The study adopted a quantitative cross-sectional design to measure perceptions of, and key FCM and barriers influencing the adoption of PBMAs within specific consumer subgroups.

UK adults, aged 18 or older, were recruited via physical and electronic poster, social media platforms, virtual learning environment messaging to students at Sheffield Hallam University and other convenience sampling methods. Respondents were invited to complete an online questionnaire, distributed via Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) to facilitate data collection across a larger geographical location. Published literature and validated tools informed the design of the study questionnaire (Clark and Bogdan, 2019; Food Standards Agency, 2022; Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991; Knaapila et al., 2022; Estell et al., 2021; Onwezen et al., 2019). The initial questionnaire was pre-tested with a small sample (n = 10) and feedback was gathered regarding the participants’ ability to understand and interpret the questions as intended. Small adjustments were then made (e.g., refinement of wording) before the final questionnaire was distributed to ensure clarity and promote validity (see Supplementary material S1). Data collection was conducted between June 2022 and September 2023. A total of 454 eligible participants attempted the questionnaire. The data were cleaned for obvious errors and any biologically implausible and contradictory data were removed. From the 447 remaining responses, 325 were deemed valid for analysis based on participants answering any question beyond the demographic information section of the questionnaire. This sample size is comparable with that used within similar studies (Clark and Bogdan, 2019; Culliford and Bradbury, 2020; Lea et al., 2006). Table 1 presents an overview of participant characteristics.

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Sheffield Hallam University (Date 23/05/22; Reference ER41114039). All participants provided informed consent before completing the online questionnaire which was divided into four subsections (described in sections 2.3.1–2.3.4). A definition was provided to ensure participants understood what types of plant-based foods constitute PBMAs and participants were exposed to a series of familiarisation tasks at the start of the questionnaire.

IBM SPSS Statistics, version 26 (SPSS Inc., Chicago) was used to undertake all statistical analyses. Similar to other published literature, Roger’s adopter groups were recoded into four subgroups: Innovators/Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority and Laggards (Mahajan et al., 1990).

Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated that the data were not normally distributed and therefore, non-parametric methods were used. Descriptive statistics were used to measure central tendency, variation and frequencies. Pearson chi-squared tests were conducted to explore the association between adopter subgroups and the frequency of consumption of PBMA and meat-based products. Friedman Rank tests were conducted to identify the relative importance of FCM and barriers to PBMA adoption within the adopter subgroups. Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted to identify any significant differences in the perceptions of plant-based burger, “chicken” and sausage products, the key factors driving individual food choice and barriers impacting adoption of PBMA products across different consumer subgroups. Where appropriate, Dunn’s post-hoc tests with Bonferroni adjustment were performed to make comparisons between each pairing of groups. For example, whether Innovators/Early Adopters were more likely to perceive plant-based burger products as “cheaper” than their meat-based equivalents versus Laggards or whether taste was considered a significantly greater barrier to adoption of PBMAs within the Late Majority versus the Early Majority. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 for all tests.

Figure 2 displays the frequency with which respondents engage with both PBMA and meat-based products across consumer subgroups and highlights prior consumption and intended future consumption of PBMA product categories. Pearson chi-squared tests revealed a significant association between adopter subgroup and the frequency of PBMA consumption (X²(12) = 84.980, p < 0.001), meat consumption (X²(12) = 28.487, p = 0.005) and previous consumption of plant-based burger (X²(3) = 33.417, p < 0.001), “chicken” (X²(3) = 30.793, p < 0.001) and sausage (X²(3) = 19.426, p < 0.001) products. Laggards reported lower consumption of PBMA (Figure 2A) and greater consumption of meat-based products (Figure 2B) versus other consumer subgroups. For example, approximately 70% of Laggards indicated they had never/rarely consumed PBMA products. Conversely, Innovators/Early Adopters, Early Majority and Late Majority demonstrated more frequent consumption of PBMA products. Not unexpectedly, the same Roger’s subcategories also reported they are already consuming plant-based burger, “chicken” and sausage products more frequently than Laggards (Figure 2C). However, Laggards concurrently expressed a willingness to try for the first time or consume more of these products.

Kruskal-Wallis tests demonstrated significant differences for all perception measures across the Roger’s adopter categories. Dunn’s post hoc tests with Bonferroni adjustment revealed PBMAs were generally perceived more favourable in individuals who are more predisposed to adopt PBMAs (Figures 3–5). For example, plant-based burgers (Figure 3, VI), “chicken” (Figure 4, VI) and sausage (Figure 5, VI) products were perceived to be comparatively tastier than their meat-based equivalent among Innovators/Early Adopters and Early Majority versus the Late Majority and Laggards (all p < 0.05). Similarly, plant-based “chicken” products were significantly less likely to be perceived as cheaper than their meat-equivalents among Laggards versus the Innovators/Early Adopters, Early Majority and Late majority (Figure 4, V; p = 0.001, p = <0.001, p = 0.002, respectively).

The current study provides evidence to support the application of the domain-specific innovation tool to segment consumers into categories that align with Roger’s DOI theory in the context of PBMA products. For example, Innovators/Early Adopters (more predisposed to adopt PBMAs) reported more frequent PBMA consumption compared to later adopter subgroups. Conversely, Laggards (characterised as more resistant to adoption of PBMAs) demonstrated comparatively less frequent PBMA consumption and more regular consumption of meat-based products. However, our findings also indicate that Laggards concurrently expressed a willingness to try PBMAs. This is difficult to explain because Laggards are typically considered the least receptive to behaviour change. Indeed, Szejda et al. (2020) recommended directing PBMA marketing resources away from this subgroup to improve efficacy. However, Owusu-Antwi and Amenuvor (2023) suggested that despite their initial resistance, Laggards can become valuable advocates for innovations once they successfully engage. Thus, further research, using qualitative methods, is required to better understand the motives underpinning Laggards intention to try PBMAs.

While PBMA products may offer a steppingstone toward healthier more sustainable dietary patterns, manufacturers face significant challenges regarding product acceptability (Andreani et al., 2023; Caputo et al., 2024). In addition, market data indicates that consumer adoption of these products is less ubiquitous (Mintel, 2023). Radical transformation of global food systems to meet challenging health and sustainability targets demands a significant step-change to accelerate adoption of PBMA products. This requires a greater understanding of the needs and barriers that influence key consumer subgroups to inform more effective manufacturing and marketing strategies. Therefore, if primed with resources and opportunities, these change groups have the potential to accelerate the rate of adoption and promote sustained population-level behaviour change.

Our findings demonstrated Innovators/ Early Adopters and Early Majority consistently perceived plant-based burgers, “chicken” and sausage alternatives to be tastier than their meat-based equivalents in contrast to the Late Majority and Laggards. While it is impossible to know why, it may be that individuals within Innovators/ Early Adopters and Early Majority subgroups are more familiar with PBMA products due to an increased exposure within the adoption cycle. The influence of familiarity on product acceptability is well documented (Faber et al., 2024; Fiorentini et al., 2020; Giacalone et al., 2022) and previous studies have demonstrated repeated exposure and habitual consumption of PBMAs to have a positive influence on consumer acceptability (Hoek et al., 2013; Neville et al., 2017).

Another possible explanation could be the distinctive characteristics of different adopter subgroups. Innovators/Early Adopters and Early Majority are typically described as more adventurous and may therefore be more attracted to the novelty of PBMAs (Dearing, 2009; Gonera et al., 2021; Szejda et al., 2021). For example, Mullee et al. (2017) identified that “new tastes” were a key driver toward vegetarian food consumption. Alternately, the Late Majority and Laggards are more risk-averse than other groups and are often considered to be skeptical toward innovative change (Bernstein and Singh, 2008; Mahajan and Muller, 1998). This resistance might be rooted in individual food neophobia and/or meat attachment both of which have been noted to have a significant negative impact on acceptance of PBMAs (Appiani et al., 2023; Graça et al., 2019; Rini et al., 2024). However, it is important to note that our study did not investigate these variables, and future research may be warranted to explore the influence of these characteristics on consumer perception of PBMAs within adopter subgroups.

Our findings also highlighted a degree of variability regarding other perceptions between adopter groups. However, PBMA products were generally perceived to be more favourable than their meat-based counterparts among subgroups more predisposed to adopt PBMA products (e.g., Innovators/Early Adopters and Early Majority) versus later adopter subgroups (e.g., Late Majority and Laggards). Given the current debate surrounding “ultra-processed foods” (Astrup and Monteiro, 2022), it is surprising that PBMA products, which are typically ultra-processed, were perceived to be more natural than their meat-based counterparts (in Innovators/Early Adopters and Early Majority versus later adopter subgroups). Our findings may be attributed to the so-called health halo surrounding these products whereby the purported benefits associated with traditional plant-based dietary patterns are ascribed to PBMAs (Tso and Forde, 2021). For example, previous studies have highlighted the term “plant-based” and/or “vegetarianism” to be perceived as inherently healthy, natural and environmentally friendly (Ang et al., 2023; Sucapane et al., 2021; Wickramasinghe et al., 2021).

Our findings highlighted that all groups prioritised sensory appeal, health, and affordability when making dietary choices. Segmentation enabled the identification of the most important FCM within Roger’s adopter subgroups. Both the Early Majority and Late Majority demonstrated the same ranked order, with sensory appeal being the most salient motive followed by health and affordability, respectively. This is interesting as these two groups constitute a large majority (over two thirds) of the sample population. Thus, if they can be jointly targeted with evidence-informed intervention strategies, the rate of change might be accelerated. In addition, once the majority of the two groups have moved to greater PBMA adoption, the process will have reached the so-called “tipping point” meaning that further change should be self-sustaining (Aschemann-Witzel and Schulze, 2023).

While food choice is multifaceted, it is not surprising that sensorial quality is widely recognised as a salient determinant of individual choice (Drewnowski and Monsivais, 2020; Onwezen and Dagevos, 2024). A recent International Food Information Council (2024) survey indicated that taste was ranked the most important driver of food purchasing. Hence, ensuring PBMA products offer a desirable sensory experience, particularly regarding taste and texture, is crucial in achieving consumer acceptance (Appiani et al., 2023; Caputo et al., 2023). This reinforces the need for improved product development strategies to promote adoption across the consumer population.

Our findings corroborate previous research highlighting health motives as a key determinant of general food choice (Culliford and Bradbury, 2020; Jaeger and Giacalone, 2021). PBMAs are often perceived to be healthier than their meat-equivalents and health is frequently cited as a key driver of consumer engagement (Beacom et al., 2021; Dean et al., 2024; Erfanian et al., 2023; Giacalone et al., 2022). In addition, consumers often evaluate product healthiness based on product packaging and credence attributes (Ang et al., 2023; Baptista and Schifferstein, 2023; Ketelings et al., 2023). However, although manufacturers often market PBMAs as superior versus their meat-based equivalents (Appiani et al., 2023; Boukid, 2021), investigation of the health outcomes associated with displacing meat with PBMAs is currently limited (Del Bo et al., 2024; Flint et al., 2023; Santo et al., 2020). Thus, future research is required to understand the specific health benefits associated with PBMAs to facilitate marketing strategies and promote informed adoption.

The importance of affordability may be amplified by the current cost-of-living crisis with recent data highlighting an increase in the degree to which food price determines individual food choice (Skalkos and Kalyva, 2023). Graça et al. (2019) reported that consumers may choose plant-based proteins if they are considered a cheaper alternative to meat. However, the current premium price of PBMAs, coupled with the perception meat is better value for money may restrict consumer engagement (Clark and Bogdan, 2019; Giacalone et al., 2022).

Surprisingly, familiarity received a relatively lower ranking within all adopter categories despite being widely recognised to have a positive influence on consumer adoption of PBMAs (Jahn et al., 2021; Malek and Umberger, 2023; Onwezen and Dagevos, 2024). In addition, the relative importance of altruistic motives within subgroups (animal welfare and environmental friendliness) declined across adopter subgroups with significant variation observed between Innovators/Early Adopters and Early Majority versus Laggards.

These findings suggest that individuals more predisposed to adopt PBMAs place greater importance on ethical motives. Animal and environmental welfare have previously been reported as motives among consumers of PBMA products (Beacom et al., 2021; Hoek et al., 2011; Knaapila et al., 2022) and individuals who are seeking to transition from a meat- to plant-based diet (Bryant et al., 2019; Faber et al., 2024; Hielkema and Lund, 2021). Furthermore, Gonera et al. (2021) suggested that “flexitarian” and those “open to vegetarian foods” aligned with Roger’s Innovator/Early Adopter categories and considered animal and environmental welfare to be important determinants of food choice. Alternately, Laggards may have lower awareness of the environmental impact involved in meat production and the ethical benefits of PBMAs. Several studies cite lack of awareness as a key barrier to increased plant-based consumption among meat eaters (Hartmann and Siegrist, 2017; Jahn et al., 2021). However, conclusive evidence regarding the negative environmental impact of meat production, may demonstrate cognitive dissonance, ignoring the facts in favour of personal convenience (Onwezen and Dagevos, 2024; Rothgerber, 2020; Sanchez-Sabate and Sabaté, 2019). It is important to note that while altruistic drivers may have some influence on individual food choice, they are not recognised as key drivers for adoption of PBMAs (Neff et al., 2018; Szejda and Parry, 2020). Thus, manufacturers should prioritise sensory appeal, health and affordability when promoting PBMA products.

