Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Alternative proteins are increasingly available to consumers through retail and online food channels, yet their unfamiliarity often heightens perceived risk at the point of product evaluation. This research examines whether identifying an alternative-protein product as co-developed with an official agricultural research institute (OARI) functions as a retail-facing institutional cue. Across four experiments with Chinese consumers, an OARI co-development cue generally increased acceptance of plant-based, cultured-meat, and insect-based products. Study 2 showed that the cue increased acceptance by reducing perceived risk. Study 3 showed that this risk-reduction pathway was stronger among consumers with greater food neophobia. Study 4 demonstrated that the cue reduced risk and increased acceptance when trust in the named institution was high, but not when it was low. The findings contribute to consumer retailing research by showing how institutional co-development cues can reassure consumers evaluating unfamiliar food innovations, and why such reassurance depends on both consumers' need for risk reduction and trust in the named institution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: