Food Quality and Preference 54 (2016) 117127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Effects of the degree of processing of insect ingredients in snacks on

expected emotional experiences and willingness to eat
Angelina Gmuer , Jeannette Nuessli Guth, Christina Hartmann, Michael Siegrist
ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions, Consumer Behavior, Universitaetstrasse 22, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study explored willingness to eat and the negative and positive emotional expectations that people
Received 30 September 2015 from a Western country may have toward the consumption of insect snacks. The snacks, which were
Received in revised form 27 June 2016 presented as pictures in an online survey, differed in their degree of processing of the insect ingredient:
Accepted 1 July 2016
tortilla chips made of cricket flour (flour), tortilla chips containing deep-fried cricket bits (bits), a
Available online 2 July 2016
snack consisting of tortilla chips and deep-fried crickets (mix), and deep-fried crickets (crickets).
Swiss respondents (N = 428) made 39 emotional evaluations, rated willingness to eat and expected liking
Keywords:
of the presented products. Each participant evaluated the same non-insect-containing snack (within-
Emotion
G-FEE-List
subjects design) and one of four insect-containing snacks (between-subjects design). Results showed that
Alternative protein source the insect snacks evoked various negative emotional expectations that went beyond expectations of dis-
Crickets gust. Positive emotional expectations were less expected to occur. Furthermore, expectations related to
Chips disgust/uneasiness, inertia/dissatisfaction, and positive emotional evaluations were significant predictors
of willingness to eat. The degree of processing of the insect ingredient partly influenced the ratings, with
the mix product being assessed more negatively than the flour or bits products. The cricket
product was rated more positive than expected.
The research indicates that in the development and marketing of insect food, efforts should be under-
taken not only to eliminate initial negative expectations of disgust and dissatisfaction but also to generate
positive emotional expectations. We suggest the marketing of snacks containing processed insect ingre-
dients will be more promising, and selling whole insects alone is more preferable to selling a mixed
snack. Regardless of the degree of processing of the insect ingredient, the results suggest that marketing
activities must contend with a large emotional barrier.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The idea of insects as food is growing because it promises
several advantages for health, the environment, and peoples
livelihoods (van Huis et al., 2013). In several Western countries,
products that contain insects are considered novel, and Westerners
often respond to insects as food with disgust1 (Looy & Wood, 2006;
Abbreviations: G-FEE-List, German Food-related Emotional Evaluation List;
ANOVA, analysis of variance; MANOVA, multivariate analysis of variance; WTE,
willingness to eat.
Corresponding author at: ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions,
Consumer Behavior, Universitaetstrasse 22, CHN H75.3, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.
E-mail addresses: gmuera@ethz.ch (A. Gmuer), jnuessli@ethz.ch (J. Nuessli
Guth), chartmann@ethz.ch (C. Hartmann), msiegrist@ethz.ch (M. Siegrist).
1
Because there are two meanings of the English term disgust (Disgust, 2015), note
that, in the present article, we use the term disgust/disgusted interchangeably with
sickened or grossed out rather than to signify a feeling of annoyance and anger.
Tan et al., 2015; van Huis et al., 2013) and a low willingness to eat
(WTE; Hartmann, Shi, Giusto, & Siegrist, 2015; Schsler, de Boer, &
Boersema, 2012). Research on insect food has reported that more
investigations on insect-containing products are needed to identify
those products that have a higher acceptance (Tan et al., 2015).
The burgeoning research on emotional reactions to food has,
however, revealed that assessing a large number of emotional
responses may be more informative than assessing acceptance alone
(King & Meiselman, 2010; Ng, Chaya, & Hort, 2013a; Spinelli, Masi,
Dinnella, Zoboli, & Monteleone, 2014). In addition, researchers on
food-related emotions have emphasized the additional value of
considering emotional assessments in new product development
and marketing (Jiang, King, & Prinyawiwatkul, 2014; King &
Meiselman, 2010). Because existing studies on insect food restricted
emotional assessments to a small number of emotions (e.g. Looy &
Wood, 2006), the present study thoroughly explored the emotional
expectations that people from a Western country may have towards

