Exploratory focus group reveals communication strategies impact food choice and acceptance of insect-based snacks in Germany, suggesting clarity and trust enhance consumer engagement.
The transition to sustainable food systems requires communication strategies that resonate with consumers’ values, not only technological innovation. This study examines how values-centric communication shapes German consumers’ responses to alternative proteins, focusing on insect-based snacks. A desk-based synthesis of 28 studies, guided by Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values, identified Tradition and Security as dominant drivers of food choice and yielded five communication requirements: cultural familiarity, emotional safety, simplicity and clarity, trust and credibility, and routine integration. These were translated into communication guidelines and short on-pack claims, which were applied to a refined packaging prototype. An exploratory focus group (N = 7) then compared reactions to the original versus the refined packaging, analysed using McGuire’s Communication–Persuasion Matrix. Findings indicate that familiar formats, reassuring tone, clear visual hierarchy, and salient trust cues promoted movement from immediate aversion toward consideration, whereas information overload, claim–image incongruence, value-incongruent brand naming, and delayed recognition of insect content hindered acceptance. The study contributes an integrative analytic lens combining Schwartz’s value theory with McGuire’s model and provides a set of testable guidelines for value-aligned food communication. Given the exploratory design (small student sample, fixed presentation order, bundled manipulations, and hypothetical intentions), results should be interpreted cautiously; future research should employ counterbalanced factorial designs with behavioural outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alismaili et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: