Download full text
(external source)
Citation Suggestion
Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:
https://doi.org/10.18193/sah.v1i2.29
Exports for your reference manager
Comparing Social and Intellectual Appeals to Reduce Disgust of Eating Crickets
[journal article]
Abstract Objective: Research on disgust, to date, has focused on general sensitivity. This experiment looks at disgust specific to eating crickets, how it can be reduced, whether there are differences with gender and whether age correlate with that disgust. Methods: A convenience sample of 352 participants c... view more
Objective: Research on disgust, to date, has focused on general sensitivity. This experiment looks at disgust specific to eating crickets, how it can be reduced, whether there are differences with gender and whether age correlate with that disgust. Methods: A convenience sample of 352 participants completed an online questionnaire, were randomly assigned into groups who viewed an intellectual appeal (text) or a social appeal (video). They rated before and after, as a measure of disgust, their likelihood of eating a whole cricket and also a bar which contained cricket flour. Results: Members of the social appeal group had a significantly greater change in likelihood to eat a cricket bar (p = .028, BF10 = 3.92), but not a whole cricket (p = .316, BF10 = 0.13). Female participants were less likely than male participants to eat a whole cricket (p < .001, BF10 = 4828.84) or a cricket bar (p = .001, BF10 = 181.18). Older participants were less likely to eat a whole cricket (p = .01, BF10 = 4.98) or a cricket bar (p = .005, BF10 = 34.12). Conclusions: Results support the role of social influence in disgust of eating crickets.... view less
Keywords
eating behavior; emotionality
Classification
General Psychology
Free Keywords
Aversion; Entomophagy; Influence; Psychology
Document language
English
Publication Year
2015
Page/Pages
p. 4-23
Journal
Studies in Arts and Humanities, 1 (2015) 2
ISSN
2009-8278
Status
Published Version; peer reviewed
Licence
Creative Commons - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0