The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What's in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names
Open accessAbstract
In vitro meat (IVM) grown from animal cells is approaching commercial viability. This technology could enable consumers to circumvent the ethical and environmental issues associated with meat-eating. However, consumer acceptance of IVM is uncertain, and is partly dependent on how the product is framed. This study investigated the effect of different names for IVM on measures of consumer acceptance. Participants (N = 185) were allocated to one of four conditions in an experimental design in which the product name was manipulated to be 'clean meat', 'cultured meat', 'animal free meat', or 'lab grown meat'. Participants gave word associations and measures of their attitudes and behavioural intentions towards the product. The results indicated that those in the 'clean meat' and 'animal free meat' conditions had significantly more positive attitudes towards IVM than those in the 'lab grown meat' condition, and those in the 'clean meat' condition had significantly more positive behavioural intentions towards IVM compared to those in the 'lab grown meat' condition. Mediation analyses indicated that the valence of associations accounted for a significant amount of the observed differences, suggesting that anchoring can explain these differences. We discuss these results in the context of social representations theory and give recommendations for future research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2013) · Cited by 44,563
Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393980 · Cited by 9,996
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828042002561 · Cited by 4,504
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
La psychanalyse, son image et son public
Moscovici, S. (2004) · Presses Universitaires de France eBooks · doi:10.3917/puf.mosco.2004.01 · Cited by 2,199
The phenomenon of social representations.
Moscovici, S. (1984) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,941
Environmental impacts of cultured meat production
Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es200130u · Cited by 891
Stephens, N., Di Silvio, L., Dunsford, I., Ellis, M., Glencross, A., & Sexton, A. (2018) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010 · Cited by 768
Cited by
Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production
Rubio, N. R., Xiang, N., & Kaplan, D. L. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20061-y · Cited by 606
The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review
Chriki, S., & Hocquette, J.-F. (2020) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2020.00007 · Cited by 518
Metadata
- Authors
- Bryant, C. J., & Barnett, J. C.
- Venue
- Appetite
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 137
- Pages
- 104-113
- ISSN
- 0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2919956443
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 23.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What's in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021
- The paper
- Bryant, C. J., & Barnett, J. C. (2019). What's in a name? Consumer perceptions of in vitro meat under different names. Appetite. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.021
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.