A study on consumer perception of seitan as a meat substitute in Bacoor, Cavite

Hospitalite, Volume 7, May 2023 41 A study on consumer perception of seitan as a meat substitute in Bacoor, Cavite Levy Jon G. Rafols*, Jerikco Miguel B. Capistrano, Frank Vincent Dalena, Carla Therese S. Medina, Wendell L. Galapate Hospitality Management Department, School of International Hospitality and Tourism Management, St. Dominic College of Asia, Bacoor, Cavite, Philippines *Corresponding author Abstract This study is focused on seitan as a meat alternative, which is also called 'wheat meat', as the researchers found that it is one of the unpopular meat substitutes in the Philippines. This study used the quantitative method with fifty (50) respondents to yield more reliable results. The targeted respondents are sixteen (16) years of age and older and are members of the vegan/vegetarian groups on the social media platform Facebook. Through the knowledge and experiences of the respondents, the researchers looked forward to a result that favors the existence of seitan in the Filipino market and diet through this research. This study is also one of the few research studies about seitan, which is also why the researchers decided to pursue this study, with a goal to introduce and gain perspective towards the consumers’ perceptions towards the said meat alternative. Keywords: Meat alternatives; Vegetarian; Filipino; Seitan; Meat. To cite this article: Rafols, L. J. G., Capistrano, J. M. B., Dalena, F. V., Medina, C. T. S., & Galapate, W. L. (2023). A study on consumer perception of seitan as a meat substitute in Bacoor, Cavite. Hospitalite, 6, 4152. Introduction Meat of various kinds has been a major part of the human diet ever since. There is ample archaeological evidence that by two million years ago the first homo species were actively eating meat on a regular basis (Zaraska, 2016). However, several health concerns are linked to meat consumption, especially nowadays. This includes heart diseases, stroke, unsafe cholesterol, and even cancer (Loria, 2017). These are the dangers that many individuals do not realize each time they consume meat, especially when it is getting too much. These days, the basic relentless and fast-paced lifestyle of the people has become the norm, resulting in unmoderated meat consumption, particularly for processed meats that are sold anywhere. Eating instant meals and the expanding number of quick-service or fast-food restaurants have been patronized by most of the Filipinos as well. According to the National Nutrition Council (NNC), it is stated that a normal Filipino just consumes 110 grams of vegetables daily, which is very low compared to the suggested consumption of the World Health Organization of 400 grams every day. This proves that Filipinos are 290 grams short when it comes to the consumption of vegetables, which cannot be entirely filled up through meat alone (Uy, 2012). To address this issue, numerous ways and solutions have been invented and used by some people to stay healthy; one of these is having substitutes or alternatives for meat. There are already a lot of meat substitutes existing in the market now, such as tofu, soy proteins, legumes, and fruit-based substitutes such as eggplants and jackfruits. These alternatives or substitutes are meat-like substances that are usually plant-based, and each has individual attributes that differ from each other based on texture, flavor, appearance, and nutritional content. Hospitalite, Volume 7, May 2023 42 However, this study only focuses on seitan, which is also called ‘wheat meat’ because it is impressively like the looks and texture of the real meat and packed with the same number of proteins as animal meat, as according to a nutritionist, Wynnie Chan, “A three-ounce serving usually contains between 15 and 21 grams of protein, which is roughly equivalent to the amounts in chicken or beef.” Seitan is also a source of vitamins such as iron, potassium, and lots of B vitamins while being low in cholesterol, making it an incredibly good meat substitute (Kondal, 2020). Seitan Seitan, or what is also known as wheat gluten, has been made available since the 6th century in China. It has become a popular meat substitute among Chinese, especially those who practice Buddhism. It is produced by washing wheat flour dough with water until all that is left is sticky, insoluble gluten. After that, it is cooked accordingly before being presented as meat. Wheat gluten has been called differently, such as bo duo and mian jin, but it was not until 1961 that it was called seitan by George Ohsawa, a known advocate of a macrobiotic diet. In Japanese, the word sei means "made of," and the word tan means "protein," deriving its name, Seitan. In 1962, the wheat gluten was being sold as seitan in Japan and began importation to the West in 1969 (Grogan, 2011). Seitan can be made in two ways. First, you can make it from wheat flour by watering the flour and kneading it under running water to remove the starch, leaving only the gluten part. After that, it is cut into pieces and cooked. The other way to make it is by using vital wheat gluten. The gluten flour is being rehydrated to form the gluten and then cooked (Kondal, 2020). The second way of making seitan