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.07.003
0950-3293/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
118 A. Gmuer et al. / Food Quality and Preference 54 (2016) 117127
the consumption of insect snacks varying in the degree of processing
of the insect ingredient. In addition, we explored the influence of
emotional expectations on WTE and compared the ratings of the
insect snacks to a well-established snack to estimate market success.
1.1. Insects as human food and Western consumers reactions
The eating of insects is called entomophagy (van Huis et al.,
2013). Human entomophagy is practiced by an estimated 2 billion
people around the globe (van Huis et al., 2013), such as in Africa,
Asia, and America (Ramos-Elorduy, 1997; van Huis et al., 2013).
Delicacies range from ants, bees, beetles, and butterflies to
grasshoppers and crickets (Ramos-Elorduy, 1997; Tan et al.,
2015) and are prepared in various ways (Chen, Feng, & Chen,
2009; Tan et al., 2015). Due to present and future challenges in
food sustainability, insects as food and feed have been discussed
and promoted among scientists for several decades (Belluco
et al., 2013; Deroy, Reade, & Spence, 2015; Ramos-Elorduy, 1997;
van Huis et al., 2013; Vane-Wright, 1991; Verkerk, Tramper, van
Trijp, & Martens, 2007; Yen, 2009). More recently, insects as food
are also a common topic in the media.2 It is estimated that the glo-
bal population will increase to 9.1 billion by 2050. This population
increase will be accompanied by urbanization and rising incomes
that require changes in the food supply, such as a massive increase
of an estimated 200 million tons in meat production (Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2009). Therefore,
interest in alternative protein sources such as insects (Verkerk
et al., 2007) is high. However, Westerners regard eating insects as
primitive behavior (Hartmann et al., 2015; Ramos-Elorduy, 1997;
Vane-Wright, 1991), and the conscious consumption of insects as
part of a daily diet is not yet well established in Western societies
(Deroy et al., 2015; Pascucci & de-Magistris, 2013; van Huis et al.,
2013).
Westerners reactions toward insect food and the factors that
influence such reactions have been probed within diverse disci-
plines, especially in the last few years, revealing that Western con-
sumers have a rather negative perception of insect products.
Several authors have specifically explored Westerners assess-
ments of insect products as a meat/protein substitute or in com-
parison to their ratings for alternatives (de Boer, Schsler, &
Boersema, 2013; Schsler et al., 2012; Vanhonacker, Van Loo,
Gellynck, & Verbeke, 2013; Verbeke, 2015). WTE insect-
containing products, either as meat substitutes or in general, was
rather low (Hartmann et al., 2015; Vanhonacker et al., 2013;
Verbeke, 2015). However, Westerners evaluations were shown to
be strongly dependent on the visibility of the insect ingredient
(Hartmann et al., 2015; Schsler et al., 2012; Tan et al., 2015). Com-
pared to products that contain unprocessed, more visible insect
ingredients (e.g., a snack made of deep-fried crickets), WTE and
the reported attractiveness of insect products were higher if the
insect ingredient was highly processed and therefore less visible
(e.g., cookies containing cricket flour; Hartmann et al., 2015;
Schsler et al., 2012). Further studies on different types of insect
products are necessary to identify those products that improve
acceptance amongst potentially new consumers (Tan et al.,
2015). Because the survival rate of general new products is small
(Stewart-Knox & Mitchell, 2003; Thomson, 2010) and new alterna-
2 and multifaceted emotional states (e.g., Cardello et al., 2012;
E.g. BBC: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141014-time-to-put-bugs-on-the-
menu. Retrieved on 8 August 2015; Die Welt: http://www.welt.de/regionales/ham-
burg/article142797530/Heuschrecken-schmecken-nussig-Grillen-wie-Haehnchen.
html. Retrieved on 8 August 2015; Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/
bc0e4526-ab8d-11e4-b05a-00144feab7de.html#slide0. Retrieved on 8 August 2015;
Tagesanzeiger: http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/wirtschaft/unternehmen-und-konjunk-
tur/Insekten-und-Wuermer-im-Supermarkt/story/15795619. Retrieved on 8 August
2015; The Sun: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/health/
5955954/Insects-food-of-the-future.html. Retrieved on 8 August 2015.
tives to traditional market success predictors such as acceptance
(liking) ratings are needed (Thomson, 2010), research on insect
food-related emotional experiences may be useful to guide product
development.
1.2. Emotions in food research
Research on emotions is relatively new in the sensory science
field. Although emotion research in general has a long history
(Kroeber-Riel, Weinberg, & Grppel-Klein, 2009), there is no con-
sensus on the definition of the term emotion (Brandsttter,
Schler, Puca, & Lozo, 2013; Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981;
Scherer, 2005). The applied emotion theory is one determinant
out of many that influences the characterization of an emotion
(Coppin & Sander, 2016). In a recent overview, Coppin and
Sander (2016) describe three main theories of emotions. First, the
basic emotion theory was especially developed from an evolution-
ary viewpoint and assumes that there exists a small number of
basic emotions (Coppin & Sander, 2016). An emotion that is iden-
tified by several authors as a basic emotion is disgust (Ortony &
Turner, 1990). Basic emotions contribute to the survival and
well-being of human beings (Matsumoto & Ekman, 2009). Accord-
ing to Ekman (1994), emotions can be identified as basic if they
exhibit several specific characteristics, including a brief duration
or the presence in other primates (see also Coppin & Sander,
2016). Second, dimensional theories assume that feelings can be
represented by several underlying dimensions (Coppin & Sander,
2016). As a prominent example, Russell (1980) presented a bidi-
mensional model that proposes a circumplex organization of emo-
tions with two underlying dimensions. These dimensions were
named sleepiness/arousal and displeasure/pleasure (see also
Coppin & Sander, 2016). Appraisal theories assume that the evalu-
ation of an event is required to evoke an emotion (Scherer, 2005)
and that the number of emotions is not restricted to a small num-
ber of basic emotions (Coppin & Sander, 2016). These three main
theories have in common that they all agree on characterizing
emotions as a multicomponent phenomenon (Coppin & Sander,
2016). The multicomponent approach is widely accepted among
researchers (Scherer, 2005). According to Scherers (2005) descrip-
tion, an emotion is composed of the following elements: 1) cogni-
tive component (appraisal); 2) motivational component (action
tendencies); 3) neurophysiological component (bodily symptoms);
4) motor expression component (facial and vocal expression); and
5) subjective feeling component (emotional experience). Along
with the multicomponent nature of an emotion, emotions can be
assessed by various instruments of measurement that can be cate-
gorized at a superordinate level as verbal or non-verbal assessment
tools (see Desmet, 2003, for a further reading).
In sensory science, new knowledge has been generated in the
last few years, especially through the use of food- and odor-
specific verbal instruments (Bhumiratana, Adhikari, & Chambers,
2014; Chrea et al., 2009; Ferrarini et al., 2010; King & Meiselman,
2010; Ng et al., 2013a; Rousset, Deiss, Juillard, Schlich, & Droit-
Volet, 2005; Spinelli et al., 2014; Thomson, Crocker, & Marketo,
2010) that contain a relatively large number of emotional terms
(for an overview, see Gmuer, Nuessli Guth, Runte, & Siegrist,
2015, Table 1). By presenting actual samples or food names, it
has been revealed that food and odor stimuli evoke differentiated
Chrea et al., 2009; Gutjar et al., 2015b; King & Meiselman, 2010;
Ng et al., 2013a; Spinelli et al., 2014). The evoked emotional states
often had a relatively low (i.e., not above moderate) intensity
(Cardello et al., 2012; Desmet & Schifferstein, 2008; King &
Meiselman, 2010; Ng et al., 2013a; Spinelli et al., 2014),
which may be explained by the fact that the contribution of
food-related emotions to life goals in Western cultures is usually
 A. Gmuer et al. / Food Quality and Preference 54 (2016) 117127
relatively small (Schifferstein & Desmet, 2010). Although positive
food-related emotional states have a higher prevalence or intensity
than those that are negative (Cardello et al., 2012; Desmet &
Schifferstein, 2008; Ferrarini et al., 2010; Gmuer et al., 2015;
Gutjar et al., 2015b; King & Meiselman, 2010; Manzocco,
Rumignani, & Lagazio, 2013; Ng et al., 2013a; Rousset et al.,
2005), both product users and non-users inevitably experience
negative emotions occasionally (King & Meiselman, 2010;
Manzocco et al., 2013; Ng, Chaya, & Hort, 2013b; Spinelli, Masi,
Zoboli, Prescott, & Monteleone, 2015). One of these prominent neg-
ative emotional experiences is disgust. Disgust is recognized as a
basic emotion by several emotion theorists (Kroeber-Riel et al.,
2009; Ortony & Turner, 1990). From a food-related emotion per-
spective, disgust can be defined as revulsion at the prospect of
(oral) incorporation of an offensive object [a contaminant]
(Rozin & Fallon, 1987, p. 23). Even brief contact between an
accepted food product and a contaminant is often accompanied
by a radical decrease in the acceptance of the food product
(Rozin & Fallon, 1987). This was demonstrated by Rozin and col-
leagues (Rozin, Millman, & Nemeroff, 1986), who showed that
there was a drastic decrease in the hedonic ratings of a juice after
the juice had direct contact with a sterilized dead cockroach.
Because Western populations relate insects to health risks (Looy,
Dunkel, & Wood, 2014; Ruby, Rozin, & Chan, 2015) and contamina-
tion (Deroy et al., 2015), it is not surprising that potential con-
sumers respond with a negative feeling (Caparros Megido et al.,
2014), such as disgust or fear (Desmet & Schifferstein, 2008;
Looy & Wood, 2006; Pascucci et al., 2013; Rozin & Fallon, 1986;
Tan et al., 2015), toward insect food. In a recent study, it has been
shown that disgust is a good predictor of insect food acceptance
(Ruby et al., 2015).
However, acceptance ratings are not always an adequate predic-
tor of market success (King & Meiselman, 2010), and assessing a lar-
ger number of emotional attributes in a food context was
recommended to capture the full emotional profile of products
instead of assessing a smaller number of terms (Cardello et al.,
2012; King & Meiselman, 2010), especially with novel food (King &
Meiselman, 2010; Meiselman, 2016). Research has shown that the
information gained by assessing food-related emotions goes beyond
traditional hedonic measures such as acceptance data (King &
Meiselman, 2010; Spinelli et al., 2014) or data on positive and nega-
tive affect (Laros & Steenkamp, 2005). Emotional responses provided
explanations for observed liking patterns (Bhumiratana et al., 2014;
King & Meiselman, 2010; Spinelli et al., 2014, 2015) and differenti-
ated between products of the same product category. In some cases,
emotional responses differentiated between products even better
than liking scores (Bhumiratana et al., 2014; King & Meiselman,
2010; Ng et al., 2013a). In addition to the results, which demon-
strated the added value of emotion assessments compared to accep-
tance ratings, food-related emotions contributed to the prediction of
food choice behavior (Gutjar et al., 2015a). Moreover, considering
the assessment of food-related emotions during product develop-
ment of novel food was recommended (Jiang et al., 2014; King &
Meiselman, 2010). It is well known that incorporating consumers
feedback into the product development process at an early stage is
beneficial (Moskowitz, 1999). Therefore, we believe that assessing
peoples emotional expectations toward the consumption of insect
food is important for guiding product development, especially in
countries where insect products are not sold on the market. To the
best of our knowledge, this has not been a subject of research thus
far.
1.3. Scope of the present work
The present research has the following four objectives: i) obtain-
ing a detailed picture of the negative and positive emotional
119
experiences that potential consumers may expect from consuming
snacks that contain insects; ii) exploring the effect of degree of pro-
cessing of the insect ingredient in snacks on expected emotional
experiences because recent research has shown that WTE insect
food is dependent on the degree of processing of the insect ingredi-
ent (Hartmann et al., 2015); iii) investigating the influence of pro-
duct type on emotional expectations by comparing evaluations of
novel, unfamiliar insect-containing food to an equivalent familiar,
non-insect-containing food product (reference); and iv) exploring
the relationship between emotional expectations and WTE insect
food.
To achieve these objectives, the study was conducted in
Switzerland, where the permission of marketing insect food is a
subject of debate during the current revision of food legislation.
The emotional expectations were verbally assessed by using our
earlier developed German Food-related Emotional Evaluation List
(G-FEE-List; Gmuer, 2015). This list was chosen for the following
reasons: verbal measurement tools are frequently used in sensory
science and have already provided relevant insights on food-
related emotional states; verbal tools allow the assessment of a rel-
atively large number of terms (Desmet, 2003), and this was espe-
cially recommended for the characterization of novel food
(Meiselman, 2016); compared to other lexicons from the working
field, the G-FEE-List was not designed in relation to a specific food
product (cf. Chaya et al., 2015; Ferrarini et al., 2010; Ng et al.,
2013a; Spinelli et al., 2014); the list contains a substantial number
of negative expressions (cf. King & Meiselman, 2010). Negative
emotional experiences are expected to be relevant in the context
of insect-containing food; and limitations related to a translation
step are avoided by using a German list. The G-FEE-List was devel-
oped by a new linguistic-based and systematic approach (Gmuer
et al., 2015) that was followed-up by a similarity sorting task. This
resulted in 39 emotional evaluation terms, which encompass 14
negative, 22 positive, and 3 neutral terms (Gmuer, 2015)3. Because
there is no consensus on a definition of the term emotion
(Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981; Scherer, 2005), we do not claim that
the 39 expressions represent 39 distinct emotions but rather repre-
sent terms that the Swiss use to describe their emotional states in a
food context, including moods, emotions, and feelings (cf. Gmuer
et al., 2015). Within the scope of the present research, these emo-
tional states are restricted to expected emotional experiences.
Throughout the manuscript, original German terms are indicated
in square brackets.
Our hypotheses were that expected emotional experiences are
not only restricted to disgust but also include other negative emo-
tional states. Based on Hartmann et al.s (2015) findings, we further
hypothesized that the higher the processing degree of the insect
ingredient (i.e., the less visible), the higher WTE and reported
intensities of positive emotional expectations and the lower the
intensities of negative emotional expectations. Furthermore, it
was assumed that the assessments would be more negative in
the case of an insect-containing product than that of a non-
insect-containing equivalent. Last, we expected negative emotional
expectations to have a negative impact on WTE and positive emo-
tional expectations to have a positive impact on WTE.
2. Methodology
2.1. Sample
Subjects were recruited via the panel provider Respondi AG,
the Swiss citizen pool of which consists of approximately 20,000
3
Further information on the advantages of the approach, the included terms, and
the classification of the expressions as negative, positive, or neutral is provided
in Gmuer et al. (2015) and Gmuer (2015).
120 A. Gmuer et al. / Food Quality and Preference 54 (2016) 117127
members (Respondi, 2014). Participants received a financial incen-
tive for completing the online survey. A gender quota was set (50%
female), and only fully completed questionnaires were considered.
Fifteen cases of which the survey duration was equal to or less than
half of the median of the total survey duration were excluded, as it
was assumed that these subjects did not answer the questions seri-
ously (Hartmann et al., 2015; Siegrist, Shi, Giusto, & Hartmann,
2015). In addition, five subjects were eliminated because they indi-
cated that their diet prevented them from eating insects (e.g., they
were vegan). Furthermore, one participant noted that it was not
possible for him or her to rate feelings or emotions evoked by a
product if he or she did not have the opportunity to taste it. There-
fore, this person was also excluded. The final 428 individuals
(50.9% female) had a mean age of 45.2 years (SD = 12.7, min = 20,
max = 70 years). Educational attainment was distributed as fol-
lows: 5.8% compulsory education, 54.7% upper secondary school
education, 16.4% higher vocational education, and 22.9% college
or university education. One person reported having failed to com-
plete any education. The percentage of participants who were
native (Swiss-)German speakers was 94.6%.
2.2. Design and products
Tortilla chips were chosen as the product and crickets as the
insect ingredient. In a within- subjects design, all participants
assessed non-insect-containing, regular tortilla chips (reference).
By applying a between-subjects design, participants were ran-
domly but approximately equally allocated to one of four cricket-
containing products that differed in the degree of processing of
the insect ingredient: tortilla chips made of cricket flour (flour,
N = 108), tortilla chips containing deep-fried cricket bits (bits,
N = 103), a snack consisting of tortilla chips and deep-fried crickets
(mix, N = 109), and deep-fried crickets (crickets, N = 108). Each
product was presented to the participant as a picture (Fig. 1). For
the flour, bits, and mix conditions, an image of tortilla chips
that was similar to the reference product image was used and
altered according to the condition. For the snack consisting of tor-
tilla chips that contain insect flour, the unaltered image was
shown. For the snack consisting of tortilla chips that contain
deep-fried cricket bits, black spots were added to the chips in
the picture. For the snack consisting of tortilla chips and deep-
fried crickets, whole crickets were added to the picture. For the
snack consisting of deep-fried crickets, a handful of whole crick-
ets was shown. The wings and legs were less prominent in the pic-
ture because we assumed that their absence might increase WTE
(cf. Tan et al., 2015).
Cricket flour tortilla chips (Six Foods LLC., 2014) and whole
(fried) crickets (Thailand Unique., 2015) are products that are sold
by companies. The product, which consists of a mix of whole insect
bodies and a familiar food product, was inspired by the Zweifels
Secret Chips product, which consists of potato chips and air-dried
tomato slices (Zweifel Pomy-Chips AG, n.d.). In addition, there are
companies, insect cookbooks, and restaurants where mix snacks
or other variants of mixed products are sold or proposed (Edible
Bug Shop, n.d.; Essento, n.d.; Grub Kitchen, n.d.; Muscle Food,
n.d.; Tan et al., 2015; van Huis, van Gurp, Dicke, & Takken-
Kaminker, 2014). To our knowledge, the bits product is a fictive
product.
2.3. Procedure
After providing demographic information (i.e., gender, age,
native tongue, and education level), participants completed the
following four question modules.
Diet. Respondents answered questions regarding consumption
frequency (daily, 46/week, 13/week, 13/month, of processing as between factor and product type as within factor.
rarely, never, but I have already tasted tortilla chips, and I
have never tasted tortilla chips) and general liking of tortilla chips
(-3 = do not like at all; 3 = like extremely).
Reference product. In the second module, all questions referred
to a picture of the reference tortilla chips (Fig. 1, product A). Partic-
ipants indicated the following: 1) their WTE the snack on a
10-point scale (1 = do not agree at all; 10 = totally agree; Hartmann
et al., 2015); 2) expected liking ( 3 = do not like at all; 3 = like
extremely); and 3) how strongly they thought the 39 emotions or
feelings listed would be elicited by eating this snack (1 = not at
all; 6 = extremely strongly). Expected liking and emotional
responses were introduced by the request to imagine that they
were eating the illustrated snack. The emotional terms were taken
from the G-FEE-List (Gmuer, 2015). It should be noted that the
emotion disgust is represented by the terms sickened, grossed
out. All terms were split into two word blocks, each with approxi-
mately 20 expressions. The words were randomly presented in
each word block for each participant.
Insect consumption. The third module was introduced by the
statement, In the last few months, eating insects and products
that contain processed insects has been frequently discussed in
the media and science. Therefore, the following questions refer to
insects or products that contain processed insects. This statement
was made to deter participants from thinking that the products
were far-fetched inventions. To assess previous experience and
familiarity with insect food, participants had to indicate the follow-
ing: 1) whether they regularly eat insects or products that contain
processed insects and 2) whether they have ever eaten insects or
products that contain processed insects. The answers were to be
given in a binary response format of yes/no (cf. Hartmann
et al., 2015).
Insect-containing product. In the last module, one insect-
containing product was illustrated along with a product descrip-
tion. Subjects answered the same questions as they had for the
reference product. In the mix condition (Fig. 1, product D), partic-
ipants were asked to rate the snack as a whole (i.e., the tortilla
chips together with the deep-fried crickets). The pictures were
shown throughout the entire module.
2.4. Statistical analysis
IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 22) was used to run the
statistical analyses.
A two-way, split-plot multivariate analysis of variance (MAN-
OVA) was performed with degree of processing as between factor
(four levels: flour, bits, mix, and crickets), the type of pro-
duct (two levels: reference product versus insect product) as
within factor, and the 39 emotional evaluations as the dependents
to investigate the effect of degree of processing and type of product
on expected emotional experiences. Because the multivariate anal-
ysis revealed significant main effects and a significant two-way
interaction, several follow-up tests were performed to further
specify the differences between the tested product types and
degree of processing. Univariate analyses of variances (ANOVAs)
with each emotional response as a dependent variable and degree
of processing as a between factor (levels: flour, bits, mix, and
crickets) were conducted to compare the emotional evaluations
among the four products that contained insects. Where significant
effects of degree of processing were found, Bonferroni tests
were run for pairwise comparisons. Bonferroni tests were also
conducted to compare the emotional evaluations between the
products that contained insects and the corresponding reference
product.
In the same manner, two two-way, split-plot ANOVAs on WTE
and expected liking were conducted to test the effects of degree
 A. Gmuer et al. / Food Quality and Preference 54 (2016) 117127 121

