Cross-sectional survey reveals plant-based diets increase willingness-to-pay for food quality, indicating values shape consumer choices.
Purpose This study examined the relationship between following a plant-based diet and the willingness to pay (WTP) for food’s sensory quality, novelty, health, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) attributes. The mediating role of personal values was also assessed. Design/methodology/approach In a cross-sectional survey, 695 U.S. adults completed the revised Portrait Value Survey and reported their current dietary style and WTP for food attributes. Independent-samples t-tests and mediation analyses were performed to test the hypotheses. Findings Eating a plant-based diet was associated with higher WTP for food’s sensory, novelty, health, and CSR attributes. WTP for health and CSR attributes was partially mediated by the value of universalism-nature; WTP for novelty was partially mediated by stimulation. Despite placing a lower value on hedonism, plant-based consumers showed higher WTP for food’s sensory quality, with no significant mediation effect of hedonism. Universalism-nature, universalism-concern, and universalism-tolerance were associated with non-plant-based consumers’ interest in reducing animal product consumption. Originality/value The study is one of the first to examine the role of personal values in explaining plant-based consumers’ WTP for food’s novelty, health, and CSR attributes. The findings offer actionable insights for food companies and restaurants targeting plant-based consumers, emphasizing the importance of adopting socially and environmentally responsible practices, improving the sensory and nutritional quality of food, and providing novel consumption experiences. The findings also support the refined theory of basic values by demonstrating that it offers greater conceptual detail compared to the original theory.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ge et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: