Cited by 326Sensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling

Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context

Open access
Elzerman, Johanna E., Hoek, Annet C., van Boekel, Martinus A.J.S., Luning, Pieternel A.·2011·Food Quality and Preference

Abstract

The replacement of meat by meat substitutes could help to reduce the environmental burden of our food production systems. However, the acceptance of most meat substitutes is still low. This study investigated the role of meal context on the acceptance of meat substitutes. In a central location test involving 93 participants, meals with meat substitutes were rated on overall liking, product liking (liking of the meat substitute in the meal), appropriateness and intention-to-use, whereas individual meat substitutes were rated on overall liking. Meat substitutes with similar flavor and texture, but with different shape (pieces and mince), were rated differently in four meals (rice, spaghetti, soup, and salad) on product liking, appropriateness and intention-to-use, but not differently on overall liking of the meals. Meat substitutes with similar shape, but different flavor and texture rated differently on overall liking when tasted separately, but did not always differ in product liking when tasted in a rice meal. Appropriateness seemed to be influenced by the appearance of the meat substitute-meal combination, and less by flavor and texture. For the development of new foods (e.g. meat substitutes), more emphasis is needed on consumer evaluation of meal combinations instead of on the sensory properties of the individual product.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.10.006

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 38 · Cited by 326

Authors
Elzerman, J. E., Hoek, A. C., van Boekel, M. A. J. S., & Luning, P. A.
Affiliations
Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Elzerman, Johanna E.
Venue
Food Quality and Preference
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
233-240
ISSN
0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2022948926
Cited by
326
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Sensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Keywords
meat substitutes, consumer acceptance, meal context, intention to use, texture and flavor, food shape, food appearance, meat consumption reduction

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