## 3 Results and Discussion
### Correlation Index for Food Values and Products Images  
In this section, correlations of food values considered in the survey and the pics showed in the questionnaire are presented. Table 6 shows pairwise correlations index values, in which any \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Food Values**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Informed (105 Units)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Non-Informed (105 Units)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Full Sample (210 Units)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Mean Score** & **SD** & **Mean Score** & **SD** & **Mean Score** & **SD** \\ \hline Healthiness & 2.70 & 0.62 & 2.67 & 0.68 & 2.69 & 0.65 \\ Naturalness & 2.73 & 0.55 & 2.74 & 0.50 & 2.74 & 0.53 \\ Taste & 2.50 & 0.37 & 2.49 & 0.43 & 2.50 & 0.40 \\ Price & 2.27 & 0.60 & 2.25 & 0.56 & 2.27 & 0.58 \\ Safety & 2.25 & 0.62 & 2.24 & 0.64 & 2.25 & 0.63 \\ Convenience & 2.37 & 0.59 & 2.30 & 0.59 & 2.33 & 0.59 \\ Appearance & 1.91 & 0.51 & 2.05 & 0.51 & 1.99 & 0.51 \\ Origin & 1.96 & 0.69 & 2.13 & 0.68 & 2.05 & 0.69 \\ Environmental impact & 2.77 & 0.65 & 2.81 & 0.60 & 2.79 & 0.62 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: values of the used scale were from 1 to 5. SD—standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mean scores for food values. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Food Values** & **Mean Differences** & \(\mathbf{p}\)**-Value** \\ \hline Healthiness & 0.029 & 0.751 \\ Naturalness & \(-\)0.005 & 0.948 \\ Taste & 0.007 & 0.897 \\ Price & 0.017 & 0.836 \\ Safety & 0.010 & 0.913 \\ Convenience & 0.071 & 0.382 \\ Appearance & \(-\)0.140 & 0.046 ** \\ Origin & \(-\)0.169 & 0.074 * \\ Environmental impact & \(-\)0043 & 0.619 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: *, * and *** denote significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively. Sample size = informed: 105 units; non-informed: 105 units.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: \(t\)-test for equality of mean between “informed” and “non-informed” groups. correlations with a statistic significance are highlighted. Correlation index values were estimated through STATA for both groups, \"informed\" and \"non-informed\" ones. Most of the index estimated for the \"informed\" group are statistically significant and a lot of them have a high level of significance (1%). Origin is the food value with less statistically significant index: only the correlation index with the second pic (whole and coated insect products) is significant at 5% level. The correlation index for naturalness, appearance and environmental impact is not significant only in correlation with one picture shown to the participants. All the correlations are positives, but none is very strong. The highest value (0.39) is for the correlation index between healthiness and \"F4\" (protein bars with processed and invisible insects). This means that those think that products with insects are useful for health appreciate all proposed pictures, but F4 more than others. Moreover, F4 has also the highest correlation index with naturalness and taste. This result shows that consumers that believe food with insects have natural origin appreciate the picture F4 more than others. For the food values taste, the result obtained seems to be logical: those who appreciate the pleasant taste of insect-based food prefer the pictures with invisible insects more than other pictures, even if he/she appreciates also the others pictures (all indexes are statistically significant). As expected, the picture F1 (whole and visible insects) has the highest correlation index with the food value appearance. Therefore, those who think that insect-based foods promote appetite and are attractive prefer the foods with visible insects. The indices for the food value price are all statistically significant, but they have low intensity. Therefore, the relevance of the price is not different for the different kinds of edible insect shown. As regards the \"non-informed\" group, most of the estimated indexes are statistically significant and, as for the informed group, a lot of indexes have a high level of significance (less than 1%) (Table 7).