Examines how value orientations influence attitudes and intentions toward upcycled foods, suggesting pathways for sustainable consumption.
Reducing food waste is central to advancing global sustainability efforts, yet consumer acceptance of upcycled foods remains inconsistent due to differences in underlying value orientations. This study examines how domain-specific value orientations influence attitudes and consumption intentions toward upcycled foods using the Value–Attitude–Behavior (VAB) framework. A national survey of 1021 U.S. consumers assessed four value orientations, economic (price consciousness), quality (quality concern), environmental (food waste awareness), and health (health consciousness), along with food neophobia as an innovation-related trait. Structural equation modeling was used to test relationships among values, attitudes, and consumption intentions. The results indicate that food waste awareness and food neophobia are the most consistent predictors of both attitudes and intentions. Price consciousness and health consciousness influence attitudes but do not directly predict intentions, while quality concern negatively affects consumption intention without influencing attitudes. Attitude remains the strongest predictor of consumption intention, supporting the hierarchical structure of the VAB model. The findings suggest that consumer evaluations of upcycled foods reflect the combined influence of multiple value priorities, with environmental motivations encouraging acceptance and quality concerns and novelty resistance acting as barriers. These results extend the VAB framework to a novel food context and highlight the importance of addressing perceived quality, naturalness, and familiarity in communication strategies. Overall, the study provides insights for industry and policymakers seeking to promote sustainable consumption through upcycled food innovations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: