Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat

Accepted Manuscript Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat Gerben A. Bekker, Hilde Arnout R.H. Fischer, Hilde Tobi, Hans C.M. van Trijp PII:

S0195-6663(16)30503-7

DOI:

10.1016/j.appet.2016.10.002

Reference:

APPET 3175

To appear in:

Appetite

Received Date: 3 June 2016 Revised Date:

20 September 2016

Accepted Date: 2 October 2016

Please cite this article as: Bekker G.A., Fischer H.A.R.H., Tobi H. & van Trijp H.C.M., Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat, Appetite (2016), doi: 10.1016/ j.appet.2016.10.002. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1

Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat.

2

Gerben A. Bekker a, b, Hilde Arnout R. H. Fischer a, *, Hilde Tobi b, Hans C. M. van Trijp a

3 4 a

Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Social Sciences, Wageningen University & Research

RI PT

5 6

Address: Hollandseweg 1, 6706KN Wageningen, The Netherlands

7

Postal address: Messenger number 87, PO Box 8130, 6700EW Wageningen, The Netherlands

8

E-mail addresses: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

10

b

SC

9

Biometris, Wageningen University & Research

Address: Hollandseweg 1, 6706KN Wageningen, The Netherlands

12

Postal address: Messenger number 68, PO Box 8130, 6700EW Wageningen, The Netherlands

13

E-mail address: [email protected]

14

TE D

17

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. R. H. Fischer)

EP

16

* Corresponding author

AC C

15

M AN U

11

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Abstract

18 19

Cultured meat is an unfamiliar emerging food technology that could provide a near endless supply of high quality protein with a relatively small ecological footprint. To

21

understand consumer acceptance of cultured meat, this study investigated the influence of

22

information provision on the explicit and implicit attitude toward cultured meat. Three

23

experiments were conducted using a Solomon four-group design to rule out pretest

24

sensitization effects. The first experiment (N = 190) showed that positive or negative

25

information about cultured meat changed the explicit attitude in the direction of the

26

information. This effect was smaller for participants who were more familiar with cultured

27

meat. In the second experiment (N = 194) positive information was provided about solar

28

panels, an attitude object belonging to the same sustainable product category as sustainable

29

food products such as cultured meat. Positive information about solar panels was found to

30

change the explicit attitude in the direction of the information. Using mood induction, the third

31

experiment (N = 192) ruled out the alternative explanation that explicit attitude change in

32

experiment 1 and 2 was caused by content free affect rather than category based inferences.

33

The implicit attitude appeared insensitive to both information or mood state in all three

34

experiments. These findings show that the explicit attitude toward cultured meat can be

35

influenced by information about the sustainability of cultured meat and information about a

36

positively perceived sustainable product. This effect was shown to be content based rather

37

than merely affect based. Content based information in a relevant context could therefore

38

contribute to the commercial success of cultured meat.

40

SC

M AN U

TE D

EP

AC C

39

RI PT

20

Keywords: Cultured meat, Explicit attitude, Implicit attitude, Attitude change,

Information provision, Mood.

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Introduction

42

The basic idea of cultured meat is that animal meat is grown using a bioreactor

43

instead of an animal (Edelman, McFarland, Mironov, & Matheny, 2005; Tuomisto & de

44

Mattos, 2011; van der Weele & Tramper, 2014). Cultured meat is an emerging technology

45

that can contribute considerably to the growing need for more high quality protein at lower

46

environmental costs than conventional meat (see for example, Boland et al., 2013). Provided

47

the technology becomes successful, near endless supplies of cultured meat may be

48

produced with a relatively small ecological footprint (Mattick, Landis, Allenby, & Genovese,

49

2015; Tuomisto & de Mattos, 2011). Cultured meat, then, could (partly) replace the

50

conventional meat production with its large ecological footprint (Fiala, 2008; Steinfeld et al.,

51

2006). The success of cultured meat will depend to a large extent on consumer attitudes

52

toward the product (Datar & Betti, 2010), because consumers’ attitudes influence their

53

product choices (Armitage & Conner, 2001).

M AN U

SC

RI PT

41

Attitudes are psychological constructs that in a broad sense consist of the evaluation

54

of an object (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). A person can either retrieve a stored evaluation, or

56

construct an evaluation through cognitive elaboration of relevant information (Fazio, 2007;

57

Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006). When a stored evaluation is retrieved this is often

58

automatic and without reasoning. Automatically retrieved evaluations without reasoning are

59

called implicit attitudes (Fazio, 2007; Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006). An evaluation

60

constructed through cognitive elaboration of available information, including that provided by

61

implicit associations, are expressed as an explicit attitude (Gawronski & Bodenhausen,

62

2006).

EP

AC C

63

TE D

55

Explicit attitudes have primarily been measured using self-report scales (Hendrick,

64

Fischer, Tobi, & Frewer, 2013). Self-report scales typically report explicit attitudes, because

65

filling out the scales requires cognitive elaboration (Bohner & Dickel, 2011; Eagly & Chaiken,

66

2007; Gawronski, 2007; Greenwald & Nosek, 2008). Implicit attitudes on the other hand, are

67

measured with response time based measurement methods (Gawronski, 2007). The time

68

required to connect an attitude object to an evaluation, indicates how closely the attitude 3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 69

object and the evaluation are implicitly associated (Hofmann, Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le,

70

& Schmitt, 2005; Wittenbrink & Schwarz, 2007).

71

Implicit and explicit attitudes play different roles in decision making (Ayres, Conner, Prestwich, & Smith, 2012; Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009; Perugini, 2005;

73

Richetin, Perugini, Adjali, & Hurling, 2007). Implicit attitudes are more predictive for

74

spontaneous behavior, whereas explicit attitudes are more predictive for deliberate behavior

75

(Perugini, 2005). For well-known objects that are unambiguously positive (or negative), the

76

automatically activated implicit attitudes and the more elaborately reasoned explicit attitudes

77

are likely to be similar (Greenwald et al., 2009). For objects that have both positive and

78

negative associations, implicit and explicit attitudes may differ. For example, racial or gender

79

stereotyping research consistently finds that implicit attitude measures show a stereotypical

80

response, while explicit attitudes do not (Cunningham, Nezlek, & Banaji, 2004; Kawakami &

81

Dovidio, 2001; Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997).

SC

M AN U

82

RI PT

72

In contrast with well-known objects, unfamiliar attitude objects, such as cultured meat, are not related to well-developed stored attitudes (Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes,

84

1986; Fazio, 2007). The absence of a well-developed stored attitude toward an unfamiliar

85

attitude object requires people to construct an explicit attitude on the spot, based on

86

whatever information is provided. Provided information together with knowledge people have

87

about the unfamiliar object allows them to create an attitude based on cognitive elaboration

88

(Achterberg, 2014; Lusk et al., 2004; McComas, Besley, & Steinhardt, 2014).

EP

AC C

89

TE D

83

The implicit attitude toward an unfamiliar attitude object is likely based on the most

90

accessible associations, which are activated in response to the unfamiliar attitude object

91

(Wyer, 2008). If the unfamiliar attitude object involves unnatural, or immoral interventions, an

92

automatic disgust response, or a so-called ‘yuck’ response, is to be expected (Haidt, 2001;

93

Schnall, Haidt, Clore, & Jordan, 2008). Previous research has argued for the existence of

94

such a ‘yuck’ factor for cultured meat (Pluhar, 2010) and has found this response in interview

95

studies (van der Weele & Driessen, 2013; Verbeke, Marcu, et al., 2015). In spite of the claim

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 96

that the ‘yuck’ factor is largely automatically activated, no study on cultured meat used

97

measurement methods aimed at measuring automatically activated responses.