meat is the one being practiced nowadays since it is easier and less time-consuming. Once the gluten part is obtained, it is then cooked, mostly by simply adding soy sauce to the gluten. But since our taste preference is evolving and how easily one can make seitan at home, some reinvent it by cooking it according to their taste preference, especially those who are patronizing seitan as a meat substitute. Seitan has been tagged as the “chameleon in the vegetarian kitchen” (Grogan, 2011). Just like how a chameleon hides itself in the environment, seitan can also hide itself from all the other meat. What makes seitan popular is how it closely resembles the texture and taste of a true meat, such as chicken or pork. It is also why it is called “mock meat.” A lot of Chinese restaurants are using seitan on their menus, and you cannot even notice it. Seitan’s rich and flavorful taste comes from the natural umami that gluten has, and the way it is cooked makes it tastier. Seitan, when cooked, is moist and easy to chew, making it more relatively common to other meats. And since it can be cooked in many ways, some have developed their own style, such as the Western style, of cooking seitan, such as cutlets, roasts, and loaves. Many recipes for seitan are now also available if one chooses to practice this kind of diet (Schösler et al., 2012). Seitan has been an emerging meat substitute because of its many advantages over the other meat substitutes, such as tofu and tempeh. Seitan is high in protein but low in carbs and gives just the right number of calories. It is also fatty and cholesterol-free, making it a healthier alternative to meat. Protein is essential to our body because it helps in building muscles and tissues, and because of its high protein level, anyone consuming it can still maintain their daily protein intake. However, it lacks essential amino acids and lysine, but we can easily solve this by adding lysine-rich food to our diet. Seitan is easy to cook and can be incorporated in any menu. It is also the best choice for vegans who are allergic to soy-based products. The only downside of seitan is that since it is made from gluten, people who are allergic or have gluten intolerance cannot choose this as a meat substitute. Also, long-term consumption of pure seitan can result in a person developing celiac disease, an autoimmune disease caused by the consumption of gluten. If one chooses seitan as a substitute for meat, it is important to only consume this in moderation incorporated with a balanced diet. Also, when planning to buy locally produced seitan meat, make sure to read the nutritional facts in lieu of the fact that the protein and caloric content differ from one manufacturer to the other. Hospitalite, Volume 7, May 2023 43 According to Bhisey (2022), the seitan market continues to grow in the meat industry. Based on their study, a lot of people are shifting to a vegetarian or plant-based diet, which results in the large consumption of seitan. Because of the increasing demand for plant-based food around the globe, the Seitan market has been developed. With a lot of manufacturers participating in the seitan market, producing different varieties of seitan such as chorizo, bacon, and beefless beef, there are now a lot of choices to choose from. Some companies even upgrade their play by creating their “upgraded” versions of seitan, such as adding vitamin B-12 or producing a flavored version of seitan. Restaurants have also taken part in the seitan market by adding seitan to their menu. These include burgers, hotdogs, tacos, and even pizza made from seitan. Given the increase in demand for seitan, there are also some who penetrate the e-commerce industry, providing online sales channels for seitan. With all this, the seitan market creates significant growth in the meat industry. And with all the people shifting to a healthy lifestyle because of the rising health concerns nowadays, Seitan has become one of the major players in the market. The Filipinos are known as meat-loving people. Sometimes it is hard to become a vegetarian/vegan in the Philippines. Also, since it is made up of different islands and fish is available everywhere, seitan availability differs from one place to another. Another thing is that Filipinos are known to eat flavorful foods. With the abundance of different spices, it is easy for us to add any flavor that we want to the food we eat. Having the perception that veggie meats have a bland taste, it is sometimes hard to introduce seitan to Filipinos. However, we are also open to changes, considering that various kinds of diseases trigger not only the elders but young ones, as well as a lot of Filipinos are shifting to a healthier choice. According to Vila (2020), veganism is becoming known in the Philippines because information about its benefits is made available through social media. Since Filipinos are known to use social media more often than they read books or magazines, online information about vegans and seitan is becoming known. Nowadays, vegan groups have created their own pages on Facebook to make their presence known, such as the Manila Vegans group, which continues to rise in numbers despite being in a country that loves meat dishes. This shows that we Filipinos are knowledgeable about the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Although some may not follow a strict plant-based diet, they still have the perception of what living a vegan life can do to them. This also gave rise to the opening of different vegan stores in the Philippines, both local and online. There are also some vegan restaurants, particularly in Makati, such as the Greenery Kitchen and Green Bar and online applications like Happy Cow, which provides a list of vegan dining in the Philippines. In France, there is a study about popularizing veganism with food blogs (Véron, 2016). It says that being vegan has been ignored by the public because they think that it is just something that ‘hippies’ love. But because food blogs are being made available online and on television channels, people are now aware of what it is and how it can contribute to them. This practice can also be used in the Philippines to gain the needed vegan perception about seitan. Through food blogs, online ads and articles, and the availability of seitan through local markets, Filipinos can gain more knowledge regarding this product. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) The researchers chose to use the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) model to conduct our study. Previous studies on the acceptance of organic food have been done using TRA as well (Li & Xin, 2015; Myresten & Setterhall, 2015; Padel & Foster, 2005), and it is one of the most widely used models in consumer behavior research (Petrovici, 2014). The subject of organic food is closely related to plant-based food, in that it is healthier and more sustainable than the conventional product (Li & Xin, 2015; Myresten & Setterhall, 2015; Baumann et al., 2017). In two previous studies (Myresten & Setterhall, 2015; Li & Xin, 2015), the principle of Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) was used from Fishbein and Ajzen in 1975. The basic model that they produced is that a consumer’s behavior intention, which is closely related to behavior, is influenced by a person’s attitude and subjective norm. Those two factors are independent from each other, and if they are positive, a person’s intention to purchase increases. This means if a person’s attitude and entourage towards a certain product is positive, that person will be more likely to purchase said product. Hospitalite, Volume 7, May 2023 44 Statement of the Problem This study was undertaken to determine the vegan perception to seitan as meat substitute in Bacoor, Cavite. Specifically, it sought to answer the following question: 1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of: 1.1 Gender 1.2 Age 1.3 Income 1.4 Education 1.5 Occupation 1.6 Diet 2. What are the driving factors and barriers influencing consumers’ behavior towards seitan? Methodology Research Design The aim of the study was to identify the different drivers and barriers towards plant-based meat (seitan meat) from a consumer behavior point of view. The method used is explanatory sequential design, according to the guidelines described by Bryman and Bell (2019). This is done with two different goals: the demographics of the respondents, which are under the quantitative part of this study for validation and better categorization, as well as the rating part of the questionnaire to Seitan based on the vegan’s perception. Population and Sample For the focus group, the researchers decided to try and get a broad spectrum of the people. The researchers managed to get a group together consisting of five subjects, two females and three males. They are between the ages of 20 and 75 and from different educational backgrounds. The researchers conducted a meeting of about 30 minutes. The researchers then asked the respondents to taste-test to find out if the respondents think that the meat substitute is just like real meat. The researchers decided to have 50 respondents for this study. These participants are randomly selected from the vegetarian groups that are focused on seitan from the social media platform called Facebook to acquire the target sample size of 50 respondents. This number can also yield quality results without being too redundant for the study. Purposive sampling is used as the sampling technique for the identification and selection of information-rich cases for the most effective use of limited resources (Palinkas et al., 2015; Patton, 2015). Instrumentation This study used a mixed method, which uses both the quantitative and qualitative methods in gathering data. The researchers did a quantitative analysis to get a large amount of data. In this part, the researchers used a deductive approach, one of the methods for quantitative studies. A deductive approach is taken when researchers want to test a theory. To collect the data, the researchers used a survey. The goal was to find out what motivates the customers to buy meat and dairy alternatives and what barriers increase the gap between customers’ behavior intentions and their actual behavior. “A quantitative study is a data collection technique that generates or uses numerical data” (Saunders et al., 2019). Hospitalite, Volume 7, May 2023 45 The researchers made use of it to get a comprehensive understanding of consumers’ behavior towards seitan meat. The questionnaire is structured, with a few single-answer questions to get background information at the beginning and the end. Most of the questions are matrix questions, where respondents are asked to rank a certain statement from 1 to 7 according to the Likert scale. This made it possible for us later to attribute weights to each one of our factors. Our survey was inspired very much from Myresten and Setterhall’s (2015) work, which used the TRA model to investigate people’s behavior towards organic foods. The table of interpretation that researchers used are as follows: Table 1. Table of interpretation Range Verbal Interpretation 6.17 - 7.00 Strongly Agree 5.31 - 6.16 Agree 4.45 - 5.30 Somewhat Agree 3.59 - 4.44 Neutral 2.73 - 3.58 Somewhat Disagree 1.87 - 2.72 Disagree 1.00 - 1.86 Strongly Disagree Data Gathering Procedure Conducting a survey online through Facebook was done by the researchers to gather data from the participants. The questionnaires are sent to the participants who passed the criteria of this research, which are: being an adult (age 18 and above) from Bacoor, Cavite, and being vegetarian (which is solely based on being a member of a vegetarian group focused on seitan in Facebook). With purposive sampling, the researchers relied on their own judgment to choose the members of the population to participate in the study. The researchers made sure that any data gathered from the respondent would undergo the Data Policy Act of the Philippines. Results and Discussion Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the respondents. Eighteen (18) respondents, which is the majority, said that they are omnivorous which means they eat both meat and vegetables which garnered a total of 36% from the overall number of the respondents. This can be supported by the fact that the Philippines is one of the fastest growing in the world as meat eaters according to Jamie Plotnek (Salazar, 2016). This number is followed by 13 respondents who said they live a vegan lifestyle, meaning they avoid dairy, eggs, and any animal-derived products. The lowest indicator is ‘Pescatarian’ which garnered only 8%, which is chosen by four (4) respondents who said they do not eat any other meat products but fish. It is shown that despite the low cost of living in the Philippines as supported by Davila (2018), most of the respondents still said that they spend 1,500 and more weekly when it comes to food which is chosen by 26 respondents and covered more than half or fifty-two percent (52%) of the overall population. The two lowest ranges for money spent on food in a week, which is 0-200 PhP, and 200-500 PhP both garnered the lowest percentage of six percent (6%) of the overall population, which is chosen by three (3) participants each. There are 18 male participants who covered a total percentage of thirty-six percent (36%) which is significantly lower than the number of female respondents who garnered a total of sixty-two percent (62%) of the overall population which means, 31 respondents of this study. One respondent said that they are on the other gender. Hospitalite, Volume 7, May 2023 46 Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents (n=50) Profile Indicators Frequency Percentage Diet Omnivorous 18 36% Flexitarian 6 12% Pescatarian 4 8% Vegetarian 9 18% Vegan 13 26% Money spent on food in a week 0-200 PhP 3 6% 201-500 PhP 3 6% 501-750 PhP 7 14% 751-1,000 PhP 7 14% 1,001-1,500 PhP 4 8% 1,501 PhP and up 26 52% Gender Male 18 36% Female 31 62% Others 1 2% Age 16-20 24 48% 21-25 9 18% 26-30 6 12% 31-40 3 6% 41-60 6 12% 60 and up 2 4% Occupational status Student 24 48% Working 19 38% Stay at home parent 3 6% Unemployed 3 6% Retired 1 2% Living situation Alone 2 4% With partner 6 12% With partner and children 8 16% Single parent 1 2% With parents 32 64% With roommate/s 1 2% Education Secondary school without diploma 4 8% Secondary school with diploma 8 16% Undergraduate 17 34% Bachelor 6 12% Masters 2 4% I prefer not to answer 13 26% Monthly income of your entire household 0-10,000 pesos 4 8% 10,001-15,000 pesos 4 8% 15,001-25,000 pesos 3 6% 25,001-35,000 pesos 6 12% 35,001-55,000 pesos 6 12% 55,001 pesos and up 13 26% I prefer not to answer 14 28% Have you ever tried plant-based meat and dairy replacements? Yes 34 68% No 16 32% The age range of 16-20 earned the majority number of 24 participants and covered the highest percentage of forty-eight percent (48%). This is followed by the range 21-25 of nine (9) respondents covering eighteen percent (18%), next is the ranges of age from 26-30 and 41-60 both garnering a total percentage of twelve percent (12%), followed by 31-40 which is chosen by six (6) respondents covering six percent (6%) and the least, the range of 60 and up which shows that there are two respondents under this age range covering the least percentage of four percent (4%) of the total number of respondents. Hospitalite, Volume 7, May 2023 47 Most of the respondents are students which covered the highest percentage of forty-eight percent (48%) which means there are 24 students who participated in this study. This is followed by working participants who are employed and can support their own financial needs with thirty-eight percent (38%). This study is also participated in