Abstract
Macromarketing scholars have long explored connections between marketing, markets, and society, especially in contexts where consumption habits significantly impact environmental and social outcomes. Our work contributes to this discussion by investigating how social structures and ethical identities affect sustainable shifts in food consumption — particularly the transition from conventional meat to cultured meat (also known as clean meat or lab-grown meat). In the first of two studies with US consumers, we demonstrate that social class positively affects willingness to consume cultured meat, primarily for individuals with higher moral identity symbolization. In the second study, we find that higher-class consumers, compared to lower-class consumers, are more motivated to distinguish themselves, which explains their willingness to try cultured meat, particularly when they have high moral identity symbolization. These findings are valuable to macromarketing researchers, consumers, managers, and public policymakers.
Introduction
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for global efforts to promote a more sustainable future (Shapiro et al., 2021; Sheth & Parvatiyar, 2021). A critical aspect for ensuring a sustainable future for humanity is the need to shift food consumption patterns and develop food supply chains that not only ensure food security for a growing global population, but are also economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable (Mensah, Wieck, and Rudloff 2024; Michel et al., 2024). Since sustainability and sustainable consumption are key areas of interest in macromarketing scholarship (DeQuero-Navarro et al., 2021; Mittelstaedt et al., 2014), the imperative for sustainable food consumption and sustainable food supply chains as well as the need for research on these topics has been explicitly recognized by macromarketing researchers (Ekici et al., 2021).
Sustainable food innovation targets the transformation of the production, distribution, and consumption of food to ensure environmental sustainability as well as economic and social benefits (Akermi et al., 2025). Akermi et al., (2025, p. 245) state that, “at its core sustainable food innovation integrates technological advancements, ecological stewardship, and consumer awareness to create a resilient food system that meets the needs of today without compromising future generations (Galanakis, 2024)”. In the current research, we aim to contribute to the macromarketing literature on sustainable consumption by examining certain social and ethical variables that are related to consumers’ acceptance of a specific type of sustainable food innovation – cultured meat (Siddiqui et al., 2022). Cultured meat (also known as clean meat or lab-grown meat) refers to innovative food technology that involves applying the practice of tissue engineering for cultivation of different types of cell tissues in lab environments (Arango et al., 2024; Siddiqui et al., 2022). Other forms of sustainable food innovations include plant-based meats, insect protein, fungal based protein (mycoproteins) etc. (Akermi et al., 2025; Dean et al., 2022).
The potential sustainability related benefits of food innovations such as cultured meat can be clearly contrasted with the well-established detrimental consequences of traditional meat production and consumption. Traditional meat production not only depletes scarce natural resources but also significantly contributes to harmful greenhouse gas emissions (Jafari et al., 2024). Furthermore, ethical concerns about animal welfare, including mistreatment and inhumane slaughter practices on farms, highlight the need for change in both the supply chain and consumption of natural meat (Post, 2012; Tuomisto, 2019). More importantly, with population growth and rising meat demand, the pressure on conventional production methods is likely to intensify (Revell, 2015). Hence, without finding alternative ways of producing meat and with continued reliance on conventional practices, there remains the risk of leaving behind an unsustainable planet for future generations.
Considering the sustainability related benefits of cultured meat, several researchers have stated that culture meat consumption is ethically desirable. In a review of the antecedents to cultured meat adoption, Kouarfaté and Durif (2023, p. 2753) stated “the consumption of artificial meat is an act of socially responsible consumption because compared to traditional meat, artificial meat offers environmental and climate benefits.” Similarly, Ungaro et al., (2025, p. 7571) observed that “cultured meat is increasingly seen as a potential solution to the environmental and ethical challenges of the livestock industry.” This research is also based on the belief that cultured meat consumption has ethical benefits and conforms to positive moral conduct. Although a basic premise of this research is that consumers will consider cultured meat consumption as a moral choice, we do not empirically validate whether cultured meat consumption is synonymous with ethical consumption for all consumers.
While meat alternative food innovations such as cultured meat may offer potential solutions to the issues of animal welfare and environmental degradation mentioned earlier, the acceptance of cultured meat remains a significant challenge. Many consumers are hesitant to try cultured meat due to the perception that it is unappealing and unnatural as it is lab-grown (Arango et al., 2023b; Siegrist et al., 2018). Recent research has focused on examining factors that affect the acceptance of cultured meat; however, this stream of research has mainly focused on personal characteristics and generally neglected macro factors such as social relationships (see Pakseresht et al., 2022 for a review). Another stream of research on cultured meat acceptance has examined advertising and social media strategies that can enhance support for the consumption of cultured meat (Arango et al., 2023a; Bryant & Dillard 2019; Leite et al., 2024; Septianto & Mathmann, 2024). This research stream has also ignored the role of social structures in relation to the willingness to try cultured meat.
Macromarketing scholars have long been interested in understanding interactions among marketing, markets, and society — particularly in contexts where consumption patterns have a substantial impact on environmental and social outcomes (DeQuero-Navarro et al., 2021; Wooliscroft, 2021). Sustainable food innovation is such a context. Macromarketing researchers have examined the adoption of plant-based meats (Beverland, 2014). However, macromarketing literature has not examined more radical sustainable food innovations such as cultured meat.
Within marketing systems, various stakeholders, including policymakers, producers, and consumers, play interconnected roles in shaping sustainable consumption practices (Haider et al., 2022). However, prior research on cultured meat acceptance has mostly neglected macro factors that involve the interactions between individual consumer characteristics, social structures, and consumption choices in marketing systems. Notable exceptions include Wilks and Phillips (2017), who examined the role of political ideology, and Jin et al., (2025), who examined the role of cultural diversity in laboratory development teams, in relation to the preference for culture meat. The roles of political ideology, culture etc. in consumption choices are macro factors, as these go beyond purely individual characteristics such as personality and involve interactions between social relationships, the individual consumer, and other stakeholders in the marketing system. Similarly, we explore the role of social structures, in particular, social class or socio-economic status in relation to the preference for cultured meat consumption.
We specifically examine whether social class motivates the need to differentiate among consumers which may drive the acceptance of cultured meat as it is a novel, innovative product. The role of moral identity symbolization (Aquino & Reed, 2002) in enhancing consumers’ willingness to try cultured meat is also explored. Moral identity symbolization is related to ethical behaviors in general (Gotowiec & Van Mastrigt, 2019) and is specifically related to green and sustainable consumption (Li et al, 2022).
We test the relationships between social class, need for differentiation, and moral identity symbolization with cultured meat acceptance across two studies. In Study 1, we show that social class positively influences the willingness to consume cultured meat, but this effect primarily occurs among individuals with strong moral identity symbolization. In Study 2, we demonstrate that higher socio-economic status consumers, compared to those will lower socio-economic status, have greater motivation to distinguish themselves from others. This need to differentiate is expressed through perceived morally superior behaviors, such as the consumption of cultured meat, when higher socio-economic status consumers also have higher moral identity symbolization.
This research has several contributions. First, through the theoretical lens of the diffusion of innovations model (Rogers, 2003), we establish cultured meat as an exemplar of sustainable food innovation and identify the challenges of increasing the acceptance of cultured meat. Second, we show that although considerable research has been conducted on personality/personal factors and communication issues related to cultured meat acceptance, research on socio-economic or social factors have been neglected. Hence, examining the role of social class in relation to cultured meat acceptance is worthwhile. Third, we extend the understanding of the role of social class in predicting and promoting sustainable consumption, through the example of cultured meat consumption. Our findings provide evidence that higher social class can positively influence the willingness to consume cultured meat under specific conditions. This reinforces prior research that has shown that socio-economic status is an important macro variable that can affect sustainable consumer behavior (Chowdhury, 2023).
Fourth, the positive relationship between higher socio-economic status and cultured meat preference contributes to the burgeoning literature on social class and pro-social behavior. There have been mixed findings in this stream of research (Korndörfer et al., 2015; Kraus et al., 2012; Piff et al., 2010). In an attempt to shed light on these mixed findings, we identify a moderator of the role of social class in relation to pro-sociality and support the view that higher social class can, in certain circumstances, lead to positive social and environmental outcomes such as cultured meat consumption. Fifth, we add to the existing body of knowledge on consumers’ acceptance of cultured meat by highlighting the psychological mechanisms through which social class influences the willingness to consume cultured meat. By identifying moral identity symbolization as a moderator and the need for differentiation as a mediator in this context, we provide a conceptual framework that involves the interplay between social and personal variables that affect the adoption of cultured meat. The identified effects of social class on cultured meat preference reflects the macromarketing view that marketing and consumption processes are affected by the societal structures within which they operate (Pittz et al., 2020).
In terms of practical contributions, this research has implications for businesses developing and marketing cultured meat. The findings also provide insights for policymakers who are engaged in the challenging tasks of both encouraging and regulating cultured meat.
This article is organized in the following manner. First, we discuss the production process of cultured meat and evaluate the ethics of cultured meat consumption. We then identify cultured meat as a specific example of sustainable food innovation by examining its characteristics based on the diffusion of innovations model (Rogers, 2003). We provide a brief review of extant research on cultured meat acceptance to show how our study addresses gaps in the literature. In this regard, we discuss existing research on the role of socio-economic status in relation to pro-social behavior, the effects of need for differentiation on consumer choices, and the relationships between moral identity and consumers’ ethical and sustainable behaviors. Subsequently we develop hypotheses on the relationship between consumers’ social class and cultured meat acceptance. A moderator (moral identity symbolization) and a mediator (need for differentiation) of this relationship are proposed. This is followed by the descriptions of the methods and results of two empirical studies conducted to test the hypotheses. Based on the findings of the two studies, the theoretical contributions and practical implications are discussed. The article concludes with limitations and directions for future research.
Conceptual Background
The Production of Cultured Meat and the Ethics of Cultured Meat Consumption
Cultured meat is produced by obtaining a muscle biopsy from a living animal, which provides the starter cells (Siddiqui et al., 2022). In vitro, these cells proliferate and grow into skeletal muscle cells which are preserved until maturity and subsequently harvested as meat (Rombach et al., 2022). Cultured meat, as a form of sustainable food innovation, promises to address environmental concerns by potentially reducing greenhouse gas emissions and easing the strain on land and water resources (Tuomisto, 2019). It also presents a humane alternative to traditional animal farming, appealing to those concerned with animal welfare (Post, 2012). Additionally, cultured meat can bolster food security through more efficient protein production (Newman et al., 2023), allow for customized nutritional profiles (Boland et al., 2013), and potentially lower the risk of zoonotic diseases (De Oliveira et al., 2021).
The market presence of cultured meat is gradually spreading around the world, e.g., Singapore approved the sale of cultured meat in 2020 and a store in Singapore started selling cultured meat directly to the public in May 2024 (Wee, 2024). The United States also approved the sale of cultured meat in 2023 (Milman, 2023). Cultured meat was approved for sale in Australia in June 2025 and soon after started appearing in restaurant menus (O’Brien, 2025).
Before examining factors that may affect the adoption of cultured meat, it is worthwhile to critically analyze whether cultured meat consumption can be considered as a form of ethical consumer behavior based on the three major ethical orientations in Western philosophy: utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. In utilitarianism, an action is considered ethical if it leads to greater net welfare compared to other actions (Mill, 2007). Considering the animal welfare and environmental benefits, cultured meat consumption is generally considered ethically acceptable from a utilitarian ethical perspective and has been endorsed by leading utilitarian scholars such as Peter Singer (Singer, 2016). Kantian deontology may also support the consumption of cultured meat as it does not infringe on the rights and dignity of sentient creatures (in contrast to factory farming). This is because cultured meat is artificial (insentient), i.e., it does not represent any inherent rights that must be respected (Alvaro, 2022).
However, cultured meat consumption can be ethically questionable from an Aristotelean virtue ethics perspective (Alvaro, 2022). Aristotle proposed that human flourishing is achieved by cultivating virtuous character traits (Aristotle, 2009). A truly magnanimous person possesses noble virtues including wisdom, courage, justice, generosity, temperance etc. (Aristotle, 2009). Alvaro (2022) argued that the virtue of temperance implies that a meat-based diet is not required as humans can live healthy, flourishing lives with a plant-based or vegan diet. This further suggests that spending valuable resources to develop cultured meat as a substitute for animal meat, which humans can live without, is a form of self-indulgence. Self-indulgence (lack of temperance) is a vice that is not supported from a virtue ethics viewpoint (Alvaro, 2019).
This research examines factors that may enhance the acceptability of cultured meat, which is ethically endorsed from utilitarian and deontological perspectives but not from a virtue ethics perspective. This important caveat needs to be highlighted as we proceed to examine the adoption of cultured meat.
