Compromise Meat
- Created by: 07barkerf
- Created on: 07-01-17 11:27
View mindmap
- Compromise Meat products
- De Jonge et al. 2015
- Product preference is influenced by level of animal welfare and price.
- Education level effects meat welfare preference: Higher prefers higher welfare.
- Price sensitive consumers show less choice shift when compromise products are available.
- 6 Segments:
- 4. 14%: Prefer meat at enhanced welfare levels, 1-2*, with higher price sensitivity at 2* than 1*.
- 3. 18%: Alternate between lower levels of animal welfare and meat replacement products. Less price sensitive for for mainstream meat but prefer higher welfare dependent on price, but have a higher willingness to pay for higher welfare.
- 5. 9%: Leans towards higher levels of animal welfare, some preference towards meat replacement products.
- 5 + 6 consumers hold more negative attitudes towards consuming mainstream meat. Hold animal welfare highly.
- 5 + 6 consumers feel less comfortable and higher levels of shame regarding consumption of mainstream meat.
- 2. 23%: High preference for mainstream meat but more price sensitive. Would rather buy 1* welfare meat at a lower price. Prefer higher welfare if at minimum price.
- 6. 7&: Strong preference for meat replacement products and exclude meat based products.
- 5 + 6 consumers hold more negative attitudes towards consuming mainstream meat. Hold animal welfare highly.
- 5 + 6 consumers feel less comfortable and higher levels of shame regarding consumption of mainstream meat.
- 1. 29%: Strongly focused on mainstream meat. Not driven by animal welfare. Would rather buy mainstream meat at higher price.
- Without a compromise option: Mainstream meat would increase from 38% to 60% and Meat replacement products would increase from 22% to 32%.
- Compromise product Benefits
- Decreases the market share for minimum welfare products - positive for animals.
- Caters for price and preference indecision - Better for consumers.
- Compromise product Benefits
- Miranda-de la Lama, 2017
- Found women valued animal welfare higher than men.
- So did higher educated people.
- More access to information and so may be more emotionally involved.
- Women expressed more moral and ecological concerns, showing more sympathy for improved treatment of animals.
- So did higher educated people.
- A large number of respondents reported to know little about animal welfare.
- Many believed more information should be available and it should be in school teaching programs.
- Found women valued animal welfare higher than men.
- Marian and Thogersen, 2015
- Found people valued higher welfare levels, mainly commenting on the benefits to humans e.g. health and taste.
- Those which regularly bought top welfare products valued both the human benefits and the ethics for the animal.
- Comments included 'quality cost money' and being more willing to pay for it.
- Regular organic meat consumers showed higher knowledge about the welfare.
- Chini et al. 2015
- Found higher willingness to pay for meat tenderness than higher animal welfare, but respondents believed the higher welfare brings about the tenderness.
- Stoll-Kleemann and Schmidt, 2016
- Knowledge, values and attitudes are important, but emotions have stronger influence on behavioural changes.
- Cognitive dissonance causes people to ignore things such as the welfare.
- Social and cultural norms can create a barrier, so people who may want to buy meat alternatives do not necessarily have a choise.
- Knowledge, values and attitudes are important, but emotions have stronger influence on behavioural changes.
- Kunst and Hohle, 2016
- Found other effects on the purchasing of food:
- Level of the meat processing can trigger emotions -
- People presented with a whole plucked headless chicken (like in supermarkets) showed higher empathy levels compared to those shown diced chicken.
- Presentation of a food item
- People given a menu saying the animals name e.g. pig, instead of its food term e.g. pork, were less willing to order it.
- When purchasing food, people showed lower dissonance and higher empathy if an image of the animal was shown on the packaging.
- Level of the meat processing can trigger emotions -
- Found other effects on the purchasing of food:
- Schroder and McEachern, 2004
- Found organic food production to be favoured and large willingness to buy from such systems.
- Willingness to pay a price premium was smaller.
- Perceptions of what is acceptable treatment for farmed animals varied between individuals and species.
- Some consumers avoid certain meats from specific production systems, e.g. battery cages, or meats with negative thoughts e.g. veal.
- This study shows consumers do not necessarily act in accordance with their ethical belief.
- Though consumers want to buy from the best welfare production, it is often easier to use cognitive dissonance and buy from lower welfare because it is emotionally less conflicting.
- Most people reported if they had more money they would actively search out better welfare products.
- Found organic food production to be favoured and large willingness to buy from such systems.
- De Jonge et al. 2015
Comments
No comments have yet been made