| Literature DB >> 35159488 |
Cristhiam E Gurdian1, Damir D Torrico2, Bin Li3, Witoon Prinyawiwatkul1.
Abstract
Sustainable and nutritious alternatives are needed to feed the ever-increasing world population. The successful incorporation of edible-cricket protein (ECP) into foods needs deeper consumer insights. Treatments (plain, Italian, and Cajun pita chips containing 6.9% w/w ECP) were evaluated by subjects for overall liking (OL), emotions, and purchase intent (PI) in three different moments: (1) before tasting, (2) after tasting/before ECP statement, and (3) after tasting/after ECP statement. Attributes' liking scores were evaluated only after tasting/before ECP statement. Liking scores (mixed-effects ANOVA), emotions, and PI across moments within treatments/across treatments within moments were evaluated. Emotion-based penalty-lift analyses for OL within moments were assessed using two-sample t-tests (p < 0.05). Random forest model analyzed after-tasting informed PI and variables' importance. Although formulations' OL and PI were similar across moments, plain and Italian chips had higher after-tasting (before and after ECP statement) OL than the Cajun chips. Moments indirectly affected OL via emotions elicitation. Valence and activation/arousal emotions discriminated across moments for the plain treatment whereas valence and mostly activation/arousal terms discriminated across moments for the Italian and Cajun treatments, respectively. For either formulation or moment, "interested" and "adventurous" positively affected OL. Before and after-tasting attribute liking, "satisfied," and "enthusiastic" emotions were critical in predicting after-tasting informed PI.Entities:
Keywords: alternative protein; consumer behavior; emotion-based liking; holistic sensory analysis; perceptions; purchase intent
Year: 2022 PMID: 35159488 PMCID: PMC8833981 DOI: 10.3390/foods11030337
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Formulation of pita chip treatments †.
| Ingredients | Plain | Italian | Cajun | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount (g) | Amount (%) | Amount (g) | Amount (%) | Amount (g) | Amount (%) | |
| Whole wheat flour | 36.78 | 45.98% | 35.60 | 44.50% | 34.68 | 43.35% |
| Purified drinking water | 33.04 | 41.30% | 33.04 | 41.30% | 33.04 | 41.30% |
| ECP | 5.52 | 6.90% | 5.52 | 6.90% | 5.52 | 6.90% |
| Coconut oil | 3.67 | 4.59% | 3.67 | 4.59% | 3.67 | 4.59% |
| Lite salt | 0.70 | 0.88% | 0.70 | 0.88% | 0.70 | 0.88% |
| Baking powder | 0.29 | 0.36% | 0.29 | 0.36% | 0.29 | 0.36% |
| Cajun seasoning | - | - | 2.10 | 2.63% | ||
| Sundried tomato basil seasoning | - | 0.92 | 1.15% | - | ||
| Italian-style herb seasoning | - | 0.26 | 0.33% | - | ||
† Treatments are described in Figure 1. ECP = Edible cricket protein.
Figure 1Graphical description of treatments (plain, Italian, and Cajun pita chip formulations containing 6.9 % w/w ECP). ECP = Edible cricket protein.
Demographic profile of participants from the consumer study.
| Demographic Variables | Levels |
| % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 41 | 48.81% |
| Male | 43 | 51.19% | |
| Age group | 18–22 | 45 | 53.57% |
| 23–29 | 24 | 28.57% | |
| 30–39 | 10 | 11.90% | |
| 40–49 | 2 | 2.38% | |
| 50–59 | 1 | 1.19% | |
| ≥60 | 2 | 2.38% | |
| Race | Asian | 5 | 5.95% |
| African American | 22 | 26.19% | |
| Latino | 14 | 16.67% | |
| Caucasian | 41 | 48.81% | |
| Other | 2 | 2.38% | |
| Previously consumed products containing edible insects | Yes | 33 | 39.29% |
| No | 51 | 60.71% |
ANOVA † table for sensory acceptability ‡ of treatments §.
| Effects | Aroma | Crunchiness | Overall Flavor | Overall Liking * | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F Value | Pr > F | F Value | Pr > F | F Value | Pr > F | F Value | Pr > F | |
| Gender | 1.81 | 0.18 | 1.61 | 0.21 | 3.30 | 0.07 | 1.70 | 0.20 |
| Age | 0.87 | 0.51 | 0.26 | 0.93 | 0.79 | 0.56 | 0.70 | 0.63 |
| Race | 0.39 | 0.82 | 0.66 | 0.62 | 0.81 | 0.52 | 0.60 | 0.66 |
| Previous edible insect consumption | 0.08 | 0.78 | 0.07 | 0.79 | 0.01 | 0.91 | 0.15 | 0.70 |
| Formulation | 31.63 | <0.01 | 11.88 | <0.01 | 12.24 | <0.01 | 16.56 | <0.01 |
| Moment | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2.00 | 0.14 |
| Gender * Previous edible insect consumption | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.17 | 0.68 | 0.02 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.99 |
| Gender * Formulation | 4.93 | 0.01 | 5.10 | 0.01 | 3.36 | 0.04 | 3.07 | 0.05 |
| Gender * Moment | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.32 | 0.73 |
| Previous edible insect consumption * Formulation | 14.23 | < 0.01 | 1.98 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.96 | 0.54 | 0.58 |
| Formulation * Moment | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1.37 | 0.24 |
| Gender * Formulation * Moment | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.29 | 0.88 |
† ANOVA = Analysis of variance 2 genders (female and male), 6 age groups (18–22, 23–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, ≥60 years old), 5 races (Asian, African American, Latino, Caucasian, Other), 2 levels of previous edible insect consumption (yes and no), 3 formulations (plain, Italian, and Cajun), and 3 levels of moment (before tasting, after tasting, and after edible cricket (ECP) protein statement). ‡ Liking data from n = 84 consumers were collected using a 9-point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely, 9 = like extremely) and analyzed by a mixed-effects model with panelists as a random effect. § Treatments are described in Figure 1. * Overall liking determined at three moments (before tasting, after tasting, and after ECP statement).
Figure 2Treatments’ sensory acceptability bar chart for the before-tasting (aroma) and after-tasting (before edible cricket protein (ECP) statement) moments (crunchiness and overall flavor). Data are liking ratings least square means and standard errors from n = 84 consumers. Treatments are described in Figure 1. Different uppercase letters indicate significantly (p < 0.05) different liking scores (Tukey’s means separation) across treatments.
Figure 3Treatments overall liking (OL; grey bars) and purchase intent (PI; trend line) chart comparing formulations and moments (before tasting, after tasting, and after edible cricket protein (ECP) statement). Data are OL least square means and standard errors/frequencies of PI = Yes from n = 84 consumers. Treatments are described in Figure 1. Different lowercase letters indicate significantly (p < 0.05) different OL scores (Tukey’s means separation) across treatments and moments. * No significant (p > 0.05) difference in PI frequencies across treatments within a given moment or across moments within a given treatment (Cochran’s Q test followed by asymptotic McNemar test for post hoc multiple pairwise comparisons and p-value adjustment by false discovery rate).
Emotional profile † elicited by the plain treatment ‡ across moments.
| Emotions | Plain | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Before Tasting | After Tasting (Before ECP Statement) | After Tasting (After ECP Statement) | |
| Active | 3 a | 4 a | 6 a |
| Adventurous | 38 a,(A) | 24 b | 31 a,b |
| Aggressive | 0 b | 5 a | 3 a,b,(B) |
| Bored | 9 a | 10 a | 12 a |
| Calm | 17 a | 13 a | 13 a |
| Disgusted | 8 a | 14 a | 11 a |
| Enthusiastic | 9 a | 5 a,(B) | 8 a,(B) |
| Free | 2 a | 0 a | 2 a |
| Good | 9 b | 18 a | 14 a,b |
| Good-natured | 7 a | 6 a | 11 a |
| Guilty | 3 a | 0 a | 0 a |
| Happy | 5 a | 5 a | 8 a |
| Interested | 46 a | 28 b | 27 b |
| Joyful | 3 a | 1 a | 2 a |
| Loving | 0 a | 0 a | 0 a |
| Mild | 11 a(A,B) | 12 a | 12 a |
| Nostalgic | 3 a | 0 a | 0 a |
| Pleasant | 7 a | 14 a | 10 a |
| Satisfied | 4 b | 16 a,(A,B) | 17 a |
| Safe | 5 a | 5 a | 6 a |
| Tame | 5 a | 6 a | 4 a |
| Understanding | 4 b | 7 a,b | 12 a |
| Warm | 0 a | 1 a,(B) | 2 a,(B) |
| Wild | 8 a | 5 a | 6 a |
| Worried | 14 a | 9 a | 7 a |
† Frequency of emotions for the plain treatment across moments (before tasting, after tasting, and after edible cricket protein (ECP) statement) from n = 84 consumers analyzed by two-sided Cochran’s Q test with Marascuilo and McSweeney procedure. Different lowercase/uppercase letters within a row represent significant (p < 0.05) differences across moments for the plain treatment/treatments (Table 5 and Table 6) within a given moment. ‡ Treatments are described in Figure 1.
Emotional profile † elicited by the Italian treatment ‡ across moments.
