.
Lang, M., & Lemmerer, A. (2019). How and why restaurant patrons value locally sourced
foods and ingredients. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 76–88.
Mancini, S., Moruzzo, R., Riccioli, F., & Paci, G. (2019). European consumers’ readiness to
adopt insects as food. A review. Food Research International, 122, 661–678.
Martins, Y., & Pliner, P. (2005). Human food choices: An examination of the factors
underlying acceptance/rejection of novel and familiar animal and nonanimal foods.
Appetite, 45(3), 214–224.
Memery, J., Angell, R., Megicks, P., & Lindgreen, A. (2015). Unpicking motives to pur-
chase locally-produced food: Analysis of direct and moderation effects. European
Journal of Marketing, 49(7/8), 1207–1233.
Mullee, A., Vermeire, L., Vanaelst, B., Mullie, P., Deriemaeker, P., Leenaert, T., ...
Huybrechts, I. (2017). Vegetarianism and meat consumption: A comparison of atti-
tudes and beliefs between vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, and omnivorous subjects in
Belgium. Appetite, 114, 299–305.
Mushrooms coming soon to a burger near you: mushroom–beef blends can tackle ex-
panding waistlines and carbon footprints. (2018). Nature. Vol. 555. Retrieved from
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03855-5.
Myrdal Miller, A., Mills, K., Wong, T., Drescher, G., Lee, S. M., Sirimuangmoon, C., ...
Guinard, J. X. (2014). Flavor-enhancing properties of mushrooms in meat-based
dishes in which sodium has been reduced and meat has been partially substituted
with mushrooms. Journal of Food Science, 79(9), S1795–S1804.
Poddar, K. H., Ames, M., Hsin-Jen, C., Feeney, M. J., Wang, Y., & Cheskin, L. J. (2013).
Positive effect of mushrooms substituted for meat on body weight, body composition,
and health parameters. A 1-year randomized clinical trial. Appetite, 71, 379–387.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS
GmbH http://www.smartpls.com.
Roman, A. (2018). Plant-based ‘meat’ and ‘fish’ may be the future. But how do they taste?
The Wall Street Journal.
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.
Siegrist, M., Visschers, V. H., & Hartmann, C. (2015). Factors influencing changes in
sustainability perception of various food behaviors: Results of a longitudinal study.
Food Quality and Preference, 46, 33–39.
Sirimuangmoon, C., Lee, S. M., Guinard, J. X., & Miller, A. M. (2016). A study of using
mushrooms as a plant-based alternative for a popular meat-based dish. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Science and Technology, 21(2), 156–167.
Spencer, M., Cienfuegos, C., & Guinard, J. X. (2018). The Flexitarian Flip™ in university
dining venues: Student and adult consumer acceptance of mixed dishes in which
animal protein has been partially replaced with plant protein. Food Quality and
Preference, 68, 50–63.
Spencer, M., & Guinard, J. X. (2018). The flexitarian Flip™: testing the modalities of flavor
as sensory strategies to accomplish the shift from meat-centered to vegetable-forward
mixed dishes. Journal of Food Science, 83(1), 175–187.
Summers, A. C., Ezike, A., Smith, P., Frutchey, R., Leslie, L. T., Paredes, S. C., ... Cheskin,
L. J. (2017). Acceptance of a mushroom-soy-beef blended burger among school-aged
children. Health Behavior and Policy Review, 4(3), 274–281.
The retreat from meat: People in rich countries are eating more vegan food. The further
they go the better. (2018). The Economist. October 13.
Van Loo, E. J., Hoefkens, C., & Verbeke, W. (2017). Healthy, sustainable and plant-based
eating: Perceived (mis) match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets
for future policy. Food Policy, 69, 46–57.
Verain, M. C., Dagevos, H., & Antonides, G. (2015). Sustainable food consumption.
Product choice or curtailment? Appetite, 91, 375–384.
Verbeke, W. (2005). Consumer acceptance of functional foods: Socio-demographic, cog-
nitive and attitudinal determinants. Food Quality and Preference, 16(1), 45–57.
Verbeke, W. (2015). Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat sub-
stitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 147–155.
Zhang, W., Xiao, S., Samaraweera, H., Lee, E. J., & Ahn, D. U. (2010). Improving func-
tional value of meat products. Meat Science, 86(1), 15–31.