Diffusion of Innovations Model and Adoption of Cultured Meat
Research on the adoption of innovations is relevant for understanding the adoption of sustainable food innovations such as cultured meat Rogers’ (2003). Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations model is a conceptual framework that can explain both the attributes of an innovation that affect adoption and the characteristics of potential adopters. According to Rogers (2003), five attributes of an innovation that affect its adoption in a social system are relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability.
Relative advantage refers to the extent to which an innovation is superior to existing solutions in offering benefits (Rogers, 2003). Among sustainable food innovations, cultured meat offers significant benefits in terms of environmental sustainability as it does not generate the negative externalities associated with traditional meat production based on livestock farming, such as water depletion, biodiversity destruction, adverse effects on nutrient cycles etc. Cultured meat also offers the benefits of preventing animal cruelty. Although another popular form of food innovation, plant-based meat, also prevents animal cruelty (Beverland, 2014), unlike plant-based meat, cultured meat does not lack in vitamin, mineral, and amino acid content compared to animal meat (Pilařová et al., 2023). Hence, the relative advantage of cultured meat should attract consumers who prioritize pro-environmental benefits.
Compatibility reflects how consistent an innovation is in relation to existing values and beliefs, prior experiences, and adopters’ needs (Rogers, 2003). Greater compatibility of an innovation is related to acceptance of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Considering that meat consumption is embedded in the traditional socio-cultural values of many societies, this is a particularly difficult challenge for sustainable food innovations that aim to replace meat. Many consumers consider the unnaturalness of cultured meat a barrier to adoption (Byrant & Barnett, 2018). Furthermore, prior experiences of consumers with food innovations, particularly meat substitutes, have been natural foods such as plant-based meats. Cultured meat is lab-grown and is thus a major divergence from prior experiences. However, from a compatibility perspective cultured meat can fulfil the needs of consumers that want to be environmentally friendly and avoid animal cruelty. On the contrary, considering its novelty, cultured meat is comparatively expensive (O’Brien, 2025) and as many consumers have the need for cheap protein, this raises challenges for adoption. Overall, in terms of compatibility, there are several issues that need to be addressed to facilitate cultured meat adoption.
Complexity represents the perception of the degree of difficulty in understanding and using a novel product or service (Rogers, 2003). Consuming cultured meat is not necessarily more complex than other food innovations such as plant-based meat. However, since cultured meat is developed through a scientific process of tissue engineering that cultivates different types of cell tissues in lab environments, from a consumer viewpoint, understanding that process is more complex. Prior research indicates that consumers’ attitudes toward science can affect their adoption of novel food choices including cultured meat (Tomiyama et al., 2020). Rogers (2003) states that greater complexity of an innovation negatively affects the rate of adoption.
Rogers (2003) defines trialability as the ability to experiment with an innovation on a limited scale. Enhanced trialability leads to greater adoption of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). Bryant and Barnett (2020) state that the trialability of cultured meat can be favorably compared to other innovative food technologies. Since the availability of cultured meat is increasing worldwide, the trialability of cultured meat is also increasing. The ability to taste cultured meat and compare the texture and smell to natural meat or other meat alternatives should favorably affect the adoption of this innovation.
The final attribute of innovations that influences their adoption is observability which refers to how visible the effects of the innovation are to potential adopters (Rogers, 2003). As the availability of cultured meat increases, the observed use of this sustainable food innovation should increase. However, compared to some other popular meat alternatives, such as plant-based meat, the observability of cultured meat lags behind due to current availability constraints.
In summary, considering the high relative advantage, low compatibility, and high complexity of cultured meat, it can be considered as a radical innovation. Researchers of food innovations have identified cultured meat as an example of radical innovation in food technology (Fischer & Van Loo, 2021; Lin-Hi et al., 2023).
Rogers (2003) notes that innovators and early adopters are more likely to adopt radical innovations. Hence it is important to examine the characteristics of innovators and early adopters, as these characteristics should drive the adoption of cultured meat. Rogers (2003) identifies socioeconomic characteristics, personality traits or personal characteristics, and communication behaviors of innovators and early adopters. Innovators and early adopters generally have higher social status and greater social mobility (Rogers, 2003). Furthermore, they are generally more educated. In terms of personality or personal characteristics, innovators and early adopters are more likely to have greater empathy, be less dogmatic, have favorable attitudes toward change, be able to cope with uncertainty, and demonstrate positive attitudes toward science etc. (Rogers, 2003). Rogers (2003) also states that innovators and early adopters have greater exposure to mass media information and interpersonal communication. They actively seek information and have greater knowledge of innovations.
Literature Review
Cultured Meat Acceptance: A Brief Review of Prior Research
Given the benefits of cultured meat, researchers have shown considerable interest in exploring the factors influencing consumer acceptance of cultured meat in order to effectively identify and target its potential markets (see Pakseresht et al., 2022; Rombach et al., 2022; Siddiqui et al., 2022 for reviews). Consistent with Rogers’ (2003) categorization of personality traits, communication behaviors, and socioeconomic characteristics as drivers of the innovation adoption behavior of innovators and early adopters, the literature on the factors that motivate cultured meat consumption can be divided into these three categories.
Personality and personal factors that affect consumers’ preference for cultured meat include holistic mindsets (Arango et al., 2024); growth mindsets (Arango et al., 2023a); food disgust sensitivity, particularly to unnatural foods (Siegrist et al., 2018); fear of unfamiliar technology (Dupont & Fiebelkorn, 2020); concerns for animal welfare (Valente et al., 2019); environmental concerns (Slade 2018); food neophobia (reluctance to consume novel food, Rombach et al., 2022); meat importance (Rombach et al., 2022); food allergies (Rombach et al., 2022); lack of trust in science (Tomiyama et al., 2020); food safety concerns (Pilařová et al., 2023) etc.
Education level is an important socio-economic variable that impacts cultured meat acceptance (Mancini & Antonioli 2019; Wilks et al., 2019). Other social variables that play a role include political ideology (Wilks & Phillips, 2017) and cultural diversity (Jin et al., 2025).
In relation to communication behaviors, exposure to information on cultured meat (Mancini & Antonioli, 2019), perceptions of the healthiness of cultured meat (Dupont and Fiebelkorn, 2020), and food curiosity (i.e., interest in knowing about new food technologies, Rombach et al., 2022) positively affect cultured meat acceptance. Another stream of research, related to communication with potential adopters of cultured meat, has focused on persuasion and advertising strategies to increase the acceptance of cultured meat (Arango et al., 2023b; Bryant & Dillard 2019; Leite et al., 2024; Septianto & Mathmann 2024).
This brief review reveals that most of the previous research on cultured meat acceptance has not focused on socio-economic variables or social variables in general. Considering the key role that social norms play in the adoption of innovations (Rogers, 2003) and as social norms are embedded within social structures (Morris et al., 2015), it is important to examine how social structures can affect the acceptance of cultured meat. This research addresses the gap on social relationships and consumers’ acceptance of cultured meat by providing a novel insight showing that the societal structures within a marketing system, as represented through the socio-economic status of a consumer, can play a significant role.
From the standpoint of utilitarian and deontological ethics, cultured meat consumption is a form of ethical consumer behavior that has societal and environmental benefits reflected in various sustainable development goals of the United Nations (Nobre, 2022). Hence, it can be considered as a form of pro-social behavior. Thus, it is worthwhile to review the research on socio-economic status and pro-social behavior.
Social Class and Pro-social Behaviors
Social class or socio-economic status reflects an individual's overall access to various resources, such as income, education, and employment status, along with their perception of their position within the social hierarchy (Kraus et al., 2012; Piff 2014). Social class affects pro-social behavior (Kraus & Callaghan, 2016; Piff et al., 2010; Vieites et al., 2022). Pro-social behavior is defined as voluntary actions taken to support or benefit others, often driven by an individual's concern for the well-being of others in society (White et al., 2020). Examples of pro-social behaviors include helping, donating to charities, volunteering etc. (Korndörfer et al., 2015), as well as engaging in consumption practices that have positive social and environmental outcomes, such as sustainable food innovations (Vitell & Muncy, 2005).
Prior research indicates that the motivations for engaging in pro-social behavior differ between individuals with higher socio-economic status and those with lower socio-economic status. Individuals with higher socio-economic status have greater economic resources and access to networks making it easier for them to be pro-social than individuals with lower socio-economic status (Korndörfer et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2021). In many instances, reputational concerns and pride are key motivators for higher social class individuals in engaging in pro-social behavior (Kraus & Callaghan 2016). On the other hand, lower social class individuals are often inspired to take part in pro-social behaviors because of the compassion and empathy they feel for those who are suffering (Kraus & Callaghan 2016; Kraus et al., 2012). Other research has suggested that individuals with lower socio-economic status are likely to engage in pro-social actions as it assists in building reciprocal relationships with others (Piff & Robinson 2017). These reciprocal relationships can be subsequently relied upon when needed, as lower social class individuals have fewer personal resources to utilize in times of need.
Extant research specifically examining the impact of socio-economic status on pro-social behaviors and comparing the behaviors of higher social class individuals with lower social class individuals has demonstrated mixed findings. A few studies have shown that individuals with lower socio-economic status are more likely to engage in pro-social actions (Kraus et al., 2012; Piff et al., 2010). However, others have found that higher social class is not related to less pro-sociality (Andreoni et al., 2021). Korndörfer et al., (2015) reported a positive relationship between higher social class and pro-social actions.
Piff and Robinson (2017) noted that there may be boundary conditions that affect the relationship between social class and pro-social behavior. Consistent with this proposition, research has revealed moderators in this context. Vieites et al., (2022) showed that higher social class individuals were more likely to donate to a non-urgent cause, where lower social class individuals were more likely to donate to an urgent cause. Kraus and Callaghan (2016) demonstrated that individuals with higher socio-economic status generally engaged in public pro-social behavior while individuals with lower socio-economic status generally engaged in private pro-social behavior.
In addition to identifying moderators, research has also endeavored to explain why high socio-economic status may lead to pro-social behavior by identifying mediators in this context. Wang et al., (2021) showed that the effect of socio-economic status on pro-social behavior is mediated by community identity and perceived control.
In the present research, we examine how social class impacts pro-social behavior related to sustainable consumption, specifically cultured meat consumption. Similar to other research that has focused on examining moderators and/or mediators of the relationship between socio-economic status and pro-sociality (Kraus & Callaghan 2016; Vieites et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021), we identify when (moderator: moral identity symbolization) and why (mediator: need for differentiation) high socio-economic status can lead to greater acceptance of cultured meat. Before proposing specific hypotheses on these relationships, it is important to briefly review the research on our proposed moderator – moral identity symbolization – and pro-social consumer behavior. We also briefly review the research on our proposed mediator – need for differentiation – and consumer choices.
Moral Identity and Ethical/Sustainable Consumer Behavior
Aquino and Reed (2002, p. 1424) define moral identity as “a self-conception organized around a set of moral traits”. These moral traits include caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, kind etc. (Reed & Aquino 2003). Moral identity comprises two dimensions: (1) internalization, which reflects how deeply moral traits are ingrained in one's self-concept, and (2) symbolization, which represents the public expression of moral traits through actions (Reed & Aquino 2003).
Individuals with a strong moral identity have an expanded “circle of moral regard”, meaning they extend moral consideration to a wider range of people, including out-groups (Blasi, 1984). This expanded moral circle is associated with more positive attitudes and behaviors toward out-groups, even in contexts of intergroup conflict (Hart et al., 1998). Previous research reveals that consumers with a high moral identity are more likely to show greater concern for others’ welfare and participate in behaviors that benefit society (Aquino & Reed 2002). A review of the effects of moral identity on pro-social behavior, such as volunteering, charity donation etc. demonstrated that both internalization and symbolization dimensions of moral identity were related to pro-sociality, with moral internalization generally being a stronger predictor (Boegershausen et al., 2015). However, other research has showed that moral symbolization rather than moral internalization motivated escalated commitment to pro-social initiatives (Schaumberg & Wiltermuth, 2014). Some studies also suggest that moral identity can promote sustainable consumption through both internalization and symbolization (Legere & Kang 2020; Li et al., 2022).
Research has also revealed that there are interactions of moral identity internalization and moral identity symbolization with situational cues in relation to prescriptive moral regulation (engaging in good deeds, e.g., helping behaviors) and proscriptive moral regulation (inhibiting harmful acts, e.g., cheating). Moral identity internalization is more important than moral identity symbolization in interacting with situational cues to affect prescriptive moral regulation, while moral identity internalization and moral identity symbolization are equally important in interacting with situational cues to affect proscriptive moral regulation (Boegershausen et al., 2015).
