Abstract
Edible insects are healthy and sustainable but are rejected as food in Western populations due to disgust. We tested the effectiveness of written interventions to reduce disgust and increase intake of whole crickets. Cricket acceptance after reading a descriptive social norm or food preparation intervention passage was compared with a control passage, and an unfamiliar but non-disgusting food ('leblebi' - roasted chickpeas). Participants (N = 120) were randomised to one of four conditions (control + crickets, food preparation + crickets, social norm + crickets and control + leblebi). Outcome measures included taste pleasantness, desire to eat, food intake and, to measure disgust, self-report disgust, tactile sensitivity and latency to eat. In the control condition, crickets were rejected due to disgust and low desire to eat. In comparison, in the social norm condition, crickets were rated as tasting more pleasant, more desirable, and less disgusting, and intake was greater. The food preparation passage had a small but positive effect on cricket intake. For the first time, this study shows that a descriptive social norm can affect eating behaviour even when a food is disgusting; however, a food preparation intervention cannot overcome high disgust. The pattern of results suggested that expected and perceived taste pleasantness affects disgust. Therefore, taste quality and normalising consumption are targets for promoting acceptance of insects, and probably other novel, sustainable foods.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 106768 |
Journal | Appetite |
Volume | 188 |
Early online date | 11 Jul 2023 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Sept 2023 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:Participants were all non-vegan or vegetarian, had no food allergies or intolerances, were not on a diet to lose weight and before attending the test session did not know that crickets may be served. All participants gave informed consent and the study was granted ethical approval by the University of Bristol Faculty of Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee (approval code: 12096).This research is funded by ESRC SWDTP PhD scholarship funding awarded to MG. The funding source had no involvement in the study in any way (e.g., design, data collection), nor the decision to submit the article for publication.
Funding Information:
This research is funded by ESRC SWDTP PhD scholarship funding awarded to MG. The funding source had no involvement in the study in any way (e.g., design, data collection), nor the decision to submit the article for publication.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors