## 1 Introduction
### Theoretical Framework  
This paper utilizes the Theory of Social Representations (TSR) as a theoretical framework to empirically examine the sense-making configurations related to cultured meat among specific subgroups categorized by variables such as age, eating habits, and education level. The aim is to assess their predictive validity, though not determinism, regarding potential purchasing behavior. Introduced by [PERSON] in 1961 [23], the Theory of Social Representations (TSR) examines the transition of knowledge from reified universes--those that are scientific and deterministic--to consensual universes, which are more flexible and individualized. This transition occurs through social representations (SRs). TSR serves as a common-sense theory that explains how communities represent and share knowledge. Social representations are dynamic systems of values, concepts, and practices that guide behavior and social interaction. This involves examining the knowledge and representation processes in relation to the dynamic integration of social and cultural elements that shape the reference universe from which social subjects develop their posture and experiences [24]. Rather than being rigid images, social representations function as living interpretive grids that continuously reshape perceptions, attribute meaning to the unexpected, and define what is considered normal or expected. The social dimension of TSR emphasizes that social representations are not static or solely individual; they emerge through collective interactions and processes of symbolic exchange. Social representations theory (SRT) serves as a powerful tool for studying the social acceptability of lab-grown meat. It provides a framework for understanding how people represent, share, and negotiate meanings surrounding new concepts and technologies. Drawing inspiration from the Central Nucleus Theory [25] and its structural approach [26], we will identify the key elements that characterize social representations of cultured meat, including perceptions of naturalness, food safety, sustainability, ethics, and technological innovation. These elements will play a crucial role in determining the stability and significance of the representation. Additionally, we will explore the more flexible and contextual opinions, beliefs, and attitudes that surround these core elements, such as taste, price, and cultural implications. Particular attention will be given to the generative processes of this representation, specifically:  
1. Anchoring: This process will help us understand how consumers assimilate the idea of cultured meat into pre-existing categories, such as \"natural food\" or \"technological product\". It will provide insight into how people integrate this new concept into their everyday experiences. The use of terms like \"clean meat\" or \"synthetic meat\" significantly influences acceptability by linking innovative technology to familiar concepts, whether focused on ethics and health or artificiality. 2. Objectification: This aspect will analyze how cultured meat becomes tangible through images, narratives, and symbols, such as those used in advertising, packaging, and media representations. Positioning cultured meat as a product \"similar to traditional meat\" could enhance its perceived acceptability. It is equally important to recognize the coexistence of differing representations of cultured meat, such as viewing it as a sustainable innovation versus perceiving it as a threat to culinary traditions. Identifying these perspectives will enable us to explore cognitive polyphasia, where individuals or groups simultaneously use diverse kinds of knowledge and rationales [27]. Additionally, we need to understand how various groups react to the food technology in question. Lastly, it is crucial to analyze how competing narratives--whether promoted by corporations, environmental activists, or critics of biotechnology--shape public opinion.