Cultured meat has evolved from an idea and concept into a reality with the August 2013 cultured hamburger tasting in London. Still, how consumers conceive cultured meat is largely an open question. This study addresses consumers' reactions and attitude formation towards cultured meat through analyzing focus group discussions and online deliberations with 179 meat consumers from Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Initial reactions when learning about cultured meat were underpinned by feelings of disgust and considerations of unnaturalness. Consumers saw few direct personal benefits but they were more open to perceiving global societal benefits relating to the environment and global food security. Both personal and societal risks were framed in terms of uncertainties about safety and health, and possible adverse societal consequences dealing with loss of farming and eating traditions and rural livelihoods. Further reflection pertained to skepticism about 'the inevitable' scientific progress, concern about risk governance and control, and need for regulation and proper labeling.

Sentiment analysis techniques are increasingly used to grasp reactions from social media users to unexpected and potentially stressful social events. This paper argues that, alongside assessments of the affective valence of social media content as negative or positive, there is a need for a deeper understanding of the context in which reactions are expressed and the specific functions that users' emotional states may reflect. To demonstrate this, we present a qualitative analysis of affective expressions on Twitter collected in Germany during the 2011 EHEC food contamination incident based on a coding scheme developed from Skinner et al.'s (2003) coping classification framework. Affective expressions of coping were found to be diverse not only in terms of valence but also in the adaptive functions they served: beyond the positive or negative tone, some people perceived the outbreak as a threat while others as a challenge to cope with. We discuss how this qualitative sentiment analysis can allow a better understanding of the way the overall situation is perceived – threat or challenge – and the resources that individuals experience having to cope with emerging demands.European Commission; Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT

The use of emoticons and emoji is increasingly popular across a variety of new platforms of online communication. They have also become popular as stimulus materials in scientific research. However, the assumption that emoji/emoticon users’ interpretations always correspond to the developers’/researchers’ intended meanings might be misleading. This article presents subjective norms of emoji and emoticons provided by everyday users. The Lisbon Emoji and Emoticon Database (LEED) comprises 238 stimuli: 85 emoticons and 153 emoji (collected from iOS, Android, Facebook, and Emojipedia). The sample included 505 Portuguese participants recruited online. Each participant evaluated a random subset of 20 stimuli for seven dimensions: aesthetic appeal, familiarity, visual complexity, concreteness, valence, arousal, and meaningfulness. Participants were additionally asked to attribute a meaning to each stimulus. The norms obtained include quantitative descriptive results (means, standard deviations, and confidence intervals) and a meaning analysis for each stimulus. We also examined the correlations between the dimensions and tested for differences between emoticons and emoji, as well as between the two major operating systems—Android and iOS. The LEED constitutes a readily available normative database (available at www.osf.io/nua4x ) with potential applications to different research domains.

Drawing on social representations theory, we explore how the public make sense of the unfamiliar, taking as the example a novel technology: synthetic meat. Data from an online deliberation study and eighteen focus groups in Belgium, Portugal and the UK indicated that the various strategies of sense-making afforded different levels of critical thinking about synthetic meat. Anchoring to genetic modification, metaphors like ‘Frankenfoods’ and commonplaces like ‘playing God’ closed off debates around potential applications of synthetic meat, whereas asking factual and rhetorical questions about it, weighing up pragmatically its risks and benefits, and envisaging changing current mentalities or behaviours in order to adapt to scientific developments enabled a consideration of synthetic meat’s possible implications for agriculture, environment, and society. We suggest that research on public understanding of technology should cultivate a climate of active thinking and should encourage questioning during the process of sense-making to try to reduce unhelpful anchoring.