## 3 Results  
### Representations' Structure  
#### 3.1.1 Prototypical Analysis and Cognitive Salience  
In this section, we will present results useful for hypothesizing both the composition of the core social representation under study and the patterns of its periphery. The analysis of prototypicality (Table 3) indicates that the categories Sustainable (Freq. 43; R.I. 1.9), Innovation (Freq. 39; R.I. 2.6), and Future (Freq. 36; R.I. 2.7) represent the central core of the omnivores' representation. Cognitive salience indices support the positions identified by prototypicality for the central core cognemes. Among omnivore participants, the most prominent elements of the social representation of cultivated meat are Sustainability (SI 0.101), Innovation (SI 0.067), and Future (SI 0.059). The Veg subsample consists of all respondents who identified as practicing vegetarianism, veganism, or a similar eating style by reducing their meat consumption. This group includes 49 individuals, representing 16.6 percent of the total. The small sample size of Veg raises the likelihood of Type II errors, which occur when a real effect is not detected. This means there may be significant differences between vegetarians and omnivores that the study failed to identify due to low statistical power. For instance, while we noted some significant differences in sensory perceptions between the two groups, subtler differences might have gone undetected because of the limited number of vegetarian participants. Veg's sample dimension also diminishes statistical power, making it more challenging to confirm the research hypotheses. Even when noteworthy results emerged, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Scale** & **A** & **Items** \\ \hline SR\_NFQ & - & - \\
1. Suspicion toward novelty & 0.883 & 8 \\
2. Adherence to technology & 0.830 & 6 \\
3. Adherence to natural food & 0.663 & 5 \\
4. Food as pleasure & 0.789 & 4 \\
5. Food as necessity & 0.725 & 4 \\ CuMAQ & - & - \\ CuMAQ-D & 0.948 & 5 \\ CuMAQ-I & 0.884 & 3 \\ CuMAQ-F & 0.845 & 2 \\ CuM\_EI-G & - & - \\ General intention to consume & 0.907 & 4 \\ CuM\_EI-S & - & - \\ Specific intention to consume & 0.963 & 3 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: [PERSON]’s alpha. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Freq./R.I.** & **Rank of Importance \(\leq\) 2.85** & **Rank of Importance \textgreater{} 2.85** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Freq. \(\geq\) 20.3} & Sustainable & 43–1.9 \\  & Innovation & 39–2.6 \\  & Future & 36–2.7 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Freq. \(<\) 20.3} & Chemical & 20–2.6 \\  & Environment & 19–2.5 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Not\_Natural & 17–2.3 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Costs & 18–3.2 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Omni prototypical analysis. they were approached with caution. Small samples are more prone to random variability, meaning these results could be due to chance rather than an actual difference between the groups. This complicates efforts to draw precise conclusions about group differences. More advanced statistical techniques, such as analysis of variance (ANOVA), become less reliable when applied to small samples. This limitation restricted our ability to explore complex interactions between variables. In summary, the small sample size of vegetarians limited the generalizability of the results and heightened the risk of Type II errors affecting the interpretation of significant findings. Therefore, we needed to interpret the results cautiously and consider these limitations when concluding the perceptions of cultivated meat among vegetarians and omnivores. Future studies (which are currently in planning) should include a larger sample of vegetarians to enhance the validity and generalizability of the findings. Table 4 presents the results of the prototypical analysis related to these respondents. According to the centrality hypothesis, the core elements of this representation include Sustainable (Freq. 17; R.I. 1.6), Ethics (Freq. 11; R.I. 1.8), and Science (Freq. 6; R.I. 2.8).