Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Veterinary Medicine and Science logoLink to Veterinary Medicine and Science
. 2021 Aug 11;7(5):1980–1988. doi: 10.1002/vms3.565

Motivation‐based segmentation of game meat consumers: A look at the beliefs of food consumers during the COVID‐19 crisis in China

Xiaoru Xie 1, Xiaomei Cai 2,3, Hong Zhu 3,4,✉, Jun (Justin) Li 2,3,✉
PMCID: PMC8441645  PMID: 34378350

Abstract

Objectives

This research aims to explore the factors motivate consumers to eat game meat during a multi‐state disease outbreak.

Methods

It proposes a segmentation of consumers based on their attitudes toward and reveals the consumers' food beliefs that motivate their actions. Three segments of game meat consumers were identified: identity seekers, health seekers, and taste seekers.

Results

A survey of the potential impact that the COVID‐19 crisis has on these three clusters' future food choices showed that the identity and health seekers are more open to a change in food choices. However, the taste seekers are less likely to be influenced by external factors.

Conclusions

This research indicates that for the policymakers, the key is to take game meat consumers as an effective intervention entry point. It is crucial to facilitate healthy food choices and to promote socially‐ and culturally‐appropriate food beliefs by improving public awareness of the risks of game meat, and invest in organic food.

Research Implications

This research provides new insights into the food beliefs of game meat consumers via motivation‐based segmentation.

Keywords: beliefs of food consumers, food choice, game meat, motivation, organic food, segmentation

Short abstract

This research aims to explore the factors that motivated consumers to eat game meat during a multi‐state disease outbreak that was related to the practice of game consumption.

1. INTRODUCTION

Food choice is a part of our daily life and results from interactions between the individual, intrinsic and extrinsic properties of food, and the society (Shepherd & Raats, 1996; Steptoe & Wardle, 1999). Thanks to modernization and industrialization in both developing and developed regions, food consumption and choice has evolved into a complex issue, which results in the rapid change and diversification of human food beliefs (Heiman et al., 2019). For example, a prior study explored the consumers’ perception of organic food, in terms of its unique attributes and social meanings (Shin et al., 2018). As Costa et al. (2014) noted, organic food can be seen as a symbol that signifies social identity and class. Organic wine, for instance, is found to have a positive relationship with social status and power and was associated with self‐enhancement (Mueller et al., 2011). Game meat, as another example, is regarded as both a healthy and risky food type due to its natural, nutritional, and medicinal attributes, as well as its potential to carry microbiological contaminants (Kadohira et al., 2019). Given the increase in population, buying power, and globalization, game meat consumption has become a burgeoning global business, which increases the risk of acquiring infectious diseases from wild animals (Daszak et al., 2000). Although it is a health hazard, some people, who are motivated by different factors, would still negotiate the possible food risks and choose to consume game foods.

In December 2019, COVID‐19 was first reported by officials. According to a report issued by the International Labour Organization (2020), the COVID‐19 crisis has become ‘an economic and labor market shock’, posing serious threats to both supply and demand across the world. It will push millions of people into unemployment, underemployment, and working poverty. For example, data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China (2020) showed that the value of industrial enterprises has declined by 13.5% in the first 2 months of 2020. According to reports, the COVID‐19 illness most likely originated from game meat (Cyranoski, 2020), which resulted in human‐to‐human transmission and caused a worldwide pandemic. Given the possibility of microbiological contamination in game meat, more and more countries have adopted strict measures to ban the trade and consumption of wild animals (Ribeiro et al., 2020).

The COVID‐19 epidemic has led to nationwide anxiety about game meat consumption. However, when considering the worldwide implications of a disease caused by the consumption of wildlife, it is critical to use market segmentation to study game meat consumerism. Motivation‐based segmentation can contribute to an understanding of the psychological and sociological reasons behind game meat consumption and provide managerial insights. First, as consumers are not homogenous people who have the same wants, segmentation can classify prospective consumers into specific groups with similar interests, needs, and habits. Second, motivation‐attitude‐based segmentation can be an important approach to provide managerial strategies for policymakers. Lacking an understanding of the game meat market can be the most challenging problem when developing policy responses. However, little attention has been paid to the segmentation of game meat consumers.

There is an urgent need to understand the personal and social factors that motivate game meat consumption and consumers’ food beliefs because of increasing anxieties about infectious diseases with a wildlife‐origin arising from this COVID‐19 crisis. In addition, many game meat consumers may choose organic food for health concerns. This research provides empirical evidence to segment consumers based on their motivations to eat game meat and reveals the type of consumer organic food beliefs behind these motivations in the context of the COVID‐19 crisis in China. The following sections begin with a literature review of the motivations behind food choices and the game meat consumption market. This will be followed by a methodology section, which describes how the data were collected and analyzed. The last section offers empirical evidence segmenting game meat consumers and compares their perceptions on organic food during the COVID‐19 crisis.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Motivation in food choice

Motivation describes the wants or needs that initiate, activate, and sustain goal‐oriented behaviours. It explains the processes that give behaviour its energy and direction (Reeve, 2009). Behaviour is motivated by interactions between internal experiences of physiological and psychological needs and well‐being, and external factors such as environmental, social, and cultural offerings (Reeve, 2009). The human needs to survive, maximize pleasure, minimize pain, and succeed are the foundations of preferences that motivate action (Higgins, 2012). According to the hedonic principle, behaviours are the motivation to approach pleasure and to move away from pain (Higgins, 2012). That is, the promise of a reward is commonly assumed as a good way to motivate behaviour (Higgins, 2012).

Motivations for the consumption of specific food and beverage choices reflect a person's internal needs, and this could be influenced by external socio‐cultural factors (Rozin, 1996, 2002). Food choice is a part of daily life that arises from interactions between the characteristics of self (e.g. knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes), attributes of food, and social factors (e.g. socio‐cultural traditions and the macroeconomic background) (Jaeger & Rose, 2008; Johansen et al., 2011; Kaya, 2016; Shepherd & Raats, 1996; Steptoe & Wardle, 1999). The motivation for food choice reflects an individual's biological and psychological needs, such as safety and security, love, self‐esteem, belongingness, and self‐actualization (Maslow, 1943; Mela, 1999; Rozin, 1996, 2002). Motivation is important when choosing food and involves factors such as health, sensory pleasure, weight control, price, convenience, ethical concerns, and familiarity (Clarke & Best, 2019; Johansen et al., 2011; Steptoe et al., 1995). For example, health, cost, convenience, and sensory pleasure are consistently considered as the top motivations in food choice, whereas familiarity and ethical concerns are often less common motivations (Clarke & Best, 2019; Januszewska et al., 2011; Markovina et al., 2015; Prescott et al., 2002; Scheibehenne et al., 2007). They can also be categorized as stable motivations involving preferences, cultural background, social norms, and attitudes, and momentary motivations that range in scope from availability, mood, and hunger to convenience or cost (Lindeman & Stark, 1999; Phan & Chambers, 2016; Rozin, 2007).

With the rapid modernization of society, consumers are going a step further by changing their requirements for food products. Food choices are related to consumers’ personality and lifestyle and are explained by underlying socio‐demographic factors such as age, sex, social status, and income (Brunsø et al., 2004; Crossley & Khan, 2001; Johansen et al., 2011; Lindeman & Stark, 1999; Steptoe et al., 1995). Segmentation based on what motivates the consumers’ choice in food is regarded as an important process to understand the consumers’ preferences and choices (Clarke & Best, 2019). For example, as Husic‐Mehmedovic et al. (2017) argued more and more consumers are searching for values and a lifestyle that portray their identity and belonging, which is being expressed through organic food consumption.

2.2. The game meat consumption market

Segmentation divides consumers into groups according to their wants and needs and has become one of the common tools to investigate customer characteristics (Grunert, 2019; Zepeda & Nie, 2012). It is a marketing strategy used to cluster a heterogeneous group into homogeneous subgroups based on similar characteristics such as demographics, benefits sought, psychological attributes, needs and motives, behaviours, and occasions (Kotler et al., 2006; Park & Yoon, 2009). As there is an individualistic aspect to consumption motivations, there is an increase in the need for segmentation when studying food consumption‐specific values (van Trijp & Meulenberg, 1996).

The market demand for game meat is a complex interwoven network, which can be influenced by various drivers at different levels and multiple spatial scales (Bachmann et al., 2019; Cowlishaw et al., 2005; Kamins et al., 2011; Van Vliet et al., 2019). For example, the motivations for game meat consumption are heterogeneous and are related to economic, social, cultural, historical, geographical, and ecological factors (Bachmann et al., 2019). Consumers are motivated to consume game meat for the perceived potency of wildlife animal parts in traditional medicine and fetish practices (Atuo et al., 2015; Fajardo et al., 2010). Prior studies have revealed that the main motivations for choosing to consume game meat were nutritional value (such as low fat and cholesterol content), medicinal properties, sensory characteristics (such as particular textures or tastes), the absence of anabolic steroids or other drugs, the attraction of eating new and exotic delicacies, and potential social symbolism (Atuo et al., 2015; Fajardo et al., 2010; Hoffman & Wiklund, 2006; La Neve et al., 2008). These medicinal, fetishistic, and nutritional reasons are always socio‐culturally rooted (Kamp et al., 2015).

In some Asian countries, the use of game in traditional medicines is a practice based largely on long‐standing beliefs with deep historical roots (Nekaris et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2008). With the improvement of urban living standards, game has been regarded as a social symbol and lifestyle fashion icon (Zhang et al., 2008). Radder and Le Roux (2005) conducted a study on the consumption of venison, and their results indicated that eating game meat could be considered as a social marker since people perceived it as luxury meat for high‐income groups and is related to high social and economic status.

3. METHODS

3.1. Questionnaire and measurements

A questionnaire containing four sections was designed to investigate attitudes about foodborne illness, game meat consumption, and organic food consumption. Section one contained items about foodborne illness and game meat consumption. Sections two and three asked about the perceptions towards game meat and organic food. Section four requested information about the socio‐demographics of the respondents, including place of residence (rural/urban), gender, age, education, monthly income, and occupation.

