## 3 Results and Discussion
### Correlation Index for Food Values and Products Images
For the \"non-informed\" group, all indexes are positive, but the range of values is wider. The highest value (0.52) is for the correlation index between taste and \"F4\" (protein bars with processed and invisible insects). This means that those who appreciate the taste of edible insect-based foods also appreciate foods with invisible insects. Not seeing the insects is better than seeing them. Again, for this group, origin is the food value with less statistical significance, but the index is statistically significant at the 5% level for two different pictures, F1 (whole and visible mix of insects) and F4 (processed and invisible insect products in protein bars). Price is the only food value with one correlation index that is not statistically significant, estimated for the correlation with the third picture (F3: ground and invisible insect products). Moreover, the correlation with the first and second pictures has a low level of statistical significance (around 10%). As for the \"informed group\", the indices for the food value price have low intensity. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Food Values** & **F1** & **F2** & **F3** & **F4** \\ \hline Healthiness & 0.33 *** & 0.34 *** & 0.34 *** & 0.39 *** \\ Naturalness & 0.14 & 0.25 * & 0.27 *** & 0.33 *** \\ Taste & 0.26 ** & 0.25 ** & 0.21 ** & 0.35 *** \\ Price & 0.30 ** & 0.28 *** & 0.23 ** & 0.26 ** \\ Safety & 0.31 *** & 0.34 *** & 0.33 *** & 0.26 ** \\ Convenience & 0.32 *** & 0.35 *** & 0.28 *** & 0.19 ** \\ Appearance & 0.37 *** & 0.29 *** & 0.20 ** & 0.14 \\ Origin & 0.13 & 0.22 ** & 0.12 & 0.04 \\ Environmental impact & 0.16 & 0.30 *** & 0.37 *** & 0.32 *** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: *, **, and *** denote significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. F1—Mix of edible insect (whole and visible insects). F2—Chocolate-coated grasshopper and scorptions (whole and coated insects). F3—Crickets and silkwom flour (ground and invisible insects). F4—Protein bars (processed and invisible insects).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Pairwise correlation index values for “informed” group. The results for the food value appearance confirm the logical idea expressed previously: those who are attracted by the appearance of edible insect-based foods appreciate whole and visible insects to eat. Finally, the indices for environmental impact are all similar. Consumers who consider the production process of insect-based foods with low environmental impact appreciate every kind of edible insect. The pairwise correlation indices showed that the liking scores for the pictures shown to the participants are closely related to the importance that consumers attach to food values. For instance, the pairwise correlation index of appearance was statically significant regardless of the four levels of insect visibility in the pictures (whole and visible in the mix of edible insects; whole and coated in the chocolate-coated grasshopper and scorpions; ground and invisible in the crickets and silkworm flour; processed and invisible in the protein bars). Appearance is also the food value with the highest value of intensity both in the \"informed\" and \"non-informed\" groups for the picture F1 (food with visible insects). This means that those who attach great importance to appearance have also given a high liking score to the picture with visible insects. This result is in accordance with the studies cited in the References. We also found similar results for healthiness and environmental impact values. This means that consumers think insect-based foods useful for healthy and environment preservation. Interesting results are also those concerning safety and convenience. The pairwise correlation indices confirm that consumers recognize insect-based food as safe and convenient. Again, we did not notice any significant differences for the aforementioned food values between the two interviewed groups.