Cited by 120Insect Utilization and EffectsPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact

Cooking and disgust sensitivity influence preference for attending insect-based food events

Hamerman, Eric J.·2016·Appetite

Abstract

Insects are energy-efficient and sustainable sources of animal protein in a world with insufficient food resources to feed an ever-increasing population. However, much of the western world refuses to eat insects because they perceive them as disgusting. This research finds that both animal reminder disgust and core disgust reduced people's willingness to attend a program called "Bug Appétit" in which insects were served as food. Additionally, people who were low in sensitivity to animal reminder disgust were more willing to attend this program after having been primed to think about cooking. Cooking is a process by which raw ingredients are transformed into finished products, reducing the "animalness" of meat products that renders them disgusting. Sensitivity to core disgust did not interact with cooking to influence willingness to attend the program. While prior research has emphasized that direct education campaigns about the benefits of entomophagy (the consumption of insects) can increase willingness to attend events at which insect-based food is served, this is the first demonstration that indirect priming can have a similar effect among a subset of the population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2015.09.029

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Social acceptance for insect-based foods is higher when consumers had experience with insect food and when they are incorporated into familiar food items.

    “that the social acceptance for these new foods is higher when consumers had experience with insect food and when they are incorporated into familiar food items (Hamerman, 2016;Le Goff & Delarue, 2016)”

    From Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry (2018) · cites this paper as Hamerman, 2016

  • Consumers have higher willingness to eat processed insect-based foods compared to unprocessed foods.

    “that consumers are higher willingness to eat the processed insect-based foods compared to the unprocessed foods”

    From Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry (2018) · cites this paper as Hamerman, 2016

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 55 · Cited by 120

Authors
Hamerman, E. J.
Affiliations
Tulane University (US)
Corresponding author
Hamerman, Eric J.
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-01
Volume
96
Pages
319-326
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1958295066
Cited by
120
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Appetite (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Tulane University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect Utilization and Effects
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Keywords
edible insects, entomophagy, disgust sensitivity, core disgust, food acceptance
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Cooking, Culture, Emotions, Female, Humans, Insecta, Male, Meat Products, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review