Similar to FCM, the top three barriers influencing adoption of PBMA products were ranked identically within both the Early Majority and Late Majority subgroups. Both groups cited degree of processing, cost and taste as key barriers against adoption. This further reinforces the potential for manufacturers to accelerate the rate of change across a large majority through tailored future product development and marketing strategies.

Cost was identified as one of the most important barriers to adopting PBMAs within all adopter subgroups. Our findings add to the current body of evidence identifying the negative association between affordability and willingness to engage with PBMAs (Caputo et al., 2024; Knaapila et al., 2022; Michel et al., 2021a; Szenderák et al., 2022). This reinforces the urgent need to address the discrepancy between the cost of meat-based and PBMA products (Jahn et al., 2021; Szenderák et al., 2022), particularly considering affordability was also noted a key motive driving food choice behaviour within all subgroups.

Our finding that degree of processing was ranked the top barrier to adoption of PBMAs within all subgroups apart from the Laggards highlights the current debate regarding ultra-processing (Pagliai et al., 2021; Wickramasinghe et al., 2021). This aligns with previous published findings which report the extensive processing involved in simulating meat-like properties has led to these products being labeled “unnatural” and “too processed” (Clark and Bogdan, 2019; Estell et al., 2021; Ford et al., 2024). The considerable list of complex ingredients may also compromise the perceived healthiness of PBMAs (Birke Rune et al., 2022; Caputo et al., 2024; Giacalone et al., 2022) and trigger neophobia (Abe-Inge et al., 2024; Alcorta et al., 2021). In addition, the adverse health outcomes associated with ultra-processing have led to consumer skepticism (Bogueva et al., 2022; Hartmann et al., 2022) and contradict the “better for you,” “better for the planet” motive (Boukid, 2021; Estévez et al., 2024; van der Weele et al., 2019). Thus, manufacturers should address food manufacturing practice to promote use of natural ingredients and novel processing techniques which do not compromise any associated health benefits.

Paradoxically, extensive processing is often used to enhance consumer experience and simulate organoleptic characteristics of meat-equivalents (Appiani et al., 2023; Sha and Xiong, 2020). Therefore, manufacturers must manage the crucial balance between healthier processing techniques and demand for desirable sensory quality. While our findings identified sensory appeal to be a key motive of food choice, negative sensory experience is widely cited as a major barrier to adoption of PBMAs (Faber et al., 2024; Fiorentini et al., 2020; Giacalone et al., 2022). Thus, it is unsurprising that taste was ranked within the top three barriers to adopting PBMAs in all groups apart from Innovators/Early Adopters. Our findings thus support the results of previous studies examining both consumers perceived and actual sensory evaluation of PBMAs which have consistently identified the challenge in delivering desirable substitutes for conventional meat and the need to address the sensorial quality (Ettinger et al., 2022; Flint et al., 2025; Hoek et al., 2011; Michel et al., 2021b).

Our findings also demonstrated taste to be perceived as a significantly greater barrier within Laggards versus Innovators/Early Adopters and the Early Majority. A possible explanation could be a reluctance to reduce meat consumption among Laggards who may also demonstrate greater meat attachment and may thus be more likely to reject the perceived inferior sensorial properties of PBMAs. Notably, existing literature highlights that meat-eaters and individuals with greater meat-attachment are comparably less tolerant of PBMAs sensorial quality (Appiani et al., 2023; Bryant et al., 2019; Michel et al., 2021b). Future research is warranted to further understand the sensorial evaluation of PBMAs within adopter subgroups to support evidence-based development of PBMA products, thus ensuring a positive sensory experience which meets consumer needs.

The current study demonstrated the Late Majority to perceive familiarity as a significantly greater barrier to the adoption of PBMA products compared to the Early Majority. Thus, any variation could be exploited to further drive adoption. Previous research indicates peer influence and convenience may also play a role in determining familiarity (Kuosmanen et al., 2023; Sijtsema et al., 2022). Our study found that both convenience and the dietary behaviour of other household members was a significantly greater barrier to adoption of PBMAs for Laggards compared to earlier adopter groups. This further reinforces the need for a greater understanding of how increased familiarity may influence adoption of PBMAs and inform effective strategies to achieve this.

Our study identified pivotal factors influencing subgroups more predisposed to adopt PBMAs. This may enable the development of interventions that bridge the “chasm” and thus facilitate increased adoption of PBMAs within the Early Majority subgroup. Such approaches may have the potential to rapidly accelerate sustainable adoption across the wider population. Our findings highlight the need for manufacturers to address the sensorial and health quality of PBMA products while considering their degree of processing and affordability. Once the Early Majority begin to adopt PBMAs, the rate of change accelerates rapidly; reaching the “tipping point.” After this, further adoption throughout the consumer population becomes self-sustaining. Notably, the two largest subgroups in our sample (Early Majority and Late Majority) demonstrated identical ranking for the key FCM and barriers to adoption of PBMAs. As these two subgroups comprise a large proportion of the sample population, the development of evidence-based interventions that target both these groups may have the potential to accelerate adoption of PBMAs across the wider consumer population.

Effective and sustainable population-level behaviour change requires a coordinated, multifaceted approach including a wide range of stakeholders. The food industry should give consideration to identifying novel processing techniques that improve sensorial quality of PBMA products without compromising any associated nutritional and health benefits. In addition, comprehensive evaluation of the nutritional profile of PBMAs versus their meat-equivalents could also identify opportunities to enhance their health value. This would support clear nutritional labeling to promote informed consumer choice. Manufacturers should also utilise marketing strategies that highlight desirable sensorial qualities and health credence claims. For example, use of descriptive language to draw on familiar meat-like characteristics (Szejda and Parry, 2020). Public health bodies should consider targeted education campaigns to improve consumer understanding regarding the adverse consequences associated with overconsumption of meat (particularly red and processed products) and the benefits of PBMAs in facilitating the transition from a meat-to plant-based diet. While current agricultural subsidies support excessive production of low-cost meat, no subsidies are provided for PBMAs, which may contribute to the lack of price parity and reduced market competitiveness of these products (Bryant Research, 2024). Given the importance attributed to affordability, government should consider fiscal policies such as a meat tax (Bryant et al., 2024; Kmeťková et al., 2025) and subsidies on PBMA products (Ford et al., 2024; Michel et al., 2021a; Onwezen and Dagevos, 2024). Such financial incentives have the potential to support the development of more affordable PBMAs while an increase in the price of meat-based products may help to position PBMAs as an attractive substitute for their meat-based equivalents. Improved accessibility of PBMAs may also facilitate increased exposure and willingness to purchase. Such evidence-based practice may facilitate sustainable population-level behaviour change and support public health and climate change agendas.

The current study has several limitations which should be acknowledged. Firstly, while convenience sampling was used to overcome logistical constraints, this method increases the risk of self-selection bias with individuals interested in the topic being more likely to participate. Consistent with existing literature our sample included a large proportion of females and highly educated individuals, sociodemographic characteristics noted to influence consumer perceptions and engagement with PBMAs (Beacom et al., 2021; Culliford and Bradbury, 2020). This limits the representability and thus extrapolation of our findings to the wider population. Nevertheless, the distribution of our sample was comparable to the distribution of the established adopter categories outlined in Roger’s (2003) DOI theory. Future research should apply probability sampling techniques to ensure more diverse samples and improve the generalisability of findings.

The cross-sectional nature of our study is limited to correlative analysis and does not consider changes in consumer perceptions and behaviour over time. Furthermore, self-reported data may have a negative impact on external validity. For example, through social desirability bias, under or over-reporting attitudes/behaviours and the discrepancy between perceptions and behaviour. Future experimental and observational studies are warranted to address this “attitude-behaviour-gap.” For example, conducting longitudinal studies to monitor changes in consumer’s attitudes toward and adoption of PBMAs over time. While the Food Choice Questionnaire is a validated tool for measurement of general FCM, it is not contextualised to PBMA products. Thus, future studies should consider measuring PBMA-specific motives in addition to additional characteristics not measured in the current study that may also influence the adoption of PBMA products (e.g., food neophobia and meat-attachment). Finally, the importance attributed to the sensorial and health quality of PBMAs warrants more comprehensive audits of the nutritional value, degree of processing and healthiness of commercially available PBMA versus meat-based equivalents to promote consumer literacy and identify opportunities to improve their health value. Meanwhile, sensory evaluation studies are required to understand consumer acceptability and characterisation of plant-versus meat-based equivalents across a broad range of product categories to facilitate the production of sensorially desirable PBMAs.