Q Open, 2023, 4, 1–15

[Link]
Advance access publication date: 4 December 2023
Article

Positive and negative information

effects on consumer preferences for lab

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

grown meat
Kent F. Kovacs1 ,∗ , Nathan Kemper 1
, Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr.2 ,3 ,
Wei Yang2 and Aryn Blumenberg1
1
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,
AR 72701, USA
2
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
3
Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Korea
∗
Corresponding author: University of Arkansas, 217 Agriculture Building, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA. E-mail:
kkovacs@[Link]
Received: May 8, 2023. Accepted: November 21, 2023

Abstract
We examine the effect of information framing on consumers’ preferences for In-vitro (or lab grown)
meat (IVM). Our choice experiment uses eight choice tasks that vary across five attributes: production
method (IVM or conventional), carbon trust label, organic label, animal welfare label, and price. We
investigate four information treatments: (1) neutral (baseline), (2) positive, (3) negative, and (4) both
positive and negative combined. Negative information framing leads consumers to require the largest
discount to accept IVM, while positive information significantly reduces the discount required. Without
positive information, food retailers should expect to offer steep discounts to attract customers to IVM.
Keywords: In-vitro meat, Willingness to pay, Information framing effects.
JEL codes: Q18, Q12, Q10

Introduction
Growing income and population growth have led to an increase in the consumption of meat
(Mancini and Antonioli 2022). In the USA and other high-income countries, meat accounts
for approximately 15 per cent of daily energy intake and 40 per cent of daily protein intake
(Daniel et al. 2011). As the global population swells to 9.15 billion by 2050, 70 per cent
more food production is necessary to provide for the larger population. Alternatives to tra-
ditional meat production, developed in part to help reduce the consumption of meat, include
plant-based diets and meat substitutes. In-vitro meat (IVM) could reduce the dependence
on intensive farming methods, thereby reducing the negative impacts of the agricultural sec-
tor. IVM recreates livestock muscle structure from a live animal biopsy. Stem cells from the
biopsy rapidly divide and multiply until a meat product forms. IVM potentially has fewer
environmental impacts, lower food safety risks, and fewer animal care requirements than
traditional meat production (Smetana et al. 2015). However, consumer acceptance of IVM
products is crucial for increasing the scale of production to enable the technology to have

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University in association with European Agricultural and Applied
Economics Publications Foundation. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License ([Link] which permits unrestricted reuse,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 Kovacs et al.

an impact in the marketplace. We study how positive, negative, and both positive and nega-
tive information about the social and environmental effects of IVM influence US consumer
demand for burger patties.
In the general population, consumer acceptance of IVM or other substitutes as an al-
ternative protein source is often low possibly because consumers do not know that the
conventional meat industry has a significant impact on the environment and other public
goods (Hartmann and Siegrist 2017). Although consumers might be willing to try IVM, only
a small number of the population reported they would regularly eat IVM over traditional

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

meat products (Bryant and Barnett 2018). If IVM is not acceptable to many consumers, this
could represent a barrier to the marketing of IVM to the broader population. The willingness
of consumers to buy IVM depends on the success of IVM in replicating the characteristics,
including texture and taste, of typical meat products. One study found that 44 per cent of
the respondents report a willingness to buy cultured meat if it was like traditional meat
products (Mancini and Antonioli 2019).
The information presented to consumers can also influence acceptance of IVM (Asioli
et al. 2021). The terminology for labeling IVM affects marketing campaign strategy and
labeling policy and could be a major factor in its acceptance (Watson 2020). Asioli et al.
(2021) find that subjects in their choice experiment strongly preferred chicken meat pro-
duced through conventional production methods over IVM. However, they also found that
the terms used to describe IVM were important. Specifically, they found that the term ‘cul-
tured’ is more desirable than ‘lab-grown’ and ‘artificial’. Van Loo et al. (2020) consider
the market share for farm-raised burger patties versus alternative burger patty production
such as plant-based and IVM. They find that information about the environmental impacts
and the technology of each production method has minimal influence on the market shares.
Ortega et al. (2022) test the effectiveness of food identity labels (animal welfare, environ-
ment, and health) on Chinese consumer preferences for pork alternatives. The identity labels
reduce the demand for traditional pork while increasing the demand for IVM pork. These
studies suggest that in most cases the information provided about the meat products influ-
ences the preferences for IVM.
The use of positive and negative information framing also appears in the literature. For
example, Ein-Gar et al. (2012) show that receiving solely positive information, solely neg-
ative information, or both types of information about hiking boots and chocolate bars will
influence individual’s choices. However, no study to our knowledge examines how positive,
negative, and both positive and negative information about the effects of IVM influences the
preference for burger patties produced through alternative production means. We provide
baseline information regarding the demand for IVM beef for different positive and negative
information treatments about IVM. In addition, we consider across information treatments
how the demand for IVM differs by political view, age, and consumer preferences.
The policy relevance of positive and negative information about IVM on consumer
choice of IVM is enormous. Public research can help not only policy but also private
companies determine the information that can help bring IVM to all the population or
just segments of the population. Information can be a cost-effective way to bring new
meat production techniques into the mainstream rather than rely on cumbersome regu-
lations or tax-payer depleting subsidies. But there is little evidence in the literature about
how effectively information leads consumers to an acceptance of IVM. Our research can
fill this gap by allowing policy makers to judge how effective an information campaign
could be.
Meat is a source of nutrition as it provides essential amino acids and is a high-quality pro-
tein source. Protein content depends on the source, but the average protein content in animal
sources is 22 per cent. Outside of nutritional benefits, individuals consume meat as part of
custom and pleasure, and religious beliefs may also reinforce meat eating (Clough 2005).
However, as the consumption of meat and the demands on the agricultural system increase,
Positive and negative information effects on consumer preferences for lab grown meat 3

environmental impacts will also rise. In the USA, the agriculture industry accounts for 11
per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions . Meat production also affects water scarcity. For
a 150-g beef burger, the water requirement is 2,400 liters (Hoekstra 2012). The land require-
ments to raise livestock, including grazing and feed production, are substantial. Livestock
grazing occupies 26 per cent of the available ice-free land on earth and 33 per cent of the
land is for livestock feed production’ (FAO 2012); the expansion of livestock production
leads to an increase in negative practices such as deforestation (Steinfeld 2006).
Animal welfare has also grown in importance to consumers over time (Kilders and Ca-

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

puto 2021). From January to February of 2020, commercial red meat production was 9.41
billion pounds (an increase of 6 per cent from 2019), and there was the slaughter of just
over 2.5 million animals. Hence, some methods of intensive farming receive criticism from
individuals advocating for animal welfare. Segments of the population that refrain from eat-
ing meat for ethical or religious reasons may view the process of IVM as more acceptable
(Mouat et al. 2018). Since IVM production occurs in a controlled environment with fewer
live animals necessary, there is less risk for disease and outbreaks among animals that may
produce contaminated meat.
Moving away from intensive livestock production to a lab grown meat industry would
have wide-ranging economic effects. Approximately 1 billion people have employment in
the livestock industry, an industry that accounts for 40 per cent of agricultural GDP in
South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (FAO 2012). With a shift towards IVM, employment
opportunities in the livestock industry may shift or be lost, and the contribution to GDP
may diminish. Given the trade-offs associated with the emergence of IVM, much is still
unknown about the acceptance of IVM by consumers.

Materials and Methods

The construction and delivery of the choice experiment and survey to participants was
through the internet. Web-based survey administration is a cost-effective way to reach a
large population across many demographics in the USA.

Choice experiment design

Our product for the study of IVM is ground beef hamburger patties. Ground beef is 40–45
per cent of beef consumed in the USA. In our choice experiment, we focus on five attributes
to describe the raw hamburger products: production method, carbon trust label, organic,
animal welfare, and price (Table 1). Attributes and levels were chosen based on a review
of literature (Van Loo et al. 2020; Watson 2020; Asioli et al. 2021; Ortega et al. 2022),
and we included CE attributes that act as controls for the socio-environmental benefits
of laboratory meat. This way we can see how the public responds to the laboratory tech-
nique itself holding the potential benefits of the laboratory technique, which can be achieved
through other approaches, constant. We denote the production method attribute through a
cultured/lab grown label. No label for cultured/lab grown production means that the meat
is conventionally raised. The carbon trust label attribute represents a commitment to re-
ducing CO2 emissions. The organic label attribute represents the absence of antibiotics or
growth hormones when producing raw beef products. The animal welfare label means the
raising of animals with high-welfare farming practices. Four price levels indicate the cur-
rent market prices for four-pound packages of ground chuck hamburger patties in the US
($3.5/lb, $6.3/lb, $9.1/lb, and $12.0/lb).
We use a sequential Bayesian approach to construct the experimental design for our
choice experiment (Scarpa et al. 2007; Blimer et al. 2008; Scarpa and Rose 2008).
Using the software Ngene and uninformative priors, we construct an efficient design for
use in a pilot survey (Blimer et al. 2008). The parameter priors from the pilot study
4 Kovacs et al.

Table 1. Attributes, levels, and definitions.

ATTRIBUTES LEVELS DEFINITION

Production method ‘Conventional’ ‘Conventional’ products are produced by raising

‘Cultured/Lab Grown’ beef cattle in beef cattle farms, at different
ages the cattle are transported to
slaughterhouses where they are slaughtered
and quartered
‘Cultured/Lab Grown’ products are produced

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

by taking a small number of cells from a live
calf or steer by means of an unpainful biopsy,
cells will proliferate in nutrient-rich medium
until cultured beef is formed
Carbon Trust Label Carbon Trust Label ‘Carbon Trust’ indicated the product was
No label is reported produced with a commitment to reduce
carbon emissions
Organic Organic Label ‘Organic’ means no antibiotics or growth
No label is reported hormones were ever used in producing the
product, produced without pesticides,
synthetic ingredients, bioengineering, or
ionizing radiation
Animal Welfare Animal Welfare Label ‘Animal Welfare’ means animals used for
No label is reported production are raised outdoors on a pasture
or range for their entire lives using
sustainability and high-welfare farming
practices
Price $14.0 ($3.5 per pound) Prices for four-pound packages of
$25.2 ($6.3 per pound) ground chuck hamburger patties with price
$36.4 ($9.1 per pound) per pound specified
$48.0 ($12 per pound)

(51 respondents) come from a multinomial logit model with fixed parameters and a will-
ingness to pay (calculated by dividing by the price coefficient), which were used for the
Bayesian efficient design (Scarpa and Rose 2008). The Bayesian design includes eight choice
tasks, with each choice task containing three product alternatives (options A, B, or C) and
a ‘no buy’ option (option D). We randomly order the choice tasks and product options
within each choice set. A sample choice task is shown in Fig. 1. The choice experiment pro-
vides the respondents with an explanation and description of the attributes as well as the
information treatment. Respondents read a cheap talk script (see Online Appendix 1) to re-
duce the possible hypothetical bias, given the hypothetical nature of the choice experiment
(Cummings and Taylor 1999). After responding to the choice tasks, respondents fill out a
questionnaire to collect consumers’ demographic characteristics and further data. The full
survey instrument is available in Online Appendix 2.

Data collection
We collect responses from 1,184 consumers in the USA in 2021. Recruitment of consumers
18 years or older is through the market research company Dynata. A total of 1,120 respon-
dents are in our sample. Responses excluded from our analysis are those from consumers
that take less than 6 min or more than 45 min to complete the survey, and consumers
Positive and negative information effects on consumer preferences for lab grown meat 5

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

Figure 1. Sample choice task.

that do not pass the attention checks. The sample is largely representative of the US pop-
ulation although the sample is more male, young, and educated (Table 2). Randomization
of the respondents to the information treatments achieves a balance of observable char-
acteristics across treatments (more detail on the treatment descriptions is in the following
section). Table 2 shows tests for the equality of means across treatments for most socio-
demographic characteristics and a failure to reject at the 5 per cent significance level.
Following the choice tasks, we then collect information on respondent preferences for
the environment, cultured meat, and animal welfare through Likert scale questions to test
for correlation between those preferences and individuals’ WTP for lab grown meat. The
construction of the animal welfare attitude scale comprises the basic sum of six Likert scale
attitudes from questions regarding the treatment and use of animals, including their use as
food, in research, how animals should be slaughtered, and how the government should be
involved in regulating animal welfare (Herzog et al. 1991; Matthews and Herzog 1997).
The questionnaire also collects information on the respondent’s marital status, education,
employment status, age, and political orientation.

Experimental information treatments

Respondents are randomly assigned to different information treatments. The scripts for the
information treatments are built on background research related to traditional meat and
IVM production (Smetana et al. 2015; Kilders and Caputo 2021). While we do not know
how the IVM market will emerge, and how this will affect the environment and traditional
meat production, we assume that existing meat products will persist in the market and
include organic, low carbon, and animal welfare options. There will be information about
IVM that emerges from the traditional and emergent meat industries. Negative information
about IVM could come from the traditional meat industry worried about the IVM capture
of market share. The four information treatments are (Online Appendix 3 contains the full
scripts of information in each treatment):
(1) Neutral Information (n = 284): respondents in this treatment only receive the neutral
information script, which includes a description of the increasing demand for meat
consumption and an explanation of IVM as an alternative system to produce meat.
This neutral information script is in all four treatments.
6 Kovacs et al.

Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics.

U.S. Treatment 1: Treatment 2: Treatment 3: Treatment 4:

Population Combined
(2020 Neutral Info Positive Info Negative Info Info
Variable Census) (N = 284) (N = 277) (N = 275) (N = 284)

Gender

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

Male 49.6% 52.65% 54.51% 49.82% 54.58%
Female 50.4% 47.54% 45.49% 50.18% 45.42%
Chi-squared = 0.1094
Age
18–35 27.17% 30.28% 34.30% 27.27% 35.21%
36–53 33.67% 43.66% 33.57% 39.27% 33.10%
54–71 24.37% 19.72% 24.19% 24.73% 26.06%
71> 14.79% 6.34% 7.94% 8.73% 5.63%
Chi-squared = 0.1094
Area of Growing Up
Urban – 66.55% 67.15% 61.82% 67.61%
Rural – 33.45% 32.85% 38.18% 32.39%
Chi-squared = 0.2432
Area of residence
Urban 82.66% 70.42% 69.31% 65.09% 72.89%
Rural 17.34% 29.58% 30.69% 34.91% 27.11%
Chi-squared = 0.2432
Employment
Student – 5.63% 6.86% 4.36% 5.99%
Independent Worker – 10.21% 11.55% 9.82% 12.32%
Private-sector worker – 35.56% 30.69% 34.55% 27.11%
Public-sector worker – 9.86% 10.83% 12.00% 14.08%
Retired – 18.66% 22.74% 21.82% 20.42%
Unemployed – 10.56% 11.91% 11.27% 11.97%
Not in paid employment – 5.28% 1.81% 2.55% 2.82%
Other – 4.23% 3.61% 3.64% 5.28%
Chi-squared = 0.6532
Income
Less than 9.35% 11.27% 12.27% 10.55% 11.27%
$15,000 11.95% 11.97% 13.00% 9.09% 15.14%
$15,000–29,000 11.53% 8.80% 10.11% 13.45% 9.51%
$30,000–44,000 10.42% 11.27% 13.00% 18.55% 10.92%
$45,000–59,000 9.13% 8.80% 11.19% 5.45% 7.04%
$60,000–74,000 7.69% 9.15% 10.11% 7.64% 9.15%
$75,000–89,000 11.93% 11.27% 9.03% 9.45% 11.62%
$90,000–119,000 8.14% 11.97% 13.72% 14.18% 11.27%
$120,000–149,000 19.86% 15.49% 7.58% 11.64% 14.08%
$150,000 or more
Chi-squared = 0.0882
Political orientation
Republican – 27.11% 31.05% 29.82% 26.06%
Democrat – 46.13% 38.99% 37.09% 45.07%
Independent – 23.59% 28.16% 28.73% 27.11%
Other – 3.17% 1.81% 4.36% 1.76%
Chi-squared = 0.2197
Positive and negative information effects on consumer preferences for lab grown meat 7

Table 2. Continued

U.S. Treatment 1: Treatment 2: Treatment 3: Treatment 4:

Population Combined
(2020 Neutral Info Positive Info Negative Info Info
Variable Census) (N = 284) (N = 277) (N = 275) (N = 284)

Education
Less than high school 9.56% 2.11% 1.81% 1.45% 1.41%

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

High school/GED 29.20% 16.20% 19.49% 15.27% 20.42%
Some college 16.49% 17.61% 15.16% 18.55% 17.25%
2-year college degree 9.95% 8.45% 8.30% 12.73% 9.86%
4-year college degree 22.08% 28.17% 27.44% 27.27% 25.00%
Master’s degree 9.47% 22.89% 22.38% 17.09% 20.42%
Doctoral degree 1.36% 1.41% 4.00% 4.36% 3.17%
Professional degree 1.90% 3.17% 1.44% 3.27% 2.46%
Chi-squared = 0.6379
Race
White 75.50% 72.54% 75.09% 76.00% 77.46%
Black or African American 13.60% 10.21% 6.50% 8.00% 7.75%
American Indian or Alaska
Native 1.30% 1.06% 0.00% 1.09% 1.06%
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Pacific 6.30% 8.45% 7.94% 5.82 5.63%
Islander 0.30% 0.70% 0.00% 0.36% 0.00%
Hispanic or Latino
Other 19.1% 2.46% 3.61% 4.36% 2.46%
Chi-squared = 0.6417 3.0% 4.58% 6.86% 4.36% 5.63%

(2) Positive Information (n = 277): respondents in this treatment only receive the neu-
tral information script and additional information regarding the environmental and
animal welfare benefits from IVM production relative to traditional livestock pro-
duction practices.
(3) Negative Information (n = 275): respondents in this treatment receive the neutral in-
formation script and additional information regarding the negative aspects of IVM,
including the unknown impacts and issues relating to the texture and taste of lab
grown meat.
(4) Combined Information (n = 284): respondents in this treatment receive the neutral
information first, followed by both the positive and negative information scripts.
The order of positive and negative information is random in this treatment.

Research hypotheses
We test a series of hypotheses to determine impact of positive and negative information on
consumers’ marginal willingness to pay (mWTP) values for buying lab grown hamburger
products. First, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 2 (positive) to investigate whether
positive information significantly increases consumers’ willingness to pay for lab grown
meat. Namely, we test
 
H01 : W T PNeutral − W T PPositive = 0,
 
H11 : W T PNeutral − W T PPositive > 0.
8 Kovacs et al.

Second, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 3 (negative) to investigate whether

negative information significantly reduces consumers’ WTP for IVM. We test the following:
 
H02 : W T PNeutral − W T PNegative = 0,
 
H12 : W T PNeutral − W T PNegative > 0.
Third, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 4 (combined) to investigate whether
combined positive and negative information results in significantly different WTP for IVM.
Therefore, we test:

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

 
H03 : W T PNeutral − W T PCombined = 0,
 
H13 : W T PNeutral − W T PCombined > 0.
Fourth, we test treatment 2 (positive) vs. treatment 3 (negative) to examine the magnitude
of the difference between positive and negative information on WTP for IVM. Fifth, we test
treatment 2 (positive) vs. treatment 4 (combined) to investigate whether there are any sig-
nificant differences in WTP for IVM between the positive and combined treatments. Sixth,
and finally, we test treatment 3 (negative) vs. treatment 4 (combined) to investigate whether
there are any significant differences in WTP for IVM between the negative and combined
treatments.
We also tested the effects of age, political orientation, and attitudinal factors on the like-
lihood to buy cultured meat and animal welfare attitudes on individuals’ mWTP formation
for IVM. Previous literature finds that older adults are less willing to accept new food tech-
nologies (Sourcier et al. 2019), and we expect younger participants to have higher mWTP
values than older participants. Wilks and Phillips (2017) find that liberal/left consumers are
more accepting of IVM due to the environmental and animal welfare gains, and we hy-
pothesize participants who identify as liberal to have a higher mWTP values for IVM. For
consumers who indicate a higher likelihood to buy cultured meat, we expect them to have
a higher mWTP for lab grown meat. Since a reduction in animal slaughter is a prominent
benefit of lab grown meat (Kilders and Caputo 2021), we hypothesize that consumers who
have a higher score for animal welfare attitudes will have a higher mWTP value.

Econometric analysis
We use a discrete choice framework to estimate the effect of information treatments on con-
sumers’ WTP values. The mixed logit model accounts for preference heterogeneity, and we
specify the model in WTP space in order to directly estimate mWTP at the individual level
(Train 2009). The WTP space models are consistent with random utility theory McFadden
(1974) and Lancaster consumer theory Lancaster (1966). The utility (U) function specifica-
tion is:
Ui jt = αi (ASC–PRICEi jt + θi1 PRODUCTi jt + θi2 CARBONi jt + θi3 ORGANICi jt

+ θi4 WELFAREi jt ) + ∈i jt , (1)

where i refers to the individual, j refers to three options available in each choice set, t refers
to the number of choice situations, and α i is a random price scale parameter that follows
a log-normal distribution. The alternative specific constant (ASC) is an alternative specific
constant indicating the selection of the ‘no-buy’ option available in a choice set. The price
attribute (PRICEijt ) has four experimentally defined price levels (i.e. $3.50/lb, $6.30/lb,
$9.10/lb, and $12.00/lb). PRODUCTijt is a dummy variable representing the production
method, taking the value of 0 if the production method is ‘conventional’ and the value of
1 if the production method is ‘cultured’. CARBONijt is a dummy variable representing the
carbon trust label, taking the value of 0 if no label is present and the value of 1 when the
carbon trust label is present. ORGANICijt is a dummy variable taking the value of 0 if
Positive and negative information effects on consumer preferences for lab grown meat 9

no organic label and 1 if the organic label is present. WELFAREijt is a dummy variable
representing the animal welfare label, taking the value of 0 if no label and 1 if the label is
present. θ i 1 , θ i 2 , θ i 3 , and θ i 4 are coefficients that represent the individual level mWTP value
estimates for production method, carbon trust label, organic label, and animal welfare label,
respectively. Finally, ∈ijt is a normally distributed unobserved random term that follows an
extreme value type I (Gumbel) distribution, independent, and identically distributed (iid)
over alternatives. The parameters for the non-price attributes are random parameters with
a normal distribution, and the no-buy parameter is fixed.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

We test the six research hypotheses, the differences in the mWTP between the treatments,
using the combinatorial approach by Poe et al. (2005). The test generates a distribution
of 1,000 WTPs using the Krinsky and Robb (1986) bootstrapping method. The resulting
mWTP for each treatment and their significance, or lack thereof, indicates the acceptance or
rejection of each respective null hypothesis for each attribute. To test the effects of age, po-
litical orientation, and attitudinal factors of the likelihood to buy cultured meat and animal
welfare attitudes on individuals’ mWTP formation for IVM, we allow respondent character-
istics to influence the mWTP for the production method. Observed heterogeneity (namely,
deterministic taste variations) is accommodated in the random parameters by including
individual-specific covariates. Specifically, the vector of random coefficients is: β i = β +
zi + Lηi , where zi is a set of M characteristics of individual i that influence the mean of the
preference parameters; and  is a K × M matrix of additional parameters. We use the gmnl
package to estimate the models in R (Sarrias and Daziano 2017). This approach permits us
to observe the effect of a small change in a respondent characteristic (e.g. age) on mWTP
for IVM by treatment, and we can evaluate the magnitude and significance that the respon-
dent characteristics have on mWTP. An alternative approach that measures the difference in
treatment effects across different sub-groups of respondents (e.g. subsample analysis) only
allows us to determine the significance of differences in treatment effects across sub-groups
without an assessment of the magnitude of the effect of a marginal change in the respondent
characteristic.

Results and Discussion

The results for the mean of the attribute coefficients for the mixed logit model, specified
in the WTP space of Equation (1), for the four treatments are in Table 3. We measure the
mWTP values for consumers in each treatment based on the attributes in the choice ex-
periment: production method, carbon trust, organic, animal welfare, and price. In all four
treatments, respondents indicate a preference for ground beef production through conven-
tional rather than cultured methods, as seen by the negative mWTP values (Table 3). This
finding is consistent with earlier studies that show consumers prefer traditional meat prod-
ucts over IVM (Bryant and Barnett 2018; Mancini and Antonioli 2019). Production method
has the largest mWTP from respondents, in absolute value, in comparison to the magnitude
of the other attributes (the price coefficient is in preference space and not comparable). Re-
spondents that receive treatment 3 (negative information) require the largest discount to
purchase the lab meat product (mWTP value of −$7.34 for cultured meat). Those that re-
ceive the neutral information and combined information (Treatments 1 and 4) have WTP
values of −$5.55 and −$5.72, respectively. Respondents that receive positive information
(Treatment 2) require the lowest discount −$4.68. Like Asioli et al. (2021), who observe
that the terminology to describe IVM affects willingness to pay, the positive or negative
information about the lab meat products make a difference for WTP values. In all four
treatments, there are positive and statistically significant coefficients for the organic label,
with mWTP ranging from $1.50 to $2.79, and for the animal welfare label, with mWTP
ranging from $3.28 to $4.11. The coefficient for the carbon trust label is not statistically
significant in any treatment. The ASC is negative and statistically significant in all four treat-
10 Kovacs et al.

Table 3. mWTP Results from WTP Space models for four treatments.

Treatment 1: Treatment 2: Treatment 3: Treatment 4:

Neutral Positive Negative Combined
information information information information
mWTP mWTP mWTP mWTP
Attribute (p-value) (p-value) (p-value) (p-value)

Production method −5.55*** −4.68*** −7.34*** −5.72***

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

St. deviation (SD) (Production) 0.001 0.157 0.760 0.646
(0.99) (0.63) (0.16) (0.35)
Carbon Trust 0.65 −0.27 0.66 −0.22
(0.24) (0.79) (0.22) (0.00)
SD (Carbon Trust) 0.148 (0.13) 0.348* (0.002) 0.006 (0.60) 0.078 (0.49)
Organic 2.79*** 1.97*** 2.73*** 1.50***
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
SD (Organic) 0.022 (0.99) 0.021 (0.89) −0.37 (0.15) 0.005 (0.97)
Animal welfare 4.11*** 3.28*** 4.00*** 3.39***
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
SD (Animal welfare) 0.438* (0.00) 0.313* (0.01) 0.602* (0.00) 0.44* (0.00)
Alternative Specific Constant (No −21.46*** −19.14*** −21.25*** −22.05***
purchase of the 4 lb package of (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
ground beef)

SD (Alternative specific constant) 3.175* (0.00) 3.80* (0.00) 3.58* (0.00) 3.24* (0.00)
LL −2405.4 −2285.7 −2278.9 −2396.3
AIC 4890.73 4651.325 4637.827 4872.592
BIC 5119.866 4879.463 4865.675 5101.728
n 284 277 275 284

***, **, and * denote statistical significance at the 1, 5, and 10 per cent levels, respectively.

ments, and the level of the ASC indicates that respondents prefer a package of ground beef
to none that is consistent with the market value of ground beef.

Hypothesis tests
Next, we examine the hypothesis tests for the effect of information on the WTP for cul-
tured meat. Table 4 summarizes the results of the hypothesis tests for the mean coefficients.
Online Appendix 4 has the Poe tests comparing the distributions between treatments for
the hypotheses. First, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 2 (positive) to investigate
whether positive information significantly affects consumers’ WTP for lab grown meat. The
mixed results of this test are evident through the significantly greater and positive WTP
values we observe for the carbon, organic, and animal welfare labels but a statistically in-
significant effect for the production method. The insignificant difference in WTP for the
production method is like the conclusion in Van Loo et al. (2020) who find that informa-
tion about environmental impacts and the technology have little effect on the market shares.
Our positive information script had less description about the reduction in the slaughter of
animals than about environmental benefits, and more emphasis on animal welfare might
have led to a significant difference in WTP for the production method. Table 3 shows that
the mWTP for the production attribute is larger in magnitude in treatment 1 (neutral) than
in treatment 2 (positive), −$5.55 and −$4.68, respectively. However, the effect of the posi-
tive information regarding the benefits of cultured meat production is not strong enough to
significantly lower the discount required by consumers.
Positive and negative information effects on consumer preferences for lab grown meat 11

Table 4. Hypotheses tests comparing mWTP between treatments.

Production
method Carbon trust Organic Animal welfare
Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
Hypotheses tests (p-value) (p-value) (p-value) (p-value)

H01 :(WTPNeutral —WTPP °sitive ) = 0 −0.83 0.93*** 0.82*** 0.84***

(0.097) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
H02 :(WTPNeutral —WTPNegative ) = 0 1.84*** 0.002 0.04 0.0978

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

(0.00) (0.495) (0.43) (0.35)
H03 :(WTPNeutral —WTPCombined ) = 0 0.202 0.89*** 1.28*** 0.704***
(0.381) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
H04 :(WTPP °sitive —WTPNegative ) = 0 2.67*** −0.93*** −0.78*** −0.737***
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
H05 :(WTPP °sitive —WTPCombined ) = 0 1.04* −0.04 0.47*** −0.13
(0.04) (0.399) (0.00) (0.275)
H06 :(WTPNegative —WTPCombined ) = 0 −1.64** 0.88*** 1.25*** 0.606***
(0.01) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
***, **, and * denote statistical significance at the 1, 5, and 10 per cent levels, respectively.

Second, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 3 (negative) to investigate whether

negative information significantly reduces consumers’ WTP for IVM. The results of this
hypothesis test demonstrate that when respondents receive negative information regard-
ing IVM, consumers require a deeper discount of $1.84 to purchase cultured ground beef
compared to those with neutral information. Table 4 indicates that only differences between
the production method attributes are statistically significant when comparing treatment 1
(neutral) vs. treatment 3 (negative). We cannot say which aspects of the negative informa-
tion script, or if all the negative information collectively, led to significantly lower WTP
for IVM. Future studies could examine this by parsing the negative information apart by
production challenges, genetic instability, or texture.
Third, we test treatment 1 (neutral) vs. treatment 4 (combined) to investigate whether
combined positive and negative information results in a significantly different WTP for
IVM. The results for this hypothesis 3 resemble those in hypothesis 1, with positive and sig-
nificant differences for all attributes except the production method. The respondents that
receive neutral information have significantly higher WTP values, relative to the respondent
that receive the positive information, for all attributes except the production attribute. The
positive information about cultured meat appears to decrease the WTP for alternative ap-
proaches to remedy environmental and animal safety problems (carbon trust, organic, and
animal welfare) of traditional agricultural production.
Fourth, we test treatment 2 (positive) vs. treatment 3 (negative) to examine the ef-
fects of positive and negative information on the preferences for cultured meat. The re-
sults of this hypothesis test indicate that positive and negative information induces sig-
nificant differences for all attributes. Negative information about cultured meat led to
greater WTP values for the carbon, organic, and animal welfare attributes, relative to pos-
itive information. The magnitude of the difference in WTP for the production attribute
is more substantial than for any other hypothesis test. Consumers that see negative in-
formation require a discount of $2.67 relative to consumers who see positive informa-
tion on IVM. The average retail price of ground beef in the USA in 2023 is $4.83, and
the required discount is thus more than half the current price of ground beef. This re-
sult demonstrates how much information provided about IVM can impact preference
formation.
Fifth, we investigate whether there are any significant differences in the WTP for IVM
between consumers that see the positive information (treatment 2) and the combined infor-
12 Kovacs et al.

Table 5. Coefficient estimates on respondent characteristics to explain the mean of mWTP for lab grown meat
(i.e. the production attribute) by treatment.

Treatment 1: Treatment 2: Treatment 3: Treatment 4:

Neutral Positive Negative Combined
Respondent characteristic information information information information

Age −0.05 −0.05 −0.08 −0.10*

(0.31) (0.14) (0.13) (0.03)
Political orientation 3.22* −0.31 4.07* 1.67

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

(0.03) (0.79) (0.01) (0.22)
Buying cultured meat 2.64*** 2.21*** 2.14*** 1.99***
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Animal welfare −0.02 0.35*** −0.31* 0.24
(0.89) (0.00) (0.04) (0.06)
Constant −9.32* −15.79*** −0.39 −12.15**
(0.02) (0.00) (0.93) (0.00)

***, ** and, * denote statistical significance at the 1, 5, and 10 per cent levels, respectively.

mation (treatment 4). The mixed results show weakly significant differences for the produc-
tion method and organic label attributes. The consumers who see the positive information
about IVM have a higher WTP for cultured and organic meat relative to consumers that see
the combined information. Lastly, we investigate if there are any differences in the WTP for
IVM between treatment 3 (negative information) and the treatment 4 (combined informa-
tion). The results show significant differences for all attributes. Those that receive negative
information require a larger discount for the purchase of cultured meat than those who see
the combined information, but we observe a higher WTP value for all the other attributes.
Negative information about cultured meat leads consumers to have a higher WTP for other
approaches (carbon trust, organic, and animal welfare) to address the environmental prob-
lems and other negative externalities associated with agriculture.