by one retired respondent which covered the least percentage of two percent (2%) of the total population. The data gathered shows that 32 respondents with the highest percentage of sixty-four percent (64%) are still living with their parents who are likely to influence their food consumption. This is followed by eight (8) respondents who are living with their partner and own children garnering sixteen percent (16%), followed by six (6) participants who are living with their partners covering twelve percent (12%), next by two respondents who lives alone and makes their own decisions, covering four percent (4%), and the least indicators, those respondents who are single parents and are living with their roommates which both have one (1) respondent each, and both covering the least percentage score or two percent (2%). A majority of 17 respondents with the highest percentage of thirty four percent (34%) have some form of higher education. There are 13 respondents who preferred not to answer covering twenty-six percent (26%), there are eight respondents who have secondary school diploma, covering sixteen (16%), there are six (6) respondents who have bachelor’s degree who garnered twelve percent (12%), and four (4) respondents who have masters’ degree. This shows that most of the respondents have a good educational background as they have some form of higher education but there is still a considerable number of respondents who prefer not to answer. The highest corresponding percentage having 14 and twenty-eight percent (28%) of the sample size preferred not to answer the given questions. Thus, most of the respondents who answered that the entire monthly income of their household, range between 55,000 pesos and up has the second highest percentage having 13 and twenty-six percent (26%) of the sample size. By then the other corresponding answers ranges between 25,000 to thirty-five 35,000 pesos up to 55,000 both have six (6) and twelve percent (12%) of the sample size; second to the least ranges between 0 to 15,000 pesos has the eight percent (8%) of the sample size followed by the least having six percent (6%). Much of the responses came from thirty-four (34) and sixty-eight percent (68%) of the sample size given that they have tried plant-based and other alternative dairy products, however the remaining responses came from 16 respondents and thirty-two (32) of the sample size who have not tried plant-based or any alternative dairy products. This only means that the respondents in the sample size have been influenced by plant-based foods. According to Hoehnel et al. (2022), a lot of people are shifting to vegetarian or plantbased diet which results in the large consumption of healthy products. Table 2. Consumption of seitan and real meat Questions Mean Score Verbal Interpretation 1. How often do you consume seitan in an average month? 3.24 Occasionally 2. How often do you consume real meat in an average month? 3.46 Occasionally 3. How often do you plan on consuming seitan meat in the future? 5.24 Sometimes Indicators: 7 – Everyday, 6 – Often, 5 – Sometimes, 4 – Neutral, 3 – Occasionally, 2 – Rarely, 1 – Never Table 2 shows the consumption of seitan and real meat among respondents. The table shows the respondents occasionally consume seitan in an average month (Mean = 3.24), as well as with real meat (Mean = 3.46). Moreover, participants plan to consume seitan meat in the future sometimes with a mean of 5.24. Meanwhile, in Table 3, consumer perception was determined if seitan meat is effective for the participants. Participants ‘strongly agree’ that consuming seitan is better for animals (Mean = 6.22). Hospitalite, Volume 7, May 2023 48 It is also revealed that consumers ‘agree’ that consuming seitan is good for their health (Mean = 6.14), that seitan meat is important to them (Mean = 6.12), that seitan is tasty (Mean = 5.70), that seitan’s taste is important to them (Mean = 6.00), that seitan which is better for animals is important to them (Mean = 5.92), that consuming seitan is environmentally friendly (Mean = 5.94), that seitan which is environmentally friendly is important to them (Mean = 5.94), that consuming seitan makes them feel good (Mean = 5.52), and that consuming meat replacements is important to them (Mean = 5.62). This reveals that respondents have valued seitan meat and could satisfy their consumption. Table 3. Consumer perception on seitan meat Questions Mean Score Verbal Interpretation 1. I think consuming seitan (wheat meat) is good for my health. 6.14 Agree 2. The fact that seitan is good for my health is important to me. 6.12 Agree 3. I think seitan is tasty. 5.70 Agree 4. The fact that seitan is tasty is important to me. 6.00 Agree 5. I think consuming seitan is better for animals. 6.22 Strongly Agree 6. The fact that seitan is better for animals is important to me. 5.92 Agree 7. I think that consuming seitan is environmentally friendly. 5.94 Agree 8. The fact that seitan is environmentally friendly is important to me. 5.94 Agree 9. Consuming seitan makes me feel good. 5.52 Agree 10. The fact that consuming meat replacements makes me feel good is important to me. 5.62 Agree Table 4 shows others’ opinions on seitan meat, wherein respondents agree in valuing the opinion of their family with regards to their food consumption (Mean = 5.40), which presented a high satisfaction to their household members. Participants also ‘somewhat agree’ that they value the opinion of their friends regarding to their consumption (Mean = 4.70), that their family thinks they should consume meat replacements (Mean = 4.50), and that they value the importance of colleagues’ suggestion on their consumption on seitan meat (Mean = 4.66). However, they are ‘neutral’ that their friends think they should consume meat replacements (Mean = 3.94) and that they value the colleague’s preference to the consumption of seitan meat or wheat meat (Mean = 3.94). Some of them remained undecided that seitan could make a good benefit in consumption of replacement meat, although replacement meats could provide health and environmental benefits to the people. Table 4. Others’ opinions on seitan meat Questions Mean Score Verbal Interpretation 1. My friends think I should consume meat replacements (especially seitan). 3.94 Neutral 2. What my friends think about my consumption is important to me. 4.70 Somewhat Agree 3. My family think I should consume meat replacements. 4.50 Somewhat Agree 4. What my family thinks about my consumption is important to me. 5.40 Agree 5. My colleagues/classmates think I should consume seitan (wheat meat). 3.94 Neutral 6. What my colleagues/classmates think about my consumption is important to me. 4.66 Somewhat Agree Hospitalite, Volume 7, May 2023 49 Table 5 shows how the respondents perceive seitan based on their evaluation. The table shows that respondents ‘agree’ that expensive products makes their purchase more unlikely (Mean = 5.92), that seitan is not easily available at their regular grocery stores (Mean = 5.58), that the poor availability of seitan in the grocery store makes their purchase more unlikely (Mean = 5.82), that not being able to decide freely over what they consume in their household makes their purchase of seitan meat more unlikely (Mean = 5.36), and that they value the cultural and traditional aspects of food (Mean = 5.62). This means that participants can buy their needs or necessities as they believe that it is wiser to purchase cheaper products when the benefits have a similar value, although product quality would always differ in price. In the analysis, seitan meat is considered to have a high value as replacement meat. However, consumers struggle to have good accessibility and easy to get factor of the product. The lack of information has become a factor to the community in promotion to seitan production for healthy living. This factor could influence the level of acceptance of replacement meat towards the consumer preference, the fact that there are only few individuals in the region that has an accessible source of seitan in their market or grocery store as shown on the above data. Pertaining to the customer purchasing decisions, poor availability of a product may also affect the consuming percentage and the marketability. Although food (e.g., seitan meat) is one or the go to of every people this includes the value of the culture and tradition, it complements the food even more. On the other hand, participants ‘somewhat agree’ that information about seitan is difficult to access (Mean = 4.78), that the accessibility of information about seitan meat makes my purchase more unlikely (Mean = 5.20), and that the traditional aspect of food makes them more inclined to purchase (Mean = 4.98). Considering lack of information and a credible source about healthy food intake, the consumption of eating new food become the “fear of unknown,” that leads the majority of having a lot of alternatives are not yet discover. Giving up the food that we used to take and knowledgeable enough to eat the product are impossible to change, considering that meat is the reliable source of protein, the lack of information about seitan makes the customer purchasing habits affected and the percentage of consumed item in the market will also become low. Meanwhile, tradition and culture are some of the influences why consumers purchase products in the market, as these are reasons why market choose to sell products came from other countries. Table 5. Evaluation on seitan meat Questions Mean Score Verbal Interpretation 1. Seitan is too expensive in general. 3.88 Neutral 2. Expensive products make my purchase more unlikely. 5.92 Agree 3. Seitan is not easily available at my regular grocery store. 5.58 Agree 4. The poor availability of seitan in the grocery store makes my purchase more unlikely. 5.82 Agree 5. Information about seitan is difficult to access. 4.78 Somewhat Agree 6. The accessibility of information about seitan meat makes my purchase more unlikely. 5.20 Somewhat Agree 7. I cannot decide freely over what I consume in my household. 3.52 Somewhat Disagree 8. Not being able to decide freely over what I consume in my household makes my purchase of seitan meat more unlikely. 5.36 Agree 9. I don’t like to try new foods. 2.28 Disagree 10. The fact that I don't like to try new food makes my purchase of new products more unlikely. 3.98 Neutral 11. I value the cultural and traditional aspects of food. 5.62 Agree 12. The traditional aspect of food makes me more inclined to purchase. 4.98 Somewhat Agree