98 99

Even without any information, people seem able to make sense of unfamiliar attitude objects. In order to make sense of an unfamiliar attitude object people must access some existing knowledge in their memory. This existing knowledge likely originates from an

101

existing category of objects similar to the unfamiliar attitude object. The provision of

102

information can facilitate the connection between the unfamiliar object and the existing

103

category, enabling people to make sense of the unfamiliar object (Gentner, 1988; Gregan-

104

Paxton & Moreau, 2003). As the provided information adds on existing knowledge, the effect

105

of new information will be smaller when more information is already stored in memory.

SC

RI PT

100

Once the unfamiliar object is related to an existing category, implicit and explicit

107

attitudes toward the unfamiliar object are inferred from the attitude toward the category

108

prototype (Kardes, Posavac, & Cronley, 2004; Ranganath & Nosek, 2008; Ratliff, Swinkels,

109

Klerx, & Nosek, 2012). These inferences can be based on content or content free affect

110

(Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986).

TE D

111

M AN U

106

Depending on the information the explicit and implicit attitude toward an unfamiliar attitude object can relate in different ways. Information about an unfamiliar attitude object can

113

provide new knowledge that adds propositions about the unfamiliar object, which become

114

apparent in the explicit attitude toward that object (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006). This

115

results in the following hypotheses:

117 118 119 120

AC C

116

EP

112

H1a: Information related to the unfamiliar attitude object will change the explicit attitude in the direction of the valence of the information. H1b: The effect of information provision on explicit attitude change is smaller for people who are more familiar with the unfamiliar attitude object.

121 122 123

Information may also support categorization of the unfamiliar attitude object into an existing category of similar objects. This categorization can activate category based implicit 5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 124

associations. These implicit associations may inform the explicit attitude toward the

125

unfamiliar attitude object and thereby increase the relation between the explicit and implicit

126

attitude (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006). This will be explored in the current study.

127

To investigate the effect of information provision on the explicit and implicit attitude toward an unfamiliar attitude object, the attitudes before and after information provision need

129

to be compared. The pretest measurement may however, influence participants’ sensitivity to

130

experimental stimuli and thereby influence the outcome of the posttest measurement

131

(Campbell & Stanley, 1966). This pretest sensitization effect has been illustrated in various

132

fields within the social sciences (Willson & Putnam, 1982). Awareness of the pretest

133

sensitization effect may be especially relevant when measuring attitudes toward attitude

134

objects that are unfamiliar to participants, because participants in the pretest are made

135

aware of their limited knowledge about the attitude object making them extra motivated to

136

pay attention to new information. In order to rule out pretest sensitization effects, a Solomon

137

four-group design can be used, which makes it possible to compare the effect of information

138

between participants that did or did not have a pretest (Solomon, 1949).

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

128

139

Experiment 1

140

In experiment 1, we explored the effect that positive or negative information about

EP

141

cultured meat had on the explicit attitude toward cultured meat, by providing new knowledge

143

that should add to the existing limited knowledge structure of cultured meat. Most

144

participants were unfamiliar with cultured meat because at the time of the experiment no

145

products had become commercially available on the consumer market and because cultured

146

meat had only limited press coverage. This made cultured meat an unfamiliar attitude object

147

with a limited knowledge structure.

AC C

142

148

Material and methods

149 150

Participants and Design

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 151

A Solomon four-group design, with an experimental 2 (positive versus negative information about cultured meat) x 2 (pretest versus no-pretest) between subjects design

153

was conducted. For each individual, the implicit and explicit attitudes toward cultured meat

154

were measured. Participants were Wageningen University students who spoke fluent Dutch.

155

They received a two euro university cafeteria voucher. Data of 203 participants were

156

collected in the fall of 2012. Thirteen participants were excluded from the sample, because

157

they did not meet the response time requirements for the implicit attitude measurement

158

method. The final sample consisted of 190 participants (54 male and 136 female), age

159

between 17 and 28 years with a median of 21.

162

Materials and manipulations

SC

161

M AN U

160

RI PT

152

The experiment was conducted in individual cubicles. Displays were 17.3 inch with a resolution of 1600 x 900 pixels and a screen refresh rate of 60 Hz from 2.4 GHz dual core

164

laptops with external keyboard and mouse. The experiment was programmed in Inquisit

165

3.0.6. (Inquisit, 2011).

TE D

163

Fictitious scenarios with positive or negative information about cultured meat were

167

created. A pilot (N = 20) showed that the positive and negative scenario were equally difficult

168

to understand and equally credible. After minor textual adjustments the information was:

169

EP

166

“Cultured meat is meat that is grown from stem cells and produced in a laboratory. It

171

has certain important [dis]advantages in comparison to regular meat.

172

Cultured meat is good [bad] for the environment because greenhouse gas emissions

173

and energy use is low [high]. It is [un]pleasant to know that by eating cultured meat you

174

are doing something good [bad] for the environment. In addition, a test panel has found

175

the taste of cultured meat to be better [worse] than that of regular meat. It is nice

176

[gross] to eat cultured meat instead of regular meat. Finally, for the production of

177

cultured meat less [more] antibiotics and growth enhancing substances are required

178

compared to regular meat. This fortunately [unfortunately] results in the consumption of

AC C

170

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 179

less [more] artificial substances.” (Positive information condition, with the negative

180

alternatives in square brackets. Translated from Dutch).

181

183

Measures Explicit attitude measures. The explicit attitude was measured using 19 items on a

RI PT

182

7-point semantic differential scale (adapted from Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994). Items were

185

presented in a random order. The explicit attitude score (Cronbach’s α = .95) was calculated

186

by averaging three subscales with respectively eight affective (Cronbach’s α = .92), seven

187

cognitive (Cronbach’s α = .92) and four general items (Cronbach’s α = .93). Split-half

188

reliability, the average of five different splits using the Spearman-Brown formula (Walker &

189

Lev, 1953), was .96 in both the pretest and posttest.

M AN U

190

SC

184

Implicit attitude measures. The Single Target Implicit Association Test (ST-IAT; see de Liver, van der Pligt, & Wigboldus, 2007; Friese, Bluemke, & Wanke, 2007), a response

192

time based measurement method, was used to measure implicit attitude. The ST-IAT has

193

been shown to be valid for measuring implicit attitudes toward single attitude objects (Bar-

194

Anan & Nosek, 2014; Bluemke & Friese, 2008).

195

TE D

191

The ST-IAT consisted of four blocks. Block 1 and 3 were practice blocks, block 2 and 4 were test blocks. In each block positive or negative words had to be categorized with the ‘a’

197

key and words with the opposite valence with the “5” key on the numeric pad. Words

198

representing cultured meat had to be categorized with the same key as the positive or

199

negative words in block 1 and 2, and with the same key as words of the opposite valence in

200

block 3 and 4. Cultured meat words assigned to the same key as positive words formed a

201

positive practice and test block and cultured meat words assigned to the same key as

202

negative words formed a negative practice and test block. Key assignment of the positive

203

and negative words, and cultured meat words were counterbalanced. A pilot study with

204

participants from the same population (N = 23) showed that the words selected to represent

205

cultured meat were associated with cultured meat (see Appendix A for the words).

AC C

EP

196

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The practice blocks consisted of 24 words (7 cultured meat, 7 positive or negative

207

words assigned to one key, and 10 oppositely valenced words assigned to the other key).

208

The test blocks consisted of 48 words (14 cultured meat, 14 valenced words, and 20

209

oppositely valenced words) (following the procedure of Karpinski & Steinman, 2006). Within

210

a block, words were presented in random order (see Fig. 1 for schematic example).

RI PT

206

211

“A” “5” 7 Positive 10 Negative 7 Cultured meat

M AN U

Positive test block

SC

Positive practice block

“A” “5” 14 Positive 20 Negative 14 Cultured meat

Negative practice block

Negative test block “A” 20 Positive

“5” 14 Negative 14 Cultured meat

AC C

212

“5” 7 Negative 7 Cultured meat

EP

time

TE D

“A” 10 positive

213

Fig. 1. Schematic example of an ST-IAT consisting of four consecutive blocks, with key

214

assignment and number of words that need to be categorized.

215 216

The implicit attitude was operationalized as the D score and calculated by dividing the

217

difference of the mean response latencies between the positive and negative test block by

218

the standard deviation of all test block response latencies. Response latency was measured

219

as the time it took to correctly categorize a word from the first moment it was presented.

220

Individual trials with response latencies greater than 10,000 milliseconds were removed 9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 221

(following Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003). Participants who had a response latency

222

smaller than 300 milliseconds in more than 10% of their trials were excluded from the sample

223

(following Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003). Split-half reliability, using the Spearman-

224

Brown formula, was .57 in the pretest and .72 in the posttest. Demographic and background measures. Self-reported familiarity with cultured

RI PT

225 226

meat was measured by the item “prior to this study, to what extent were you familiar with

227

cultured meat” with the options unfamiliar, a little bit familiar and familiar.

228

230

Procedure

SC

229

Before the start of the experiment, participants were told they would participate in a study testing their speed and accuracy to categorize a variety of words and that it did not

232

matter whether they knew about cultured meat. After electronic confirmation of consent

233

participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions using block randomization.

234

M AN U

231

Participants in the pretest condition started with the ST-IAT followed by the explicit attitude measurement method. Afterwards they received positive or negative information

236

about cultured meat. Participants assigned to the no-pretest condition started the experiment

237

with the information. All participants were instructed to read the information carefully. To

238

ensure minimum reading time it was only possible to continue with the ST-IAT after 30

239

seconds. Following the ST-IAT, the explicit attitude was measured.

241 242 243 244

EP

Next, demographic and background information was collected, participants were

AC C

240

TE D

235

debriefed, received their reward and were thanked for participation.

Statistical analyses

Effects of information provision, presence of a pretest, and familiarity with cultured

245

meat on posttest explicit and implicit attitude scores were analyzed in two ways. The first

246

analysis, using a general linear model (GLM), included posttest explicit and implicit attitude

247

scores as dependent variables, information condition and pretest condition as factor and

248

familiarity as a covariate. All main effects, and the two-way interactions between information 10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT condition and pretest condition, and between information condition and familiarity were

250

included. This analysis provided the possibility to observe a possible pretest sensitization

251

effect. The second analysis, using a repeated measures GLM, focused on explicit and

252

implicit attitude change between the pretest and posttest for those participants who were

253

assigned to the pretest condition.

254

Results

255 256

RI PT

249

Prior to information, participants had a negative implicit attitude score toward cultured meat, M = -0.18, SD 0.32, t(96) = -5.58, p <.001, and an explicit attitude score around the

258

central scale point, M = 3.99, SD = 1.10 (see Table 1, for mean implicit and explicit attitude

259

scores by level of familiarity with cultured meat). Pretest and posttest explicit attitude scores

260

were correlated, r (95) = .543, p < .001, as were pretest and posttest implicit attitude scores,

261

r (95) = .205, p = .044. Pretest explicit and implicit attitude scores were not correlated in the

262

positive information condition, r(46) = -.050, p = .738, or the negative information condition,

263

r(47) = .200, p = .168. The correlation between the posttest explicit and implicit attitude

264

scores was found to be significant in the positive information condition, r (92) = .343, p =

265

.001, but not in the negative information condition, r (94) = .190, p = .064.

TE D

M AN U

SC

257

Hypothesis testing using posttest data of all participants. Positive and negative

267

information had an effect on posttest explicit attitude score, F(1, 184) = 27.03, p <.001, η2 =

268

.128, in the direction of the information (see Fig. 2), which supports hypothesis 1a (mean

269

positive information = 4.45 and mean negative information = 3.46). This was not found for

270

posttest implicit attitude score, F(1, 184) = 3.73, p = .055, η2 = .020 (see Fig. 2) (mean

271

positive = -.11 and mean negative = -.20). Familiarity had an effect on posttest explicit

272

attitude score, F(1, 184) = 11.10, p = .001, η2 = .057, participants who reported to be more

273

familiar with cultured meat had a more positive posttest explicit attitude score, r (188) = .177,

274

p = .014 (see Table 1). Familiarity had no effect on posttest implicit attitude score, F(1, 184)

275

= 2.47, p = .118, η2 = .013. The interaction between familiarity and information on posttest

276

explicit attitude score, F(1, 184) = 9.16, p = .003, η2 = .047, indicated that information had

AC C

EP

266

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT less effect on posttest explicit attitude score when participants were more familiar with

278

cultured meat, which is in line with hypothesis 1b. As a consequence, information had a

279

significant effect for participants who reported to be unfamiliar or a little bit familiar, but not for

280

participants who reported to be familiar with cultured meat (see Table 1). A similar pattern

281

was not found for posttest implicit attitude score, F(1, 184) = 0.47, p = .492, η2 = .003. No

282

differences were found between participants with and without pretest on posttest explicit

283

attitude score, F(1, 184) = 0.16, p = .690, η2 = .001, or posttest implicit attitude score, F(1,

284

184) = 0.13, p = .715, η2 = .001, nor was the interaction between information and pretest

285

significant for the posttest explicit attitude score, F(1, 184) = 1.54, p = .217, η2 = .008, or

286

posttest implicit attitude score, F(1, 184) = 0.85, p = .358, η2 = .005.

SC

Hypothesis testing using data of participants with both a pretest and a posttest.

M AN U

287

RI PT

277

No difference was found between pretest and posttest explicit attitude scores, F(1, 93) =

289

0.01, p = .970, η2 < .001, or between pretest and posttest implicit attitude scores, F(1, 93) =

290

1.60, p = .209, η2 = .017. The significant interaction between pretest-posttest difference and

291

information condition, F(1, 93) = 51.31, p < .001, η2 = .356, indicated that explicit attitude

292

score changed in the direction of the information (see Fig. 2) (mean difference positive

293

information = 0.76 and mean difference negative information = - 0.72), which provides further

294

support for hypothesis 1a. No interaction between pretest-posttest difference and information

295

condition was found for the implicit attitude score, F(1, 93) = 0.24, p = .625, η2 = .003 (see

296

Fig. 2). There was no interaction between pretest-posttest difference and familiarity for

297

explicit attitude score, F(1, 93) = 0.23, p = .635, η2 = .002, or implicit attitude score, F(1, 93) =

298

2.61, p = .110, η2 = .027. The three-way interaction between pretest-posttest difference,

299

information condition and familiarity on explicit attitude score change, F(1, 93) = 13.39, p <

300

.001, η2 = .126, indicated that attitude change in the direction of the information was smaller

301

for participants who were more familiar with cultured meat (see Table 1), which provides

302

further support for hypothesis 1b. This effect was not found for implicit attitude score, F(1, 93)

303

= 0.02, p = .881, η2 < .001.

AC C

EP

TE D

288

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RI PT

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of explicit attitude score (1 = negative; 7 = positive) and implicit attitudes score (0 = neutral) by familiarity with cultured meat in experiment 1. Pretest Posttest A little bit A little bit Unfamiliar familiar Familiar Unfamiliar familiar Familiar Condition N M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

3.69 0.93

49 47

3.87 1.01

4.05 1.12

48 -0.21 0.33 46

-0.17 0.34

TE D -0.28 0.32

EP

49 -0.04 0.29 47

4.74 1.50

4.93 1.28 4.05 1.07

4.33 0.95 4.57 0.90

4.85 1.52 4.21 0.35

2.52 1.03 2.90 0.83 Implicit attitude score

3.61 1.05 3.76 0.87

4.48 1.57 3.41 1.90

M AN U

3.67 0.89

AC C

Positive information cultured meat Pretest No-pretest Negative information cultured meat Pretest No-pretest

48 46

SC

Explicit attitude score Positive information cultured meat Pretest No-pretest Negative information cultured meat Pretest No-pretest

13

5.14 1.15

-0.14 0.13

-0.23 0.41 -0.21 0.32

-0.08 0.44 0.05 0.36

0.05 0.39 -0.54 0.30

-0.05 0.36

-0.23 0.41 -0.23 0.39

-0.16 0.33 -0.23 0.30

-0.06 0.52 -0.31 0.32

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 304

Positive information cultured meat (pretest condition) Negative information cultured meat (pretest condition)

6.0

Positive information cultured meat (no-pretest condition) Negative information cultured meat (no-pretest condition)

5.0

RI PT

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 Pretest

Posttest

Measurement

Positive information cultured meat (pretest condition)

0.4

Negative information cultured meat (pretest condition)

0.3

Positive information cultured meat (no-pretest condition)

0.2

Negative information cultured meat (no-pretest condition)

0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5

TE D

0.1

EP

Implicit attitude score (95% CI)

0.5

M AN U

a)

Pretest

Posttest Measurement

AC C

b)

SC

Explicit attitude score (95% CI)

7.0

Fig. 2. Mean explicit (panel a) and implicit (panel b) attitude score in the pretest and posttest of experiment 1. Error bars indicate the 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 305 306

Discussion

307

In support of hypothesis 1a, positive or negative information provided about cultured

308

meat influenced the explicit attitude toward cultured meat in the direction of the information.

309

Participants who were more familiar with cultured meat reported a more positive explicit 14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT attitude toward cultured meat. The effect of information provision on the explicit attitude

311

toward cultured meat was smaller for people who were more familiar with cultured meat,

312

which confirms hypothesis 1b. As the observed average explicit attitude score toward

313

cultured meat was based on a sample of university students, the average explicit attitude

314

score should not be generalized to the general population. No difference was found in

315

posttest attitude scores between participants in the pretest and no-pretest condition. The

316

observed effect of information and familiarity on explicit attitude was not found for implicit

317

attitude. The increased correlation between explicit and implicit attitude after information

318

provision in the positive information condition suggests that the explicit and implicit attitude

319

converged after receiving positive information. It appears that information about the

320

unfamiliar attitude object cultured meat added knowledge to the existing knowledge structure

321

and that it also activated implicit associations. The current experiment cannot distinguish

322

whether it was provided information about cultured meat or activated associations that

323

informed the explicit attitude toward cultured meat. This will be investigated in experiment 2.

M AN U

SC

RI PT

310

325 326

TE D

324

Experiment 2

Experiment 2 partly replicated and extended experiment 1. The effect of positive information from experiment 1 was replicated. In addition, it was investigated whether the

328

explicit attitude toward cultured meat could be influenced by providing positive information

329

about an object remotely related to culture meat. We investigated whether information about

330

solar panels, an attitude object belonging to the sustainable product category (Hobman &

331

Ashworth, 2013), a category that also includes sustainable food products such as cultured

332

meat (Verbeke, Sans, & Van Loo, 2015), influences the attitude toward cultured meat. The

333

activation of the sustainable product category is expected to facilitate a connection between

334

the sustainable food product cultured meat and the sustainable product category. This

335

connection would enable category based inferences for the unfamiliar attitude object cultured

336

meat. We replicated the positive information condition as positive information about solar

337

panels was expected to be more credible than negative information.

AC C

EP

327

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 338

Material and methods

339 340 341

Participants and design A Solomon four group design, with an experimental 2 (positive information about cultured meat versus positive information about solar panels) x 2 (pretest versus no-pretest)

343

between subjects design was conducted in the fall of 2012. Participants were 204 Dutch

344

speaking Wageningen University students. They received two euro as reward. Seven

345

participants were excluded because they did not meet the response time requirements for

346

the implicit attitude measurement method and three participants were excluded because they

347

did not finish the experiment, leaving 194 participants (71 males and 123 females). Age

348

ranged from 17 to 28 years with a median of 20.

350

Materials, measures and procedure

M AN U

349

SC

RI PT

342

Materials, measures and procedures were equal to experiment 1 with the exception of

352

the information. Positive information about cultured meat and positive information about solar

353

energy were developed and piloted (N = 17). After some minor improvements a second pilot

354

(N = 5) showed that both information scenarios were equally positive, easy to understand

355

and trustworthy. After some final adjustments the information was:

EP

TE D

351

356

358 359 360

“Cultured meat produced in laboratories [electricity from solar panels on rooftops] has

AC C

357

important advantages in comparison to meat from cattle [electricity from coal power plants].

Recent scientific research (1) estimates that the whole production process of cultured

361

meat produced in laboratories [electricity from solar panels on rooftops], in

362

comparison with the production of meat from cattle [electricity from coal power plants],

363

leads to more than 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, land and

364

water usage is estimated to be more than 95% lower.

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (1) Smith. M. J., & Moore, R. W. (2010). Environmental influences of cultured meat

366

[solar energy] production. Journal of Environment and Technology, 51(13), 4219-

367

4227.”

368

(Cultured meat information condition, with the solar panel alternatives between

369

square brackets. Translated from Dutch. The reference is fictitious).

370

Results

371 372

RI PT

365

In the pretest, participants showed a negative implicit attitude toward cultured meat, M = -0.20, SD = 0.33, t(93) = -5.73, p < .001, and an explicit attitude score around the central

374

scale point, M = 4.18, SD = 1.30 (see Table 2, for mean implicit and explicit attitude scores

375

by level of familiarity with cultured meat). Pretest and posttest measures of explicit attitude

376

were correlated, r(92) = .834, p < .001, as were the pretest and posttest implicit attitude

377

measures, r (92) = .412, p < .001. Pretest explicit and implicit attitude scores were not

378

significantly correlated in the cultured meat information condition, r(45) = .051, p = .734, but

379

were significantly correlated in the solar panel information condition, r(46) = .292, p = .044.

380

Comparable to the pretest, the posttest explicit and implicit attitude scores were not

381

significantly correlated in the cultured meat information condition, r (95) = .066, p = .521, but

382

were in the solar panel information condition, r (97) = .335, p = .001.

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

373

Hypothesis testing using posttest data of all participants. No significant

384

difference was found between posttest explicit attitude scores for the directly and indirectly

385

related information condition, F(1, 188) = 0.29, p = .592, η2 = .002 (see Fig. 3), or for posttest

386

implicit attitude scores, F(1, 188) = 0.43, p = .511, η2 = .002 (see Fig. 3). Familiarity had an

387

effect on the posttest explicit attitude score, F(1, 188) = 32.11, p < .001, η2 = .146,

388

participants who were more familiar with cultured meat had a more positive explicit attitude

389

toward cultured meat (see Table 2). This was not found for posttest implicit attitude score,

390

F(1, 188) = 0.14, p = .709, η2 = .001. There was no significant interaction between familiarity

391

and information condition on posttest explicit attitude score, F(1, 188) = 0.42, p = .517, η2 =

392

.002, or posttest implicit attitude score, F(1, 188) = 2.42, p = .121, η2 = .013. No difference

AC C

383

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT was found between participants with and without a pretest for posttest explicit attitude, F(1,

394

188) = 1.61, p = .207, η2 = .008, or posttest implicit attitude, F(1, 188) = 0.02, p = .898, η2 <

395

.001. There was no significant interaction between information condition and the presence or

396

absence of a pretest on posttest explicit attitude score, F(1, 188) = 1.25, p = .264, η2 = .007,

397

or posttest implicit attitude score, F(1, 188) = 0.07, p = .792, η2 < .001.

398

RI PT

393

Hypothesis testing using data of participants with both a pretest and a posttest. We continued by comparing posttest attitude scores with pretest attitude scores and found

400

that the posttest explicit attitude was different from the pretest explicit attitude score, F(1, 90)

401

= 19.30, p < .001, η2 = .177 (see Fig. 3), (mean pretest = 4.18, mean posttest = 4.61). This is

402

in line with hypothesis 1a. No difference between pretest and posttest implicit attitude scores

403

was found F(1, 90) = 0.67, p = .416, η2 = .007 (see Fig. 3). The interaction between pretest-

404

posttest difference and information condition was not significant for explicit attitude score,

405

F(1, 90) = 2.48, p = .119, η2 = .027, or implicit attitude score, F(1, 90) = 0.07, p = .932, η2 <

406

.001. The interaction between pretest-posttest difference and familiarity for explicit attitude

407

score, F(1, 90) = 11.13, p = .001, η2 = .110, indicated that attitude change was smaller for

408

participants who were more familiar with cultured meat. This was not found for implicit

409

attitude score, F(1, 90) = 0.10, p = .750, η2 = .001. The three-way interaction effect between

410

pretest-posttest difference, information condition and familiarity on explicit attitude score, F(1,

411

90) = 6.14, p = .015, η2 = .064, indicated that explicit attitude change in the direction of the

412

information was smaller for participants who were more familiar with cultured meat (see

413

Table 2), which supports hypothesis 1b. This was not found for implicit attitude score, F(1,

414

90) = 0.11, p = .745, η2 = .001.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

399

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of explicit attitude score (1 = negative; 7 = positive) and implicit attitudes score (0 = neutral) by familiarity with cultured meat in experiment 2. Pretest Posttest A little bit A little bit Unfamiliar familiar Familiar Unfamiliar familiar Familiar Condition N M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Explicit attitude score Positive information cultured meat Pretest 48 3.54 1.22 4.41 1.39 5.23 0.91 4.62 0.87 4.77 1.27 5.26 1.22 No-pretest 46 3.72 1.10 4.76 0.96 5.27 1.06 Positive information solar panels 4.46 1.14 4.76 1.94 4.11 1.09 4.67 1.04 4.88 1.59 Pretest 49 3.81 1.08 No-pretest 47 3.65 0.94 4.91 0.89 5.36 0.75 Implicit attitude score Positive information cultured meat Pretest 48 -0.15 0.24 -0.15 0.31 -0.46 0.18 -0.07 0.32 -0.20 0.33 -0.24 0.29 No-pretest 46 -0.17 0.31 -0.16 0.42 -0.11 0.26 Positive information solar panels Pretest 49 -0.26 0.31 -0.21 0.43 0.03 0.26 -0.21 0.26 -0.15 0.32 -0.04 0.23 No-pretest 47 -0.15 0.29 -0.18 0.31 -0.01 0.35

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 415

Positive information cultured meat (pretest condition) Positive information solar panels (pretest condition)

6.0

Positive information cultured meat (no-pretest condition) Positive information solar panels (no-pretest condition)

5.0

RI PT

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 Pretest

Posttest

Measurement

Positive information cultured meat (pretest condition)

0.4

Positive information solar panels (pretest condition)

0.3

Positive information cultured meat (no-pretest condition)

0.2

Positive information solar panels (no-pretest condition)

0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5

TE D

0.1

EP

Implicit attitude score (95% CI)

0.5

M AN U

a)

Pretest

Posttest Measurement

AC C

b)

SC

Explicit attitude score (95% CI)

7.0

Fig. 3. Mean explicit (panel a) and implicit (panel b) attitude score in the pretest and posttest of experiment 2. Error bars indicate the 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 416 417 418

Discussion Experiment 2 replicated the finding for the positive information condition in experiment

419

1. Moreover, it extended experiment 1 by showing that positive information about solar

420

panels, a sustainable product belonging to the same sustainable product category as 20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT cultured meat, resulted in a more positive explicit attitude toward cultured meat. The effect of

422

information was smaller for people who were more familiar with cultured meat. The effect

423

information provision about solar panels had on the explicit attitude toward cultured meat

424

may indicate that participants were able to map cultured meat onto the broader sustainable

425

product category and derive their evaluation from this category. When no information is

426

available about an unfamiliar attitude object, activated implicit associations belonging to a

427

category of objects similar to the unfamiliar object, may inform the explicit attitude toward the

428

unfamiliar attitude object. However, an alternative explanation could be that since both

429

cultured meat and solar panels were presented as positive, cultured meat was related to

430

generally positive affective associations instead of a product based category. To investigate

431

this alternative explanation, content free affective associations were induced in a third

432

experiment.

M AN U

SC

RI PT

421

433

Experiment 3

434

To distinguish category based inferences from affect based inferences, experiment 3

TE D

435

investigated the influence of content free affect on the attitude toward cultured meat. If

437

content free affect informs the attitude toward cultured meat, a content free induced positive

438

or negative mood state should influence the attitude toward cultured meat in the direction of

439

the information (Clore et al., 2001; Schwarz & Clore, 1983).

441 442 443

AC C

440

EP

436

Material and methods

Participants and design

A Solomon four group design, with an experimental 2 (positive mood versus negative

444

mood) x 2 (pretest versus no-pretest) between subjects design was conducted in the winter

445

of 2014. Participants were 202 Wageningen University students that spoke fluent Dutch.

446

They received a two euro university canteen voucher for participation. Seven participants

447

were excluded because they did not meet the response time requirements for the implicit

448

attitude measurement method, one participant was excluded for not finishing the experiment 21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 449

and two participants were excluded because they did not follow the instructions. The final

450

sample consisted of 192 participants (68 male and 124 female) aged 17 to 55 years with a

451

median of 21.

452

Materials, measures and procedure

RI PT

453

All materials, measures and procedures were equal to experiment 1 and 2, with the

455

addition of the mood manipulation. Positive or negative mood state were induced by asking

456

participants to re-imagine a positive or negative event that happened in the previous year

457

that evoked strong feelings (see for example, Akbari & Hommel, 2012; Arnold & Reynolds,

458

2009; McFarland, Beuhler, von Rüti, Nguyen, & Alvaro, 2007; Strack, Schwarz, &

459

Gschneidinger, 1985). Participants were asked to report the event in at least five sentences,

460

followed by three items on a 9-point scale: “I experience the imagined live event as”

461

extremely unpleasant to extremely pleasant, not at all vivid to extremely vivid; and “the

462

feelings evoked by this event are” extremely negative to extremely positive. A pilot (N = 16)

463

confirmed the effectiveness of the mood manipulation. Participants were told they

464

participated in a number of unrelated studies and that this part was included to develop a

465

questionnaire to assess important life events in a systematic and reliable way. The mood

466

manipulation method received ethical clearance from the Social Sciences Ethics Committee

467

of Wageningen University.

469 470

M AN U

TE D

EP

AC C

468

SC

454

Results

In the pretest, participants had a negative implicit attitude toward cultured meat, M = -

471

0.18, SD 0.36, t(93) = -4.86, p <.001, and an explicit attitude around the central scale point,

472

M = 4.24, SD = 1.10 (see Table 3, for mean implicit and explicit attitude scores by level of

473

familiarity with cultured meat). Within-participant pretest and posttest explicit attitude scores

474

were significantly correlated, r (92) = .964, p < .001, while pretest and posttest implicit

475

attitude scores were not, r (92) = .195, p = .060. Pretest explicit and implicit attitude scores

476

were not significantly correlated in the positive mood condition, r(46) = -.138, p = .349, or 22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 477

negative mood condition, r(46) = .086, p = .563. The posttest explicit and implicit attitude

478

scores were not significantly correlated in the positive mood condition, r(96) = .164, p = .107,

479

but were in the negative mood condition, r(94) = .317, p = .002. Hypothesis testing using posttest data of all participants. The mood condition did

481

neither influence the posttest explicit attitude score, F(1, 186) = 0.69, p = .408, η2 = .004 (see

482

Fig. 4), nor the posttest implicit attitude score, F(1, 186) = 0.07, p = .799, η2 < .001 (see Fig.

483

4). Familiarity had an effect on posttest explicit attitude score, F(1, 186) = 10.86, p = .001, η2

484

= .055, participants who were more familiar with cultured meat reported a more positive

485

posttest explicit attitude score, r (190) = .241, p = .001. This was not found for posttest

486

implicit attitude score, F (1, 186) = 0.84, p = .361, η2 = .004). There was no significant

487

interaction between familiarity and mood condition on posttest explicit attitude score, F(1,

488

186) = 0.07, p = .792, η2 < .001, or posttest implicit attitude score, F(1, 186) = 0.26, p = .608,

489

η2 = .001. Posttest attitude scores were not different for participants with or without pretest,

490

neither for explicit, F(1, 186) = 2.60, p = .108, η2 = .014, nor implicit attitude scores, F(1, 186)

491

= 1.32, p = .252, η2 = .007. There was no interaction between mood condition and presence

492

of a pretest for posttest explicit attitude score F(1, 186) = 1.05, p = .308, η2 = .006. There was

493

however, an interaction between mood condition and the presence of a pretest for posttest

494

implicit attitude score F(1, 186) = 4.21, p = .042, η2 = .022, where a positive induced mood

495

for participants in the pretest condition resulted in a more positive posttest implicit attitude

496

score. This interaction effect indicates a pretest sensitization effect. The difference between

497

pretest and posttest scores were therefore not investigated.

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

480

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Table 3. Means and standard deviations of explicit attitude score (1 = negative; 7 = positive) and implicit attitudes score (0 = neutral) by familiarity with cultured meat in experiment 3. Pretest Posttest A little bit A little bit Unfamiliar familiar Familiar Unfamiliar familiar Familiar Condition N M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Explicit attitude score Positive mood Pretest 48 3.66 1.15 4.22 1.12 5.22 0.31 3.75 1.33 4.32 1.17 5.25 0.36 No-pretest 46 3.64 1.06 3.79 1.05 4.75 0.88 Negative mood 4.34 1.15 4.73 0.96 4.00 0.81 4.29 1.34 4.65 1.15 Pretest 49 4.02 0.78 No-pretest 47 3.80 0.88 4.12 1.16 4.95 1.40 Implicit attitude score Positive mood Pretest 48 -0.25 0.32 -0.16 0.32 -0.31 0.57 -0.25 0.37 -0.04 0.36 -0.16 0.52 No-pretest 46 -0.28 0.42 -0.26 0.29 -0.31 0.19 Negative mood Pretest 49 0.02 0.35 -0.25 0.42 -0.15 0.32 -0.22 0.28 -0.28 0.31 0.00 0.33 No-pretest 47 -0.08 0.45 -0.16 0.39 -0.25 0.39

24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Positive mood (pretest condition) Negative mood (pretest condition)

6.0

Positive mood (no-pretest condition) Negative mood (no-pretest condition)

5.0

RI PT

4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 Pretest

Posttest Measurement

Positive mood (pretest condition)

0.4

Negative mood (pretest condition)

0.3

Positive mood (no-pretest condition)

0.2

Negative mood (no-pretest condition)

0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5

TE D

Implicit attitude score (95% CI)

0.5

M AN U

a)

Posttest

Measurement

AC C

EP

Pretest

b)

SC

Explicit attitude score (95% CI)

7.0

Fig. 4. Mean explicit (panel a) and implicit (panel b) attitude score in the pretest and posttest of experiment 3. Error bars indicate the 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 498 499 500

Discussion The mood condition did not show an effect on explicit nor implicit attitudes for the

501

whole sample. Only for those with a pretest, the induced positive mood had an effect on

502

implicit attitude. This finding suggests a pretest sensitization effect for mood induction on the

503

implicit attitude toward cultured meat. Only for the positive mood condition, a correlation was 25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 504

found between the explicit and implicit attitude. In conclusion, this experiment does not

505

support the alternative explanation suggested in experiment 2 that content free affect, rather

506

than category based inferences, had a relevant influence on the explicit attitude toward

507

cultured meat.

General Discussion

509 510

RI PT

508

As expected, information changed the explicit attitude of the unfamiliar object cultured meat into the direction of the valence of the information. Consistent with literature on attitude

512

change (Gregg, Seibt, & Banaji, 2006; Ratliff et al., 2012), attitude change was larger when

513

participants were less familiar with cultured meat.

SC

511

Providing participants with positive information about cultured meat or solar panels

515

resulted in positive attitude change toward cultured meat. Mood on the other hand, did not

516

influence the attitude toward cultured meat. Both cultured meat and solar panels are

517

sustainable products and as such indirectly related. It appears that providing content based

518

information about another sustainable product influenced participants’ attitudes toward

519

cultured meat in a similar way as content based information about cultured meat itself.

520

Information about solar panels may have activated a broader sustainable product category,

521

which allowed the attitude expression toward cultured meat. The pre-activated associations

522

with sustainability in turn may have facilitated making sense of the unfamiliar attitude object

523

(Gentner, 1988; Gregan-Paxton & Moreau, 2003), in this case cultured meat. That mood did

524

not influence the attitude toward cultured meat rules out the alternative explanation that the

525

effect of solar panel information on the explicit attitude toward cultured meat was merely

526

based on the positive affect induced by the benefits of solar panels (as suggested by for

527

example, Clore et al., 2001; Schwarz & Clore, 1983). This suggests that the explicit attitude

528

was influenced by content based arguments and not content free affect.

529

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

514

In contrast with the explicit attitude, the implicit attitude was not influenced by

530

information provision or content free affect. Literature on attitude change suggests that

531

implicit attitudes are not easily formed or changed after a single exposure to information 26

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006; Gregg et al., 2006; Ratliff et al., 2012). One possible

533

reason why no changes in implicit attitude were observed is the relatively low reliability of the

534

ST-IAT measures. Reliability for the ST-IAT reported in the current paper fits in the range of

535

reported reliabilities for similar measurement methods (see for example, Smith, Ratliff, &

536

Nosek, 2012). Nevertheless the low reliability may have resulted in a low sensitivity of the

537

implicit attitude measurement method compared to the explicit attitude measurement method

538

(Lebel & Paunonen, 2011). We should therefore be careful to interpret the absence of

539

significant results as a strong indication that implicit attitudes did not change. In the current

540

study we did find correlations between the posttest implicit and explicit attitude in several

541

experimental conditions where there was no correlation between the pretest implicit and

542

explicit attitude. The correlation between the implicit and explicit attitude suggests that

543

participants’ explicit attitude toward cultured meat may be informed by activated implicit

544

associations of cultured meat or a related category containing objects similar to cultured

545

meat (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006; Ranganath & Nosek, 2008; Ranganath, Smith, &

546

Nosek, 2008; Ratliff et al., 2012). These correlation patterns between the implicit and explicit

547

attitude were not stable however, possibly due to low reliability. Therefore, future research is

548

required to investigate under what conditions these correlations occur.

SC

M AN U

TE D

Cultured meat is a non-fictitious novel food product, which is therefore likely

EP

549

RI PT

532

connected to one or more categories of similar objects. This connection can be made

551

instantaneously and without cognitive deliberation and the category in turn, can inform the

552

explicit and implicit attitude. This raises the question to which objects and which categories

553

cultured meat is connected and how this categorization influences the explicit and implicit

554

attitude toward cultured meat.

AC C

550

555

In the current paper we used a Solomon four-group design (Solomon, 1949) to rule

556

out pretest sensitizations effects. The results revealed no relevant differences between the

557

effect that information or mood induction had on the explicit attitude for participants with and

558

without a pretest. The variation in findings across domains for implicit attitude measures

559

(Greenwald et al., 2009) underlines the importance to rule out alternative explanations such 27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 560

as pretest sensitization effects. Control mechanisms for effects caused by the experimental

561

design help ruling out alternative explanations (Kim & Willson, 2010). We therefore suggest

562

to control for pretest sensitization effects in studies using an experimental design that

563

includes a pretest. In summary, the current paper shows that the explicit attitude toward cultured meat

RI PT

564

can be influenced by content based information about cultured meat, but also by content

566

based information about an indirectly related product. Content based information provision

567

about cultured meat in a relevant context could therefore play a role in the commercial

568

success of cultured meat.

SC

565

569

571

Acknowledgements

M AN U

570

This research was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis

573

and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper

574

for publication.

576 577

References

Achterberg, P. (2014). Knowing hydrogen and loving it too? Information provision, cultural

EP

575

TE D

572

predispositions, and support for hydrogen technology among the Dutch. Public

579

Understanding of Science, 23(4), 445–453. doi:10.1177/0963662512453117

580 581 582 583

AC C

578

Akbari, C. S., & Hommel, B. (2012). More creative through positive mood? Not everyone! Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–7. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00319 Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour : A metaanalytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

584

Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2009). Affect and retail shopping behavior: Understanding

585

the role of mood regulation and regulatory focus. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 308–320.

586

doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2009.05.004

587

Ayres, K., Conner, M. T., Prestwich, A., & Smith, P. (2012). Do implicit measures of attitudes 28

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 588

incrementally predict snacking behaviour over explicit affect-related measures?

589

Appetite, 58(3), 835–841. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2012.01.019

590

Bar-Anan, Y., & Nosek, B. A. (2014). A comparative investigation of seven indirect attitude measures. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 668–688. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-

592

0410-6

593

RI PT

591

Bluemke, M., & Friese, M. (2008). Reliability and validity of the Single-Target IAT (ST-IAT):

594

assessing automatic affect towards multiple attitude objects. European Journal of Social

595

Psychology, 38(6), 977–997. doi:10.1002/ejsp.487

Bohner, G., & Dickel, N. (2011). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of

SC

596

Psychology, 62(1), 391–417. doi:doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131609

598

Boland, M. J., Rae, A. N., Vereijken, J. M., Meuwissen, M. P. M., Fischer, A. R. H., van

M AN U

597

599

Boekel, M., … Hendriks, W. H. (2013). The future supply of animal-derived protein for

600

human consumption. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 29(1), 62–73.

601

doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2012.07.002

603 604

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for

TE D

602

research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Clore, G. L., Wyer, R. S., Dienes, B., Gasper, K., Gohm, C., & Isbell, L. (2001). Affective feelings as feedback: Some cognitive consequences. In L. L. Martin & G. L. Clore

606

(Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition (pp. 27–62). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence

607

Erlbaum Associates.

AC C

608

EP

605

Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive

609

properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social

610

Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 619–634.

611

Cunningham, W. A., Nezlek, J. B., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). Implicit and explicit ethnocentrism:

612

Revisiting the ideologies of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

613

30(10), 1332–1346. doi:10.1177/0146167204264654

614 615

Datar, I., & Betti, M. (2010). Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 11(1), 13–22. 29

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 616

de Liver, Y., van der Pligt, J., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2007). Positive and negative

617

associations underlying ambivalent attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social

618

Psychology, 43(2), 319–326.

622 623 624 625 626 627

RI PT

621

Cengage Learning. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2007). The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition, 25(5), 582–602.

Edelman, P. D., McFarland, D. C., Mironov, V. A., & Matheny, J. G. (2005). In vitro-cultured meat production. Tissue Engineering, 11(5-6), 659–662.

SC

620

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25(5), 603–637.

M AN U

619

Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic

628

activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 229–238.

629

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.229

Fiala, N. (2008). Meeting the demand: An estimation of potential future greenhouse gas

TE D

630 631

emissions from meat production. Ecological Economics, 67(3), 412–419.

632

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.021

Fiske, S. T., & Pavelchak, M. A. (1986). Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective

634

responses: Developments in schema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T.

635

Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior

636

(pp. 167–203). New York: Guilford Press.

AC C

637

EP

633

Friese, M., Bluemke, M., & Wanke, M. (2007). Predicting voting behavior with implicit attitude

638

measures: The 2002 German parliamentary election. Experimental Psychology, 54(4),

639

247–255. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.54.4.247

640 641 642 643

Gawronski, B. (2007). Editorial: Attitudes can be measured! But what is an attitude? Social Cognition, 25(5), 573–581. doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.573 Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological 30

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 644 645 646 647

Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731. Gentner, D. (1988). Methapor as structure mapping: The relational shift. Child Development, 59, 47–59. Greenwald, A. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2008). Attitudinal dissociation: What does it mean? In R. E. Petty, R. H. Fazio, & P. Briñol (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit

649

measures (pp. 65–82). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

RI PT

648

Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit

651

association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social

652

Psychology, 85(3), 481.

SC

650

Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding

654

and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal

655

of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17–41.

656

M AN U

653

Gregan-Paxton, J., & Moreau, P. (2003). How do consumers transfer existing knowledge? A comparison of analogy and categorization effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology,

658

13(4), 422–430.

659

TE D

657

Gregg, A. P., Seibt, B., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Easier done than undone: Asymmetry in the malleability of implicit preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1),

661

1–20. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.1

663 664

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgement. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.

AC C

662

EP

660

Hendrick, T. A. M., Fischer, A. R. H., Tobi, H., & Frewer, L. J. (2013). Self-reported attitude

665

scales: Current practice in adequate assessment of reliability, validity, and

666

dimensionality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(7), 1538–1552.

667

doi:10.1111/jasp.12147

668

Hobman, E. V, & Ashworth, P. (2013). Public support for energy sources and related

669

technologies: The impact of simple information provision. Energy Policy, 63, 862–869.

670

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.011

671

Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta31

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 672

analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report

673

measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1369–1385.

674

doi:10.1177/0146167205275613 Inquisit. (2011). Computer software. Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software LLC.

676

Kardes, F. R., Posavac, S. S., & Cronley, M. L. (2004). Consumer inference: A review of

677

processes, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3),

678

230–256. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_6

RI PT

675

Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006). The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a

680

measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

681

91(1), 16–32. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16

683

Kawakami, K., & Dovidio, J. F. (2001). The reliability of implicit stereotyping. Personality and

M AN U

682

SC

679

Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 212–225. doi:10.1177/0146167201272007

684

Kim, E. S., & Willson, V. L. (2010). Evaluating pretest effects in pre-post studies. Educational

685

and Psychological Measurement, 70(5), 744–759. doi:10.1177/0013164410366687 Lebel, E. P., & Paunonen, S. V. (2011). Sexy but often unreliable: The impact of unreliability

687

on the replicability of experimental findings with implicit measures. Personality and

688

Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 570–583. doi:10.1177/0146167211400619 Lusk, J. L., House, L. O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S. R., Moore, M., Morrow, J. L., & Traill, W. B.

EP

689

TE D

686

(2004). Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of

691

genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental auctions in the United States,

692

England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(2), 179–204.

693

AC C

690

Mattick, C. S., Landis, A. E., Allenby, B. R., & Genovese, N. J. (2015). Anticipatory life cycle

694

analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States.

695

Environmental Science & Technology, 49, 11941–11949. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b01614

696

McComas, K. A., Besley, J. C., & Steinhardt, J. (2014). Factors influencing U.S. consumer

697

support for genetic modification to prevent crop disease. Appetite, 78C, 8–14.

698

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.006

699

McFarland, C., Beuhler, R., von Rüti, R., Nguyen, L., & Alvaro, C. (2007). The impact of 32

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 700

negative moods on self-enhancing cognitions : The role of reflective versus ruminative ,

701

mood orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 728–750.

702

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.728

704 705 706

Perugini, M. (2005). Predictive models of implicit and explicit attitudes. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(1), 29–45. doi:10.1348/014466604X23491

RI PT

703

Pluhar, E. B. (2010). Meat and morality: alternatives to factory farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23, 455–468.

Ranganath, K. A., & Nosek, B. A. (2008). Implicit attitude generalization occurs immediately;

708

Explicit attitude generalization takes time. Psychological Science, 19(3), 249–254.

709

SC

707

Ranganath, K. A., Smith, C. T., & Nosek, B. A. (2008). Distinguishing automatic and controlled components of attitudes from direct and indirect measurement methods.

711

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 386–396.

712

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.008

713

M AN U

710

Ratliff, K. A., Swinkels, B. A. P., Klerx, K., & Nosek, B. A. (2012). Does one bad apple(juice) spoil the bunch? Implicit attitudes toward one product transfer to other products by the

715

same brand. Psychology and Marketing, 28(8), 531–540.

716

TE D

714

Richetin, J., Perugini, M., Adjali, I., & Hurling, R. (2007). The moderator role of intuitive versus deliberative decision making for the predictive validity of implicit and explicit

718

measures. European Journal of Personality, 21(4), 529–546. doi:10.1002/per.625

720 721

Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral

AC C

719

EP

717

judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bullitin, 34, 1096–1109. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being -

722

Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social

723

Psychology, 45(3), 513–523.

724

Smith, C. T., Ratliff, K. A., & Nosek, B. A. (2012). Rapid assimilation: Automatically

725

integrating new information with existing beliefs. Social Cognition, 30(2), 199–219.

726

doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.2.199

727

Solomon, R. L. (1949). An extension of control group design. Psychological Bulletin, 46(2), 33

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 728 729

137–150. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006).

730

Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Renewable Resources

731

Journal, 24(4), 15–17. Strack, F., Schwarz, N., & Gschneidinger, E. (1985). Happiness and reminiscing: The role of

RI PT

732 733

time perspective, affect, and mode of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social

734

Psychology, 49(6), 1460–1469. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.49.6.1460

735

Tuomisto, H. L., & de Mattos, M. J. T. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(14), 6117–6123.

737

doi:10.1021/es200130u

740 741 742

M AN U

739

van der Weele, C., & Driessen, C. (2013). Emerging profiles for cultured meat; Ethics through and as design. Animals, 3, 647–662. doi:10.3390/ani3030647 van der Weele, C., & Tramper, J. (2014). Cultured meat: Every village its own factory? Trends in Biotechnology, 32(6), 294–6. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.04.009 Verbeke, W., Marcu, A., Rutsaert, P., Gaspar, R., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., & Barnett, J. (2015).

TE D

738

SC

736

“Would you eat cultured meat?”: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in

744

Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Science, 102, 49–58.

745

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.11.013

746

EP

743

Verbeke, W., Sans, P., & Van Loo, E. J. (2015). Challenges and prospects for consumer acceptance of cultured meat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 285–294.

748

doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60884-4

AC C

747

749

Walker, M. W., & Lev, J. (1953). Statistical Inference. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

750

Willson, V. L., & Putnam, R. R. (1982). A meta-analysis of pretest sensitization effects in

751

experimental design. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 249–258.

752

Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit

753

level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of Personality and Social

754

Psychology, 72(2), 262–274. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.262

755

Wittenbrink, B., & Schwarz, N. (2007). Introduction. In B. Wittenbrink & N. Schwarz (Eds.), 34

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 756

Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 1–13). New York: The Guilford Press.

757

Wyer, R. S. (2008). The role of knowledge accessibility in cognition and behavior: Implications for consumer information processing. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F.

759

R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 31–76). New York, NY:

760

Taylor & Francis Group.

RI PT

758

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

761

35

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Appendix A

762 763

Words used in the ST-IAT

764 765

RI PT

Table A1 Cultured meat words (Dutch) cultured burger (kweekburger) cultured cutlet (kweekschnitzel) cultured ground meat (kweekgehakt)

SC

cultured sausage (kweekworst) cultured meat (in vitro vlees)

tissue culture (weefselkweek)

AC C

EP

TE D

766

M AN U

laboratory (laboratorium)

36

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table A2 Words with a positive or negative valence (Dutch) Valence

Words

Positive

lucky (gelukkig) love (liefde) freedom (vrijheid)

RI PT

happy (blijdschap) vacation (vakantie) party (feest) friend (vriend)

SC

paradise (paradijs) peace (vrede)

Negative

abuse (misbruik) hatred (haat) disaster (ramp) war (oorlog) disgust (walging) murder (moord)

TE D

accident (ongeluk)

M AN U

cheerful (vrolijk)

death (dood)

failure (mislukking)

AC C

767

EP

grief (verdriet)

37