A B

C D E

Fig. 1. Stimuli material used in the study: (A) reference, (B) flour, (C) bits, (D) mix, and (E) crickets products.

Because significant interaction and main effects occurred, Bonfer-
ronis pairwise comparisons were run again to examine the differ-
ences between the different levels of product type and degree of
processing. Before the analysis of the liking ratings, scores were
recoded from a scale from 3 to +3 to a scale from 1 to 7.
Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to investi-
gate the relationship between emotional evaluations and WTE
for each product that contained insects. Because of the problem
of multicollinearity, which was prominent among the emotional
evaluations, a principal component analysis (PCA) with VARIMAX
rotation was first conducted on the correlation matrix obtained
from the emotional evaluation data of all four insect products.
The scree and loading plots suggested that a model with three fac-
tors was the most appropriate one for describing the underlying
factor structure. Before the linear regression analysis was con-
ducted with WTE as the dependent variable and the three factors
as the independent variables, standardized factor scores were cal-
culated for each subject and factor by means of the statistical
program.
3. Results
A minority of the sample (0.7%) reported eating tortilla chips
very often (46/week). Most of the participants (51.6%) reported
eating tortilla chips rarely. The mean liking of the subjects who
had previously eaten tortilla chips (N = 406) was 5.0 (SD = 1.5) on
a 7-point scale. Six subjects (1.4%) were regular consumers of
insects or products that contain processed insects, and 18.9% of

aroused
surprised4.5 cheery*
quiet** chipper*
charged content***
uneasy*** 4.0 exhilarated*
torpid 3.5 exuberant,excited*
tired 3.0 good**

strange*** 2.5 happy***

sickened,grossed out*** 2.0 impassioned**

irritated*** 1.5 invigorated,energetic

inferior
1.0 lusty*

greedy* motivated

dreadful*** outstanding,terrific**

dissatisfied overwrought

disappointed refreshed**
dazed relaxed**
boring solemn*
bad*** strengthened
well*** vital thankful
unique

Fig. 2. Positive (aroused well), negative (bad uneasy), and neutral (charged surprised) emotional evaluations for the four products that contain insects: flour (blue,
N = 108), bits (black, N = 103), mix (green, N = 109), and crickets (red, N = 108). Terms were originally presented in German. Ratings were recorded on a 6-point
response scale (1 = not at all, 6 = extremely strong). Based on the results of the univariate ANOVA, , , and indicate significant effects of the degree of processing at p 6 0.05,
0.01, 0.001, respectively. For more details on Bonferronis pairwise comparisons between the products, see Table 1.
122 A. Gmuer et al. / Food Quality and Preference 54 (2016) 117127

the subjects reported having eaten insects or products that contain
processed insects in the past.
3.1. Effects of degree of processing and product type on the expected
emotional experiences
MANOVA showed a significant main effect of product type (F
(39, 386) = 23.61, p < 0.001; Pillais Trace = 0.71), indicating that
the emotional evaluation mean values of the reference products
were significantly different from those of the products that con-
tained insects. MANOVA further showed a significant main effect
of degree of processing (F(117, 1164) = 1.30, p = 0.022; Pillais
Trace = 0.35), which was specified by a significant product
type  degree of processing interaction (F(117, 1164) = 1.25,
p = 0.044; Pillais Trace = 0.34). The results indicated that the emo-
tional evaluations differed between the different levels of the
tested products. Fig. 2 shows the comparison of the four products
that contained insects and reveals that the flour and bits prod-
ucts were rated similarly and best, followed by the cricket and
the mix products. More specifically, the products that contained
the processed and therefore less visible insect ingredients (flour
and bits products) had lower negative emotional evaluation val-
ues and higher positive emotional evaluation values than the prod-
ucts that contained visible whole cricket bodies (mix and
cricket products). Although the participants expected that the
consumption of products containing insects would also evoke pos-
itive emotional experiences, the emotional evaluation means
(N = 428) that had the highest values were negative experiences,
including strange [merkwrdig], sickened, grossed out [angewidert],
irritated [irritiert], uneasy [unwohl], and dreadful [schrecklich]. The
univariate ANOVAs with degree of processing as between factor
revealed significant differences in 7 negative evaluations, 12 posi-
tive evaluations, and 1 neutral evaluation (evaluations indicated by
asterisks in Fig. 2 and shown in italics in Table 1). The pairwise
comparisons between the products that contained insects (Table 1)
further confirmed the distinction of two groups on the basis of the

Table 1
Mean scores and standard deviations (SD) of the 39 emotional evaluations for the flour (N = 108), bits (N = 103), mix (N = 109) and crickets (N = 108) products. The
extracted factors on the data of the four insect products are additionally depicted.
a,b c
G-FEE-List Flour Bits Mix Crickets Extracted Factors
German English (approx.) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 1 2 3
Positive
motiviert motivated 2.19 1.21 2.26 1.40 1.91 1.20 2.19 1.35 0.870
begeistert exuberant, excited 2.31 1.23 2.30 1.29 1.88 1.14 2.16 1.35 0.847
hervorragend outstanding, terrific 2.31A 1.26 2.36A 1.30 1.79B 1.05 2.01AB 1.29 0.844
energiegeladen invigorated, energetic 2.24 1.20 2.31 1.33 1.88 1.18 2.24 1.36 0.840
glcklich happy 2.31A 1.21 2.37A 1.30 1.77B 1.05 2.05AB 1.25 0.838
munter chipper 2.31AB 1.32 2.40A 1.22 1.89B 1.06 2.25AB 1.40 0.836
dankbar thankful 2.07 1.21 2.09 1.27 1.71 1.00 1.93 1.18 0.832
vital vital 2.19 1.24 2.24 1.21 1.84 1.07 2.13 1.33 0.824
wohl well 2.42A 1.33 2.47A 1.29 1.86B 1.10 2.17AB 1.24 0.816
vergngt cheery 2.38AB 1.31 2.47A 1.32 1.94B 1.19 2.27AB 1.51 0.814
angeregt aroused 2.25 1.32 2.34 1.35 2.01 1.20 2.37 1.38 0.813
gut good 2.44A 1.31 2.59A 1.30 1.95B 1.20 2.36AB 1.42 0.812
zufrieden content 2.39A 1.30 2.47A 1.33 1.82B 0.98 2.19AB 1.31 0.809
beschwingt exhilarated 1.95AB 1.05 2.28A 1.33 1.77B 0.98 2.03AB 1.29 0.805
erfrischt refreshed 2.06A 1.14 2.07A 1.19 1.61B 0.86 1.95AB 1.22 0.804
gestrkt strengthened 2.31 1.25 2.27 1.19 1.93 1.14 2.33 1.43 0.798
lustvoll lusty 2.06AB 1.24 2.21A 1.33 1.69B 0.96 2.00AB 1.35 0.791
entspannt relaxed 2.28A 1.20 2.39A 1.23 1.83B 1.03 2.20AB 1.35 0.778
feierlich solemn 1.94 1.13 1.96 1.15 1.59 0.90 1.78 1.13 0.764
berwltigt overwrought 2.15 1.18 2.24 1.32 2.06 1.29 2.13 1.37 0.757
feurig impassioned 2.28AB 1.32 2.40A 1.29 1.83C 1.08 1.96BC 1.20 0.750
einzigartig unique 2.63 1.41 3.05 1.80 2.61 1.68 2.87 1.78 0.629

Neutral
ruhig quiet 2.42A 1.33 2.48A 1.32 1.88B 1.08 2.29AB 1.37 0.646
erregt charged 2.09 1.34 2.12 1.35 1.94 1.25 2.19 1.47 0.613
berrascht surprised 3.23 1.55 3.21 1.63 3.16 1.69 2.98 1.67 0.480

Negative
gierig greedy 1.82A 1.04 1.83A 1.07 1.43B 0.76 1.72AB 1.14 0.664
angewidert sickened, grossed out 2.97B 1.80 3.17B 1.77 4.27A 1.78 3.84A 1.84 0.789
unwohl uneasy 2.81C 1.77 3.29BC 1.73 4.02A 1.81 3.59AB 1.82 0.782
irritiert irritated 3.12B 1.76 3.31B 1.69 4.01A 1.80 3.49AB 1.68 0.766
schlecht bad 2.47C 1.57 2.96BC 1.78 3.72A 1.96 3.36AB 1.84 0.746
schrecklich dreadful 2.44C 1.60 2.95BC 1.76 3.81A 1.94 3.46AB 1.86 0.745
merkwrdig strange 3.21B 1.69 3.49B 1.70 4.20A 1.72 3.43B 1.78 0.714
unbefriedigt dissatisfied 2.49 1.56 2.64 1.64 2.89 1.91 2.54 1.65 0.438 0.601
benommen dazed 2.13 1.22 2.34 1.50 2.46 1.64 2.37 1.54 0.433 0.545
mde tired 1.93 1.07 1.91 1.15 1.77 1.15 1.94 1.22 0.786
langweilig boring 2.11 1.16 2.09 1.22 2.01 1.39 2.02 1.35 0.777
trge torpid 2.04 1.23 2.14 1.18 1.99 1.46 2.10 1.43 0.741
enttuscht disappointed 2.56 1.60 2.54 1.53 2.83 1.87 2.52 1.67 0.672
minderwertig inferior 2.03 1.36 2.20 1.35 2.45 1.77 2.17 1.46 0.632
ABC
Means with different letter codes in a row are significantly different based on Bonferronis pairwise comparisons.
a
Emotional evaluations were recorded on a 6-point rating scale (1 = not at all, 6 = extremely strong).
b
Terms printed in italics reached significance level at p 6 0.05 in the one-way ANOVA.
c
Only factor loadings that were larger than 0.4 are depicted.
 A. Gmuer et al. / Food Quality and Preference 54 (2016) 117127 123

degree of processing, as was described in Fig. 2: The flour and
bits products did not significantly differ in any emotional evalu-
ation. The same applies to the mix and cricket products with
the exception that the mix product was perceived as significantly
stranger [merkwrdiger]. The observed significant differences were
mostly found for the mix product that had lower positive emo-
tional evaluation values and higher negative emotional evaluation
values than the flour and bits products. Relatively large signif-
icant differences were found in the negative evaluations bad
[schlecht], dreadful [schrecklich], sickened, grossed out [angewidert],
and uneasy [unwohl] and in the positive evaluations content [zufrie-
den] and well [wohl]. The former evaluations were the only nega-
tive evaluations that were also rated significantly higher for the
cricket product compared with the flour product. No signifi-
cant differences were found in the positive emotional evaluations
between the cricket and flour/bits products, with the excep-
tion of impassioned [feurig], indicating that the cricket product
was not evaluated as negative, as expected.
Among all emotional evaluations, the negative evaluations bad
[schlecht], dreadful [schrecklich], and uneasy [unwohl] showed
relatively large differences across all products that contained
insects and best discriminated between them (number of groups
discriminated, Table 1).
Bonferronis pairwise comparisons between the two types of
products revealed that the products containing insects had signif-
icantly lower positive emotional evaluation values and signifi-
cantly higher negative emotional evaluation values. Large
significant differences (up to three scale points) were found for
negative evaluations (e.g., irritated [irritiert], sickened, grossed out
[angewidert], strange [merkwrdig], uneasy [unwohl]) and positive
evaluations (e.g., content [zufrieden], lusty [lustvoll]). The difference
in the emotional evaluation profiles was evident not only in
the magnitude of the intensity ratings but also in the markedly
different shapes of the profiles. The participants expected that
the consumption of the reference product would evoke relatively
strong positive emotional experiences, including cheery [vergngt],
content [zufrieden], good [gut], and lusty [lustvoll], compared with
the consumption of the insect products, which were expected to
elicit relatively strong negative experiences. Fig. 3 shows a
representation of the diverging emotional evaluation profiles for
the flour condition. Please note that the flour product was
expected to be and was actually the most positively assessed
among the insect-containing products, except for the product con-
taining insect bits. Therefore, the other pairwise comparisons
showed even larger discrepancies.
3.2. Effects of degree of processing and product type on WTE and
expected liking
The split-plot ANOVAs, which found similar results for WTE and
expected liking, revealed a main effect for product type (WTE: F(1,
424) = 642.21, p < 0.001; expected liking: F(1, 424) = 514.09,
p < 0.001), indicating significant differences in WTE and expected
liking between the reference product and the products that
contained insects. The ANOVAs further revealed a significant main
effect for degree of processing (WTE: F(3, 424) = 3.63, p = 0.013;
expected liking: F(3, 424) = 5.17, p = 0.002), which was again spec-
ified by a significant product type  degree of processing interac-
tion (WTE: F(3, 424) = 9.37, p < 0.001; expected liking: F(3, 424)
= 10.11, p < 0.001). Bonferronis pairwise comparisons showed sig-
nificant differences between the different products that contained
insects (Table 2; WTE: all significant p 6 0.041; expected liking: all
significant p 6 0.029). In accordance with the results for the emo-
tional evaluations, the findings showed two groups of products,
flour/bits and mix/crickets, with the former group having
higher values. Within each group, WTE and expected liking did
not significantly differ. However, the participants were signifi-
cantly less willing to eat the mix product (p < 0.001) and
expected that the mix product would be less liked (p < 0.001)
than the flour and bits products.
In addition, within each condition, WTE and expected liking for
the reference product were significantly higher than those for the
insect-containing product (all p < 0.001).
3.3. Influence of expected emotional experiences on WTE
Before a linear regression analysis was conducted, the 39 emo-
tional evaluations were submitted to PCA across all four products

aroused***
surprised*** 4.0 cheery***
quiet*** chipper***
charged content***
uneasy*** 3.5 exhilarated***
torpid exuberant, excited***
3.0
tired good***
2.5
strange*** happy***
2.0
sickened, grossed out*** impassioned***
1.5
irritated*** invigorated, energetic***
1.0
inferior* lusty***

greedy*** motivated***

dreadful*** outstanding, terrific***

dissatisfied*** overwrought*

disappointed*** refreshed***
dazed*** relaxed***
boring solemn***
bad*** strengthened***
well***
vital*** uniquethankful***

Fig. 3. Comparison of the positive (aroused well), negative (bad uneasy), and neutral (charged surprised) emotional evaluations between cricket flour-containing tortilla
chips (dashed line) and the reference tortilla chips (solid line), N = 108. Terms were originally presented in German. Ratings were recorded on a 6-point response scale (1 = not
at all, 6 = extremely strong). , , and indicate significant differences at p 6 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively.
124 A. Gmuer et al. / Food Quality and Preference 54 (2016) 117127

Table 2 degree of processing of the insect ingredient, as well how these

Willingness to eat (WTE) and expected liking (EL) mean scores with standard emotional evaluation profiles may differ from those of a well-
deviations (SD) for the four insect-containing products.
established snack.
Dependent Flour Bits Mix Crickets The findings indicate that Swiss people expect a large number
variable (N = 108) (N = 103) (N = 109) (N = 108) of diverse negative emotional experiences evoked by consuming
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD cricket-containing snacks. Compared with the general knowledge
WTEa 4.86AB 3.04 4.93A 3.42 3.20C 2.79 3.81BC 2.78 that Western people respond with disgust toward insect food
ELb 3.76A 1.75 3.61AB 1.76 2.55C 1.65 3.10BC 1.66 (Desmet & Schifferstein, 2008; Looy & Wood, 2006; Rozin &
ABC
Means with different letter codes in a row are significantly different (p 6 0.05)
Fallon, 1986; Tan et al., 2015), the results revealed that Western
based on Bonferronis pairwise comparisons. people may also expect to feel or be dissatisfied [unbefriedigt],
a
WTE was indicated on a 10-point response scale (Hartmann et al., 2015). irritated [irritiert], strange [merkwrdig], or uneasy [unwohl]. The
b
Expected liking was rated on a 7-point scale. findings are unsurprising because Western cultures often associate
insects with dirt, disease (Looy et al., 2014), or contamination
(Deroy et al., 2015). Positive emotional expectations were less
Table 3 expected to occur. These results are in line with those of
Linear regression analysis conducted on the data of each insect product with Schouteten et al. (2016), who conducted emotion research on
willingness to eat (WTE) as dependent variable and the three emotional factors as
independent variables.
insect burgers. Different from our study, that of Schouteten et al.
(2016) was conducted in a country where the marketing of insect
WTE Independent Variables B SE B b food has already been allowed for two years. The emotional pro-
Flour Constant 4.34 0.23 files of the products in the present and latter study are clearly dif-
1: Positive emotional evaluations 1.63** 0.21 0.53 ferent from those of familiar food products (either when tasted or
2: Disgust/uneasiness 1.38** 0.22 0.43
when consumers were presented with their food names), which
3: Inertia/dissatisfaction 0.90** 0.23 0.27
commonly have a high prevalence or intensity of positive emo-
Bits Constant 4.43 0.21
tional experiences (Cardello et al., 2012; Desmet & Schifferstein,
1: Positive emotional evaluations 2.17** 0.20 0.68
2: Disgust/uneasiness 1.64** 0.21 0.48 2008; Gutjar et al., 2015b; King, Meiselman, & Carr, 2010). The
3: Inertia/dissatisfaction 0.59* 0.22 0.16 comparison between the insect-flour containing snack and the
Mix Constant 4.04 0.18 familiar, non-insect containing equivalent snack (reference)
1: Positive emotional evaluations 1.93** 0.20 0.58 illustrated this discrepancy and makes us assume that insect
2: Disgust/uneasiness 1.20** 0.18 0.42 snacks are far from being on a par with well-established products.
3: Inertia/dissatisfaction 0.46* 0.16 0.17
This finding was confirmed by the WTE and excepted liking scores
Crickets Constant 3.86 0.19 of the insect-containing snacks, which were rated significantly
1: Positive emotional evaluations 1.52** 0.18 0.58
lower compared with the reference product. Although the two
2: Disgust/uneasiness 1.19** 0.21 0.39
3: Inertia/dissatisfaction 0.52* 0.17 0.21 presented images of the insect-flour containing snack and the
reference product looked highly similar, the simple description of
R2Flour = 0.52 (N = 108); R2Bits = 0.63 (N = 103); R2Mix = 0.62 (N = 109); R2Crickets = 0.54
a food as containing insects seems to negatively affect the
(N = 108).
*
p < 0.01.
perception of that product. This interpretation could be analogous
**
p < 0.001. to a heuristic judgment (Kahneman & Frederick, 2005; Stterlin &
Siegrist, 2015). Alternatively, the simple contact with a disgusting
because of the problem of multicollinearity among the emotional stimuli (contaminant) makes an initially accepted food unaccept-
evaluations. Together, the three extracted factors accounted for able (Rozin & Fallon, 1986, 1987). Overall, the comparison between
64.4% of the total variance. Factor 1 consists of 26 items, which the insect snack and the reference product makes us assume that
are mainly positive (explained variance: 45.4%; Cronbachs a: not only does a negative emotional barrier need to be overcome
0.97). Therefore, this factor can be interpreted as positive emotional in the future, but additional efforts also need to be made to
evaluations. Factor 2 includes six terms that are related to disgust/ improve positive emotional expectations and thus increase WTE.
uneasiness (explained variance: 14.5%; Cronbachs a: 0.92). Factor 3 This study revealed that WTE insect-containing snacks is signif-
includes seven items and can be interpreted as inertia/dissatisfac- icantly predicted by emotional expectations, which were repre-
tion (explained variance: 4.5%; Cronbachs a: 0.90). Table 1 depicts sented by three underlying emotional dimensions labeled as
the rotated component matrix, and Table 3 shows the results of the positive emotional evaluations, disgust/uneasiness, and inertia/dissat-
linear regression analysis for each insect-containing product. isfaction. By applying the benchmarks of effect sizes proposed by
All three emotional factors are predictors of the WTE the insect Cohen (1977), the effect sizes in the present study can be catego-
products. The generated models were significant (Fflour(3, 104) rized as large. For each tested product, increasing the expected
= 37.00, p < 0.001; Fbits(3, 99) = 56.10, p < 0.001; Fmix(3, 105) positive emotional experiences and decreasing the expected nega-
= 57.65, p < 0.001; Fcrickets(3, 104) = 39.96, p < 0.001) and explained tive emotional experiences would positively influence WTE. The
52%, 63%, 62%, and 54% of the variance in WTE the flour, bits, emotional evaluations that seem to have the strongest effect on
mix, and crickets products, respectively. Positive emotional WTE are positive. One possible explanation is that people usually
evaluations had a positive effect on WTE. More specifically, people choose to eat products that will have a positive emotional influ-
with more intense positive emotional expectations were more ence on them (Desmet & Schifferstein, 2008). The negative effect
willing to eat the products. However, expectations related to dis- related to disgust/uneasiness is in line with the knowledge that dis-
gust/uneasiness or inertia/dissatisfaction had a negative effect on gust plays an important role in food rejection (Rozin & Fallon,
WTE. 1987). Because consumers expectations are important in deciding
upon a possible purchase (Cardello & MacFie, 2007), the develop-
4. Discussion ment and marketing of insect food should undertake efforts not
only to eliminate initial expectations of disgust and dissatisfaction
This study gives insights into the expected emotional experi- but also to generate positive emotional expectations. However,
ences that people, who live in a country where insect food is not future research is needed to explore which product aspects of
marketed so far, may have toward insect snacks that vary in their insect food are related to lower negative expectations and higher
 A. Gmuer et al. / Food Quality and Preference 54 (2016) 117127
positive emotional expectations. One possible factor might be to
vary the degree of processing of the insect ingredient.
The results on the influence of the degree of processing did
partly confirm our predictions that the higher was the degree of
processing of the insect ingredient, the more positive were the rat-
ings. Clearly against our assumption was that the ratings of the
snack containing visible cricket bits did not significantly differ
from those of the snack made of cricket flour (invisible). Using
insect bits in products could be a good alternative presentation for-
mat to insect flour to familiarize potential Western consumers
with insect food. Because the snack containing cricket bits looked
like tortilla chips containing herbs, the familiar appearance may
have contributed to the more positive evaluation of the bits
product. In agreement with our hypotheses, the products contain-
ing the less visible, more processed insect ingredients (flour and
bits products) tended to be more positively evaluated than the
products containing whole crickets (mix and crickets prod-
ucts). This result is in line with those of other studies (Hartmann
et al., 2015; Tan et al., 2015) in which the WTE scores were higher
for familiar products with less visible insect ingredients than for
products with whole, incorporated insect bodies. The more nega-
tive emotional ratings for the products containing whole insects
(mix and crickets products) were indicated not only by the sig-
nificantly higher scores for the prominent emotional expectation
sickened, grossed out [angewidert] but also by the higher ratings
for the emotional evaluations bad [schlecht], dreadful [schrecklich],
and uneasy [unwohl]. The extremities and eyes of whole crickets
are assumed to have contributed to the increased value of the eval-
uation sickened, grossed out [angewidert] of the mix and cricket
products because this may have reminded the people of the animal
origin of the product (referred to as animalness; Hartmann et al.,
2015; Rozin & Fallon, 1987). Animalness was mentioned as a stim-
ulus of disgust reactions (Rozin & Fallon, 1987). The more negative
evaluations for products that contained whole insects would be
quite challenging for insect food-producing industries that seek
to expand their operations in countries where the sale of processed
insects is or will not be allowed. In Switzerland, where the present
study was conducted, the current revision of the food law will
probably allow for the sale of insect species but only in their (less
acceptable) recognizable form (Federal Food Safety and Veterinary
Office FSVO, 2015). We assume two possibilities: The insects could
be presented in their whole form alone or could be mixed with a
familiar product. Whole insects, either presented alone or in com-
bination with another product, are already seen in or sold by
restaurants (e.g., Grub Kitchen, n.d.), insect cookbooks (e.g., van
Huis et al., 2014), or insect food-selling industries (e.g. Edible
Bug Shop, n.d.; Thailand Unique, 2015). However, the present data
suggest that offering whole crickets would be more promising than
selling the mix snack. The latter product was more negatively
