Food Quality and Preference 87 (2021) 104063

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

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

Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant- T

based meat alternatives
Fabienne Michel , Christina Hartmann, Michael Siegrist
⁎

ETH Zurich, Department of Health Science and Technology (D-HEST), Consumer Behavior, Switzerland

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The consumption of meat contributes significantly to undesirable effects on the environment. In order to reduce
Meat the impact of animal husbandry, one approach is to decrease meat consumption by substituting plant-based meat
Meat alternatives alternatives. Because the consumption of such meat alternatives is currently rather low, the aim of this research
Meat replacements was to identify the barriers that keep people from consuming meat alternatives and increase the probability of
Meat substitutes
future consumption. This was accomplished by exploring free associations people have towards meat and meat
Vegetarian
Vegan
alternatives, comparing selected meat products with their respective meat alternatives using the semantic dif-
Plant-based ferential, and studying the perceived appropriateness of eating meat alternatives in different consumption si-
tuations. To achieve these objectives, we carried out an online survey with participants from Germany
(N = 1039). Our results suggest that while meat is being associated with positive terms, meat alternatives were
viewed more negatively. The previous findings that meat alternatives should be similar to meat with regard to
taste, texture, and ease of preparation were confirmed. Results from the direct comparison of meat with cor-
responding meat alternatives indicate that meat alternatives are similarly perceived to their processed meat
counterparts. Regarding different consumption situations, our results show that eating meat alternatives is
perceived to be more appropriate in situations where one eats alone or with family and friends. In conclusion,
our findings demonstrate that meat alternatives have the best chance of successfully replacing meat when they
closely resemble highly processed meat products in taste and texture and are offered at competitive prices. The
recommendation for producers of meat alternatives is thus to focus on replicating processed meat products
instead of trying to imitate meat cuts such as steak or escalope.

1. Introduction (Bruinsma, 2009). A shift toward reduced consumption of meat and

What we decide to eat not only has consequences for our health and
wellbeing, it also effects the future of our planet. Today, the food sector
is responsible for up to 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions
(Vermeulen, Campbell, & Ingram, 2012). Especially, animal-based
protein is a problem because high livestock numbers are causing water
depletion, intensifying climate change, disrupting the phosphorus
cycle, and having an undesirable impact on the nitrogen cycle and
biodiversity (Steinfeld et al., 2006). The negative impacts of livestock
farming are not exclusive to the environment, but also directly affect
human health and animal welfare (Aiking et al., 2006; Raphaely &
Marinova, 2016). The prognosis for the increase of the world popula-
tion to 9.8 billion people in the year 2050 (United Nations, Department
of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2019) and the
increasing demand for meat and dairy pose significant challenges
dairy in Western countries is required. One way to accomplish this is to
substitute meat with meat alternatives. In recent years, many types of
meat alternatives containing insects, egg whites, grains, pulses, or fungi
as protein source have entered the market and cultured meat is close to
a market launch. The rise in concerns about animal suffering and an
increase in vegetarian and vegan lifestyles (Leitzmann, 2014) have
certainly increased the demand for meat alternatives, but in most
European countries, meat alternatives are still niche products (de Boer,
Schösler, & Aiking, 2014; Hoek et al., 2011; Siegrist & Hartmann,
2019). In order to promote a more sustainable diet with meat alter-
natives as a protein source instead of meat, more information about
possible barriers, expectations, and possibilities for these products are
needed.
Previous studies have shown that consumers are not aware of the
large impact that meat consumption has on the environment (Hartmann

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Health Science and Technology (D-HEST), Consumer Behavior, CHN J78, Universitaetsstrasse 22, 8092 Zurich,
Switzerland.
E-mail address: fabienne.michel@hest.ethz.ch (F. Michel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063
Received 28 April 2020; Received in revised form 15 August 2020; Accepted 15 August 2020
Available online 20 August 2020
0950-3293/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
F. Michel, et al.
& Siegrist, 2017), but that they perceive the majority of meat produc-
tion methods as morally unjustifiable (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2020). It
has further been found that omnivores have very positive attitudes
toward meat and that they mainly associate meat with luxury, status,
taste, and good health (Ruby, 2012). Mammal muscle meat was found
to be positively related to maleness (Rozin, Hormes, Faith, & Wansink,
2012) and that females have significantly more positive attitudes to-
wards vegetarian and vegan diets (Judge & Wilson, 2019).
Only a minority of consumers frequently purchase meat alternatives
(de Boer et al., 2014; Hagmann, Siegrist, & Hartmann, 2019; Hoek
et al., 2011; Siegrist & Hartmann, 2019), and the majority do not
consider meat substitutes (Hoek et al., 2011; Lemken, Spiller, &
Schulze-Ehlers, 2019) even though it has been found that most meat
eaters agree that vegetarian and vegan diets are better for animal
welfare and the environment (Bryant, 2019). Positive reactions toward
meat alternatives come mainly from regular consumers of meat alter-
natives. When asked to rate meat and meat alternatives regarding taste,
texture, appearance, and smell, regular consumers of meat alternatives
rated them as better than meat while moderate users of meat alter-
natives gave balanced ratings, but were more positive about meat, and
non-users of meat alternatives rated meat to be much better than meat
alternatives (Hoek et al., 2011). In line with this finding, Hoek et al.
(2011) showed that consumers who are in favor of meat prefer meat
alternatives that are similar to meat; in contrast, the more people are in
favor of meat alternatives, the less they want meat alternatives to re-
semble meat.
Various factors influence the consumption of meat alternatives.
Consumers who endorse the value of caring for nature are more likely
to prefer plant-based substitutes than consumers who do not (de Boer &
Aiking, 2011; Hoek et al., 2011). Similarly, Hoek et al. (2011) found
that people who do not use meat alternatives recognized that meat
alternatives are more ethical than meat, but because of the absence of
strong ethical value orientations, they chose meat over meat alter-
natives. It also appears that women have a higher preference for meat
alternatives than men (Aiking, 2011; de Boer & Aiking, 2011; de Boer
et al., 2014) and that the consumption of meat alternatives is higher
among well-educated people (Hoek et al., 2011). The primary barriers
to the consumption of meat alternatives so far have been identified as
unfamiliarity and lower sensory appeal (Hoek et al., 2011; Lea &
Worsley, 2003). Concerns related to the taste, price, and convenience
have also been identified as factors that prevent people from adopting a
vegetarian or vegan diet (Bryant, 2019). Further, it has been observed
that non-users, as well as users of meat alternatives, agree that com-
pared to meat, the ideal meat alternative should be cheaper, contain
more protein, more vitamins, and fewer calories (Hoek et al., 2011).
Furthermore, the situation in which meat alternatives are consumed
might also have an influence on their perceived appropriateness. How
people react to meat alternatives and whether they approve is influ-
enced by the social norms that define what is appropriate in certain
situations (Higgs, 2015), meaning that the eating behavior of others has
an influence on what is considered appropriate in a specific situation
(Herman, Roth, & Polivy, 2003). One study on attitudes towards fol-
lowing a meat, vegetarian, or vegan diet has shown that the more si-
milar own’s diet is to a vegan diet, the more positive the vegan diet is
perceived (Povey, Wellens, & Conner, 2001). Another study showed
that people are likely to adapt their eating behavior accordingly to the
eating behavior of their peers (Higgs & Thomas, 2016). Hosts who serve
their guests vegetarian meals are seen as more trend conscious, alter-
native, health conscious, and concerned about animal welfare than
hosts serving a meat dish and might therefore act as role models (Funk,
Sütterlin, & Siegrist, 2020). Therefore, the eating situation may play an
important role in the acceptability of meat alternatives.
Still, a substantial reduction in meat consumption cannot be rea-
listically achieved by convincing all consumers to become vegetarians.
Meat consumption in Switzerland is currently high (Hagmann et al.,
2019) and a reduction could be carried out through partial or complete
2
Food Quality and Preference 87 (2021) 104063
substitution of meat with plant-based meat alternatives. Therefore,
meat alternatives do not need to be primarily attractive for vegetarians
or vegans, but for the average meat-eating consumer. In order to de-
velop successful meat alternatives, the affect associated with, the per-
ception of and the expectations toward meat and meat alternatives need
to be better understood. Furthermore, the occasions in which con-
sumers are most willing to substitute meat need to be identified.
One aim of the present study was to measure consumers’ associa-
tions evoked by meat and by meat alternatives. This allowed us to gain
deeper insights into the perception of meat and meat alternatives,
which helps us understand what motivates people to or hinders them
from eating meat and meat alternatives. We further hypothesized that
the acceptance of plant-based meat alternatives is influenced by the
consumption situation. We hypothesized that meat alternatives are
more accepted in informal meal situations (e.g., eating alone at home)
compared with more formal eating situations (e.g., at a business meal).
Furthermore, we were interested in whether there are differences in the
perception of certain types of meat and meat alternatives and what
expectations toward novel meat alternatives are raised by consumers.
Such information is important for the successful development and
marketing of meat alternatives.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows: In the material
and methods section, the participants are characterized, the procedure
of the survey is outlined, and the measures used to analyze the data are
explained. Afterwards, the findings of the survey are presented and
discussed, whereby associations towards meat alternatives, consump-
tion frequencies, acceptance of meat alternatives in different settings, as
well as perception of and expectations towards meat alternatives are
addressed. Finally, the limitations of the survey and possible implica-
tions for policy are completed by the conclusion.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Survey participants
Data collection was conducted in April 2019 in Germany by a
commercial panel provider (Respondi AG, Cologne, Germany).
Participants who did not answer all of the questions were excluded.
Quotas were set for age and sex (50% female and equal distribution
across age groups). Additionally, as suggested by the panel provider,
participants whose total survey duration was less than half of the
median (n = 63) were excluded, as was also done by Hartmann, Keller,
and Siegrist (2016). This resulted in 1039 complete participant datasets
for analysis. Thereof, 51% (N = 530) were women, and the partici-
pant’s ages ranged from 20 to 69 years, with a mean age of 45 years
(SD = 14.2). This is comparable to the German population
(Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (Destatis), 2019). Among the
participants, 74% (N = 764) described themselves as omnivores, 2%
(N = 24) as pescetarians, 20% (N = 203) as flexitarians, 3% (N = 32)
as vegetarians and 1.5% (N = 16) as vegans.
As pescetarians, vegetarians, and vegans only comprised a small
group (N = 72) and were not the target group, we decided to exclude
them from all except one analysis presented in this article. Descriptions
of the samples of the flexitarians and omnivores are given in Table 1.
2.2. Survey procedure
The survey was conducted using the online survey software
Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) and completion time was around
twelve minutes. After questions about age and sex, participants were
randomly distributed into two groups. One group was asked about the
associations evoked by meat, the other group about the associations
evoked by meat alternatives. In the next series of questions, participants
in the meat group (meat alternative group) were asked to rate meat
products (meat alternatives) on eleven bipolar adjective scales. For
example, they were asked how they perceived chicken nuggets
F. Michel, et al. Food Quality and Preference 87 (2021) 104063

Table 1
Description of omnivores and flexitarians in our sample.
Characteristics Omnivores Flexitarians
(N = 764) (N = 203)
Sex
Female 344 (45.0%) 138 (68.0%)
Male 420 (55.0%) 65 (32.0%)
Mean age (years) 46 45
Education
No (completed) 0 1 (0.5%)
educational attainment
Primary and secondary 107 (14.0%) 22 (10.8%)
school
High school 277 (36.3%) 57 (28.1%)
Higher education 214 (28.0%) 63 (31.0%)
entrance qualification
University degree 166 (21.7%) 60 (29.6%)
(vegetarian nuggets) on a scale ranging from “traditional” to “modern.”
Eating frequencies of meat (cold cuts, sausages, pork, beef, poultry,
lamb, and game) and plant-based protein products (tofu, lentils, pro-
cessed meat alternatives, vegetarian cold cuts, and veggie burgers) were
assessed on a 6-point scale from “seldom or never” to “several times per
day”. The answers were recoded to reflect weekly frequencies as pre-
viously reported (Dohle, Hartmann, & Keller, 2014; Hagmann et al.,
2019): “several times per day” was coded as 14 times per week, “daily”
was coded as 7 times per week, “4–6 times per week” was coded as 5
times per week, “1–3 times per week” was coded as 2 times per week,
“1–3 times per month” was coded as 0.5 times per week, and “seldom or
never” was coded as 0. A sum score to represent the number of portions
consumed per week was computed for the number of meat products and
for the plant-based protein products.
Additionally, participants were also asked to indicate which term
(omnivore, flexitarian, pescatarian, vegetarian, or vegan) that best de-
scribed their current diet. To make sure participants understood the
terms, each term was defined in a short sentence.
In a next section, participants were again randomly divided into two
groups. One group was asked how acceptable they found it to eat plant-
based meat alternatives in different eating situations, and the other
group was asked how acceptable they found it to offer guests plant-
based alternatives in different situations.1 Respondents answered the
questions by indicating the level of appropriateness on a Likert scale
between 1 (very inappropriate) and 5 (very appropriate).
In the final part of the survey, participants were asked to indicate
their expectations of plant-based meat alternatives compared to meat
regarding product attributes such as taste, texture, and price. For in-
stance, they had to indicate with a slider ranging from 0 to 100 whether
the taste of plant-based meat alternatives should be like meat (0) or not
at all like meat (100). Participants could not see the number that cor-
responded to the position they moved the slider to. This answering
option in form of a slider has been used previously by Ammann,
Hartmann, and Siegrist (2018).
2.3. Data analyses
Correspondence analysis was used to explore associations evoked by
meat and meat alternatives and were collected as free text. If more than
one association was given, only the first one was considered for data
analysis. Some participants wrote more than one keyword or even a full
sentence; in this case, the text was reduced to the first meaningful word.
Associations were spellchecked and translated into English. Next, the
associations for the meat and the meat alternatives were grouped into
1
Because the two questions result in essentially the same results, the former
will be shown but not the latter.
the categories shown in Table 2. The assignment of the associations into
categories was performed by two independent researchers. Interrater-
reliability was determined using Cohen’s κ, which showed high agree-
ment of the two raters (κ = 0.89, p < 0.001). Only association cate-
gories that contained associations mentioned by more than 10 partici-
pants were taken into account. This is why non-meat protein sources
such as eggs, insects, or meat alternatives were assigned to “others” as
only six participants named such an association. The category labeled
“other” was not included in the analysis due to the limited usefulness
for the interpretation caused by the heterogenous mix of terms in this
category.
Several analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to test for
differences between study groups in terms of consumption frequencies,
acceptance of plant-based meat alternatives in different eating situa-
tions, perception of different meat and meat alternative products, as
well as performance and acceptance of meat and meat alternatives.
All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 25 (SPSS
Inc., Chicago, IL).
3. Results
3.1. Associations to meat and meat alternatives
The most frequently elicited associations of meat were “delicious”
(82 times), “food” (49 times), and “steak” (38 times). For associations
to meat alternatives, “tofu” was the most frequently mentioned (136
times) followed by “vegan [diet]” (33 times), and “disgust” (29 times).
The categorized associations evoked by meat and meat alternatives for
men and women are shown in Table 3. The differences between the
expected and the observed frequencies were significant
(χ2(39) = 693.93, p < 0.001). Thus, the four groups differ in their
named associations.
In order to better understand the impact of the product (meat/meat
alternative) and sex (male/female) on the association, a correspon-
dence analysis was conducted with the data shown previously in
Table 3. The first and second dimension explain 73.5% and 4.3% of the
inertia, respectively. The cumulative proportion of inertia explained by
the two dimensions is 0.98. Fig. 1 is the graphic representation of the
correspondence analysis. Associations (depicted as circles) that are
closer to a group (depicted as squares) were mentioned more frequently
by the respective group than associations that are more distant. It is
apparent that the associations given by males and females are similar
regarding meat alternatives. “Disgust,” “tofu,” “soy,” “vegetarian and
vegan,” and “negative evaluation” form a tight cluster. In contrast,
associations toward meat are very different between males and females.
While associations from females circle around “animals,” “animal suf-
fering,” and “moderation,” association given by males are related to
“taste,” “meat products,” especially “steak,” “food,” and “positive
evaluation.”
3.2. Meat and meat alternative consumption frequencies
In the food frequency section of the survey, participants indicated
how often they ate a range of different meat and plant-based protein
products. Table 4 shows the reported number of portions eaten for
males and females. A 2 (sex: male, female) × 2 (diet: omnivores,
flexitarians) ANOVA for the number of meat portions consumed in-
dicates that males eat meat more frequently than females (F
(1,963) = 9.96, p = 0.002). Omnivores also eat more meat than
flexitarians (F(1,963) = 73.41, p < 0.001), but the interaction be-
tween sex and diet is not significant (F(1,963) = 0.479, p = 0.489).
Similarly, a 2 (sex: male, female) × 2 (diet: omnivores, flexitarians)
ANOVA for the number of meat alternative portions consumed per
week was conducted. Results showed that males and females do not
statistically significantly differ in consumption frequency (F
(1,963) = 2.83, p = 0.093). However, results also showed that

3
F. Michel, et al. Food Quality and Preference 87 (2021) 104063

Table 2
Categorization of participants’ free associations to meat and meat alternatives.
Category Examples

Animal Animal, animal husbandry, cow, cattle, pig

Animal suffering Bad for animals, poor animals, livestock farming, fattening animals, murder, slaughter, slaughterhouse, dead animals
Disgust Disgust, ugh, yuk, no appetite
Food Food, barbecue, meals, eating, brands that are associated with meat and meat alternatives
Meat products Burger, ham, chicken, beef, schnitzel
Moderation From time to time, not too much, rarely
Negative evaluation Unnecessary, do not eat, terrible, do not like, artificial, does not taste good, unhealthy, chemicals
Positive evaluation Organic, good, healthy, hunger, liking, nice
Skepticism Skeptic, disputed, it depends
Soy Soy, soy products
Steak Steak, rump steak, lamb steak
Taste Appetite, pleasure, taste, delicious, tasty
Tofu Tofu
Vegan and vegetarian Vegan, vegetarian, veggie
Others Non-meat protein (eggs, insects, meat alternatives), environment, environmental footprint, alternative, keto, sensitive, powder, Reinertz, pink

Table 3
Crosstabulation of the frequency of association by sex and product.
Category Meat, male (%) Meat, female (%) Meat Alternative, male (%) Meat Alternative, female (%) Total

Animals 11 (4.9) 30 (12.9) 1 (0.5) 2 (0.9) 44

Animal suffering 9 (4.0) 18 (7.8) 0 0 27
Disgust 0 1 (0.4) 19 (9.1) 13 (6.1) 33
Food 58 (25.7) 39 (16.8) 9 (4.3) 4 (1.9) 110
Meat products 28 (12.4) 23 (9.9) 8 (3.8) 3 (1.4) 62
Moderation 3 (1.3) 9 (3.9) 4 (1.9) 1 (0.5) 17
Negative evaluation 4 (1.8) 7 (3.0) 47 (22.5) 43 (20.1) 101
Positive evaluation 21 (9.3) 21 (9.1) 7 (3.3) 7 (3.3) 56
Skepticism 2 (0.9) 5 (2.2) 2 (1.0) 6 (2.8) 15
Soy 0 0 22 (10.5) 33 (15.4) 55
Steak 25 (11.1) 16 (6.9) 0 0 41
Taste 65 (28.8) 63 (27.2) 5 (2.4) 2 (0.9) 135
Tofu 0 0 63 (30.1) 69 (32.2) 132
Vegetarian and vegan 0 0 19 (9.1) 28 (13.1) 47
Total 226 (100) 232 (100) 209 (100) 214 (100) 881

flexitarians consume plant-based protein more frequently than omni- with the family on a Sunday, having dinner in a restaurant, at a business
vores (F(1,963) = 49.17, p < 0.001). This latter effect was not in- meal, and at a barbecue party were similar and lower than when eating
fluenced by sex, since the interaction between sex and diet was not alone and eating with one’s family on a weekday.
significant (F(1,963) = 0.572, p = 0.450).

3.4. Perception of various meat and plant-based meat alternatives

3.3. Acceptance of eating plant-based meat alternatives in different
consumption situations
To test our hypothesis that the acceptance of plant-based meat al-
ternatives depends on the consumption situation in which the meat
alternative is offered, half of the participants in our sample were asked
to indicate how appropriate they think it is to eat a plant-based meat
alternative on occasions such as a dinner invitation, a family dinner on
a Sunday, or a business meal. Participants’ responded on a scale be-
tween 1 (very inappropriate) and 5 (very appropriate); the results are
depicted in Table 5. A repeated measure ANOVA showed that for om-
nivores (F(6,2292) = 34.42, p < 0.001) and flexitarians (F
(6,630) = 22.75, p < 0.001), certain situations were perceived sig-
nificantly different in their level of appropriateness to eat plant-based
meat alternatives (see Table 5). Pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni
adjustment showed that for omnivores, situations where one is eating
alone, with friends, or with the family on a weekday are perceived
equally appropriate times to eat meat alternatives. Eating meat alter-
natives for a family Sunday meal, when having dinner in a restaurant,
for business lunch, and at a barbecue party were rated to be similar in
appropriateness to eat meat alternatives and received low acceptance
ratings. For flexitarians, eating alone was also rated to be the most
appropriate situation for eating meat alternatives, before eating with
the family on a weekday. Appropriateness ratings of eating with friends,
In order to understand beliefs and attitudes about meat and plant-
based alternatives, we measured their connotative meaning using a
semantic differential (Biermann & Rau, 2020; Funk et al., 2020;
Hartmann, Ruby, Schmidt, & Siegrist, 2018). Participants were asked to
assess three product groups (nuggets, sausages, and other) for one
protein group (meat or meat alternative) with regard to eleven opposite
adjective pairs. This means that participants either rated three meat
products (chicken nuggets, wiener sausage, steak) or three corre-
sponding plant-based meat alternatives (vegetarian nuggets, vegetarian
sausage, tofu) on a scale (0–100) between two contrary adjectives (see
Fig. 2 for all attributes). For the statistical analysis, a split-plot ANOVA
was applied using the protein group as the between-subjects factor (two
levels: meat and meat alternative products), the eleven adjective pairs
and the product group (nuggets, sausages, and other) as within-subject
factors and the eleven adjective pairs as the dependent variables.
Ratings for meat and meat alternative products were statistically
different from each other (F(1,1037) = 65.88, p < 0.001). Differences
within the eleven adjective pairs (F(10,10370) = 227.33, p < 0.001)
as well as the interaction between the protein group and the adjectives
were significant (F(10,10370) = 258.75, p < 0.001). Further, we
found significant differences within product groups (nuggets, sausages,
or other) (F(2,2074) = 159.00, p < 0.001) and a significant interac-
tion between protein group and product group (F(2,2074) = 83.04,

4
F. Michel, et al. Food Quality and Preference 87 (2021) 104063

Fig. 1. Correspondence analysis of associations to meat and meat alternatives.

Table 4
Mean and standard deviation of the number of portions consumed per week for males and females, omnivores and flexitarians.
Males Females

Omnivores (N = 420) Flexitarians (N = 65) Total (N = 485) Omnivores (N = 344) Flexitarians (N = 138) Total (N = 482)

Number of meat portions 10.12 (6.68) 6.15 (4.77) 9.59 (6.60) 8.88 (6.18) 4.22 (3.52) 7.54 (5.93)
Number of plant-based protein 1.69 (3.89) 4.29 (6.61) 2.04 (4.43) 1.38 (3.04) 3.47 (4.94) 1.98 (3.76)
portions

Note: Coded as follows: 0 = seldom or never, 0.5 = 1–3 times per month, 2 = 1–3 times per week, 5 = 4–6 times per week, 7 = daily, 14 = several times daily.
Meat portions include cold cuts, sausages, pork, beef, poultry, lamb, and game.
Plant-based protein portions include tofu, lentils, processed meat alternatives, vegetarian cold cuts, and veggie burgers.

Table 5
Mean and standard deviation for appropriateness levels for different consumption situations for meat and meat alternatives.
Item Mean Omnivores (SD) N = 383 Mean Flexitarians (SD) N = 106

a a
1 You are eating alone. 2.69 (1.42) 3.66 (1.37)
a b
2 You are invited to eat with friends. 2.55 (1.21) 2.99 (1.31)
a a, c
3 You are eating with your family on a weekday. 2.54 (1.27) 3.37 (1.36)
b b
4 You are eating Sunday dinner with your family. 2.24 (1.23) 2.95 (1.37)
b b
5 You are invited for dinner in a restaurant. 2.23 (1.19) 2.74 (1.41)
b b
6 You are at a business meal. 2.23 (1.19) 2.72 (1.33)
b b
7 You are at a barbecue party. 2.17 (1.27) 2.78 (1.38)

Note: Bonferroni’s post-hoc comparisons (p < 0.01) was performed. Within columns, different superscripts indicate significant differences between situations.
1 = very inappropriate, 5 = very appropriate.

5
F. Michel, et al. Food Quality and Preference 87 (2021) 104063

Fig. 2. Semantic differential for omnivores and flexitarians. Note: For chicken nuggets, wiener sausage, and steak: N = 380 omnivores, 106 flexitarians. For
vegetarian nuggets, vegetarian sausage, and tofu: N = 384 omnivores, 97 flexitarians.

p < 0.001). There were significant interactions between the attributes
and the product group (F(20,20740) = 395.94, p < 0.001) as well as
between the protein group and the product group (F
(20,20740) = 316.73, p < 0.001). These results suggest that the dif-
ferent perception of meat and meat alternatives is contingent on the
product group. It is therefore important to closely examine in each si-
tuation, whether meat and meat alternatives are perceived as rather
similar or completely different. Fig. 2 visualizes the results by dis-
playing mean values with 95% confidence intervals of the six products
(chicken nuggets, vegetarian nuggets, wiener sausage, vegetarian sau-
sage, steak, and tofu) for each of the eleven bipolar adjective pairs. It is
interesting to see that steak is almost always perceived as more extreme
than the other products. It is perceived as the most festive, healthy,
masculine, expensive, tasty, natural, filling, and protein rich among the
tested foods. All meat products were rated as tastier than the meat al-
ternative products. Further, we can also see that chicken nuggets, ve-
getarian nuggets, and vegetarian sausage often received similar eva-
luations. For another visualization of the differences between the meat
product and its respective meat alternative, see Figs. 3–5 in the Ap-
pendix.
3.5. Expectations toward meat and plant-based meat alternatives
In order to increase the consumption of meat alternatives, it is im-
portant to know whether consumers desire meat alternative products
that are very similar to meat or very different from meat. Therefore, we
asked participants whether meat alternatives should taste identical to
meat (0) or not at all like meat (100). The mean overall answers lies to
the side of meat, (M = 46.21, SD = 33.21), which means that there is a
weak preference for meat alternatives to taste like meat. When the
differences between the diet groups were examined more closely, we
found that the mean for omnivores was not statistically significantly
lower (M = 44.94, SD = 34.16) than for the flexitarians (M = 48.47,
SD = 29.66) (t(965) = −1.35, p = 0.179).
In order to get a clearer picture on whether meat or meat alter-
natives perform better regarding selected aspects, such as taste, texture,
price, ease to prepare, protein content, fat content, and environmental
friendliness, participants were presented these aspects and were asked
to move a slider to indicate whether they perceived meat or meat al-
ternatives to be better. One-way ANOVAs were conducted to determine
whether the answers given by people in the three diet groups were
different from each other. Post-hoc analysis using Tukey’s HSD showed
significant differences between the answers for omnivores, flexitarians,
and non-meat-eaters for all attributes except price and fat content,
where the difference was only significant between omnivores and
flexitarians or non-meat-eaters, respectively. Omnivores rated meat to
perform better regarding taste, texture, price, ease of preparation,
protein content, fat content, and environmental friendliness. Non-meat-
eaters perceived meat alternatives to perform better regarding all rated
aspects expect price, whereas flexitarians perceived meat to be better
regarding taste, texture, and price, but perceived meat alternatives to
score better regarding fat content and environmental friendliness.
Results are depicted in Table 6.

Table 6
Mean and standard deviations for the question what performs better, meat (0) or meat alternatives (100).
Aspect Mean Omnivores (SD) Mean Flexitarians (SD) Mean Non-meat-eaters (pescatarians, vegetarians and F(2,1036)
N = 764 N = 302 vegans) N = 72

a b c
Taste 17.63 (20.01) 32.93 (23.33) 63.15 (28.92) 171.808, p < 0.001
a b c
Texture 21.35 (21.53) 36.63 (23.97) 56.24 (29.40) 102.065, p < 0.001
a b b
Price 34.24 (24.69) 45.14 (23.94) 49.39 (28.85) 24.424, p < 0.001
a b c
Ease to prepare 38.57 (24.59) 52.47 (23.31) 71.03 (23.14) 76.087, p < 0.001
a b c
Protein content 39.25 (25.81) 49.66 (24.64) 63.78 (24.10) 39.171, p < 0.001
a b b
Fat content 44.33 (29.02) 53.63 (27.52) 57.38 (30.23) 13.296, p < 0.001
a b c
Environmental friendliness 52.88 (25.02) 65.90 (23.21) 79.82 (19.76) 56.029, p < 0.001

Note: Tukey’s post-hoc comparison (p < 0.01) was performed. Within rows, different superscripts indicate significant differences between groups.

6
F. Michel, et al.
4. Discussion
In general, participants of our survey had positive associations to-
ward meat, but rather negative associations toward meat alternatives.
One possible explanation for the generally negative view of meat al-
ternatives could be that meat eaters might have had bad experiences
with vegans or vegetarians refusing offered food or demanding special
treatment as well as moralizing regarding meat eaters. As meat alter-
natives were associated with being vegetarian or vegan, this could have
reinforced their negative beliefs about meat alternatives. We further
found that for meat, but not meat alternatives, associations between
females and males differed. While females reported concerns about
animal welfare and the environment and indicated moderated meat
consumption, males thought of the positive aspects of meat such as
taste and variety. This ambivalence females express toward meat is
likely connected with the higher awareness of the negative effects of
meat consumption (Cordts, Nitzko, & Spiller, 2014; Tobler, Visschers, &
Siegrist, 2011). It also adds to the explanation of why females consume
less meat than males (Cordts et al., 2014; Guenther, Jensen, Batres-
Marquez, & Chen, 2005; Rothgerber, 2013) and are more likely to
follow a vegetarian diet (Beardsworth & Bryman, 1999; Janda &
Trocchia, 2001; Rothgerber, 2013; Worsley & Skrzypiec, 1998).
Many participants mentioned tofu and soy as associations to meat
alternatives although many of today’s meat alternatives are based on
mycoprotein (Quorn®), peas, or wheat. It is a speculation that un-
pleasant memories about tofu might prevent people from trying meat
alternatives again. In any case, it is important that people are motivated
to taste modern meat alternatives and possibly reconsider their opi-
nions. Serving meat alternatives in cafeterias or restaurants may be a
promising approach to familiarizing consumers with good, tasty meat
alternatives because chefs are trained in not only preparing these pro-
ducts but also in making marinades and sauces to complement the
flavor of the dishes. In addition, people might be less sensitive about the
price of meat alternatives when they are eating in a restaurant.
When we looked at the consumption frequency of meat and meat
alternatives, we found that the average flexitarian reported consuming
slightly less than four portions of plant-based protein and almost five
portions of meat per week, while omnivores reported consuming be-
tween one and two portions of plant-based protein and more than nine
portions of animal protein in form of meat alone. This implies that
consumption of meat alternatives is generally low, which is in line with
previous findings (de Boer et al., 2014; Hagmann et al., 2019; Hoek
et al., 2011; Siegrist & Hartmann, 2019) and should be increased in
order to reduce the negative environmental impact of animal products.
In order to promote the consumption of meat alternatives instead of
meat, we looked at several factors influencing the acceptance of meat
alternatives. It has been shown that the situation in which meat alter-
natives are consumed has an impact on the acceptance of these products
(Cardello & Schutz, 1996; Meiselman, Johnson, Reeve, & Crouch,
2000). While we had expected that flexitarians, compared to omni-
vores, would have higher acceptance ratings for eating plant-based
meat alternatives across various situations, we also found that there
were significant differences between the situations. While eating alone
produced the highest acceptance ratings, the appropriateness of eating
meat alternatives on a Sunday with the family, when invited for dinner
at a restaurant, for a business meal, or a barbecue party were low. This
confirms the former finding that people are likely to adapt their eating
behavior to the eating behavior of their peers (Higgs & Thomas, 2016).
This means that in more formal situations and circumstances where a
certain peer pressure is likely to be present, people might not want to
attract attention or are afraid of being judged by their food decisions
(Hartmann et al., 2018; Mooney, DeTore, & Malloy, 1994; Yantcheva &
Brindal, 2013), which is why they rate the appropriateness of meat
alternatives to be lower than in more casual situations, such as when
eating with friends, eating with the family on a weekday, or when
eating completely unobserved. These findings suggest that taking away
7
Food Quality and Preference 87 (2021) 104063
some of the peer pressure could lead to an increased perceived appro-
priateness of eating meat alternatives. Role modeling could also help
overcome this reluctance, for example, when respected people from
various backgrounds advertise meat alternatives or when hosts serve a
vegetarian meal with meat alternatives to their guests (Funk et al.,
2020). In addition, we expect that with an increasing prevalence of
people following a flexitarian, vegetarian, or even vegan diet, eating
meat alternatives will become as much of a social norm as eating meat.
While the situation has an influence the acceptance of meat alter-
natives, it is also important to know people’s perception of different
meat and meat alternative products in order to increase consumption.
Therefore, we examined the connotative meaning of three meat and
meat alternative products using semantic differential. We found that
the pattern for steak is very distinct from meat alternative products, but
also from processed meat products. The patterns for chicken nuggets
and vegetarian nuggets or wiener sausage and vegetarian sausage show
more similarities. This is an indication that it does not make sense to
strive for a meat alternative that replaces steak. Much more promising
is the approach to replace processed meat products such as chicken
nuggets or wiener sausages with a plant-based version as in these
products, often not the meat itself, but a breadcrumb coating, a sauce or
spices are responsible for a positive eating experience. Stallberg-White
and Pliner (1999), for example, found that adding a familiar sauce to an
unfamiliar food increased consumers’ willingness to try the new food.
This approach is also supported by the development of meat alter-
natives on the market, as well as the results of our question regarding
whether people desire meat alternatives to be like meat or not at all like
meat. In our study, both omnivores and flexitarians indicated a pre-
ference for a meat substitute to be on the meat-like side, which is in line
with findings of Hoek et al. (2011). Furthermore, Elzerman (2006) re-
ported that many consumers find it important that meat alternatives are
similar to meat in appearance and preparation. In order to increase
acceptance of meat alternatives, our results suggest that meat alter-
natives have the greatest chance of successfully replacing meat when
they are made to mimic the taste and texture of meat and are attrac-
tively priced.
Rather than trying to achieve meat alternatives which are cheaper
than meat, prices for meat could also be increased in order to shift the
price attractivity towards meat alternatives. If policy, instead of sub-
sidizing livestock farming, required meat producers to internalize
ethical and environmental costs (Stoll-Kleemann & Schmidt, 2017), the
price of meat would increase and, ceteris paribus, meat alternatives
would become more attractive for substitution.
While our work contributes to the understanding on consumers’
acceptance of meat alternatives, it also has its limitations. First, we did
not give a definition for meat alternatives, and therefore, participants
might have had very different products in mind when being asked about
meat alternatives. While some people might have thought about lentils,
others might have had some highly processed burger in mind.
Furthermore, the data was collected from participants in Germany and
is therefore not representative for any other country. While Germany is
a country with many traditional meat dishes, there are also many
processed meat alternatives available. Moreover, this study was based
on a survey which means that evaluations concerning taste and texture
were hypothetical and not based on actual product tasting.
To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the perception of
meat alternatives, and identify which advantages and disadvantages are
associated, future studies should examine what reasons are given for
eating or not eating meat alternatives, what implications switching to a
plant-based diet could have, and whether there are possible differences
in peoples’ perceptions in various countries.
5. Conclusion
Meat is associated with many positive attributes, such as “deli-
cious,” “food,” and “steak,” meat alternatives are associated with
F. Michel, et al. Food Quality and Preference 87 (2021) 104063

Fig. 3. Comparison of the semantic differential for steak and tofu. Note: For steak: N = 380 omnivores, 106 flexitarians. For tofu: N = 384 omnivores, 97
flexitarians.

Fig. 4. Comparison of the semantic differential for chicken nuggets and vegetarian nuggets. Note: For chicken nuggets: N = 380 omnivores, 106 flexitarians. For
vegetarian nuggets: N = 384 omnivores, 97 flexitarians.

“tofu,” “vegan and vegetarian,” and “disgust.” Females associated meat
more often with concerns about animal welfare and the environment
than men who mainly associated meat with positive, hedonic aspects of
meat consumption. The consumption frequency of meat alternatives
among our participants was low, which is in line with previous findings.
The consumption situation was found to play a significant role in how
appropriate people rated the consumption of meat alternatives. In si-
tuations with low peer pressure, participants perceived it to be more
appropriate to eat meat alternatives. Further, we found evidence that
people who eat meat are looking for meat alternatives that are similar
to meat. The comparison of several meat and meat alternative products
suggests that meat alternatives are perceived similarly as their pro-
cessed meat counterpart. Therefore, a promising approach to increasing
the consumption of meat alternatives is to produce products that closely
resemble highly processed meat products in taste and texture and offer
good value for money.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fabienne Michel: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing -
original draft, Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Christina
Hartmann: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Michael
Siegrist: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgements
This EIT Food activity has received funding from the European
Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), a body of the European
Union, under Horizon2020, the EU Framework Programme for
Research and Innovation.

8
F. Michel, et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison of the semantic differential for Wiener sausage and vegetarian sausage. Note: For wiener sausage: N = 380 omnivores, 106 flexitarians. For
vegetarian sausage: N = 384 omnivores, 97 flexitarians.
Appendix
References
Aiking, H. (2011). Future protein supply. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(2–3),
112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2010.04.005.
Aiking, H., Boer, J., & Vereijken, J. (Eds.). (2006). Sustainable protein production and
consumption: Pigs or peas?Springer Netherlandshttps://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-
4842-4.
Ammann, J., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2018). Development and validation of the
Food Disgust Picture Scale. Appetite, 125, 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.
2018.02.020.
Beardsworth, A., & Bryman, A. (1999). Meat consumption and vegetarianism among
young adults in the UK: An empirical study. British Food Journal, 101(4), 289–300.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00070709910272169.
Biermann, G., & Rau, H. (2020). The meaning of meat: (Un)sustainable eating practices at
home and out of home. Appetite, 153, Article 104730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appet.2020.104730.
Bruinsma, J. (2009). The resource outlook to 2050: By how much do land, water, and
crop yields need to increase by 2050? Rome, Italy: FAO, 2009. Expert Meeting on
How to Feed the World in 2050; 12-13 October 2009. http://www.fao.org/wsfs/
forum2050/wsfsbackground- documents/wsfs-expert-papers/en/.
Bryant, C. J. (2019). We can’t keep meating like this: Attitudes towards Vegetarian and
Vegan Diets in the United Kingdom. Sustainability, 11(23), https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11236844.
Cardello, A. V., & Schutz, H. G. (1996). Food appropriateness measures as an adjunct to
consumer preference/acceptability evaluation. Food Quality and Preference, 7(3/4),
239–249.
Cordts, A., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2014). Consumer response to negative information on
meat consumption in Germany. International Food and Agribusiness Management
Review, 17(Special Issue), 83–106.
de Boer, J., & Aiking, H. (2011). On the merits of plant-based proteins for global food
security: Marrying macro and micro perspectives. Ecological Economics, 70(7),
1259–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.001.
de Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Aiking, H. (2014). “Meatless days” or “less but better”?
Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability
challenges. Appetite, 76, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.002.
Dohle, S., Hartmann, C., & Keller, C. (2014). Physical activity as a moderator of the
association between emotional eating and BMI: Evidence from the Swiss Food Panel.
Psychology & Health, 29(9), 1062–1080. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2014.
909042.
Elzerman, H. (2006). Substitution of meat by NPFs: Sensory properties and contextual
factors. In H. Aiking, J. de Boer, & J. Vereijken (Vol. Eds.), Sustainable Protein
Production and Consumption: Pigs or Peas? Vol. 45, (pp. 116–122). Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4842-4.
Funk, A., Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2020). The stereotypes attributed to hosts when
they offer an environmentally-friendly vegetarian versus a meat menu. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119508.
9
Food Quality and Preference 87 (2021) 104063
Guenther, P. M., Jensen, H. H., Batres-Marquez, S. P., & Chen, C.-F. (2005).
Sociodemographic, knowledge, and attitudinal factors related to meat consumption
in the United States. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(8), 1266–1274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2005.05.014.
Hagmann, D., Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2019). Meat avoidance: Motives, alternative
proteins and diet quality in a sample of Swiss consumers. Public Health Nutrition,
22(13), 2448–2459. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019001277.
Hartmann, C., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Compensatory beliefs, nutrition knowl-
edge and eating styles of users and non-users of meal replacement products. Appetite,
105, 775–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.013.
Hartmann, C., Ruby, M. B., Schmidt, P., & Siegrist, M. (2018). Brave, health-conscious,
and environmentally friendly: Positive impressions of insect food product consumers.
Food Quality and Preference, 68, 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.02.
001.
Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2017). Consumer perception and behaviour regarding
sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 61, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.006.
Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2020). Our daily meat: Justification, moral evaluation and
willingness to substitute. Food Quality and Preference, 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2019.103799.
Herman, C. P., Roth, D. A., & Polivy, J. (2003). Effects of the presence of others on food
intake: A normative interpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 129(6), 873–886. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.873.
Higgs, S. (2015). Social norms and their influence on eating behaviours. Appetite, 86,
38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.021.
Higgs, S., & Thomas, J. (2016). Social influences on eating. Current Opinion in Behavioral
Sciences, 9, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.10.005.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appet.2011.02.001.
Janda, S., & Trocchia, P. J. (2001). Vegetarianism: Toward a greater understanding.
Psychology and Marketing, 18(12), 1205–1240. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1050.
Judge, M., & Wilson, M. S. (2019). A dual-process motivational model of attitudes to-
wards vegetarians and vegans. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 169–178.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2386.
Lea, E., & Worsley, A. (2003). Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian
diet in Australia. Public Health Nutrition, 6(5), 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1079/
PHN2002452.
Leitzmann, C. (2014). Vegetarian nutrition: Past, present, future. The American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 100(suppl.), 496S–502S. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.113.
071365.
Lemken, D., Spiller, A., & Schulze-Ehlers, B. (2019). More room for legume – Consumer
acceptance of meat substitution with classic, processed and meat-resembling legume
products. Appetite, 143, Article 104412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.
104412.
F. Michel, et al.
Meiselman, H. L., Johnson, J. L., Reeve, W., & Crouch, J. E. (2000). Demonstrations of the
influence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite, 35(3), 231–237.
https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0360.
Mooney, K. M., DeTore, J., & Malloy, K. A. (1994). Perceptions of women related to food
choice. Sex Roles, 31(7–8), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544199.
Povey, R., Wellens, B., & Conner, M. (2001). Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian
and vegan diets: An examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite, 37(1), 15–26.
https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2001.0406.
Raphaely, T., & Marinova, D. (Eds.). (2016). Impact of meat consumption on health and
environmental sustainabilityIGI Globalhttps://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-9553-5.
Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the jus-
tification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363–375.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030379.
Rozin, P., Hormes, J. M., Faith, M. S., & Wansink, B. (2012). Is meat male? A quantitative
multimethod framework to establish metaphoric relationships. Journal of Consumer
Research, 39(3), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1086/664970.
Ruby, M. B. (2012). Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58(1), 141–150.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019.
Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2019). Impact of sustainability perception on consumption
of organic meat and meat substitutes. Appetite, 132, 196–202. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.appet.2018.09.016.
Stallberg-White, C., & Pliner, P. (1999). The effect of flavor principles on willingness to
taste novel foods. Appetite, 33(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.
0263.
Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (Destatis). (2019). https://www-genesis.destatis.
de/genesis/online?operation=abruftabelleBearbeiten&levelindex=1&levelid=
10
Food Quality and Preference 87 (2021) 104063
1593622184789&auswahloperation=abruftabelleAuspraegungAuswaehlen&
auswahlverzeichnis=ordnungsstruktur&auswahlziel=werteabruf&code=12411-
0007&auswahltext=&nummer=6&variable=6&name=GES&werteabruf=
Werteabruf#abreadcrumb.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T. D., Castel, V., Rosales M., M., & Haan, C. de.
(2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Stoll-Kleemann, S., & Schmidt, U. J. (2017). Reducing meat consumption in developed
and transition countries to counter climate change and biodiversity loss: A review of
influence factors. Regional Environmental Change, 17(5), 1261–1277. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10113-016-1057-5.
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers’ will-
ingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57(3), 674–682.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.010.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2019).
World Population Prospects 2019: Ten Key Findings. https://population.un.org/
wpp/Publications/.
Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., & Ingram, J. S. I. (2012). Climate change and food
systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 195–222. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608.
Worsley, A., & Skrzypiec, G. (1998). Teenage vegetarianism: Prevalence, social and
cognitive contexts. Appetite, 30(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1997.
0118.
Yantcheva, B., & Brindal, E. (2013). How much does what you eat matter? The potential
role of meal size, fat content, and gender on ratings of desirability. Eating Behaviors,
14(3), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.05.001.