*3.1. The Influence of Behavioral Beliefs*

A two-way ANOVA test was carried out to measure the effects of gender and willingness to try edible insects on the three behavioral beliefs (Table 1) and the relative potential interactions.


**Table 1.** Mean values (standard deviation) of the behavioral beliefs and the effects and interactions with willingness to try (WTT) and gender.

The main effects were reported by removing the interaction terms (gender × WTT) which was not significant for any beliefs.

No significant potential interactions were found. Surprisingly, no impact of gender was found for any of the beliefs, whereas, the willingness to try had an effect only on the beliefs about the familiar taste of products containing insect powder (4.39 ± 1.11 and 3.97 ± 1.21 for willing and not willing, respectively, *p* = 0.028).

This means that people who did not want to taste the insect-based product have significantly lower scores in the beliefs that the taste is familiar to a conventional product as compared to those who were willing to try them.

In addition, Pearson's correlation test was performed considering the behavioral intention to eat products containing insect powder in the coming months and the behavioral beliefs. The results of the correlation analysis are all statistically significant. Findings suggest that the belief that eating products containing insect powder will have positive effects on health has a stronger influence on behavioral intentions (0.323, *p* < 0.01) as compared to beliefs about environmental protection (0.235, *p* < 0.01) and familiar taste (0.25, *p* < 0.01).

#### *3.2. Post-Seminar*

Disgust and the idea of post-consequence of the ingestion, such as negative texture and bad taste, are among the most important barriers to the acceptance of insects as food, whereas, the lowest scores have been assigned to beliefs that entomophagy is not socially acceptable. A *t*-test was conducted to identify the possible differences in strength of the insect food rejection items before and after the seminar session (Table 2). After the informative seminar, the scores of all the items improved, indicating a more positive attitude towards eating insects (i.e., lower rejection). In particular, disgust factor and the fear of negative texture properties were strongly reduced. All these differences, except for the item "I fear that insect-based foods have negative taste properties", were statistically significant.

**Table 2.** Mean values and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the insect food rejection items, before and after the informative seminar (n = 165).


Respondents indicated their opinion on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 ("do not agree at all") to 7 ("totally agree").

#### *3.3. Model Testing and Results*

The EFA results on the food neophobia construct confirm its unidimensional structure; the Cronbach's alpha value of 0.86, the overall explained variance (59.4%), the factor loadings, and the communalities all above the 0.5 threshold indicate a good representation and satisfactory internal consistency of the food neophobia construct with this unidimensional structure (Table 3). This structure has also been tested with the CFA, showing a good model fit to the data, i.e., model fit: χ<sup>2</sup> (5) = 7.002; CFI = 0.996; TLI = 0.987; RMSEA (CI 90%) = 0.049 (0.000, 0.081).


**Table 3.** Confirmatory factor analysis of the food neophobia (FN) construct.

Model fit: χ<sup>2</sup> (5) = 7.002; CFI = 0.996; TLI = 0.987; RMSEA (CI 90%) = 0.049 (0.000, 0.081). R-reverse coded.

On the other hand, the EFA results suggest that a multidimensional structure of the food rejection construct may be more appropriate. The analysis yielded two factors explaining a total of 70.4% of the variance for the entire set of variables (Table 4).


**Table 4.** Confirmatory factor analysis of the insect food rejection (FR) construct.

Model fit: χ<sup>2</sup> (8) = 7.207; CFI = 1.000; TLI = 1.004; RMSEA (CI 90%) = 0.000 (0.000, 0.086).

The first factor, explaining 52.8% of the variance, includes three items related to danger and social inappropriateness of insects as food. This factor was labelled as "social insect food rejection" due to the high loadings by the following items: "I believe that insect-based food implies a poor hygiene", "I believe that eating insects is not part of our diet", and "eating insects is not socially acceptable". The items communalities, representing the proportion of the variance in that variable that can be accounted for by the extracted factors, are all above the 0.5 threshold, indicating that the extracted factors account for a big proportion of the items' variance. The second factor was labelled "personal insect food rejection" due to the high loadings by the following items: "the idea of eating insects provokes my disgust", "I fear that insect-based foods have negative texture properties", and "I fear that insect-based foods have negative taste properties". This factor explained 17.7% of the variance. Overall, the Cronbach's alpha of the two factors above the 0.7 value, the factor loadings, and the communalities all above the 0.50 threshold, indicate a good representation and internal consistency of this two-factor model. The CFA was performed to test for this two-factor structure, showing a good model fit to the data (model fit: χ<sup>2</sup> (8) = 7.207; CFI = 1.000; TLI = 1.004; RMSEA (CI 90%) = 0.000 (0.000, 0.086)).

The prediction of eating insect-based food was examined using structural equation modelling (SEM) techniques. The results are reported in the tested model (Figure 2).

**Figure 2.** The standardized regression coefficients, explained variance (R2), and fit measures.

The model fits the data satisfactorily as documented by the fit indices (χ<sup>2</sup> (82) = 150.066; CFI = 0.938; TLI = 0.921; RMSEA (CI 90%) = 0.071 (0.053, 0.089); SRMR = 0.080) and explains a substantial amount of variance of the behavioral intention (R2 = 0.54) and a relative smaller variance of the willingness to eat insect-based food (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.29).

Confirming H2, a statistically significant negative correlation between neophobia and PBC was detected (*p* < 0.001), suggesting that respondents with lower phobia of new food believe that they can better accomplish the behavior of eating insect-based food and vice versa. PBC is the main predictor of the intention (*p* < 0.001), followed by neophobia (*p* < 0.001) and personal insect food rejection (*p* < 0.001). Therefore, these results confirmed H3, H4, and H5. The willingness to eat insect-based food is negatively affected by food neophobia (*p* < 0.001), and positively influenced by the intention to eat products containing insect powder in the coming months (*p* < 0.001). These results confirmed, respectively, H7 and H8.

Moreover, the results indicate that the social insect food rejection construct mediates the effect of neophobia with personal insect food rejection. In other words, this indicates that a higher neophobia positively affected the perceived social rejection of insects as food which, in turn, influenced the personal rejection. Therefore, the hypothesis suggesting that food neophobia positively influenced factors of the rejection of insects as food (H1) is also confirmed.

Finally, sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, gender, and region of origin, were neither significantly correlated with the intention nor with the willingness to eat insects, and therefore have not been included in the final model. This suggests that H6 was not supported by the data.

Since food disgust sensitivity and neophobia traits can be strongly influenced by familiarity and previous experience, a question about past exposure of insect eating was asked. However, considering the low number of people that had already tasted insects before the study, this question was not included in the model.

#### *3.4. Tasting Session*

Out of the total 165 participants, 66 (40%) took part in the tasting session; 11 were males and 55 were females, corresponding to 39.29% and 39.86% of total males and females, respectively. As such, no statistical difference was found between the genders in their willingness to participate in the tasting session. The scores of the tasting session are reported in Table 5.


**Table 5.** Results of tasting section reported as mean (standard deviation).

The results of the Wilcoxon rank sum test on the sensory scores indicated that participants gave "insect-labelled" samples higher scores for flavor, texture, and overall liking (*p* = 0.044, *p* < 0.001, *p* = 0.045, respectively). This data did not reflect on the score given to the probability of future consuming, since 28.79% of participants indicated that they was less likely to use the "insect-labelled" bread in the future, while only 18.18% stated the opposite (although no statistical difference was found at the Wilcoxon rank sum test). Figure 3 shows the delta scores obtained for each characteristic. Only 13.64% of the participants gave the two bread samples identical scores for every evaluated parameter. In two cases, the delta score for probability of future use was ≤−6 and represented the biggest score difference registered.

**Figure 3.** Delta scores between "insect labelled" sample and "control" bread.

#### **4. Discussion**

#### *Reactions towards Insects*

Our research findings suggest that a variety of factors need be taken into consideration when assessing the willingness to eat insect-based food, from which several implications can be derived both theoretically and practically.

As reported by Hartmann and Siegrist [10], disgust sensitivity prevents consumers from eating harmful substances (e.g., contamination of toxic ingredients), however, it can also become a strong barrier to trying new food and/or unfamiliar food products like insects. The results have shown that the relationship between neophobia and personal factors of insect food rejection is mediated by the social factors of insect food rejection construct, i.e., the perceived danger and social inappropriateness of insects as food. This mediation effect suggests a more detailed relationship between food neophobia and disgust than the one depicted by Hartmann and Siegrist [10]. As expected, neophobic individuals have a higher social rejection (i.e., insects are not part of my diet, not acceptable as food) which is strongly correlated with a greater personal insect rejection (i.e., negative sensory expectations). However, the mediation effect suggests how the personal factors of insect food rejection can be more easily influenced, for instance, by an increasing social appeal of insects as food driven by positive information about entomophagy and the tasting experience. This enhanced the social acceptance of insects as food which may improve the personal factors, and therefore decrease the disgust and distaste. As reported by Barsics et al. [35], long-term exposure to information and positive effects (mainly entomophagy familiarity and experience) could reduce disgust and distance and make better assimilation of the new further information. In addition, other studies reported how information about the sustainability and environmental perspectives of edible insects, could positively influences consumers' willingness to consume insect-based products [22,30,40–42].

According to the literature, since disgust influences people's food preferences, higher food disgust and distaste sensitivity (personal insect food rejection) are associated with a lower behavioral intention. This has been confirmed in our study, since we have found a significant negative effect of personal insect food rejection on behavioral intentions. Nevertheless, our results also suggest how the insect food rejection construct helps to explain the relationship between neophobia and intention. This is, however, a partial mediation since the direct effect of neophobia on behavioral intention is still significant. The PBC has been found to be the main predictor of the intention, as also suggested by the theory [12].

The willingness to try an insect-based product is positively affected by behavioral intention and negatively influenced by food neophobia. This result is consistent with previous studies [6,10,22,43] indicating that the trait of food neophobia is an important predictor of consumers' willingness to try insect-based food products. In addition, the positive and significant correlation between behavioral intention and beliefs suggests that consumers believe that this practice will have positive effects on their health and on the environment, as also reported by Sogari [44] and Menozzi et al. [15].

The informative seminar positively influenced all the opinions about entomophagy, improving the consumers' attitude towards eating insects while lowering insect food rejection. The greatest change after the seminar was found for the disgust factor, which strongly decreased after participants were informed about the technological, social, and cultural context of entomophagy. The communication about the gastronomic aspects of insects influenced only the texture properties and not the taste. This might be explained by the fact that it might be easier to convince people that the texture is similar to known food products (not disgusting) rather than the organoleptic attributes. In addition, the fear regarding poor hygiene decreased following the explanation about the long-time habits of entomophagy around the world and the food safety production practices which will be used before these novel products can be commercialized in the Western countries. Barsics et al. [35] reported that familiarity with entomophagy, intrinsically related with the culture of the consumers, plays a major role in acceptance and a positive attitude toward edible insects. Information could enhance familiarity with entomophagy, nevertheless, it seems more effective if it is continuous with a long-term impact.

The role of communication in decreasing the rejection of new food can be explained by the two hypotheses of Rozin and Fallon [26], who explained this tendency might be related to the origin of the food and/or the anticipated negative post-ingestion consequences. Positive information on eating insects can address these two barriers. Given the strong positive correlations between the positive health effects of eating insects and the behavioral intention, our findings suggest that consumer-targeted communication of health aspects would increase the intention to eat.

Findings of this work have several implications on sensory aspects of product development and the role of information on influencing consumer acceptance.

Our data indicate that the provision of information plays a role in decreasing the rejection of insects as food, both at a personal and social level. To our knowledge, this implication has been previously investigated by only a few other authors [20,35].

We are aware that the likelihood of trying insects will strongly depend on the appropriateness of the preparation method [45–47]. If edible insects are to become more widely consumed in the Western countries, positive thoughts and sensory-liking properties need to be associated with familiar products [15,27]. As reported by Schouteten et al. [48], consumers have to associate (positive) emotions with the products (based on the satisfaction of sensory attributes) to replace the negative expected emotions prior to consumption [49].

Although our study used an "insect-labelled" product, the greater sensory appreciation as compared with the similar "no insect" product confirms that integrating insects into the Western diet could be done using a transitional phase [20,50]. Moreover, familiar products could help to increase the likelihood of having the first bite, but to be regularly consumed, they must be appropriate and taste good [47,49].

#### **5. Conclusions**

Understanding which factors could affect consumers' perception of edible insects plays a key role in the future prospect of entomophagy and, in general, on novel food protein production and consumption. In summary, the participants' willingness to eat insect-based products in the coming months appears to be mainly influenced by neophobia and behavioral intention. Communication becomes crucial to achieve this aim and informative tasting sessions are a good approach to influence people to try insect-based foods for the first time. The current study suggests that an educational approach paired with a tasting session could be a good strategy to increase objective knowledge while reducing the insect food rejection mechanism and enhancing the positive evaluation of sensory properties.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, S.M., G.S., and D.M.; data curation, G.S., D.M., and B.T.; investigation, S.M., D.M., R.N., B.T., and R.M.; methodology, S.M., G.S., B.T., and R.M.; supervision, G.P.; writing—original draft, S.M., G.S., B.T., and R.M.; writing—review and editing, S.M., G.S., D.M., R.N., R.M., and G.P.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** We want to thank the seminar organizers and the lecturers who made the oral presentations. Special thanks also go to the students, without whom this article could not be done.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