Influence of respondent characteristics

We evaluate the effect of respondent characteristics (age, political orientation, attitudinal
factors of the likelihood to buy cultured meat, and animal welfare attitudes) on the mWTP
for cultured meat, that is, the production attribute, by information treatment in Table 5.
Age has little effect on the mWTP for cultured meat. The only significant effect for age is in
treatment 4, where a 1-year increase in age decreases mWTP by $0.10. Older respondents
are less likely to prefer newer products (i.e. IVM), which meets our expectations given the
evidence of food neophobia present among adults (Jezewska-Zychowicz et al. 2021). The
mWTP for cultured meat increases as political orientation moves from republican to demo-
crat. Democrats are more accepting of IVM, which we expect due to the potential environ-
mental and animal welfare gains of IVM currently favored by that political party, but this
is only significant for the neutral or negative information framing. Positive information on
IVM may dispel politically anchored views, but respondents retain those views when en-
countering neutral or negative information about IVM. Respondents who exhibit a greater
willingness to purchase cultured meat have significantly higher mWTP values for IVM in
all treatments. Strong preferences for animal welfare mean higher mWTP values for IVM
with the positive information treatment, but there are lower mWTP values for IVM with the
negative information treatment. Positive information about IVM encourages respondents to
view IVM and animal welfare as complements, but negative information about IVM instead
leads respondents to view IVM and animal welfare as substitutes.
Positive and negative information effects on consumer preferences for lab grown meat 13

Policy implications
IVM can potentially generate many public benefits for society in the form of a cleaner envi-
ronment, enhanced animal welfare, and safer food. IVM’s public benefits may justify public
research to help private companies identify strategies to thrive in the marketplace. Another
possibility for expanding IVM production is to provide education and assistance to private
companies that wish to voluntarily label their IVM product.
The policy approach most relevant to our paper is the use of education and information.
This includes helping IVM producers identify what to mail to consumers about IVM, pro-

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

viding information for private talks on IVM production and safety, or airing commercials
on television or the internet. The content of this information can have a significant influence
on consumer acceptance of IVM based on our findings. We find that information influences
the mWTP for other attributes of the meat (e.g. carbon trust), and the labeling arrangement
to create the strongest interest in IVM has policy relevance. Public research could help com-
panies target information about IVM to specific consumer segments or demographics, such
as liberal and young in our case of IVM beef, as a cost-effective way to build market share
for IVM.

Conclusion
We find that consumers prefer ground beef from the conventional production methods
rather than IVM. The heavy discount consumers expect on IVM places pressure on the
producers of cultured meat to take an idea from a laboratory setting and scale it to a level
where the cost of production falls enough to accommodate consumer price expectations.
Consumers also express significant and positive preferences for the organic and animal wel-
fare labels. The information treatments significantly influence the magnitude of the mWTP
estimates. Specifically, negative information framing is more influential than positive infor-
mation on the preferences for IVM. Obviously, the results are dependent on the details of
the scripts for the positive and negative information, and we cannot know whether greater
emphasis on one of the benefits of IVM or less emphasis on one of the disadvantages of
IVM would have changed the finding. This could be a good topic for future research.
We find evidence that consumer’s political orientation and animal welfare attitudes af-
fect the mWTP for IVM, where more liberal views and stronger preferences for animal
welfare increase mWTP, but crucially the significance depends on the information frame
that the respondents observe. Our finding of low consumer acceptance of IVM ground
beef is the same as in previous studies that show consumers rarely prefer IVM over tra-
ditional meat products (Hartmann and Siegrist 2017; Bryant and Barnett 2018). However,
the information consumers receive about IVM can make a difference. Asioli et al. (2021)
show that the term ‘cultured’ is preferrable to ‘lab-grown’ for IVM chicken. Van Loo et al.
(2020) find that information about the environment and technology of each production
method has minimal influence on the preference for IVM or a plant-based method. We
show that, when the information about IVM is positive or negative, there can be an in-
fluence on the preference for IVM. Both Ortega et al. (2022) and our study find that la-
bels for animal welfare or environmentally sustainable production significantly affect IVM
preference.
While our study aimed to capture diverse consumer preferences, we acknowledge the
potential conceptual misalignments in the combinations of attributes presented in our choice
experiment. We recognize the complexity of pairing attributes such as ‘lab-grown’ with
descriptors like ‘organic’ and ‘animal welfare.’ Although these pairings were intended to
explore nuanced consumer perceptions, we acknowledge that they may not perfectly mirror
real-world market scenarios. Furthermore, specific attribute combinations might lead to
participant biases. For example, a ‘lab-grown’ label without a label for animal welfare might
14 Kovacs et al.

lead respondents to wonder if IVM does not align with animal welfare. However, these
tensions reflect real-world debates and discussions surrounding emerging food technologies,
and we believe consumers can evaluate complex attributes as distinct, but also connected,
concepts.
Further research can help in the exploration of a potential market for IVM. One line of
inquiry is to evaluate how close in texture and taste the IVM meat needs to be to traditional
meat. Perhaps a threshold exists where the texture or taste is close enough to traditional
meat that near full acceptance occurs. The traditional livestock industry will push hard for

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

labeling requirements on IVM. The framing on those labels can have a substantial impact on
the market for cultured meat. Given the amount of research documenting consumer interest
in animal welfare, an experiment to examine how to better synthesize information about
animal welfare and IVM is promising. The ability to combine information in a way that
increases WTP is critical for reducing the required discounts for IVM. Another possibility
is to evaluate a setting where consumers see information and real cultured meat products in
a choice experiment, where consumers can gain experience with IVM, and researchers can
see if this leads to similar results.

Acknowledgments
This project was supported by the Tyson Chair in Food Policy Economics Endowment.

Data availability
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding
author.

References
Asioli D., Bazzani C. and Nayga R. M., Jr. (2021) ‘Are Consumers Willing to Pay for in Vitro Meat? An
Investigation of Naming Effects’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 00:1–20.
Blimer M. C. J., Rose J. M. and Hess S. (2008). ‘Approximation of bayesian Efficiency in Experimental
Choice Designs’, Journal of Choice Modelling, 1:98–126.
Bryant C. and Barnett J. (2018). ‘Consumer Acceptance of Cultured Meat: a Systematic Review’, Meat
Science, 143:8–17.
Clough D. (2005). ‘Why Do Some People Eat Meat?’ Epworth Review, 32:32–40.
Cummings R. and Taylor L. (1999). ‘Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk
Design for the Contingent Valuation Method’, American Economic Review, 89:649–65.
Daniel C. R. et al. (2011). ‘Trends in Meat Consumption in the United States’, Public Health Nutrition,
14:575–83.
Ein-Gar D., Shiv B. and Tormala Z. L. (2012). ‘When Blemishing Leads to Blossoming: the Positive Effects
of Negative Information’, Journal of Consumer Research, 38:846–59.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2012. ‘Livestock and Landscapes’, Sus-
tainability Pathways, 1–4. [Link] Accessed on October 2022.
Hartmann C. and Siegrist M. (2017). ‘Consumer Perception and Behavior Regarding Sustainable Protein
Consumption: a Systematic Review’, Trends in Food Science & Technology, 61: 11–25.
Herzog H., Betchart N. and Pittman R. (1991). ‘Gender, Sex Role Orientation, and Attitudes toward
Animals’, Anthrozoös, 4:184–91.
Hoekstra A. (2012). ‘The Hidden Water Resource Use behind Meat and Dairy’, Animal Frontiers, 2:3–8.
Jezewska-Zychowicz M. et al. (2021). ‘Food Neophobia among Adults: Differences in Dietary Patterns,
Food Choice Motives, and Food Labels Reading in Poles’, Nutrients, 13:1590.
Kilders V. and Caputo V. (2021). ‘Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s
Valuation for Milk for Gene-edited Cows under Different Information Regimes’, Journal of Agricul-
tural Economics, 72:735–59.
Krinsky I. and Robb A. L. (1986). ‘On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities’, The Review
of Economics and Statistics, 68:715–9.
Positive and negative information effects on consumer preferences for lab grown meat 15

Lancaster K. (1966). ‘A New Approach to Consumer Theory’, Journal of Political Economy, 74:132–57.
Mancini M. and Antoniloi F. (2022) ‘Chapter 19—The Future of Cultured Meat between Sustainability
Expectations and Socio-economic Challenges’. In: Bhat, Rajeev (ed.), Future Foods, pp. 331–50.
Mancini M. and Antonioli F. (2019). ‘Exploring Consumers’ attitude towards Cultured Meat in Italy’,
Meat Science, 150:101–10.
Mathews S. and Herzog H. A. (1997). ‘Personality and Attitudes toward the Treatment of Animals’, Society
& Animals, 5:169–75.
McFadden D. (1974). ‘The Measurement of Urban Travel Demand’, Journal of Public Economics, 3:303–
28.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on 09 January 2025

Mouat M. J., Prince R. and Roche M. M. (2018). ‘Making Value out of Ethics: the Emerging Economic
Geography of Lab-grown Meat and Other Animal-free Food Products’, Economic Geography, 95:136–
58.
Ortega D. L., Sun J. and Lin W. (2022). ‘Identity Labels as an Instrument to Reduce Meat Demand
and Encourage Consumption of Plant Based and Cultured Meat Alternatives in China’, Food Policy,
111:102307.
Poe G. L., Giraud K. L. and Loomis. J. B. (2005). ‘Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference
of Empirical Distributions’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87:353–65.
Sarrias M. and Daziano R. A. (2017). ‘Mulitnomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual
Heterogeneity in R: the gmnl Package’, Journal of Statistical Software, 79:1–46.
Scarpa R. and Rose J. M. (2008). ‘Design Efficiency for Non-market Valuation with Choice Modelling:
how to Measure It, What to Report and Why’, Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Eco-
nomics, 52:253–82.
Scarpa R., Campbell D. and Hutchinson W. G. (2007). ‘Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements:
sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment’, Land Economics,
83:617–34.
Smetana S. et al. (2015). ‘Meat Alternative: life Cycle Assessment of Most Known Meat Substitutes’, The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20:1254–67.
Sourcier V. et al. (2019). ‘An Examination of Food Neophobia in Older Adults’, Food Quality and Pref-
erence, 72:143–6.
Steinfeld H. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow on Environmental Issues and Options. Rome: FAO.
Train K. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Loo E. J., Caputo V. and Lusk J. L. (2020). ‘Consumer Preferences for Farm-raised Meat, Lab-
grown Meat, and Plant-based Meat Alternatives: does Information or Brand Matter?’, Food Policy,
95:101931.
Watson E. (2020) ‘USDA to Launch Rulemaking Process for Labeling of Cell-cultured Meat; ‘Success Will
Turn, in Large Measure, on the Nomenclature Used’, Says Attorney, FoodNavigator, August’, Available
from: [Link]
public-comment-process-for-labeling-of-cell-cultured-meat
Wilks M. and Phillips C. (2017). ‘Attitudes to in Vitro Meat: a Survey of Potential Consumers in the
United States’, PLoS ONE, 12:1–14.

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University in association with European Agricultural and Applied
Economics Publications Foundation. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License ([Link] which permits unrestricted reuse,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.