In a similar vein, in the current research, we also examine whether there is interaction between moral identity, particularly moral identity symbolization, and social class in relation to the acceptance of cultured meat, which can be considered pro-social, sustainable consumer behavior (Nobre 2022). Social class influences individuals’ attitudes and their perceptions of what is morally acceptable (Bourdieu 1987; Manstead 2018).
We focus on the interaction of moral identity symbolization with socio-economic status in predicting cultured meat acceptance. The symbolization aspect of morality can, in certain situations, reflect the function of differentiation in presenting oneself in public settings (Jung & La 2020; Reed & Aquino 2003). Moral identity symbolization serves to communicate one's morality to others and helps in impression management (Jung & La 2020). Higher socio-economic status also has a communicative function as it reflects greater prestige in reference to others in society. Sustainable consumption can signal a consumer's social class (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Considering the similar impression management and communicative functions of higher socio-economic status, moral identity symbolization, and sustainable consumption, it is worthwhile to examine the relationships among these constructs.
Need for Differentiation and Consumer Choices
The need for differentiation is a fundamental psychological drive that motivates individuals to establish and maintain a sense of uniqueness or distinctiveness from others (Ariely & Levav 2000; Yan et al., 2021). This need arises from the desire to assert one's individuality and stand out from the crowd (Chan et al., 2012). Prior research documents that the need for differentiation plays a crucial role in shaping consumer behavior, social interactions, and personal identity formation (Berger & Heath 2007). Individuals with a strong need for differentiation tend to seek out unique experiences, products, or styles that set them apart from their peers (Puzakova & Aggarwal 2018). The need for differentiation can vary across individuals and situations, often influenced by cultural factors, personality traits, and social contexts (Kampmeier & Simon 2001).
Social class impacts how the need for differentiation manifests within society (Bourdieu, 1987). Individuals from higher social classes often have access to better education, cultural experiences, and social networks, all of which reinforce their superior position in society (Kraus et al., 2012). This differentiation between classes creates a cycle in which members of the upper social class strive to maintain their status and differences from members of the lower social class, while individuals from lower social classes struggle to break free from their positions due to limited access to resources and opportunities (Bourdieu, 1987).
Yan et al., (2021) state that social class can affect the relative importance of need for differentiation compared to the need for assimilation (i.e., “the need for in-group inclusion and belonging”, Pickett et al., 2002, p. 544). Individuals with higher socio-economic status have a dominant need for differentiation, i.e., their need for differentiation is generally higher than their need for assimilation (Yan et al., 2021). Individuals with lower socio-economic status have a dominant need for assimilation, i.e., their need for assimilation is generally higher than their need for differentiation (Yan et al., 2021). Since higher socio-economic status leads to the need for differentiation (Bourdieu, 1987; Yan et al., 2021), we examine need for differentiation as a mediator between social class and cultured meat acceptance, particularly when there is high moral identity symbolization.
Hypotheses Development
Rogers (2003) states that individuals with higher socio-economic status are more likely to be innovators and early adopters, as they have capabilities and resources to absorb the risks associated with radically novel products. In relation to ethical products such as sustainable food innovations, this inclination to adopt radical innovations by higher social class consumers should be further heightened when they also have high moral identity symbolization.
Previous research suggests that individuals from higher social classes have relatively higher concerns regarding how others perceive them compared to those from lower social classes (Korndörfer et al., 2015). Furthermore, individuals with higher socio-economic status are generally more inclined to engage in behaviors that make them appear morally virtuous to others in society (Kraus & Callaghan 2016) We propose that this motivation to appear moral should be especially triggered when they also have high moral identity symbolization, as individuals with high moral identity symbolization are motivated to engage in impression management through publicly portraying their morality (Reed & Aquino 2003). On the contrary, low moral identity symbolization attenuates the motivation to appear morally virtuous (Reed & Aquino 2003), thus higher social class individuals may feel less inclined to publicly demonstrate their moral credentials when they have low moral identity symbolization.
Hence, when there is a combination of high socio-economic status and high moral identity symbolization, the acceptance of cultured meat should be higher, as cultured meat consumption, which is a form of pro-social, sustainable consumer behavior (particularly from utilitarian and deontological perspectives) provides an opportunity to express one's pro-social morality. Furthermore, lower social class individuals generally engage in pro-social behavior driven by empathy and compassion, rather than for enhancing their status or self-image (Kraus & Callaghan 2016). Thus, moral identity symbolization is less relevant for individuals with lower socio-economic status. The following formal hypothesis is proposed:
The key conceptual reasoning underlying H1 is that higher social class consumers have an innate need to differentiate themselves from others in society (Yan et al., 2021). Previous studies indicate that the desire for uniqueness or distinctiveness can be expressed in different forms, including wearing unconventional clothing, engaging in niche hobbies, or voicing opposing viewpoints (Tian et al., 2001). Similarly, the need for differentiation is why some consumers are attracted to exclusive or limited-edition products (Lynn & Snyder 2002). Consistent with Yan et al., (2021), we predict that higher social class signals a need for differentiation.
We propose that this need for differentiation among high socio-economic consumers will lead to greater acceptance of cultured meat when there is high moral identity symbolization. Need for differentiation and moral identity symbolization are independent variables; however, they co-occur in many, but not all, individuals. Publicly demonstrating moral identity is simply one path that allows individuals to be different from others. Hence, not all individuals who have high need for differentiation will use the moral signaling path to be unique. In particular, when high socio-economic consumers have low moral identity symbolization, the need for differentiation will not manifest itself through public displays of morality.
A key aspect of cultured meat is its ethical symbolism, since it reduces animal cruelty and has positive impacts on the environment (Nobre, 2022). High social class consumers, who inherently want to be different (Yan et al., 2021), will adopt cultured meat when they have high moral identity symbolization as it is a means to signal their distinctive morality to others through the consumption of a sustainable food innovation. In case a high social class consumer has low moral identity symbolization, the motivation to adopt cultured meat would be attenuated, as these consumers even if they want to differentiate from others, are not motivated to adopt an ethically laden product like cultured meat. Cultured meat would signal their moral credentials to others, which is not a priority to them, as morality is not the lens through which they want to be distinctive.
The following formal hypotheses, which reflects a moderated mediation model (independent variable: social class; moderator: moral identity symbolization; mediator: need for differentiation; dependent variable: willingness to try cultured meat) is proposed:
The conceptual model is presented in Figure 1. Two empirical studies were conducted to test the proposed hypotheses. Study 1 tests H1, while study 2 tests both H1 and H2.
Conceptual Model.
Study 1
Method
Design and Participants. An online survey was administered to 205 participants located in the U.S. (Male = 101, Female = 100, Gender Diverse = 4; Mage = 40.77, SD = 13.88), who were recruited through Prolific in exchange for financial compensation. The ethnicities of the participants included European-American (79.5%), Asian-American (11.2%), African-American (4.4%), and others (4.9%).
Participants were informed that the study was about the evaluation of a meat product. They were provided the following information on cultured meat:
“Clean meat (also known as cultured meat) is genuine animal meat that is produced by cultivating animal cells directly in the controlled laboratory environment. This production method eliminates the need to raise and use farm animals for food. As such, this method offers a humane alternative by addressing concerns of animal welfare and provides environmental advantages, such as sustainability. Moreover, clean meat offers taste and nutritional content comparable to conventionally produced meat (e.g., farm raised animal meat).”
Measures
Participants assessed their social class relative to others (or subjective socio-economic status) within a resource-based social hierarchy with the widely used McArthur ladder (Adler et al., 2000). The McArthur ladder includes ten rungs, and participants were required to select their perceived relative standing in the community based on job status, education, and income by choosing the rung that represents their position (the highest rung reflects those who are the “best of” in society and the lowest rung reflects those who are the “worst of” in society). Participants indicated where they would place themselves relative to others in their community (1 = “bottom rung”, 10 = “top rung”).
Moral identity was measured with the scale developed by Reed and Aquino (2003). Participants viewed a series of moral traits including caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind. In reference to these characteristics, the following items were used to measure moral identity symbolization: (1) “I often wear clothes that identify me as having these characteristics”; (2) “The types of things I do in my spare time (e.g., hobbies) clearly identify me as having these characteristics”; (3) “The kinds of books and magazines that I read identify me as having these characteristics”; (4) “The fact that I have these characteristics is communicated to others by my membership in certain organizations”; and (5) “I am actively involved in activities that communicate to others that I have these characteristics”. These items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”). These items were averaged and mean-centered for analysis (α = 0.86).
In reference to the same characteristics (caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind), the following items were used to measure moral identity internalization: (1) “It would make me feel good to be a person who has these characteristics”; (2) “Being someone who has these characteristics is an important part of who I am”; (3) “Having these characteristics is really important to me”; (4) “I strongly desire to have these characteristics”; and (5) “I would be ashamed to be a person who had these characteristics” (reverse coded). Similar to moral identity symbolization, these items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = “strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”). These items were also averaged and mean-centered for analysis (α = 0.67). While our focal hypothesis was related to moral identity symbolization, we measured moral identity internalization and included it as a control variable in the analysis.
As the dependent variable, willingness to try clean meat (cultured meat) was measured with three items adopted from Wilks et al., (2019): (1) “I am willing to incorporate clean meat into my diet”; (2) “I am willing to buy clean meat”; and (3) “I am willing to eat clean meat regularly”. We measured these items on a 7-point scale (1 = “not at all”, 7 = “very much”). The items were averaged with the index mean-centered for analysis (α = 0.98).
Results
The correlations among key variables are provided in Table 1.
Study 1 Correlations Among Key Variables.
Note. *p < 0.050; **p < 0.010.
In order to test H1, a moderation analysis was conducted using Model 1 in the PROCESS macro in SPSS with 5000 bootstrap resamples (Hayes, 2017). The independent variable was social class, the moderator was moral identity symbolization, and the dependent variable was willingness to try clean meat. The results revealed non-significant main effects of social class (β = 0.08; SE = 0.09; t(200) = 0.92; p = 0.360) on willingness to try clean meat. However, as anticipated, a significant interaction effect was found between social class and moral identity symbolization (β = 0.19, SE = 0.09, t(200) = 2.18, p = 0.031). Specifically, increasing social class was associated with increasing willingness to try clean meat at high levels (+1SD) of moral identity symbolization (β = 0.28; SE = 0.13; t(200) = 2.07; p = 0.040), but not at low levels (−1SD) of moral identity symbolization (β = -0.11; SE = 0.12; t(200) = -0.96; p = 0.341). These results support H1. The results are provided in Table 2.
Study 1 Moderation Analysis.
Study 2
The objective of study 2 was to validate the findings of study 1 as well as to test H2. Study 2 also differed from study 1 in other important ways.
In study 2, we manipulated socio-economic status. Rogers (2003) states that innovators and early adopters generally have higher socio-economic status as individuals with higher socio-economic status display less uncertainty avoidance and are more likely to take risks associated with radical innovations. Thus, perceptions of higher socio-economic status, i.e., beliefs in one's elevated status in society, should provide the psychological strength for reduced uncertainty avoidance and greater risk appetite. In order to experimentally test this, we manipulated socio-economic status. Over the past decade, several studies in social psychology have experimentally manipulated socio-economic status, as this enables the establishment of causality between socio-economic status and relevant outcome variables (Tan & Tai 2025). Prior research on consumer innovation has also experimentally manipulated socio-economic status to demonstrate its relationship with innovation adoption (adoption of service robots; Yao et al., 2022).
Study 2 included the mediator (need for differentiation). This was measured after measuring the moderator (moral identity symbolization) and the dependent variable (cultured meat acceptance). This helped alleviate concerns of demand effects, particularly in relation to the process level explanation.
Method
Design and Participants. Study 2 used a between-subject experimental design, where we manipulated social class (high vs low). 202 participants located in the U.S. (Male = 100, Female = 98, Gender Diverse = 4; Mage = 44.38, SD = 14.21) were recruited through Prolific in exchange for financial compensation. The ethnicities of the participants included European-American (83.70%), Asian-American (7.40%), African-American (3.50%), and others (5.40%).
Procedure. Similar to study 1, participants were informed that the study was about the evaluation of a meat product and provided information on cultured meat. All participants were presented with a 10-rung ladder to illustrate their position in the community with respect to job status, education, and income (similar to study 1). As part of the manipulation of social class (socio-economic status), participants were then randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions. In the first treatment condition (high social class), participants were asked to imagine themselves at the very top of the ladder and describe how they would look and behave in that position. In the second treatment condition (low social class), participants were asked to imagine themselves at the very bottom of the ladder and describe how they would look and behave in that position. Afterward, they responded to items measuring moral identity symbolization, moral identity internalization, willingness to try clean meat, and need for differentiation.
Measures. The items for moral identity internalization and moral identity symbolization were identical to those of study 1. The items for moral identity internalization (α = 0.89) were averaged, with the index mean-centered for analysis. Similarly, the items for moral identity symbolization were averaged, with the index mean-centered for analysis (α = 0.87).
Willingness to try clean meat was assessed with the same items as study 1. The items for willingness to try clean meat (α = 0.98) were averaged, and the index was mean-centered for analysis.
Two items were adopted from Zhu and Argo (2013) and Yan & (2021) to assess need for differentiation. These items were: (1) “Are you motivated to be different from other people?” and (2) “Are you motivated to stand out?”. We measured these items on a 7-point scale (1 = “not at all”, 7 = “very much”). The items were averaged, and the index was mean-centered for analysis (α = 0.86).
Results
In order to test H1, a moderation analysis was conducted using Model 1 in the PROCESS macro in SPSS with 5000 bootstrap resamples (Hayes, 2017). The independent variable was social class, the moderator was moral identity symbolization, and the dependent variable was willingness to try clean meat (cultured meat). Results revealed non-significant direct effects of social class (β = 0.20, SE = 0.28, t(197) = 0.70, p = 0.485) on willingness to try clean meat. However, as predicted, results indicated a significant interaction effect between social class and moral identity symbolization (β = 0.52, SE = 0.23, t(197) = 2.30, p = 0.022). Consistent with our predictions and the findings of study 1, participants in the high (vs. low) social class condition reported a higher willingness to try clean meat, but only among those with high levels (+1SD) of moral identity symbolization (β = 0.86, SE = 0.40, t(197) = 2.13, p = 0.034), not among those with low levels (–1SD) of moral identity symbolization (β = –0.46, SE = 0.40, t(197) = –1.14, p = 0.256). These findings provide further evidence for H1. The results are provided in Table 3.
Study 2 Moderation Analysis.
In order to test H2, a moderated mediation analysis was conducted using Model 14 in the PROCESS macro in SPSS with 5000 bootstrap resamples (Hayes, 2017). The independent variable was social class, the moderator was moral identity symbolization, the mediator was need for differentiation, and the dependent variable was willingness to try clean meat (cultured meat). We found a significant moderated-mediation index of the effect of socio-economic status (moderator: moral identity symbolization, mediator: need for differentiation) on willingness to try clean meat (β = 0.09, SE = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.002 to 0.207). This indirect relationship of social class through need for differentiation on willingness to try clean meat (cultured meat) was only significant when moral identity symbolization was high (β = 0.18, SE = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.013 to 0.408), but it was nonsignificant when moral identity symbolization was low (β = –0.04, SE = 0.07, 95% CI: −0.200 to 0.098). Therefore, H2 was supported. The results are provided in Table 4.
Study 2 Moderated Mediation Analysis.
General Discussion
This research examines the role of social class, the need for differentiation, and moral identity symbolization as key drivers of cultured meat adoption. In study 1, we demonstrate that consumers with higher socio-economic status are more willing to try cultured meat, particularly when they have a strong desire to be perceived as morally virtuous. Study 2 explores the psychological mechanism underlying this effect, revealing that individuals with higher social economic status have an intrinsic need to differentiate themselves from others, and when this is coupled with high moral identity symbolization, they avail opportunities to signal moral superiority to show their uniqueness. Consuming cultured meat has pro-social and pro-environmental outcomes thus signaling a moral choice (Nobre, 2022).
Theoretical Contributions
There are several theoretical contributions stemming from this research. First, and most importantly, through the theoretical lens of the diffusion of innovations model (Rogers, 2003), we extend the current body of research on the adoption of cultured meat by elucidating the psychological mechanisms through which social class influences the willingness to consume cultured meat. Rogers (2003) proposed that socio-economic status positively influences innovation adoption. In relation to the adoption of cultured meat, we identify moral identity symbolization as a moderator and the need for differentiation as a mediator of the effect of socio-economic status. By incorporating these two constructs that qualify and explain the role of socio-economic status, we offer a well-developed conceptual framework for understanding the adoption of cultured meat. Prior research has not examined the role of socio-economic status in motivating the consumption of cultured meat (Pakseresht et al., 2022).
Second, the literature on the impact of social class on behaviors that benefit society presents mixed findings. Some studies suggest a positive relationship (Korndörfer et al., 2015), while others report a negative effect (Kraus et al., 2012; Piff et al., 2010), and some indicate a neutral relationship (Van Doesum et al., 2017). Such mixed findings imply that there may be moderators that qualify the effects of social class on pro-sociality. This research identifies moral identity symbolization as a moderator in this context. Our findings provide evidence that social class can positively influence pro-social behavior such as cultured meat consumption, when there is high moral identity symbolization, thereby making a significant contribution through addressing the inconsistencies in the literature concerning how social class affects pro-social behavior.
Third, we extend the understanding of the role of social class in predicting and promoting sustainable consumption (e.g., Yan et al., 2021). Our findings provide clear evidence that socio-economic status can positively influence the willingness to consume cultured meat under specific conditions. This reinforces prior research that has shown that socio-economic status is an important macro variable that can affect sustainable and ethical consumer behavior (Chowdhury, 2023).
Fourth, while limited research has examined the role of social class in relation to shaping sustainable consumption (e.g., Yan et al., 2021), prior research has not identified the influence of moral identity symbolization on consumption patterns across different social classes. Our work contributes to the literature on social class and sustainable consumption by highlighting the role that moral identity plays in fostering sustainable behaviors, such as cultured meat consumption, among consumers from a higher social class.
Fifth, from a macromarketing perspective, this research demonstrates the role that social structures have in relation to consumption and marketing practices within marketing systems. Prior research in macromarketing shows that socio-economic status can influence sustainable and ethical consumer behavior (Chowdhury, 2023). This research extends the macromarketing literature on social structures and marketing/consumer behavior, by identifying the role of socio-economic status in enhancing cultured meat consumption. The research also contributes to the macromarketing literature on consumer ethics (e.g., Chowdhury, 2021; Hunt & Vitell 2006) by highlighting the key role of moral identity symbolization (Reed & Aquino 2003). Macromarketing scholarship is interested in the interaction between social structures and marketing/consumption (DeQuero-Navarro et al., 2021). Macromarketers also have a long-standing interest in ethical decision making in marketing contexts (DeQuero-Navarro et al., 2021). This research contributes to both these areas of macromarketing research.
Practical Implications
Drawing from our findings, several practical implications emerge for managers, policymakers, and consumers in the context of cultured meat adoption. For managers and policymakers, understanding the role of social class and moral identity symbolization in cultured meat acceptance suggests the need for targeted marketing and policy approaches. Policymakers should recognize that promoting cultured meat adoption may be more effective when initially targeting consumers with higher social class standing who also possess strong moral identity symbolization. This insight suggests that government initiatives should focus on emphasizing both the innovative and moral aspects of cultured meat consumption, particularly in affluent communities. Additionally, policymakers could develop educational programs that highlight how cultured meat consumption allows individuals to express their moral values through their food choices. Such programs could be particularly effective in high-income areas where residents are more likely to have both the resources and the desire to differentiate themselves through sustainable consumption choices.
More than 80% of the world's population live in middle income or low-income countries (Mahler et al., 2024). Animal protein, particularly poultry, continues to be an important source of cheap protein for consumers at the base of the pyramid (Vlaicu et al., 2024). Transforming their consumer behavior to cultured meat would reduce environmental degradation from factory farming and traditional livestock farming. However, the majority of these consumers are from lower socio-economic classes and, based on our findings, are unlikely to be innovators or early adopters of cultured meat. According to the diffusion of innovations model, high social class consumers tend to be opinion leaders (Rogers, 2003). Hence, by making cultured meat popular among high social class consumers, this will indirectly influence other groups such as the late majority, who mimic the behavior of innovators and early adopters. Furthermore, greater acceptance of cultured meat among higher social class consumers will also increase the observability of this food innovation, making it more understandable and psychologically aspirational among lower social class consumers (Rogers, 2003), many of whom may be bottom of the pyramid consumers. Greater demand for cultured meat should also lead to increased production and price reductions increasing the trialability of this innovation for consumers at the bottom of the pyramid.
For consumers, particularly for those with higher social class standing, our findings suggest that cultured meat consumption presents an opportunity to express moral values while distinguishing oneself as an early adopter of sustainable food technologies. The mediating role of the need for differentiation indicates that higher social class consumers, particularly those with high moral identity symbolization, view cultured meat consumption as a means of ethical self-expression and status signaling. This suggests that consumers who value moral identity symbolization should consider cultured meat adoption not only as a sustainable choice but also a way to demonstrate their commitment to environmental and ethical causes. Furthermore, the findings imply that consumers should reflect on how their social position and moral values interact to influence their food choices, particularly regarding novel sustainable food technologies such as cultured meat. This self-awareness could help consumers make more informed decisions that align with both their moral values and their desire for social distinction.
Limitations and Future Research Opportunities
There are a few limitations of this research. Firstly, this research is based on the assumption that cultured meat consumption is a positive moral behavior. However, we did not directly test this premise with consumers; this important caveat should be considered when assessing the findings. From a moral philosophical perspective, this research is based on utilitarian and deontological views on the ethicality of cultured meat consumption, both of which regard cultured meat consumption as morally commendable. However, virtue ethics has a more critical view of such food innovations (Alvaro, 2022). Since we did not empirically validate that cultured meat consumption is considered ethical by consumers, it is possible that certain participants in this research did not agree with this premise. Future research examining cultured meat consumption should empirically demonstrate, rather than just assume, that cultured meat consumption is synonymous with ethical consumption.
Secondly, our study focused on participants’ willingness to consume cultured meat rather than actual consumption behavior. Additionally, our sample consisted solely of US participants, potentially limiting the generalizability of our findings to other cultural contexts, where social class dynamics and attitudes toward new food technologies may differ. Moreover, our research relied on self-reported measures, which could be subject to social desirability bias, particularly when assessing moral identity. Furthermore, although participants were explicitly mentioned that this research is related to the evaluation of meat, we did not directly ask whether participants were non-vegetarians, vegetarians, or vegans.
Future research could explore several promising directions to enhance our understanding of the adoption of cultured meat. While our study highlighted the role of the need for differentiation among individuals from higher social classes, researchers may investigate how the need for assimilation influences cultured meat acceptance among individuals from other social groups, particularly those who prioritize conformity over distinctiveness. Although we identify moral identity symbolization and the need for differentiation as key mechanisms explaining the influence of socio-economic status on cultured meat acceptance, other factors, such as food neophobia, environmental consciousness etc., as well as their potential interactions with social class may offer additional insights into adoption patterns.
As cultured meat becomes commercially available, longitudinal studies tracking actual adoption behaviors would provide valuable insights into the gap between intentions and actions. These could be conducted separately with non-vegetarians, vegetarians, and vegans. Researchers may also explore how social class interacts with other demographic variables, such as age and cultural background, to influence sustainable food choices. The interaction of social class with religious orientation is also a fruitful area of future investigation, as religious orientations affect cultured meat acceptance (Arli et al., 2025).
Cultured meat is one type of sustainable food innovation and there are several other examples of such innovations including plant-based meats, fungal based protein (mycoproteins), insect protein etc. (Akermi et al., 2025; Dean et al., 2022). Future research can examine the role of social structures and ethical identifies in relation to the adoption of other types of sustainable food innovations and can validate whether the findings of this research are generalizable to other types of sustainable food innovations. Validating these findings across several types of sustainable food innovations can be a building block toward a general theory of the adoption of sustainable food innovations.
Finally, cultured meat consumption deserves further scrutiny from a virtue ethics viewpoint. Virtue ethicists are concerned with the self-indulgence aspect of cultured meat consumption (Alvaro, 2019). However, cultured meat consumption may encourage virtues of compassion and caring (for animals and the environment), indicating that the virtue ethics perspective may be more nuanced than currently envisioned.
Footnotes
Associate Editor
Alexander Nill
Statements and Declarations
This study was approved by the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (approval no. 2024/HE001698) on 23/08/2024. A participation information sheet was provided to all participants and we received consent. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council (DE220100100).The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Research data will be shared upon reasonable request.