This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Consumers are increasingly prioritising health and sustainability when food shopping (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2017), reflected in the growing demand for plant-based products that align with these values (Good Food Institute [GFI] Europe, 2026a). However, economic challenges such as inflation and the rising cost of living are also impacting consumer behaviour, with price sensitivity becoming more pronounced (Ammann et al., 2023). These changing trends raise crucial questions about the factors influencing the decision to buy or not to buy plant-based products. It remains unclear whether recent stagnation in plant-based meat (PBM) uptake reflects enduring social and normative commitments to animal-based diets or is primarily a response to broader economic pressures.
Previous research has largely framed this slowdown in economic terms, emphasising food-price inflation and the cost-of-living crisis (e.g., Caputo et al., 2024; Office for National Statistics [ONS], 2023). However, consumers’ subjective perceptions and interpretations of economic pressures may meaningfully diverge from, and at times outweigh, objective price changes. Consumer cost concerns about plant-based eating may therefore reflect psychological processes rather than objective price differences alone. Price salience, wariness towards unfamiliar foods, and identity-based reasoning about what one eats have each been linked to lower acceptance of plant-based products (Graça et al., 2019; Hoek et al., 2011; Onwezen et al., 2021).
Food inflation has been particularly high in the UK, with pronounced price volatility. The UK meat market has experienced pronounced price volatility in the past decade, driven by compounding supply-side disruptions including COVID-19 pandemic-related processing disruptions and domestic labour shortages (Payne-Gifford et al., 2022; ONS, 2023b). UK food price inflation was the highest it had been in 40 years, peaking at 19.1% in March 2023 with meat consistently among the largest contributing categories (ONS, 2023a). Beef production is particularly susceptible to market fluctuations, with demand-driven conditions affecting both prices and consumption patterns. Elevated prices have prompted consumers to reduce or completely halt their beef consumption. In 2023, meat consumption fell to its lowest in the UK since the 1970s. The cost of living crisis and rising food prices have been identified as key drivers of this decline (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2023; ONS, 2023a). As of 2026, consumer price inflation peaked at 27.4% for beef, a record high over the past two decades (ONS, 2026).
GFI Europe has reported that the cost of preparing a plant-based equivalent of a common meat dish is now cheaper than its conventional counterpart at major supermarkets (GFI Europe, 2026b). However, the international picture is more complex. In the US, the average price per pound of PBM was 77% higher than conventional meat in 2023, a wider gap than the previous year (GFI, 2024), and price remains the primary barrier to wider adoption globally (Jahn et al., 2024). Moreover, relatively little work has examined whether price perceptions align with actual price changes or how they relate to dietary behaviour. Research suggests that omnivore eating is “egocentric” and based on cost, convenience and familiarity whereas plant-based eaters’ habits centre predominantly on values (Müssig et al., 2022). Whether this is a consistent pattern and true for ‘flexitarians’ or ‘reducitarians’, that is, omnivores actively reducing their meat intake, is not yet clear.
Economic and Psychological Predictors of Price Perceptions
Beyond income, psychological factors may shape how consumers attend to and interpret food prices. Consumer perceptions, particularly regarding price, play a pivotal role in plant-based purchasing decisions (Onwezen et al., 2021). Insights from Reference Price Theory demonstrate that consumers form reference prices and expectations based on exposure to particular prices, and these affect broader category perceptions (Ranyard et al., 2001). For example, exposure to premium-priced plant-based products may lead consumers to generalise these prices to the broader category, inflating perceived average costs.
People are notoriously poor at tracking the prices of everyday goods. This is in part because individuals tend to overweight price increases and discount price decreases, a selective-memory pattern consistent with loss aversion (Dräger et al., 2014; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). Reference-dependent models posit that people evaluate outcomes relative to a reference point rather than in absolute terms, which heightens sensitivity to losses (Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). Essentially, losses tend to loom larger than equivalent gains.
Beyond cognitive weighting, people also mismeasure inflation itself. Part of the problem may be the consistent uncertainty in how inflation works (Armantier et al., 2021). Significant uncertainty may leave room for subjective assessments. Across the United States and Europe, representative surveys have repeatedly documented a persistent inflation perception bias: median households overestimate official Consumer Price Index inflation by 1–3 percentage points (D’Acunto et al., 2021; Binetti et al., 2024). And those with the most pessimistic economic expectations overestimate inflation the most severely, particularly for those in lower socioeconomic conditions where living costs occupy most day-to-day concerns (Abildgren & Kuchler, 2021; Das, Kuhnen & Nagel, 2020).
Applied to food, this suggests that even modest PBM price increases may loom larger than equivalent decreases. Moreover, wide price differences across brands, stores, or promotional cycles may muddle consumers’ reference points for what PBM “should” cost, making high-cost examples all the more salient. In such contexts, perceptions that PBM is “too expensive” may persist even when average prices approach parity with animal meat.
Taken together, loss-aversion weighting and inflation misperception coupled with high variation in PBM pricing imply that modest PBM price rises are likely to be remembered and amplified, while temporary discounts may fade from memory.
Identity, Familiarity, and Resistance to Dietary Change
Importantly, misperceived inflation does not operate in a vacuum; it interacts with consumers’ familiarity, values and dietary identities. A significant barrier to PBM adoption is the lack of familiarity and the fear of novel foods, known as food neophobia. This can foster risk aversion in replacing traditional meat with plant-based alternatives; those high in food neophobia are likely to be resistant to alternative proteins (plant-based and cultivated meat; Hoek et al., 2011; Onwezen et al., 2021). Additionally, perceived resource scarcity can narrow attention and increase reliance on familiar, habitual options (Shah et al., 2012), which may further reduce openness to novel alternatives.
One’s social identity may also exacerbate high price perceptions. Cost beliefs are sticky and despite tangible changes in price indexing, perceptions can overshadow actual prices with regards to meat versus meat analogues (Jahn et al., 2024). Taking meat attachment for example, individuals high in meat attachment (an emotional and normative bond with animal meat) show greater resistance to dietary change (Graça et al., 2015a), even when presented with ethical, environmental, or health arguments (Graça et al., 2015b; Piazza et al., 2015; Testa et al., 2025). Consistent with this, stronger meat attachment has been associated with less favourable attitudes toward plant-based alternatives and lower willingness to purchase them (Michel et al., 2021). For these consumers, rising PBM prices—imagined or real—may reinforce existing eating patterns. Messages emphasising high plant-based costs, combined with unfamiliarity with the products, may entrench confirmation bias among those already motivated to maintain their dietary identity.
Together, these findings indicate that identity, familiarity preferences, and responses to perceived constraint can shape receptivity to PBM products, beyond objective price levels alone.
Income and the Price Perception Gap
The relationship between income and plant-based uptake is inconsistent. While lower earnings are associated with greater barriers to plant-based foods (Kuosmanen et al., 2023), education appears to be a stronger and more consistent predictor than income alone. Both relationships are shown to be mediated by food-related attitudes (Klink et al., 2022). What may matter more than income is the type of substitution involved. Mixed socioeconomic differences in meat consumption may be due to differences in processed rather than premium cuts and red meat versus white meat (Klink et al., 2022). Compatible with this assertion is the evidence that whole-food plant-based diets—centred on legumes, tofu, and grains rather than processed meat alternatives—can cost less than omnivorous diets (Pais et al., 2022). This suggests that cost barriers to plant-based eating may reflect the premium pricing of novel PBM products specifically, perceived expense rather than actual cost, or a compounding of both.
Nonetheless, consumer surveys across Europe and North America repeatedly list perceived high price among the top three obstacles to eating more plant-based foods (Onwezen et al., 2021). This pattern points to a potential price perception gap, in which beliefs about affordability may be more influential than objective food costs.
Persistent misperceptions about inflation may therefore hinder dietary change even in the absence of substantial price differences. If consumers overestimate PBM inflation while accepting meat price increases as normative, affordability thresholds may shift independently of actual prices. These dynamics suggest that economic interventions alone may be insufficient unless accompanied by efforts that address how cost information is perceived and interpreted. Together, these findings suggest that perceived cost barriers to PBM arise from an interaction between economic context and psychological interpretation, rather than from objective prices alone.
The Present Study
Against this backdrop, the current research investigates whether cost concerns for PBM are overstated and how they relate to key psychological variables. The primary outcome is the perceived inflation rate of PBM relative to beef, with secondary outcomes including perceived price premiums and self-reported changes in consumption. Using a cross-sectional survey of UK adults, we assess estimates of PBM and beef price inflation, meat attachment, food neophobia, self-reported income, and the importance of price in food purchasing. Specifically, we aim to address the following research questions:
RQ1: Is higher perceived PBM inflation associated with higher perceived PBM price premiums relative to conventional meat (beef/pork/chicken)?
RQ2: Is higher perceived PBM inflation associated with lower self-reported PBM consumption?
RQ3: Do psychological barriers such as meat attachment and food neophobia predict higher perceived PBM price premiums?
RQ4: Does cost importance predict PBM outcomes?
RQ5: How does income relate to red meat displacement (via PBM uptake)?
Insights from this research will inform both marketing strategies and public policy designed to accelerate plant-based eating under real-world economic constraints.
Methodology
UK Consumer Survey
Participants were recruited via Prolific using a quota-matched convenience sampling approach. Prolific’s UK representative sampling feature was used to approximate national census distributions on age, sex, and region. A total of 1,023 responses were recorded. Seven responses were excluded due to missing Prolific participant identification numbers, yielding a final analytic sample of N = 1,016 UK adults aged 18 years or older. The sample was 51.5% women and 47.9% men (0.6% identified as another gender category). The largest age group was 55 years and older (39.5%), followed by 25–34 years (17.2%). Most participants identified as meat-eaters (63.9%), with 23.3% describing themselves as meat-reducers. Full demographic characteristics are available in the OSF repository (see Couture et al., 2025).
The survey was administered online using Zoho Surveys. After providing informed consent, participants completed measures assessing demographic characteristics, self-reported dietary pattern, changes in consumption of animal products and plant-based substitutes, perceived inflation for plant-based beef relative to a 9% beef inflation anchor, and perceived plant-based price premiums relative to conventional meat. Psychological constructs were measured using abbreviated five-item versions of the Food Neophobia Scale and the Meat Attachment Questionnaire.
An instructional attention check was embedded midway through the survey to assess response attentiveness. Participants were asked, “Please indicate which of the following applies to you,” with the correct response being “I am a human and paying attention.” Responses to this item were used to monitor data quality. No additional exclusions were made based on this item, as the vast majority of participants responded correctly.
Analyses were conducted using Jamovi. Because regression models were estimated using listwise deletion, sample sizes vary slightly across analyses depending on the variables included in each model. The analytic N for each model is reported in the corresponding tables. Full item wording, scoring procedures, and reliability estimates are reported in the output within the OSF repository.
Measures
Perceived PBM Inflation
Participants were informed that beef inflation over the past year was 9% and were asked to estimate the inflation rate for plant-based beef. Responses were recorded as continuous percentage estimates on a sliding scale from 0-100%.
Perceived PBM Price Premium
Participants estimated how much more or less expensive PBM was relative to beef, pork, and chicken by selecting from 13 response options ranging from 'plant-based meat > 50% less expensive' to 'plant-based meat > 50% more expensive'. For the correlation matrix (Table 1), responses were coded numerically on a 1–13 continuous scale. For regression analyses (Tables 1 and 3), each response option was recoded to the midpoint of its corresponding percentage band, yielding a continuous variable ranging from −55 (PBM > 50% less expensive than beef) to +55 (PBM > 50% more expensive than beef), where negative values indicate perceived PBM price advantage and positive values indicate perceived PBM price premium.
Table 1
Correlation Matrix of Key Variables - Change in Plant-Based Meat Consumption, Estimates of Plant-Based Beef Inflation and Other Key Factors
| △ red meat consumption | △ poultry consumption | PBM inflation estimate | PBM price vs beef price | PBM price vs pork price | PBM price vs chicken price | Cost importance | △ PBM consumption | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| △ red meat consumption | r | — | |||||||
| p | — | ||||||||
| 95% CI | — | ||||||||
| △ poultry consumption | r | .34 | — | ||||||
| p | < .001 | — | |||||||
| 95% CI | [.28, .39] | — | |||||||
| PBM inflation estimate | r | -.03 | -.01 | — | |||||
| p | .33 | .65 | — | ||||||
| 95% CI | [-.09, .03] | [-.08, .05] | — | ||||||
| PBM price vs beef price | r | .07 | .07 | .11 | — | ||||
| p | .02 | .02 | < .001 | — | |||||
| 95% CI | [.01, .14] | [.01, .13] | [.05, .17] | — | |||||
| PBM price vs pork price | r | .06 | .07 | .08 | .90 | — | |||
| p | .04 | .03 | .01 | < .001 | — | ||||
| 95% CI | [.00, .13] | [.01, .13] | [.02, .14] | [.88, .90] | — | ||||
| PBM price vs chicken price | r | .06 | .06 | .12 | .87 | .89 | — | ||
| p | < .05 | .05 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | — | |||
| 95% CI | [.00, .12] | [-.00, .12] | [.06, .18] | [.85, .88] | [.87, .90] | — | |||
| Cost importance | r | -.11 | -.02 | -.00 | .14 | .13 | .13 | — | |
| p | < .001 | .46 | .94 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | — | ||
| 95% CI | [-.17, -.05] | [-.12, -.24] | [-.06, .06] | [.08, .20] | [.07, .19] | [.07, .19] | — | ||
| △ PBM consumption | r | -.18 | -.18 | -.11 | -.01 | .01 | .01 | .10 | — |
| p | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 | .88 | .74 | .74 | .001 | — | |
| 95% CI | [-.12, -.24] | [-.12, -.24] | [-.17, -.04] | [-.07, .06] | [-.05, .07] | [-.05, .07] | [.04, .16] | — |
Consumption Change
Participants retrospectively reported perceived changes in their consumption of PBM, red meat, and poultry over the past 12 months using a five-point Likert scale (1 = decreased a lot, 3 = remained about the same, 5 = increased a lot). Responses were treated as continuous variables for analysis, with higher scores reflecting greater reported increases in consumption.
Cost Importance
Participants rated the importance of cost when food shopping on a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate greater cost salience.
Food Neophobia
Food neophobia was assessed using an abbreviated five-item version of the Food Neophobia Scale to reduce participant burden. Participants rated agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Example items include “I don’t trust new foods” and “If I don’t know what is in a food, I won’t try it.” Items were averaged such that higher scores reflect greater food neophobia (α = .75).
Meat Attachment
Meat attachment was measured using a shortened five-item version of the Meat Attachment Questionnaire. Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale. Example items include “I would be comfortable with a meatless diet” (reverse scored) and “I feel bad when I think of eating meat.” Items were averaged so that higher scores indicate stronger attachment to meat (α = .90).
Ethical Statement
This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in The Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PREC). All participants in the survey were provided with full information about the study, and informed consent was obtained before participation. The study was approved by the appropriate ethics review board.
Data Analysis
Analyses were conducted using Jamovi. Descriptive statistics were computed prior to inferential testing. Primary hypotheses were evaluated using multiple linear regression models, and Pearson correlations were examined to assess bivariate associations among key variables. Our a priori target (α = .05, 1–b = .95) used the overall model F. Residual degrees of freedom across regression models ranged from approximately 930 to 1,000.
We adopted α = .05 and 1 – β = .95 for all regression F-tests. Sample size was not set by a priori power analysis; rather, a target of N ≈ 1,000 was chosen to support a nationally representative quota sample. Post hoc sensitivity analyses, based on the residual degrees of freedom observed across models (~930–1,000), indicate that a two-sided test of a single regression coefficient detects a minimum partial correlation of |ρ| ≈ .11 (partial R2 ≈ .013, Cohen's f2 ≈ .013) at 95% power. For overall models with 3–10 predictors, the sample provides 95% power to detect small effects (Cohen's f2 ≈ .02). Given the exploratory nature of this work (see Limitations), these values characterise the sensitivity of the obtained sample rather than a prospective sample-size justification.
Regression models were estimated using ordinary least squares with listwise deletion for missing data; analytic sample sizes therefore vary slightly across models, and the N for each analysis is reported in the corresponding table. As robustness checks, primary models were re-estimated controlling for gender and self-reported dietary patterns.
Descriptive statistics were computed for key demographic variables and primary study measures prior to inferential analyses. To provide an initial overview of associations, Pearson correlations examined bivariate relationships among perceived PBM inflation, perceived PBM prices relative to beef, pork, and chicken, changes in red-meat, poultry, and PBM consumption, and the importance of cost when food shopping. Additionally, as robustness checks, primary models were re-estimated controlling for gender and self-reported dietary patterns. Because dietary pattern is closely related to meat attachment and meat-related behaviour, models including diet were treated as sensitivity analyses rather than primary specifications, as adjustment may capture overlapping variance or reflect conditional (within-diet) associations rather than overall effects.
RQ1 (Perceived PBM Inflation and Perceived PBM Price Premium)
To test whether higher perceived PBM inflation was associated with higher perceived PBM price premiums, we ran a Pearson correlation. For robustness, we additionally ran a linear regression model controlling for income and PBM consumption change, reported in supplementary analyses. Perceived PBM inflation was elicited after presenting a 9% beef-inflation anchor and was analysed as a continuous percentage estimate.
RQ2 (Perceived PBM Inflation and PBM Consumption)
To examine whether higher perceived PBM inflation was associated with lower PBM consumption change, we assessed their (Pearson) correlation. A linear regression was also run for robustness, controlling for income and change in PMB consumption (see supplementary analyses).
RQ3 (Psychological Predictors of Perceived PBM Price Premium)
To assess whether meat attachment and food neophobia predicted higher perceived PBM price premiums, regression analyses examined perceived PBM price relative to beef as the outcome, with meat attachment and cost importance entered as predictors. Food neophobia was also examined as a predictor of perceived PBM cost differences.
RQ4 (Cost Importance and PBM Consumption Change)
To test whether cost importance predicted PBM consumption change, linear regression models were conducted with change in PBM consumption as the outcome and cost importance, meat attachment, and income (standardised midpoint) as predictors.
RQ5 (Income and Substitution Effects)
We next examined (i) whether household income was associated with differential changes in conventional meat consumption and (ii) whether coordinated substitution patterns between red meat and PBM were evident. Given that economic constraints may influence dietary adjustment strategies, we explored whether income categories differed in reported red meat consumption change.
Results
Perceived PBM Inflation and Perceived Price Premium
Participants estimated the inflation rate for PBM at an average of 15.4% when anchored to a 9% inflation rate for beef. To test RQ1, we examined whether higher perceived PBM inflation was associated with higher perceived PBM price premiums relative to conventional meat. As expected, perceived PBM inflation was positively, albeit weakly, correlated (r = .11) with perceived PBM price relative to beef (see Table 1). That is to say, participants who believed PBM to be more expensive than beef also estimated higher inflation rates for PBM. A linear regression analysis further indicated this trend (see supplementary analyses on the OSF). Additionally, we employed a joint regression alongside the bivariate correlations (see supplementary analyses) to test whether the perceived-price-to-perceived-inflation association (RQ1) is robust to individual differences in PBM familiarity (as proxied by self-reported change in PBM consumption). Income is included as a control given the documented relationship between socioeconomic position and inflation perception (Das et al., 2020).
Perceived PBM Inflation and PBM Consumption Change, Displacement Effect and Cost Concerns
To test RQ2, we examined whether higher perceived PBM inflation was associated with lower PBM consumption change. As shown in Table 1, perceived PBM inflation showed a small negative correlation with change in PBM consumption (r = -0.105, p < .001), such that participants who estimated higher inflation rates reported smaller increases in PBM consumption. A linear regression analysis further supported this finding (see supplementary analyses)
Psychological Predictors of Perceived PBM Price Premium
To test RQ3, we examined whether psychological factors predicted perceived price differences between PBM and conventional beef. A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted with perceived PBM price relative to beef (midpoint-coded percentage estimate) as the dependent variable (see Table 2).
Stronger personal attachment to meat predicted higher perceived PBM prices relative to beef (b = 3.36, SE = 0.97, t = 3.45, p < .001), a relatively small effect. Similarly, greater importance placed on cost when food shopping was associated with higher perceived PBM price estimates, b = 3.18, SE = 0.69, t = 4.62, p < .001. In contrast, food neophobia was not a significant predictor of perceived PBM price differences, b = -0.39, SE = 1.05, t = -0.37, p = .711. However, food neophobia did predict broader perceptions that plant-based diets are expensive (see supplementary analyses).
These findings indicate that meat attachment and cost importance were associated with perceiving PBM as more expensive than conventional beef, whereas food neophobia was not. Granted, the model accounted for little variance overall (R2 = .013), indicating these psychological factors explain only a small share of individual differences in price perceptions.
Table 2
Regression Predicting Perceived PBM Prices Relative to Beef From Psychological Predictors
| Predictor | Estimate | SE | 95% Confidence Interval | t | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| Intercept | -25.99 | 5.132 | -36.07 | -15.92 | -5.065 | < .001 |
| Neophobia | -0.388 | 1.046 | -2.44 | 1.66 | -0.371 | .711 |
| Cost Importance | 3.180 | 0.688 | 4.53 | 4.619 | 4.619 | < .001 |
| Meat Attachment | 3.355 | 0.972 | 5.26 | 3.453 | 3.453 | < .001 |
Note. Model fit: R = .175, R2 = .0305. Unstandardised coefficients are reported.
Cost Importance and PBM Consumption Change
To test RQ4, we examined whether the importance placed on cost when food shopping predicted change in PBM consumption. A linear regression analysis (Table 3) indicated that greater cost importance was associated with increased PBM consumption (b = 0.090, p = .003). In contrast, stronger personal attachment to meat was associated with decreased PBM consumption (b = -0.328, p < .001). Standardised household income (midpoint) did not significantly predict PBM consumption change (b = 0.051, p = .184).
Sensitivity analyses including a quadratic income term did not improve model fit, and dummy-coded income specifications yielded comparable conclusions (see Table 3).
In sum, while income was not predictive of change in PBM consumption, both cost importance (b = 0.09) and meat attachment (b = -0.33) were predictive, with meat attachment showing the larger association.
Table 3
Linear Regression Predicting Change in Plant-Based Meat (PBM) Consumption from Cost Importance, Meat Attachment, and Household Income (Quadratic Specification)
| Predictor | b | SE | 95% Confidence Interval | t | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| Intercept | 3.589 | 0.185 | 3.226 | 3.953 | 19.36 | < .001 |
| Cost importance | 0.090 | 0.031 | 0.030 | 0.150 | 2.95 | .003 |
| Z Income (midpoint) | 0.051 | 0.039 | -0.024 | 0.127 | 1.33 | .184 |
| Z Income (mindpoint)2 | 0.005 | 0.020 | -0.034 | 0.044 | 0.269 | .788 |
| Meat attachment | -0.328 | 0.043 | -0.412 | 0.044 | -7.66 | < .001 |
Note. N = 945. R = .0272, R2 = .0737.
As robustness checks, all primary regression models were re-estimated including gender and self-reported dietary patterns. Results were substantively similar across models (see Couture et al., 2025). The only notable difference was that the association between meat attachment and perceived plant-based price premiums was attenuated when dietary pattern was included, consistent with dietary pattern capturing variance closely related to meat attachment and meat-related behaviour, resulting in a conditional (within-diet) estimate.
Income Effects and Displacement Patterns
Although income did not significantly predict PBM consumption change in the primary regression model (Section 3.4), exploratory analyses revealed differences in red meat consumption across income categories (see Table 4). However, these income effects are modest in magnitude. Participants in the £20,000–£29,999 income range reported greater reductions in red meat consumption compared to those in the £60,000–£69,999 range, b = 0.31, p = .010, and compared to those in the £50,000–£59,999 range, b = 0.21, p = .045.
Table 4
Linear Regression Predicting Change in Red Meat Consumption From Household Income (Reference = £20,000–£29,999)
| Predictor | Estimate | SE | 95% Confidence Interval | t | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| Interceptᵃ | 2.333 | 0.067 | 2.202 | 2.464 | 34.94 | < .001 |
| £30,000–£39,999 | 0.034 | 0.098 | -0.159 | 0.226 | 0.34 | .733 |
| £40,000–£49,999 | 0.139 | 0.101 | -0.060 | 0.337 | 1.37 | .171 |
| £50,000–£59,999 | 0.215 | 0.107 | 0.005 | 0.424 | 2.01 | .045 |
| £60,000–£69,999 | 0.307 | 0.119 | 0.074 | 0.540 | 2.58 | .010 |
| £70,000–£79,999 | 0.067 | 0.138 | -0.203 | 0.337 | 0.49 | .628 |
| £80,000–£89,999 | -0.016 | 0.149 | -0.308 | 0.275 | -0.11 | .913 |
| £90,000–£99,999 | 0.038 | 0.158 | -0.273 | 0.349 | 0.24 | .810 |
| > £100,000 | 0.015 | 0.087 | -0.157 | 0.186 | 0.17 | .868 |
Note. N = 961. Model fit: R = .113, R2 = .013. Unstandardised coefficients are reported. ᵃReference category = £20,000–£29,999.
Evidence for a displacement pattern was also observed. Increases in PBM consumption showed small-to-medium negative correlations with changes in red meat (r = -.181, p < .001) and poultry consumption (r = -.182, p < .001), suggesting that increases in PBM intake were associated with reductions in conventional meat consumption (see Table 1).
Figure 1 displays the distribution of participants’ estimates of PBM prices relative to other food products. While many respondents perceived PBM and conventional meat to cost approximately the same, variability in perceived price differences was evident across the sample.
Figure 1
Estimated Price Differences of Food Products Relative to PBM
Discussion
This study provides insight into how perceived inflation, meat attachment, and consumption patterns relate to cost perceptions and purchasing decisions surrounding PBM.
Higher Perceived Inflation and Price Premium
One of the central findings concerns perceptions of PBM inflation. When presented with the information that the inflation rate of beef in the UK for 2023 was 9%, participants reported a mean estimated PBM inflation of 15.4%. This gap suggests that PBM inflation is perceived as relatively high in comparison to salient reference information, consistent with well-documented anchoring effects in inflation perception.
Higher perceived PBM prices were associated with higher perceived PBM inflation, indicating that general cost impressions and inflation estimates tend to co-occur. This pattern aligns with evidence that individuals holding more pessimistic price beliefs extrapolate higher inflation across related categories (Abildgren & Kuchler, 2021). This pattern was detectable even when a salient meat anchor was provided, though the association was small. In other words, individuals who are already inclined to believe PBM is significantly more expensive than beef are likely to mirror this in their estimates of inflation.
Those who reported that they increased their PBM consumption, however, perceived its inflation as lower. One possibility is that consumers who already purchase PBM are simply more familiar with actual prices and rely less on general cost assumptions. Alternatively, PBM consumers may differ in other respects (e.g. education, political orientation, sustainability concern, or nutrition knowledge) that are independently associated with lower inflation estimates.
Psychological Predictors of Perceived PBM Price Premium
While higher perceived inflation did not correlate with meat attachment, perceiving plant-based diets as more expensive than meat-based diets was predicted by meat attachment, even when controlling for income. This dissociation between subjective price perception and objective financial circumstances is consistent with research demonstrating that necessity and cost arguments frequently function as part of a broader repertoire of rationalisations through which meat-attached consumers resist dietary change (Piazza et al., 2015; Graça et al., 2015b), and with experimental evidence that psychological scarcity heightens preference for familiar, habitual options (Shah et al., 2012). It also aligns with findings that plant-based consumers empirically spend less on food than omnivores in some contexts, suggesting that perceived expense may be more closely tied to attitudinal resistance than to actual affordability constraints (Pais et al., 2022). A recent study of Polish consumers revealed that higher meat attached individuals reported reduced openness to PBMs, partially via reduced perceived value in terms of sensory ideals, the belief that plant-based products were more expensive, less appetising and have lower nutritional value compared to traditional meat products (Kosicka-Gębska et al., 2025).
Food neophobia did not predict perceiving PBM as more expensive than meat according to both the regression and additional correlations (see supplementary materials). This is not entirely unsurprising given that people with food neophobia are likely to have more restrictive diets and may not be as familiar with novel PBM prices. However, neophobia did predict perceiving plant-based diets as more expensive. This suggests that while behaviour may not directly shift, attitudes toward plant-based cost may still reflect psychological orientation. Individuals high in food neophobia may have more restricted dietary repertoires and therefore less familiarity with a range of product prices, including plant-based products, particularly if those higher in food neophobia tend to have a greater attachment to meat (Jezewska-Zychowicz et al., 2021).
Controlling for cost importance and neophobia, individuals who perceived PBMs as more expensive than beef were shown to score higher in meat attachment. This association may reflect a combination of reduced familiarity with plant-based products and identity-consistent cost reasoning, whereby price perceptions align with existing dietary preferences rather than objective price information (Piazza et al., 2015; Huseynov et al., 2023)
These associations admit several non-causal explanations. Consumers who already purchase PBM may simply be more familiar with actual prices; PBM users may differ systematically in education, political orientation, sustainability concerns, or nutrition knowledge; and meat attachment may reflect dietary identity that co-varies with cost beliefs rather than producing them. The cross-sectional design cannot distinguish among these accounts.
Cost Importance and PBM Uptake
Individuals who reported that they increased their consumption of PBM tended to decrease their consumption of red meat and poultry, consistent with a displacement pattern found in previous UK survey evidence (Bryant et al., 2023). Notably, there was a subtle positive correlation between reported increases in PBM consumption and higher cost salience when food shopping. Given the small magnitude of this association, it should be interpreted with caution. We offer three tentative explanations: meat reducers may attend more to price comparisons, consumers with pre-existing cost concerns may be more inclined to try PBM, or both may reflect general budget-consciousness. To the extent the association holds, cost salience was related to both PBM uptake and reduced red-meat consumption.
Importantly, household income did not predict PBM consumption change. This suggests that subjective cost importance may be more relevant to PBM adoption than objective income level. While previous studies have identified cost as a commonly cited reason for reducing meat consumption, often second only to health concerns, the present findings indicate that cost salience operates somewhat independently from income.
Income Effects and Displacement Patterns
Interestingly, while income did not predict PBM uptake, lower-income brackets demonstrated greater reductions in red meat consumption relative to some higher-income brackets. One interpretation is that lower-income households economise by cutting back on meat and turning to whole plant foods rather than PBM, though the cross-sectional data cannot establish this. Addressing both perceived cost barriers and material affordability constraints may therefore be important for supporting shifts toward both affordable and sustainable dietary patterns, with potential downstream benefits for environmental sustainability and public health.
Implications for Policy and Market Strategies
The associations observed here were small by conventional standards, with correlations mostly in the range of r = .10–.18 and models explaining modest variance. However, meat consumption is a high-frequency behaviour enacted by millions of consumers daily, so even small shifts in price perceptions or purchasing, aggregated across a population and across repeated purchase occasions, could translate into meaningful changes in demand (see Funder & Ozer, 2019).
These findings are consistent with a possible role for interventions addressing how consumers perceive PBM costs. Although objective price differences between plant-based and animal-derived meats vary by product category and retail context, market analyses suggest that perceived price gaps often exceed observed differences, particularly when premium products dominate consumer reference points (GFI, 2021).
Strategies such as public information campaigns, pricing transparency initiatives, or subsidies aimed at improving perceived affordability could form one component of efforts to support PBM adoption, particularly when combined with efforts that increase consumer familiarity with these products. Even modest changes to the relative price of meat and vegetarian options can shift sales (Garnett et al., 2021), suggesting that affordability interventions may translate into measurable behavioural change.
In parallel, the present findings suggest that psychological predictors such as meat attachment are more closely associated with PBM cost perceptions, suggesting that interventions increasing familiarity and perceived value may complement economic approaches (Graça et al., 2015b; Piazza et al., 2015).
Limitations
Despite the valuable insights generated by this study, several limitations need to be acknowledged. Firstly, the reliance on self-reported data introduces the possibility of response biases, such as social desirability bias, which may influence participants to overreport positive behaviours and underreport negative ones. This is particularly pertinent when examining dietary habits and attitudes toward PBMs given the current societal emphasis on sustainable eating practices
Additionally, the study’s cross-sectional design limits the ability to infer causality. While correlations between income levels, perceptions of PBM prices, and consumption changes were identified, it remains unclear whether these relationships are causal or merely associative. In-lab experimental studies that draw from behavioural economics and integrate psychological factors such as meat attachment in conjunction with socio-economic data will be necessary to parse apart the most salient factors that influence cost concerns and price sensitivity of PBM to predict uptake. Additionally, longitudinal studies would be beneficial to more accurately capture changes over time and the long-lasting effects of subsidising PBM costs.
Finally, as this study was not pre-registered, all analyses are considered exploratory. To test concrete hypotheses, we encourage future research to pre-register their predictions and analysis plans.
Conclusion
This study examined how consumers perceive PBM prices and inflation, and whether these relate to psychological factors such as food neophobia and meat attachment as well as income and consumption patterns. Across a UK quota-matched online sample, participants overestimated PBM inflation when presented with a beef inflation anchor. Higher perceived PBM prices were associated with higher perceived PBM inflation, while individuals who reported increasing their PBM consumption perceived lower PBM inflation.
Psychological factors were consistently, though modestly, associated with cost perceptions. Stronger meat attachment and greater cost importance predicted perceiving PBM as more expensive than beef, and meat attachment was associated with reduced PBM uptake. In contrast, income did not predict PBM consumption change. Although lower-income respondents reported somewhat greater reductions in red meat consumption, income was not associated with PBM uptake.
Taken together, these findings suggest that subjective price perceptions and identity-related factors may be more closely linked to PBM decision-making than objective financial resources. Efforts to support dietary transitions may therefore benefit from addressing both perceived cost barriers and psychological attachments to conventional meat, particularly under conditions of economic uncertainty.