Items about the motivating factors for game meat consumption and consumer perception of organic food and game meat were developed based on a comprehensive review of prior studies (Atuo et al., 2015; Demartini et al., 2018; Fajardo et al., 2010; Hoffman & Wiklund, 2006; Magnusson et al., 2003; Michaelidou & Hassan, 2008; Radder & Grunert, 2009; Tomasevic et al., 2018; Wassenaar et al., 2019; Wee et al., 2014). Six main motivation items were presented in the questionnaire: ‘eating game meat is a symbol of identity’, ‘game meat has high medicinal value’, ‘game meat is tasty’, ‘eating game meat is a kind of culture’, ‘eating game meat out of curiosity’, and ‘eating game meat is a preference for organic food’. In addition, 24 items addressing the respondents’ perception of organic food and game meat, and the impact of the COVID‐19 crisis were included in the questionnaire on a 5‐point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree/never to 5 = strongly agree/very frequent.

3.2. Data collection

An online survey was performed in January 2020 to evaluate an individual's perception on game meat consumption, organic food consumption, and foodborne illness. The questionnaire (in Chinese) was first designed and uploaded onto a free Chinese professional survey platform called ‘Wenjuanwang’ (https://www.wenjuan.com/). It is convenient for researchers to establish, collect, and manage their questionnaires on this platform. After the questionnaire was generated, the researchers sent a web‐based link to the questionnaire on ‘Wenjuanwang’ to the potential respondents via the social media platform ‘WeChat’, which is one of the most commonly‐used social media platforms in China. Finally, incomplete questionnaires were deleted, and a total of 1143 usable responses were collected for data analysis.

3.3. Analysis

The data obtained were first entered in the SPSS 24.0 software package. The data were then analyzed by cluster analysis, discriminant analysis, and one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA), etc. For example, the K‐means clustering was implemented to segment game meat consumers into heterogeneous groups based on their motives. Scheffé’s multiple‐range test was utilized to explore the significant differences between groups based on each motive. Discriminant analysis was then used to predict the probability of belonging to a group based on a linear combination of interval predictor variables. One‐way ANOVA was finally carried out to determine if there were significant differences in each group's perception of organic food and game meat.

4. RESULTS

4.1. Sample profile

Table 1 presents the socio‐demographic profiles of the respondents. The results show that a majority of respondents were female (71%). Most of the respondents are of the younger generation, aged 30 and below (67.7%). A total of 65.1% had or are enrolled in higher education degrees (such as bachelor or degree), and 63.5% belonged to the low‐income group with a monthly income below 5000 yuan (US$740). There are significant differences in the three identified motivation‐based groups in terms of their education level, sex, age, education, and monthly income.

Table 1.

The socio‐demographic profiles of the respondents

Identity seekers Health seekers Taste seekers
(N = 211) (N = 439) (N = 493)
Variable Number % Number % Number % Chi‐square value df p value
Gender 25.956 2 0.000*
Male (N = 331) 32 15.20% 131 29.80% 168 34.10%
Female (N = 812) 179 84.80% 308 70.20% 325 65.90%
Age 46.223 4 0.000*
30 and below (N = 774) 177 83.90% 302 68.80% 295 59.80%
31–49 (N = 296) 30 14.20% 117 26.70% 149 30.20%
50 and above (N = 73) 4 1.90% 20 4.60% 49 9.90%
Education 15.889 4 0.003*
Junior college degree or below (N = 339) 76 36.00% 173 39.40% 150 30.40%
Bachelor (N = 500) 104 49.30% 176 40.10% 220 44.60%
Master or PhD (N = 244) 31 14.70% 90 20.50% 123 24.90%
Monthly income 25.743 8 0.001*
Equal to or less than 5000 yuan (N = 726) 157 74.40% 282 64.20% 287 58.20%
5001–10000 yuan (N = 245) 40 19.00% 96 21.90% 109 22.10%
10001–25000 yuan (N = 129) 10 4.70% 49 11.20% 70 14.20%
25001–50000 yuan (N = 30) 3 1.40% 8 1.80% 19 3.90%
50001 yuan and above (N = 13) 1 0.50% 4 0.90% 8 1.60%      
Open in a new tab

*Significance: *p < 0.05.

4.2. Segmenting game meat consumers

As one of data reduction techniques, the cluster analysis was performed to categorize the similar meat consumers into mutually exclusive groups. Three clusters of respondents were identified. The Scheffé’s multiple‐range test was carried out to decide whether the differences between means of these unrelated groups (segments) were statistically significant. A Scheffé’s post hoc test showed that there were statistically significant differences among the segments (Table 2). The first cluster contained consumers with the highest average score for the item: ‘eating game meat is a symbol of identity’. Since the respondents in this cluster consumed game meat in pursuit of identity, this group was labelled as the ‘identity seekers’. We labelled a second cluster as ‘health seekers’ because this group had the highest mean score on the item: ‘game meat is of high medicinal value’. Respondents in this cluster had a strong desire to eat game meat because of its health and medicinal attributes. The third group scored high on the item ‘game meat is tasty’, and was labelled as ‘taste seekers’.

Table 2.

Summary of cluster analysis of game meat consumer motivations

Scheffé’s multiple‐range tests
Item Cluster I Cluster II Cluster III F value I–II I–III II–II
Game meat is tasty. 1.14 2.26 3.29 821.261*** 0.000 0.000 0.000
Eating game meat is a symbol of identity. 3.50 1.57 2.48 241.940*** 0.000 0.000 0.000
Game meat is of high medicinal value. 1.09 3.73 2.80 989.926*** 0.000 0.000 0.000
Cluster name Identity seekers Health seekers Taste seekers
Open in a new tab

Significance: ***p < 0.001.

Discriminant analysis was further used to determine the number of non‐overlapping groups (Table 3). Two discriminant dimensions with the canonical correlation coefficient (0.921 and 0.826) were identified; both were statistically significant. The canonical discriminant functions are reflected through eigenvalues. The first eigenvalue (3.601) reflects the most variation. Wilks's lambda (λ) was used to interpret which variables’ contributions are significant to the discriminant functions. The chi‐square statistic provides a method to test the significance of Wilks's λ, that is, how well each function segments individuals into clusters (p < 0.05). The standardized discriminant function coefficient was performed to compare the relative importance of each independent variable's unique contribution to the discriminant function. For example, the higher the coefficient value, the more important the variable is to that segment. Approximately 97.9% of people identified through the classification matrix were used to determine the effectiveness of the function.

Table 3.

Results of discriminant analysis of game meat consumer motivation clusters

Discriminant function Eigenvalue Canonical correlation Wilks’ Lamda χ significance
Motivation factors 1 3.601 0.921 0.104 0
2 1.094 0.826 0.477 0
Standardized canonical discriminant Function coefficients Function 1 Function 2
Game meat is of high medicinal value 0.934 –0.317
Game meat is tasty 0.486 0.902
Eating game meat is a symbol of identity –0.526 0.529
Open in a new tab

A chi‐square test was carried out to determine if demographic/socio‐economic status among the three groups was different and whether this difference was statistically significant. The results suggest that there were statistically significant differences among these groups in the following areas: ‘gender’ (χ = 25.956, df = 2, p = 0.000), ‘age’ (χ = 46.223, df = 4, p = 0.000), ‘education’ (χ = 15.889, df = 4, p = 0.003), and ‘monthly income’ (χ = 25.743, df = 8, p = 0.001) (see Table 1).

4.3. Comparing the perceptions of organic food and game meat

The one‐way ANOVA comparing perceptions of organic food and game meat, and the impact of COVID‐19 crisis in the three consumer clusters are shown in Table 4. Only items that were statistically significant are demonstrated. In terms of organic food, the identity seekers scored higher on ‘I think that purchasing organic food is wise’, ‘I think that purchasing organic food is beneficial’, and ‘organic food promotes environmental sustainability’. Thus, this group has a more positive attitude towards organic food than the other two groups. The taste seekers’ attitude towards organic food is the least positive among the three clusters. The health and taste seekers scored above the midpoint (3) for the item ‘it is necessary to change traditional food into organic food’, whereas the identity seekers scored slightly below 3 for this item.

Table 4.

The three clusters’ opinions of organic food and game meat, and the impact of the COVID‐19 crisis

Identity seekers (N = 211) Health seekers (N = 439) Taste seekers (N = 493)
Item Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD T Significance
1. I think that purchasing organic food is wise. 3.85a 0.922 3.76 0.735 3.69b 0.768 3.348 0.035 *
2. I think that purchasing organic food is beneficial. 3.88a 0.891 3.75 0.719 3.67b 0.759 5.430 0.004 *
3. It is necessary to change traditional food into organic food. 2.98b 0.981 3.13 0.845 3.18a 0.867 3.684 0.025 *
4. Organic food is beneficial for environmental sustainability. 3.97a 0.828 3.94 0.749 3.81b 0.796 4.751 0.009 *
5. Organic food is more nutritious and healthier than game meat. 4.24a 1.039 3.83 0.889 3.78b 0.934 19.321 0.000 *
6. The COVID‐19 crisis has influenced my future intent to eat game meat. 4.54a 1.109 4.33 1.046 4.09b 1.110 14.388 0.000 *
7. I know which wild animals are banned from being eaten or sold. 3.35a 1.264 3.18 1.049 3.01b 1.043 7.746 0.000 *
8. I think game meat is important for my diet. 1.14b 0.483 1.76 0.795 1.82a 0.759 69.878 0.000 *
9. I like eating game meat. 1.18b 0.522 1.77 0.815 1.97a 0.900 70.535 0.000 *
10. The frequency of game meat eating. 1.10b 0.350 1.34 0.551 1.41a 0.624 23.263 0.000 *
11. I will increase the eating frequency of game meat in the future. 1.03b 0.167 1.25 0.608 1.37a 0.710 23.040 0.000 *
12. The COVID‐19 crisis has affected my intent to increase eating organic food. 3.50 1.016 3.52a 0.914 3.36b 0.917 3.788 0.023 *
Open in a new tab
*

p‐value = 0.05; 1 = strongly disagree/never; 5 = strongly agree/very frequent.

Superscript “a” indicates the lowest score; superscript “b” indicates the highest score.

Although all respondents have relatively negative attitudes towards game meat, there are significant differences in the three clusters. The identity seekers scored the highest on item 7, which indicates that they knew more about which wild animals are banned from being eaten or sold, whereas the taste seekers were the least knowledgeable about the legality of game meat consumption. The health and taste seekers prioritized consuming game meat in their daily diet than identity seekers, with the taste seekers scoring it as more important. Among the three groups, the taste seekers liked eating game meat the most, whereas the identity seekers showed the least‐liked food type. Regarding the current and intended future eating frequencies, the identity seekers had the lowest scores, whereas the taste seekers scored the highest on both items.

In terms of whether the COVID‐19 crisis impacted their intention to change their diets in the future, the identity seekers scored the highest on their ‘intent to decrease the frequency of eating game meat in the future’, and the health seekers had the highest score on their ‘intent to increase in the frequency of eating organic food in the future’. The results also showed that the crisis had less influence on the taste seekers than on the identity and health seekers. The health seekers were more likely to increase their organic consumption frequency due to the COVID‐19 outbreak. In addition, the identity seekers were more likely to reduce their consumption frequency of game meat.

5. DISCUSSION

This has sought to develop segmentation frameworks based on consumers' attitudes towards wild game meat and their motivated action. The study has uncovered three major consumer profiles with distinct attitudes and behaviour towards food beliefs. In addition, it has been shown that the COVID‐19 pandemic significantly affected people's dietary patterns.

5.1. The food beliefs of the identity seekers

In terms of organic food, the identity seekers have a stronger agreement with the items that reflect positively on buying organic food (such as ‘that buying food is wise and beneficial for the society’). They have a greater awareness of the social values of organic foods, which leads to a more positive attitude towards this food type. Regarding game meat, identity seekers are more knowledgeable about the laws governing game meat consumption. Wild animals that are banned from being eaten or sold are more likely to be treasured and be more expensive. Eating these ‘luxurious’ wild animals could be considered as a sign of social position (Radder & Le Roux, 2005).

When choosing food, this group of consumers is more likely to be motivated by their psychological need, to associate social meanings to food, and to be more motivated by ideological elements (such as using food to symbolize their performance and to express their social identity). Game meat is a symbol of choice. Therefore, it is more of an alternative rather than a necessity. Hansen et al. (2018) argued that self‐enhancement emphasizes the pursuit of self‐interest and encompasses power and achievement values, and consumers adhering more to self‐enhancement values may be more likely to exhibit a positive relationship between egoistic motives. The identity seekers might also choose organic food as an alternative food choice to enact their identity and express and enhance themselves by consuming food. In their belief of food, they might attach more social meanings to the food they choose.

5.2. The food beliefs of the health seekers

Prior research has revealed that healthiness is a critical motivation for food choice (Ares & Gámbaro, 2007; Johansen et al., 2011; Prescott et al., 2002). Motivated by health concerns, which is a motivation based on the basic physiological need to survive, the health seekers choose game meat because of its medicinal value. They consume game meat based on the culturally‐rooted perception that it has high medicinal value. Some wild animals, such as pangolins, have been found to contain medicinal properties (Alves & Rosa, 2013; Alves et al., 2010; Li et al., 2020; Soewu et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2014).

The health seekers have the lowest perception about game meat and the social value of organic food among the three clusters. They are more health‐conscious. Therefore, health benefits play a central role in their choice of food. This implies that they are less sensitive towards its unique and novel attributes when choosing foods and are therefore less likely to pursue a specific kind of food. Their food choice is based on their satisfaction of basic biological needs. They think less of the food and more of their health, and their food beliefs are more likely to be influenced by external factors such as culture.

5.3. The food beliefs of the taste seekers

Previous studies have shown evidence that sensory appeal is an important motivation for food choices (Honkanen & Frewer, 2009; Johansen et al., 2011; Johansen et al., 2010). Taste could influence the consumers’ preference for particular foods (Fajardo et al., 2010). As Rozin (1996) has stated, ‘food is also a source of basic pleasure’. This cluster has the lowest perception about the health and social value of organic foods but has the highest opinion about game meat‐among these three groups. They also have a higher game meat eating frequency than the other clusters.

The taste seekers choose game meat based on its taste, which comes from the sensory quality of meat. Upon heating, game meat undergoes various reactions to produce several desirable taste characteristics and therefore is perceived to have a distinctive taste (Neethling et al., 2016; Razmaite et al., 2019). In comparison to health seekers, the taste seekers’ physiological need seems to be less health‐oriented and is based on the sensory perception of ‘pleasantness of taste’ derived from game meat consumption. Although they have a negative perception of game meat due to its potential health risks, they are still motivated by their needs and therefore choose to consume it – what game meat provides is a gustatory sensation that can satisfy their hedonic need. Thus, in food consumption, when motivated by a pursuit of sensory pleasure, the taste seekers are more willing to choose food based on its physical attribute, which functions to influence their emotional and behavioural responses to food and evokes biologically innate hedonic responses. Food can generate intense hedonic reactions (Meiselman & MacFie, 1996). According to the hedonic principle of enjoying the pleasantness of taste derived from the sensory quality of food, when searching for food, the taste seekers tend to focus on their sensory pleasure, and they would prefer ‘physiologically better food’ (Bernard et al., 2005). Their food belief is based on the hedonic principle, which satisfies their physiological needs.

5.4. The impact of the COVID‐19 crisis

The COVID‐19 crisis had a greater influence on identity and health seekers than taste seekers regarding their intentions to change future diets. The identity seekers are more likely to reduce their game meat consumption, and health seekers may be more committed to eating organic food in the future. COVID‐19's influence on the taste seekers is the smallest among the three clusters. This indicates that when choosing foods, the taste seekers are more likely to ignore the health risk. They pursue the hedonic aspect of food to satisfy their physiological needs – the sensory pleasantness of food (Meiselman & MacFie, 1996).

5.5. Policy implications

This study showed that there are statistically significant differences between the motivation‐based segments of game meat consumers with respect to their socio‐demographic characteristics and their perceptions of organic food, game meat, and the COVID‐19 crisis. Three groups of game meat consumers were identified. They are identity seekers, health seekers, and taste seekers. The main motives for choosing game meat are dependent on its symbolic implication, medicinal value, and taste. Each segment exhibits distinct beliefs in organic food and game meat.

In choosing to eat game meat, the identity seekers’ motivation arises from a psychological need to express themselves in their social circles. They view food as a symbol of social status and attach more importance to social meaning when choosing this type of food. Motivated by a physiological need in health, the health seekers choose game meat due to its medicinal value. Their concern for health is reflected in their food choice. Although this physiological need also leads to game meat consumption by the taste seekers, their need is based on the particular tasty characteristic of game meat. Attempting to pursue the hedonic principle, they pay more attention to their sensory pleasure, which is specifically generated by the attributes of food. In terms of the impact that the COVID‐19 crisis has on the future consumption of organic food and game meat by these three groups, the taste seekers show less willingness to change in comparison to the other two groups due to a food‐specific motivation. For the identity and health seekers, game meat is an alternative. They are more likely to turn to other foods to satisfy their motivation. In summary, the identity and health seekers might be more open to alternative food choices, while the taste seekers are less influenced by external factors.

The findings of this study provide new insights into the food beliefs of game meat consumers via motivation‐based segmentation. For the policymakers, the key is to take game meat consumers as an effective intervention entry point. It is crucial to facilitate healthy food choices and to promote socially and culturally appropriate food beliefs by improving public awareness of the risks of game meat, and invest in organic food.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Dr. Zhu and Dr. Li were in charge of the data collection, data analysis, and interpretation. Dr. Xie and Dr. Cai provided critical revisions of the article. These four authors gave final approval of the version to be submitted.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/vms3.565.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number 41630635), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (Grant number 2018B030312004), the Joint Research Fund for Overseas Chinese, Hong Kong and Macao Young Scientists of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number 41829101), the Guangdong Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science (Grant number GD19CGL31), and the Foshan Social Planning Project (Grant number 2021‐QN06).

Xie, X., Cai, X., Zhu, H., & Li, J. J. (2021). Motivation‐based segmentation of game meat consumers: A look at the beliefs of food consumers during the COVID‐19 crisis in China. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 7, 1980–1988. 10.1002/vms3.565

Contributor Information

Hong Zhu, Email: zhuhong@gzhu.edu.cn.

Jun (Justin) Li, Email: justinli83@scnu.edu.cn.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

REFERENCES

  1. Alves, R. R. N., & Rosa, I. L. (2013). Animals in traditional folk medicine: Implications for conservation. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alves, R. R. N., Souto, W. M. S., & Barboza, R. R. D. (2010). Primates in traditional folk medicine: A world overview. Mammal Review, 40(2), 155–180. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ares, G., & Gámbaro, A. (2007). Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food choice on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite, 49(1), 148–158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Atuo, F. A., Timothy, J. O. C., & Peter, U. A. (2015). An assessment of socio‐economic drivers of avian body parts trade in West African rainforests. Biological Conservation, 191, 614–622. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bachmann, M. E., Junker, J., Mundry, R., Nielsen, M. R., Haase, D., Cohen, H., Kouassi, J., & Kühl, H. S. (2019). Disentangling economic, cultural, and nutritional motives to identify entry points for regulating a wildlife commodity chain. Biological Conservation, 238, 108177. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernard, L. C., Mills, M., Swenson, L., & Walsh, R. P. (2005). An evolutionary theory of human motivation. Genetic, Social, and general Psychology Monographs, 131(2), 129–184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J., & Grunert, K. G. (2004). Closing the gap between values and behavior—A means–end theory of lifestyle. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 665–670. [Google Scholar]
  8. Clarke, C., & Best, T. (2019). Food choice motivations: Profiling low‐carbohydrate, high‐fat dieters. Appetite, 141, 104324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Costa, S., Zepeda, L., & Sirieix, L. (2014). Exploring the social value of organic food: A qualitative study in France. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(3), 228–237. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cowlishaw, G., Mendelson, S., & Rowcliffe, J. M. (2005). Structure and operation of a bushmeat commodity chain in southwestern Ghana. Conservation Biology, 19(1), 139–149. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crossley, M. L., & Khan, S. N. (2001). Motives underlying food choice. Dentists, porters and dietary health promotion. British Dental Journal, 191(4), 198–202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cyranoski, D. (2020). Did pangolins spread the China coronavirus to people? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586‐020‐00364‐2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Daszak, P., Cunningham, A. A., & Hyatt, A. D. (2000). Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife—Threats to biodiversity and human health. Science, 287(5452), 443–449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Demartini, E., Vecchiato, D., Tempesta, T., Gaviglio, A., & Vigano, R. (2018). Consumer preferences for red deer meat: A discrete choice analysis considering attitudes towards wild game meat and hunting. Meat Science, 146, 168–179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fajardo, V., González, I., Rojas, M., García, T., & Martín, R. (2010). A review of current PCR‐based methodologies for the authentication of meats from game animal species. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 21(8), 408–421. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gong, L., Xu, R., Wang, Z., Deng, Q., Wang, H., & Zhang, G. (2020). African swine fever recovery in China. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 6, 890–893. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Grunert, K. G. (2019). International segmentation in the food domain: Issues and approaches. Food Research International, 115, 311–318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hansen, T., Sørensen, M. I., & Eriksen, M. L. R. (2018). How the interplay between consumer motivations and values influences organic food identity and behavior. Food Policy, 74, 39–52. [Google Scholar]
  19. Heiman, A., Gordon, B., & Zilberman, D. (2019). Food beliefs and food supply chains: The impact of religion and religiosity in Israel. Food Policy, 83, 363–369. [Google Scholar]
  20. Higgins, E. T. (2012), Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoffman, L. C., & Wiklund, E. (2006). Game and venison—Meat for the modern consumer. Meat Science, 74(1), 197–208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Honkanen, P., & Frewer, L. (2009). Russian consumers’ motives for food choice. Appetite, 52(2), 363–371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Husic‐Mehmedovic, M., Arslanagic‐Kalajdzic, M., Kadic‐Maglajlic, S., & Vajnberger, Z. (2017). Live, eat, love: Life equilibrium as a driver of organic food purchase. British Food Journal, 119(7), 1410–1422. [Google Scholar]
  24. International Labour Organization . (2020), International Labour Organization (ILO) note: COVID‐19 and the world of work: Impact and policy responses. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/dgreports/dcomm/docuents/briefingnote/wcms_738753.pdf
  25. Jaeger, S. R., & Rose, J. M. (2008). Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice: A case study. Food Quality and Preference, 19(6), 539–564. [Google Scholar]
  26. Januszewska, R., Pieniak, Z., & Verbeke, W. (2011). Food choice questionnaire revisited in four countries. Does it still measure the same? Appetite, 57(1), 94–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Johansen, S. B., Naes, T., & Hersleth, M. (2011). Motivation for choice and healthiness perception of calorie‐reduced dairy products. A cross‐cultural study. Appetite, 56(1), 15–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Johansen, S. B., Næs, T., Øyaas, J., & Hersleth, M. (2010). Acceptance of calorie‐reduced yoghurt. Effects of sensory characteristics and product information. Food Quality and Preference, 21(1), 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kadohira, M., Phiri, B. J., Hill, G., Yoshizaki, R., & Takai, S. (2019). Game meat consumption and foodborne illness in Japan: A web‐based questionnaire survey. Journal of Food Protection, 82(7), 1224–1232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kamins, A. O., Restif, O., Ntiamoa‐Baidu, Y., Suu‐Ire, R., Hayman, D. T., Cunningham, A. A., Wood, J. L. N., & Rowcliffe, J. M. (2011). Uncovering the fruit bat bushmeat commodity chain and the true extent of fruit bat hunting in Ghana, West Africa. Biological Conservation, 144(12), 3000–3008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kamp, J., Oppel, S., Ananin, A. A., Durnev, Y. A., Gashev, S. N., Hölzel, N., Mishchenko, A. L., Pessa, J., Smirenski, S. M., Strelnikov, E. G., Timonen, S., Wolanska, K., & Strelnikov, E. G. (2015). Global population collapse in a superabundant migratory bird and illegal trapping in China. Conservation Biology, 29(6), 1684–1694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kaya, I. H. (2016). Motivation factors of consumers’ food choice. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 07(03), 149–154. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kotler, P., Bowen, J. T., & Makens, J. C. (2006), Marketing for hospitality and tourism. Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  34. La Neve, F., Civera, T., Mucci, N., & Bottero, M. T. (2008). Authentication of meat from game and domestic species by SNaPshot minisequencing analysis. Meat Science, 80(2), 216–224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Li, J., Li, J. J., Xie, X., Cai, X., Huang, J., Tian, X., & Zhu, H. (2020). Game consumption and the 2019 novel coronavirus. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 20(3), 275–276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lindeman, M., & Stark, K. (1999). Pleasure, pursuit of health or negotiation of identity? Personality correlates of food choice motives among young and middle‐aged women. Appetite, 33(1), 141–161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U. K. K., Åberg, L., & Sjödén, P. O. (2003). Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite, 40(2), 109–117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Markovina, J., Stewart‐Knox, B. J., Rankin, A., Gibney, M., de Almeida, M. D. V., Fischer, A., Kuznesof, A., Poínhos, R., Panzone, L. A., & Frewer, L. J. (2015). Food4Me study: Validity and reliability of Food Choice Questionnaire in 9 European countries. Food Quality and Preference, 45, 26–32. [Google Scholar]
