Abstract
Millennials are considered the key generation with regard to the consumption of plantbased
meat alternatives via flexitarianism. This study sought to characterize millennials’ consumer
segments based on their consumption of and attitudes toward meat and meat alternatives. We conducted
an online survey on the hedonic tones of the associations evoked by meat and meat alternatives,
consumption of such foods, and diet-related attitudes among a representative sample of
Finnish millennials (N = 546, 59% women, age 20–39 years). Some 41% of respondents regularly
ate plant-based meat alternatives, while 43% had tried such foods. We divided the respondents
into six segments based on the hedonic tones of their meat vs. meat alternatives associations. The
segments differed in terms of their consumption of meat alternatives and the underlying reasons
why, importance of meat in meals, and Meat Commitment Scale scores. The segment that reported
much more positive associations with meat than meat alternatives (~14% of the respondents) may
prove resistant to interventions intended to reduce meat intake, whereas the segment that displayed
the most positive attitudes toward meat alternatives (~18%) did not eat much meat. Thus, the four
middle segments (totaling ~68%), whose associations’ hedonic tones were close to each other, may be
the best targets for future interventions designed to reduce meat consumption through the use of
meat alternatives. To conclude, introducing a simple segmentation allowed us to identify consumer
segments with large potential to reduce meat consumption.
meat alternatives via flexitarianism. This study sought to characterize millennials’ consumer
segments based on their consumption of and attitudes toward meat and meat alternatives. We conducted
an online survey on the hedonic tones of the associations evoked by meat and meat alternatives,
consumption of such foods, and diet-related attitudes among a representative sample of
Finnish millennials (N = 546, 59% women, age 20–39 years). Some 41% of respondents regularly
ate plant-based meat alternatives, while 43% had tried such foods. We divided the respondents
into six segments based on the hedonic tones of their meat vs. meat alternatives associations. The
segments differed in terms of their consumption of meat alternatives and the underlying reasons
why, importance of meat in meals, and Meat Commitment Scale scores. The segment that reported
much more positive associations with meat than meat alternatives (~14% of the respondents) may
prove resistant to interventions intended to reduce meat intake, whereas the segment that displayed
the most positive attitudes toward meat alternatives (~18%) did not eat much meat. Thus, the four
middle segments (totaling ~68%), whose associations’ hedonic tones were close to each other, may be
the best targets for future interventions designed to reduce meat consumption through the use of
meat alternatives. To conclude, introducing a simple segmentation allowed us to identify consumer
segments with large potential to reduce meat consumption.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 456 |
Journal | Foods |
Volume | 11 |
Issue number | 3 |
Number of pages | 22 |
ISSN | 2304-8158 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 3 Feb 2022 |
MoE publication type | A1 Journal article-refereed |
Fields of Science
- 416 Food Science
- acceptance
- consumer segmentation
- flexitarian
- meat analogue
- meat substitute
- online survey
- plant-based protein
- sustainability
- vegan
- vegetarian
- FOOD
- REPLACEMENT
- MOTIVES