The Impact of Framing on Acceptance of Cultured Meat

Abstract

Cultured meat can be produced from growing animal cells in-vitro rather than as part of a living animal. This technology has the potential to address several of the major ethical, environmental, and public health concerns associated with conventional meat production. However, research has highlighted some consumer uncertainty regarding the concept. Although several studies have examined the media coverage of this new food technology, research linking different frames to differences in consumer attitudes is lacking. In an experimental study, we expose U.S. adults ( n = 480) to one of three different frames on cultured meat: “societal benefits,” “high tech,” and “same meat.” We demonstrate that those who encounter cultured meat through the “high tech” frame have significantly more negative attitudes toward the concept, and are significantly less likely to consume it. Worryingly, this has been a very dominant frame in early media coverage of cultured meat. Whilst this is arguably inevitable, since its technologically advanced nature is what makes it newsworthy, we argue that this high tech framing may be causing consumers to develop more negative attitudes toward cultured meat than they otherwise might. Implications for producers and researchers are discussed.

“You Call that Meat?” Investigating Social Media Conversations and Influencers Surrounding Cultured Meat

“…Additionally, agribusinesses, commodity groups, and researchers should develop strategic talking points and social media strategies to engage in online conversations about cultured meat. These themes show some similarities to themes and perceptions identified in previous studies (Bryant & Barnett, 2018;Bryant & Dillard, 2019;Goodwin & Shoulders, 2013;Laestadius & Caldwell, 2015;Wilks & Phillips, 2017). However, researchers in the different studies elected different names for similar themes.…”

“…Respondents identified taste, price, and unnaturalness as barriers to consumption (Bryant & Barnett, 2018;Wilks & Phillips, 2017). Finally, a recent experimental study exposed U.S. consumers to different communication frames on cultured meat (Bryant & Dillard, 2019). Consumers were found to have significantly more negative attitudes when a "high tech" frame was used to discussed cultured meat (Bryant & Dillard, 2019).…”

Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing

“…Associating meat with lab technology appears to be off-putting to many consumers. Bryant and Dillard (2019) investigated the acceptance of lab-grown meat under different frames, highlighting either: the societal benefits of its consumption ("reducing harm to the environment and helping animals"), its technological novelty ("high tech"), or that cultured and conventional meat are the "same". The authors found that the high-tech framing group reported the least positive attitudes toward lab-grown meat and its consumption.…”

Cultured Meat and Australia's Generation Z

“…There have already been other studies investigating the acceptance of cultured meat in places, such as USA (14,15) and the Netherlands (16); comparisons have been made between consumers in USA, China and India (17); the USA and the UK (18); and China, Ethiopia and the Netherlands (19). Systematic literature reviews highlight the demographic and geographic variations between consumers (20,21) as well as the need for further research.…”