| Emotions | Italian | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Before Tasting | After Tasting (Before ECP Statement) | After Tasting (After ECP Statement) | |
| Active | 6 a | 9 a | 6 a |
| Adventurous | 29 a,(B) | 24 a | 26 a |
| Aggressive | 2 a | 3 a | 2 a,(B) |
| Bored | 9 a | 6 a | 6 a |
| Calm | 14 a | 10 a | 8 a |
| Disgusted | 10 a | 13 a | 12 a |
| Enthusiastic | 11 a | 11 a,(A,B) | 8 a,(B) |
| Free | 5 a | 3 a | 3 a |
| Good | 12 a | 19 a | 17 a |
| Good-natured | 6 b | 9 a,b | 14 a |
| Guilty | 3 a | 0 a | 0 a |
| Happy | 8 a | 11 a | 12 a |
| Interested | 37 a | 27 a | 38 a |
| Joyful | 2 a | 3 a | 1 a |
| Loving | 0 a | 1 a | 0 a |
| Mild | 19 a,(A) | 13 a | 11 a |
| Nostalgic | 2 a | 1 a | 1 a |
| Pleasant | 5 b | 12 a | 9 a,b |
| Satisfied | 5 b | 17 a,(A) | 14 a |
| Safe | 6 a | 7 a | 5 a |
| Tame | 3 a | 3 a | 3 a |
| Understanding | 4 b | 4 b | 10 a |
| Warm | 0 a | 2 a,(B) | 3 a,(A,B) |
| Wild | 6 a | 9 a | 6 a |
| Worried | 10 a | 6 a | 5 a |
† Frequency of emotions for the Italian treatment across moments (before tasting, after tasting, and after edible cricket protein (ECP) statement) from n = 84 consumers analyzed by two-sided Cochran’s Q test with Marascuilo and McSweeney procedure. Different lowercase/uppercase letters within a row represent significant (p < 0.05) differences across moments for the Italian treatment/treatments (Table 4 and Table 6) within a given moment. ‡ Treatments are described in Figure 1.
Emotional profile † elicited by the Cajun treatment ‡ across moments.
| Emotions | Cajun | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Before Tasting | After Tasting (Before ECP Statement) | After Tasting (After ECP Statement) | |
| Active | 4 a | 5 a | 6 a |
| Adventurous | 40 a,(A) | 25 b | 27 b |
| Aggressive | 1 b | 9 a | 9 a,(A) |
| Bored | 5 a | 8 a | 6 a |
| Calm | 11 a | 7 a | 8 a |
| Disgusted | 14 a | 19 a | 16 a |
| Enthusiastic | 11 a | 13 a,(A) | 17 a,(A) |
| Free | 4 a | 0 a | 2 a |
| Good | 11 a | 14 a | 12 a |
| Good-natured | 7 a | 6 a | 8 a |
| Guilty | 2 a | 1 a | 0 a |
| Happy | 3 a | 4 a | 5 a |
| Interested | 41 a | 27 b | 32 a,b |
| Joyful | 4 a | 2 a | 3 a |
| Loving | 0 a | 0 a | 0 a |
| Mild | 10 a,(B) | 13 a | 12 a |
| Nostalgic | 2 a | 1 a | 1 a |
| Pleasant | 4 a | 6 a | 5 a |
| Satisfied | 8 a | 6 a,(B) | 9 a |
| Safe | 7 a | 3 a | 5 a |
| Tame | 6 a | 3 a | 2 a |
| Understanding | 5 a | 7 a | 9 a |
| Warm | 1 b | 9 a,(A) | 8 a,b,(A) |
| Wild | 7 a | 11 a | 10 a |
| Worried | 12 a | 9 a,b | 4 b |
† Frequency of emotions for the Cajun treatment across moments (before tasting, after tasting, and after edible cricket protein (ECP) statement) from n = 84 consumers analyzed by two-sided Cochran’s Q test with Marascuilo and McSweeney procedure. Different lowercase/uppercase letters within a row represent significant (p < 0.05) differences across moments for the Cajun treatment/treatments (Table 4 and Table 5) within a given moment. ‡ Treatments are described in Figure 1.
Figure 4Correspondence analysis (chi-squared distance) symmetric plot visualizing the plain treatment moments (before tasting, after tasting, and after edible cricket protein (ECP) statement) and emotions from n = 84 consumers. Treatments are described in Figure 1.
Figure 5Correspondence analysis (chi-squared distance) symmetric plot visualizing the Italian treatment moments (before tasting, after tasting, and after edible cricket protein (ECP) statement) and emotions from n = 84 consumers. Treatments are described in Figure 1.
Figure 6Correspondence analysis (chi-squared distance) symmetric plot visualizing the Cajun treatment moments (before tasting, after tasting, and after edible cricket protein (ECP) statement) and emotions from n = 84 consumers. Treatments are described in Figure 1.
Figure 7Treatments’ before-tasting overall liking (OL) mean impact (mean OL difference from present vs. absent categories for each emotion with a 20% population threshold size) vs. significant (p < 0.05, 2-sample t-test) emotions in the before-tasting moment (%) from n = 84 consumers. Before-tasting emotions and OL from treatments (Figure 1) were pooled together for the analysis.
Figure 8Treatments’ after-tasting overall liking (OL) mean impact (mean OL difference from present vs. absent categories for each emotion with a 20% population threshold size) vs. significant (p < 0.05, 2-sample t-test) emotions in the after-tasting moment (%) from n = 84 consumers (A) before edible cricket protein (ECP) statement and (B) after ECP statement. After-tasting emotions and OL from treatments (Figure 1) were pooled together for the analysis.
Figure 9Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve illustrating the area under the curve (AUC) for the random forest classifier.
Figure 10Random forest classifier variables importance plots for after-tasting (after edible cricket protein (ECP) statement) purchase intent (PI) prediction. † Before-tasting moment; ‡ after-tasting (before ECP statement) moment; * after-tasting (after ECP statement) moment. Emotions included in the model were from the after-tasting (after ECP statement) moment.