Fixing the bug in insect consumption
There is increasing acknowledgment that the environmental impact of the current global food supply system is unsustainable. Entomophagy—the consumption of insects as food—is gaining attention as a viable, sustainable food alternative. Yet, despite shifting positive attitudes towards entomophagy and supportive regulatory guidelines, few Westerners integrate insect-based food into their diet. A major reason underlying the focal attitude-behavior gap is that insect-based food elicits strong negative emotions. Two studies assess strategies for emotion regulation and, consequently, the increased trial and consumption of insect-based food. Study 1 demonstrates that distraction (but not reappraisal) enhances people’s willingness to sample insect-based food. Study 2 shows that humor—an operationalization of the distraction strategy—reduces negative emotional responses to communications about consuming insect-based food. Our findings offer valuable insights into how to facilitate people’s adoption of insect-based food. • Many Westerners refuse to eat insect-based foods due to negative emotions. • Emotion regulation through distraction can reduce disgust and increase consumption. • Humor can be used to distract from negative emotional reactions. • Insect consumption can be increased through distraction and humor interventions.
Authors
- Chris Janiszewski (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0498-919X)
- Anthony G. Salerno (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9126-9328)
- Johanna Palcu (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7491-0117)
- Martin Schreier
- Janet Kleber (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6209-4132)
Institutions
- Vienna University of Economics and Business (AT)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- University of Klagenfurt (AT)
- Florida College (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Food Quality and Preference
- Published
- 2025-02-20
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105472
- Citations
- 4
- Primary Topic
- Insect Utilization and Effects
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 6.69