rated relative to the products flour and bits. Because the eval-
uation strange was significantly higher for the mix product than
for the cricket product, one possible explanation may be that
Swiss people found the idea of combining tortilla chips with crick-
ets unusual for food. Research (Tan et al., 2015) has shown that the
appropriateness of a preparation method plays an important factor
in Westerners reaction to insect food. Further research is needed
to explore whether Swiss people found the idea of combining the
consumption of chips with another solid product, the idea of com-
bining the consumption of particularly crickets and tortilla chips or
the idea of combining the consumption of crickets with another
solid product odd. An argument against the first possibility is that
Zweifel Chips (Zweifel Pomy-Chips AG, n.d.) sells a product that is
an accepted mix of chips and dried tomato pieces. An explanation
for the third possibility could be that a product consisting of whole
insects incorporated into a familiar product reminds potential con-
sumers of a contaminated product. According to Rozin and Fallon
125
(1986) and Rozin and Fallon (1987), the combination of a disgust-
ing stimulus can make an initially accepted stimuli unacceptable.
In addition, Tan et al. (2015) showed that Dutch people, who have
not eaten insects before, associated mealworm muffins with an
apple contaminated by a worm. Even Thai people, who were famil-
iar with the consumption of insects, were reminded by the
mealworm-muffin of a rotten food. The present study did not
explore the associations people have with the different insect
snacks, and we only included one mix product; therefore, by
using other combinations of products (e.g., crickets in sushi, crick-
ets on chocolate), further research is needed to test for associations
and reasons why a mix product may be rated more negatively.
The participants expected to feel or to be significantly more
sickened, grossed out [angewidert], and bad [schlecht] when imagin-
ing eating crickets compared with eating the flour/bits product.
The participants did not expect to be either significantly more irri-
tated [irritiert] or strange [merkwrdig], suggesting that after the
disgust factor is decreased, the presentation of crickets as a snack
product would have comparable chances compared with that of
the flour/bits product. Whether the same findings would be
generated if the participants have had the crickets and insect-
flour chips right in front of them is questionable.
Certain limitations need to be mentioned. The G-FEE-List, which
was not developed for any specific food category, lacked some
emotional expressions that may have been important in the con-
text of insect food. Other studies have shown that people are curi-
ous, interested, or react with fear toward eating insects (Desmet &
Schifferstein, 2008; Looy & Wood, 2006; Tan et al., 2015). These
expressions were not included in the G-FEE-List. The fact that
potentially important terms could be missing is a general limita-
tion of food product-unspecific lists (Spinelli et al., 2014). By con-
trast, the terms tired [mde] and thankful [dankbar], which
occurred in the G-FEE-List, did neither discriminate between the
products that contained insects nor did they receive relatively high
ratings in the present study. To save resources and avoid confusion
among the participants (cf. Jaeger, Cardello, & Schutz, 2013), future
studies may modify the G-FEE-List by omitting expressions like
tired [mde] and thankful [dankbar] and by adding specific expres-
sions related to fear or curiosity.
A second limitation is that the participants only rated one out of
four insect products. A within-subject design would need to be
used to control for individual differences. For example, some
potential consumers might prefer whole insects over products that
contain processed insect ingredients. Schsler et al. (2012) have
shown that participants who were adventurous tasters rated prod-
ucts containing visible insects more positively. Further research
could conduct a segmentation study to explore the different types
of potential insect food consumers.
A third limitation was that the participants were presented with
photos. Asking people to indicate emotional experiences that may
be evoked by the consumption of a product they have never tasted
or even actually seen was bound to cause some difficulties. We
assume that the effect of degree of processing would be more pro-
nounced when the subjects have the insect products right in front
of them and and/or can taste them. Recent results on insect food
revealed that actual emotional experiences differ from expected
emotional experiences, with negative evaluations being less fre-
quent in the latter condition (Schouteten et al., 2016).
Finally, the results may have been influenced by a priming
effect induced by the introductory information, which is in the
last few months, eating insects and products that contain pro-
cessed insects has been frequently discussed in the media and
science. However, information in the media and science is contro-
versial. Before deciding to include a statement of this type, other
researchers should investigate in advance the possible effect of
such a statement on the results.
126 A. Gmuer et al. / Food Quality and Preference 54 (2016) 117127
5. Conclusions
This study provides insights into the nature and intensity of the
emotional expectations that Swiss people have toward eating dif-
ferent insect-containing food snacks varying in their degree of pro-
cessing of the insect ingredient, as well as adds new knowledge to
current research on the predictors of WTE insect food. The results
may be useful in guiding further research on insect food and in
contributing to the understanding of the potential barriers and
opportunities during the development and commercialization of
such products in Western markets, such as Switzerland, where
the marketing of insects is not allowed so far. From the findings,
the following conclusions can be drawn: i) Marketing activities
must overcome a large emotional barrier so that they can intro-
duce insect food to the Swiss market and increase WTE. While try-
ing to minimize prominent negative expectations, such as feeling
or being dissatisfied [unbefriedigt], sickenend, grossed out [angewi-
dert], or unwell [unwohl], future marketing activities should simul-
taneously try to increase positive emotional expectations. ii)
Marketing products containing processed insect ingredients seem
to be initially more promising than marketing products containing
whole insects (cf. Hartmann & Siegrist, 2016; Hartmann et al.,
2015). iii) Marketing whole insects alone compared with incor-
porating whole insects into a familiar product seems to be pre-
ferred. Further research is needed to prove the present results
with other products and in other countries. iv) Future studies on
insect food and emotional evaluations are recommended to not
only assess disgust reactions but also consider other relatively
highly discriminating negative expressions (e.g., uneasy [unwohl]).
Otherwise, valuable information would be lost. v) Insect food is far
from matching up to a familiar equivalent product. However,
increasing consumer acceptance of new, unfamiliar food products
takes time, and repeated exposure is a necessary part of this
process.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Sandro Boesch and Alf Baettig (KOKO) for their
great practical support in creating the photos.
References
Belluco, S., Losasso, C., Maggioletti, M., Alonzi, C. C., Paoletti, M. G., & Ricci, A. (2013).
Edible insects in a food safety and nutritional perspective: A critical review.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 12, 296313.
Bhumiratana, N., Adhikari, K., & Chambers, E. IV, (2014). The development of an
emotion lexicon for the coffee drinking experience. Food Research International,
61, 8392.
Brandsttter, V., Schler, J., Puca, R. M., & Lozo, L. (2013). Motivation und Emotion:
Allgemeine Psychologie fr Bachelor [Motivation and emotion: general psychology
for bachelor students] (p. 130). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Caparros Megido, R., Sablon, L., Geuens, M., Brostaux, Y., Alabi, T., Blecker, C., et al.
(2014). Edible insects acceptance by Belgian consumers: Promising attitude for
entomophagy development. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29, 1420.
Cardello, A. V., & MacFie, H. (2007). Measuring consumer expectations to improve
food product development. Consumer-Led Food Product Development, 223261.
Cardello, A. V., Meiselman, H. L., Schutz, H. G., Craig, C., Given, Z., Lesher, L. L., et al.
(2012). Measuring emotional responses to foods and food names using
questionnaires. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 243250.
Chaya, C., Eaton, C., Hewson, L., Vzquez, R. F., Fernndez-Ruiz, V., Smart, K. A., et al.
(2015). Developing a reduced consumer-led lexicon to measure emotional
response to beer. Food Quality and Preference, 45, 100112.
Chen, X., Feng, Y., & Chen, Z. (2009). Common edible insects and their utilization in
China. Entomological Research, 39, 299303.
Chrea, C., Grandjean, D., Delplanque, S., Cayeux, I., Le Calv, B., Aymard, L., et al.
(2009). Mapping the semantic space for the subjective experience of emotional
responses to odors. Chemical Senses, 34, 4962.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ
England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc..
Coppin, G., & Sander, D. (2016). Theoretical approaches to emotion and its
measurement. In H. L. Meiselman (Ed.), Emotion measurement (pp. 330).
Elsevier Science.
de Boer, J., Schsler, H., & Boersema, J. J. (2013). Motivational differences in food
orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or
hybrid meat. Food Quality and Preference, 28, 3235.
Deroy, O., Reade, B., & Spence, C. (2015). The insectivores dilemma, and how to take
the West out of it. Food Quality and Preference, 44, 4455.
Desmet, P. M. A. (2003). Measuring emotion: Development and application of an
instrument to measure emotional responses to products. In M. A. Blythe, A. F.
Monk, K. Overbeeke, & P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: From usability to enjoyment
(pp. 111123). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Desmet, P. M. A., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2008). Sources of positive and negative
emotions in food experience. Appetite, 50, 290301.
Disgust. (2015). In Merriam-Websters online dictionary. Available from <http://
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disgusted> Retrieved 1.09.2015.
Edible Bug Shop. (n.d.). Available from <http://www.ediblebugshop.com.au/p/
8956054/tropical-treats-insect-trail-mix.html> Retrieved 28.05.2016.
Ekman, P. (1994). All emotions are basic. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The
nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 1519). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Essento. (n.d.). Available from <https://essento.ch/nachhaltige-delikatessen/>
Retrieved 20.5.2016.
Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office FSVO. (2015). Verordnung des EDI ber
Lebensmittel tierischer Herkunft. Available from <http://www.blv.admin.ch/
themen/04678/04802/04926/06185/06202/index.html?lang=de> Retrieved
28.01.2016.
Ferrarini, R., Carbognin, C., Casarotti, E. M., Nicolis, E., Nencini, A., & Meneghini, A. M.
(2010). The emotional response to wine consumption. Food Quality and
Preference, 21, 720725.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). How to feed the
world in 2050. Available from <http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/
wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf> Retrieved
5.08.2015.
Gmuer, A. (2015). Development of a linguistic-based approach to design Food-related
Emotional Evaluation Lists (FEE-Lists) and first applications Unpublished doctoral
thesis. Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.
Gmuer, A., Nuessli Guth, J., Runte, M., & Siegrist, M. (2015). From emotion to
language: Application of a systematic, linguistic-based approach to design a
food-associated emotion lexicon. Food Quality and Preference, 40(Part A),
7786.
Grub Kitchen. (n.d.). Available from <http://www.grubkitchen.co.uk/thegrubhub>
Retrieved 8.12.2015.
Gutjar, S., Dalenberg, J. R., de Graaf, C., de Wijk, R. A., Palascha, A., Renken, R. J., et al.
(2015a). What reported food-evoked emotions may add: A model to predict
consumer food choice. Food Quality and Preference, 45, 140148.
Gutjar, S., de Graaf, C., Kooijman, V., de Wijk, R. A., Nys, A., ter Horst, G. J., et al.
(2015b). The role of emotions in food choice and liking. Food Research
International, 76(Part 2), 216223.
Hartmann, C., Shi, J., Giusto, A., & Siegrist, M. (2015). The psychology of eating
insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Quality
and Preference, 44, 148156.
Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Becoming an insectivore: Results of an
experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 51, 118122.
Jaeger, S. R., Cardello, A. V., & Schutz, H. G. (2013). Emotion questionnaires: A
consumer-centric perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 30, 229241.
Jiang, Y., King, J. M., & Prinyawiwatkul, W. (2014). A review of measurement and
relationships between food, eating behavior and emotion. Trends in Food Science
& Technology, 36, 1528.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In The
Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267293).
King, S. C., & Meiselman, H. L. (2010). Development of a method to measure
consumer emotions associated with foods. Food Quality and Preference, 21,
168177.
King, S. C., Meiselman, H. L., & Carr, B. T. (2010). Measuring emotions associated
with foods in consumer testing. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 11141116.
Kleinginna, P. R., Jr., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of emotion
definitions, with suggestions for a consensual definition. Motivation and
Emotion, 5, 345379.
Kroeber-Riel, W., Weinberg, P., & Grppel-Klein, A. (2009). Konsumentenverhalten
[Consumer behavior] (9th ed., pp. 99132). Mnchen: Vahlen.
Laros, F. J., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. (2005). Emotions in consumer behavior: A
hierarchical approach. Journal of Business Research, 58, 14371445.
Looy, H., Dunkel, F. V., & Wood, J. R. (2014). How then shall we eat? Insect-eating
attitudes and sustainable foodways. Agriculture and Human Values, 31, 131141.
Looy, H., & Wood, J. R. (2006). Attitudes toward invertebrates: Are educational Bug
Banquets effective? The Journal of Environmental Education, 37, 3748.
Manzocco, L., Rumignani, A., & Lagazio, C. (2013). Emotional response to fruit salads
with different visual quality. Food Quality and Preference, 28, 1722.
Matsumoto, D., & Ekman, P. (2009). Basic emotions. In D. Sander & K. R. Scherer
(Eds.), Oxford companion to emotion and the affective sciences (pp. 6973). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Meiselman, H. L. (2016). Emotion measurement: integrative summary. In H. L.
Meiselman (Ed.), Emotion measurement (pp. 645697). Elsevier Science.
Moskowitz, H. R. (1999). R&D-driven product evaluation in the early stage of
development. In A. L. Brody & J. B. Lord (Eds.), Developing new food products for a
changing marketplace. Taylor & Francis.
Muscle Food. (n.d.). Available from <http://www.musclefood.com/bug-burgers.
html> Retrieved 8.12.2015.
 A. Gmuer et al. / Food Quality and Preference 54 (2016) 117127
Ng, M., Chaya, C., & Hort, J. (2013a). Beyond liking: Comparing the measurement of
emotional response using EsSense profile and consumer defined check-all-that-
apply methodologies. Food Quality and Preference, 28, 193205.
Ng, M., Chaya, C., & Hort, J. (2013b). The influence of sensory and packaging cues on
both liking and emotional, abstract and functional conceptualisations. Food
Quality and Preference, 29, 146156.
Ortony, A., & Turner, T. J. (1990). Whats basic about basic emotions? Psychological
Review, 97, 315331.
Pascucci, S., & de-Magistris, T. (2013). Information bias condemning radical food
innovators? The case of insect-based products in the Netherlands. International
Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 16, 116.
Ramos-Elorduy, J. (1997). Insects: A sustainable source of food? Ecology of Food and
Nutrition, 36, 247276.
Respondi. (2014). Panelbook. Retrieved 07.06.2015. Available from <http://www.
respondi.com/de/access-panels-leistungen> ACCESSPANELS.
Rousset, S., Deiss, V., Juillard, E., Schlich, P., & Droit-Volet, S. (2005). Emotions
generated by meat and other food products in women. British Journal of
Nutrition, 94, 609619.
Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. (1986). The acquisition of likes and dislikes for foods. What is
America Eating, 5871.
Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94,
2341.
Rozin, P., Millman, L., & Nemeroff, C. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympathetic
magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50, 703.
Ruby, M., Rozin, P., & Chan, C. (2015). Determinants of willingness to eat insects in
the USA and India. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 1, 215225.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 11611178.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social
Science Information, 44, 695729.
Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Desmet, P. M. A. (2010). Hedonic asymmetry in emotional
responses to consumer products. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 11001104.
Schsler, H., de Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2012). Can we cut out the meat of the dish?
Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite,
58, 3947.
Schouteten, J. J., De Steur, H., De Pelsmaeker, S., Lagast, S., Juvinal, J. G., De
Bourdeaudhuij, I., et al. (2016). Emotional and sensory profiling of insect-,
plant- and meat-based burgers under blind, expected and informed conditions.
Food Quality and Preference, 52, 2731.
Siegrist, M., Shi, J., Giusto, A., & Hartmann, C. (2015). Worlds apart. Consumer
acceptance of functional foods and beverages in Germany and China. Appetite,
92, 8793.
Six Foods LLC. (2014). Retrieved 14.07.2015. Available from <http://www.
sixfoods.com/ products.
127
Spinelli, S., Masi, C., Dinnella, C., Zoboli, G. P., & Monteleone, E. (2014). How does it
make you feel? A new approach to measuring emotions in food product
experience. Food Quality and Preference, 37, 109122.
Spinelli, S., Masi, C., Zoboli, G. P., Prescott, J., & Monteleone, E. (2015). Emotional
responses to branded and unbranded foods. Food Quality and Preference, 42,
111.
Stewart-Knox, B., & Mitchell, P. (2003). What separates the winners from the losers
in new food product development? Trends in Food Science & Technology, 14,
5864.
Stterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Simply adding the word fruit makes sugar
healthier: The misleading effect of symbolic information on the perceived
healthiness of food. Appetite, 95, 252261.
Tan, H. S. G., Fischer, A. R. H., Tinchan, P., Stieger, M., Steenbekkers, L. P. A., & van
Trijp, H. C. M. (2015). Insects as food: Exploring cultural exposure and
individual experience as determinants of acceptance. Food Quality and
Preference, 42, 7889.
Thailand Unique. (2015). Available from <http://www.thailandunique.com/edible-
crickets-acheta-domestica?search=cricket> and <http://www.thailandunique.
com/edible-insects-bugs/fried-crickets-salt> Retrieved 14.07.2015.
Thomson, D. M. H. (2010). Going beyond liking: Measuring emotional and
conceptual profiles to make better new products. In S. R. Jaeger & H. J. H.
MacFie (Eds.), Consumer-driven innovation in food and personal care products
(pp. 219274). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.
Thomson, D. M. H., Crocker, C., & Marketo, C. G. (2010). Linking sensory
characteristics to emotions: An example using dark chocolate. Food Quality
and Preference, 21, 11171125.
van Huis, A., van Gurp, H., Dicke, M., & Takken-Kaminker, F. (2014). The insect
cookbook: food for a sustainable planet : . Columbia University Press.
van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Muir, G., et al.
(2013). Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Vane-Wright, R. I. (1991). Why not eat insects? Bulletin of Entomological Research,
81, 14.
Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E. J., Gellynck, X., & Verbeke, W. (2013). Flemish consumer
attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite, 62, 716.
Verbeke, W. (2015). Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat
substitute in a Western society. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 147155.
Verkerk, M. C., Tramper, J., van Trijp, J. C. M., & Martens, D. E. (2007). Insect cells for
human food. Biotechnology Advances, 25, 198202.
Yen, A. L. (2009). Edible insects: Traditional knowledge or western phobia?
Entomological Research, 39, 289298.
Zweifel Pomy-Chips AG (n.d.). Available from <http://www.zweifel.ch/en/
company/press-downloads/press-reports/ism-innovation-award-2015/>
Retrieved 14.07.2015.