  39. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. [Google Scholar]
  40. Meiselman, H. L., & MacFie, H. J. H. (1996), Food choice, acceptance and consumption. Blackie Academic & Professional. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mela, D. J. (1999). Food choice and intake: The human factor. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 58(3), 513–521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. M. (2008). The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 163–170. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mueller, S., Sirieix, L. & Remaud, H. (2011). Are personal values related to sustainable attribute choice? Paper presented at the 6th AWBR International Conference, Bordeaux, France.
  44. National Bureau of Statistics of China . (2020). National economy withstood the impact of COVID‐19 in the first two months. http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202003/t20200316_1732244.html
  45. Neethling, J., Hoffman, L. C., & Muller, M. (2016). Factors influencing the flavour of game meat: A review. Meat Science, 113, 139–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Nekaris, K. A. I., Shepherd, C. R., Starr, C. R., & Nijman, V. (2010). Exploring cultural drivers for wildlife trade via an ethnoprimatological approach: A case study of slender and slow lorises (Loris and Nycticebus) in South and Southeast Asia. American Journal of Primatology, 72(10), 877–886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Park, D.‐B., & Yoon, Y. S. (2009). Segmentation by motivation in rural tourism: A Korean case study. Tourism Management, 30(1), 99–108. [Google Scholar]
  48. Phan, U. T., & Chambers, E. (2016). Motivations for choosing various food groups based on individual foods. Appetite, 105, 204–211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Prescott, J., Young, O., O'neill, L., Yau, N. J. N., & Stevens, R. (2002). Motives for food choice: A comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand. Food Quality and Preference, 13(7–8), 489–495. [Google Scholar]
  50. Radder, L., & Grunert, K. G. (2009). Consumers’ perceptions of African wildlife meat: A laddering study. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 15(2), 164–174. [Google Scholar]
  51. Radder, L., & le Roux, R. (2005). Factors affecting food choice in relation to venison: A South African example. Meat Science, 71(3), 583–589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Razmaite, V., Pileckas, V., & Juškiene, V. (2019). Effect of muscle anatomical location on fatty acid composition of beaver (Castor fiber) females. Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 37(2), 106–111. [Google Scholar]
  53. Reeve, J. (2009), Understanding motivation and emotion. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ribeiro, J., Bingre, P., Strubbe, D., & Reino, L. (2020). Coronavirus: Why a permanent ban on wildlife trade might not work in China. Nature, 578(7794), 217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Rozin, P. (1996). The socio‐cultural context of eating and food choice. In Meiselman H. L. & MacFie H. J. H. (Eds.), Food choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 83–104). Blackie Academic & Professional. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rozin, P. (2002). Human food intake and choice: Biological, psychological and cultural perspectives. In Anderson H., Blundell, J. & Chiva M. (Eds.), Food selection: From genes to culture (pp. 7–25). Danone Institute. [Google Scholar]
  57. Rozin, P. (2007). Food choice: An introduction. In Frewer L. & Van Trijp H. (Eds.), Understanding consumers of food products (pp. 3–29). Woodhead Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar]
  58. Sarkar, S., Hossain, M. E., Gurley, E. S., Hasan, R., & Rahman, M. Z. (2018). An outbreak of classical swine fever in pigs in Bangladesh, 2015. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 4(1), 45–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Scheibehenne, B., Miesler, L., & Todd, P. M. (2007). Fast and frugal food choices: Uncovering individual decision heuristics. Appetite, 49(3), 578–589. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Shepherd, R., & Raats, M. M. (1996). Attitudes and beliefs in food habits. In Meiselman H. L. & MacFie H. J. H. (Eds.), Food choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 346–364). Blackie Academic & Professional; [Google Scholar]
  61. Shin, Y. H., Im, J., Jung, S. E., & Severt, K. (2018). Motivations behind consumers’ organic menu choices: The role of environmental concern, social value, and health consciousness. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 20(1), 107–122. [Google Scholar]
  62. Soewu, D. A., Bakare, O. K., & Ayodele, I. A. (2012). Trade in wild mammalian species for traditional medicine in Ogun State, Nigeria. Global Journal of Medical Research, 12(3), 6–22. [Google Scholar]
  63. Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (1999). Motivational factors as mediators of socioeconomic variations in dietary intakepatterns. Psychology & Health, 14(3), 391–402. [Google Scholar]
  64. Steptoe, A., Pollard, T. M., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: The food choice questionnaire. Appetite, 25(3), 267–284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Tomasevic, I., Novakovic, S., Solowiej, B., Zdolec, N., Skunca, D., Krocko, M., Nedomova, S., Kolaj, R., Aleksiev, G., & Djekic, I. (2018). Consumers' perceptions, attitudes and perceived quality of game meat in ten European countries. Meat Science, 142, 5–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. van Trijp, H. C., & Meulenberg, M. T. (1996). Marketing and consumer behaviour with respect to foods. In Meiselman H. L. & MacFie H. H. J. (Eds.), Food choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 264–292) Blackie Academic & Professional. [Google Scholar]
  67. Van Vliet, N., Muhindo, J., Nyumu, J. K., & Nasi, R. (2019). From the forest to the dish: A comprehensive study of the wildmeat value Chain in Yangambi, Democratic Republic of Congo. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wassenaar, A., Kempen, E., & van Eeden, T. (2019). Exploring South African consumers’ attitudes towards game meat—Utilizing a multi‐attribute attitude model. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 43(5), 437–445. [Google Scholar]
  69. Wee, C. S., Ariff, M. S. B. M., Zakuan, N., Tajudin, M. N. M., Ismail, K., & Ishak, N. (2014). Consumers perception, purchase intention and actual purchase behavior of organic food products. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 3(2), 378–397. [Google Scholar]
  70. Williams, V. L., Cunningham, A. B., Kemp, A. C., & Bruyns, R. K. (2014). Risks to birds traded for African traditional medicine: A quantitative assessment. PLoS One, 9(8), e105397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Zepeda, L., & Nie, C. (2012). What are the odds of being an organic or local food shopper? Multivariate analysis of US food shopper lifestyle segments. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(4), 467–480. [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhang, L., Hua, N., & Sun, S. (2008). Wildlife trade, consumption and conservation awareness in southwest China. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(6), 1493–1516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Articles from Veterinary Medicine and Science are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES