The power of initial perceived barriers versus motives shaping consumers' willingness to eat cultured meat as a substitute for conventional meat

This study investigates the impact of initial perceived barriers and motives on consumers' willingness to eat cultured meat as a substitute for conventional meat using data collected in December 2013, shortly after the introduction of the first cultured beef burger to the public. The findings are based on a novel analysis of crosssectional data from a representative consumer sample (n = 398) from Flanders (Belgium). Improved animal welfare emerged as the strongest motive for considering whether to eat cultured meat, whereas cultured meat's perceived unnaturalness emerged as the strongest barrier. A binary logistic regression model was specified and estimated for explaining the determinants of willingness to eat cultured meat while simultaneously accounting for the effects of gender, age, vegetarianism and the terminology used. Based on the logistic regression estimates, simulations of the probability to eat cultured meat are provided for different profiles of consumers and depending on their strength of motives and perceived barriers. The use of 'cultured', 'in-vitro' or 'synthetic' when framing cultured meat did not significantly affect willingness to eat in the full model. Meanwhile, the likelihood of being willing to eat cultured meat was eight times larger among males compared to females; decreased by 50% per increase of 10 years in age; and was 14 times higher among non-vegetarians compared to vegetarians. A oneunit increase of the strength of motives and perceived barriers yielded, respectively, a 16-fold increase versus a 33-fold decrease of likelihood of acceptance. Perceived barriers herewith emerged as being twice as powerful in shaping consumers' willingness to eat cultured meat as compared to motives