Content uploaded by Margaret A Thomas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Margaret A Thomas on Apr 24, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Are vegans the same as vegetarians? The effect of diet on perceptions
of masculinity
Margaret A. Thomas
Department of Psychology, Earlham College, 801 National Road West, Richmond, IN 47374, USA
article info
Article history:
Received 7 May 2015
Received in revised form
20 September 2015
Accepted 18 November 2015
Available online 22 November 2015
Keywords:
Diet
Gender
Masculinity
Veganism
Vegetarianism
abstract
Food and food consumption matters in interpersonal interactions. Foods consumed can affect how a
person is perceived by others in terms of morality, likeability, and gender. Food consumption can be used
as a strategy for gendered presentation, either in terms of what foods are consumed or in the amount of
food consumed. Finally, foods themselves are associated with gender. Previous research (Browarnik,
2012; Ruby &Heine, 2011) shows inconsistent patterns in the association between vegetarianism and
masculinity. The current research conceptually replicates and extends this research by including the
explicit label of vegetarian. The four studies in this article provide increased information about the effects
of diet on gendered perceptions. Study 1 shows that vegetarian and omnivorous targets are rated equally
in terms of masculinity. Study 2 shows that perceptions of vegetarians and vegans are similar, though
comparing this research with past research indicates that perceptions of vegetarians are more variable.
Study 3 shows that veganism leads perceptions of decreased masculinity relative to omnivores. Finally,
Study 4 tests one possible mechanism for the results of Study 3, that it is the choice to be vegan that
impacts perceptions of gender. Implications include increased knowledge about how meatless diets can
affect the perceptions of gender in others. Multiple directions for future research are discussed.
©2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Food consumption patterns are culturally and regionally vari-
able, yet can also vary dramatically between individuals who share
culture and/or region. For example, religious beliefs can influence
diets, so some American Jews may follow a kosher diet and some
American Muslims a halal diet, both of which differ from the
standard American diet. Alternatively, the use of fad diets for
weight loss (Johnston et al., 2014; Truby et al., 2006) may lead one
member of a family to eat small amounts of one type of food (e.g.,
those containing carbohydrates) while another prefers to eat all
foods while strictly monitoring the amount of food consumed.
Regardless of the reason, following a particular diet esuch as
vegetarian or vegan, may lead to assumptions about a diet-fol-
lower's personality, traits, or associated beliefs. The present
research investigates this possibility.
1. Perceptions of eaters
It is well-established in psychological literature that the food a
person consumes influences how s/he is perceived by others. Much
of this research has focused on how the consumption of healthy or
unhealthy foods changes person perception. Generative research by
Stein and Nemeroff (1995) asked participants to read about a male
or female target who consumed either “good”or “bad”foods. For
this research, “good”was defined as foods that are healthy and
nonfattening, whereas “bad”foods were the opposite. Overall,
targets depicted as consuming good foods were rated more posi-
tively on a variety of traits, including morality, fitness, attractive-
ness, likeability, and practicality. Research published around the
same time (Mooney, DeTore, &Malloy, 1994) found roughly the
same effects using only female targets. Mooney and Lorenz (1997)
found that male and female targets were rated higher on a variety
of positive characteristics, such as conscientious, attractive, sensi-
tive, and assertive, when they were depicted eating a diet that was
perceived to be lower in calories.
Research conducted in the following two decades elaborated
upon the results of Stein and Nemeroff (1995) and Mooney et al.
(1994). Some of these researchers turned to investigations of the
characteristics of the rater. Barker, Tandy, and Stookey (1999) found
the same favorability in ratings of targets eating a low-fat diet, but
found that the difference between ratings of targets was smaller
when the participant doing the rating consumed a high-fat diet.
E-mail address: thomama@earlham.edu.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Appetite
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.11.021
0195-6663/©2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Appetite 97 (2016) 79e86
The tendency to view healthy eaters more positively also extends to
adolescents' perceptions of their peers (Gerrits, De Ridder, de Wit,
&Kuijer, 2011). Other researchers investigated the specifics about
the foods consumed. Oakes and Slotterback (2004e2005) found
that those eating a healthy breakfast (oatmeal) were viewed more
positively than those eating an unhealthy breakfast (pie). However,
the consumption of healthy food does not lead to exclusively pos-
itive evaluations. In a review of the literature, Vartanian, Herman,
and Polivy (2007) noted that although healthy eaters are rated
more positively overall, healthy eaters are also viewed as more
serious and antisocial.
2. Eating and gender
In addition to the influence of food on general perceptions of an
eater, food also plays a role in gendered perceptions and pre-
sentations of the eater. First, foods themselves are associated with
genders. The consumption of meat, in particular, seems to be
associated with maleness (O'Doherty Jensen &Holm, 1999;
Vartanian, 2015), although recent research indicates variability in
this link. Specifically, Sch€
osler, de Boer, Boersema, and Aiking
(2015) found that a traditional viewpoint of masculinity leads to a
stronger association between the consumption of meat and mas-
culinity. Regardless of the strength of the link, researchers have
investigated the association between meat and masculinity in a
variety of ways and contexts. In interviews, Nath (2010) found that
Australian men centered masculine activities on the barbequing of
meat. For men interviewed who did not consume meat, some felt
that there was pressure to eat meat as a way to distance oneself
from femininity (Nath, 2010). The association between meat and
maleness has been found using other methodologies as well. In a
multi-method, multi-study paper, Rozin, Hormes, Faith, and
Wansink (2012) found links between meat and maleness using
implicit, associative, impression, and direct response methodolo-
gies. In contrast, dietary surveys from multiple European countries
indicate that fruits and vegetables are consumed more by women
(O'Doherty Jensen &Holm, 1999). Although food consumption
research has not been done to the same extent in the United States,
data indicates that many of the same trends occur here, with meat
(specifically beef and pork) being associated with masculinity and
consumed more by men, while fruits, vegetables, salads, and
sweets like chocolate and ice cream are associated with femininity
and consumed more by women (Thomas, 2015).
Second, the amount of food an individual consumes is also
gendered. Early research in this area indicated that perceptions of
women were affected by how much they consumed, such that
women eating smaller amounts were perceived to be more femi-
nine (Chaiken &Pliner, 1987). Research using video recordings of a
woman eating various amounts of food indicated that a woman
eating greater amounts of food was less socially appealing than one
eating smaller amounts of food (Basow &Kobrynowicz, 1993). In
contrast, earlier research found that amount of food consumed did
not affect perceptions of male targets (Chaiken &Pliner). However,
later research indicated that both male and female targets were
rated as more feminine when consuming smaller amounts of food
and more masculine when consuming larger amounts of food,
especially when the caloric content of the meals were adjusted to
take the larger average size of males into account (Bock &Kanarek,
1995). Finally, the perception of a target based on the quantity of
food consumed is also affected by moderating variables, such as the
sex of the rater and the weight of the target (Martins, Pliner, &Lee,
2004).
Given that foods and the quantity of foods consumed are asso-
ciated with gendered characteristics, it is unsurprising that food
can be used as a gender presentation strategy for both women and
men. Turner, Ferguson, Craig, Jeffries, and Beaton (2013) conclude
that masculinity is presented through what is consumed, whereas
femininity is presented through what is not consumed. For women,
eating less can be used as a way to present femininity when in the
presence of a desirable male (Mori, Chaiken, &Pliner, 1987). Later
research indicated that women were motivated to eat less by the
desire to appear feminine, as well as the desire to behave in a so-
cially desirable way (Pliner &Chaiken, 1990). Women's behavior
regarding caloric consumption is also affected by the presence of
men when in naturalistic settings, wherein the number of men in a
group negatively predict the calories of the foods women choose to
eat (Young, Mizzau, Mai, Sirisegaram, &Wilson, 2009). Food
choices for women can also be affected by other variables. For
women in general, but female dieters in particular, choosing a
lower calorie food is a response used to regain self-esteem after a
threatening upward comparison (Pliner, Rizvi, &Remick, 2009).
For males, presentation of masculinity is generally about the
consumption of meat. Adams (2010) outlines a strong association
between masculinity and the consumption of meat through
anthropological data and analysis of advertising associating women
and meat (i.e., the consumption of meat is akin to the consumption
of women). Buerkle (2009) reviews multiple fast food commercials
and provides strong evidence of an association between the con-
sumption of meat and the presentation of masculinity, including
some commercials where men engage in physical displays while
seeking out beef. Men justify meat consumption via direct strate-
gies, such as pro-meat attitudes, especially the more they endorse
male role norms (Rothgerber, 2012). However, the presentation of
masculinity through food is not exclusively about the consumption
of meat. Especially when provided with enough time to make de-
cisions, men are more likely to choose dishes with meat than those
without, but when choosing between similar meat dishes they are
more likely to choose meat dishes that have fuller and fattier flavors
(e.g., cheeses and smoked meats; Gal &Wilkie, 2010). In addition,
Stein and Nemeroff (1995) found that “bad food”eaters, where bad
foods were those considered unhealthy or high in caloric content,
were rated higher in masculinity and lower in femininity.
3. Non-meat diets and gender
At the intersection of how food affects perceptions of the eater
and the gendered nature of foods lies research examining how
women and men who consume various diets are perceived by
others. Much of this research (cited above) has focused on the
consumption of high- or low-fat diets, all of which included meat.
Assuming some association between meat and masculinity,
comparing gendered perceptions of those who eat versus do not eat
meat was an area primed for investigation. Research published to
date only includes perceptions of vegetarians, but not vegans, a
group who abstains not only from meat, but from all animal-based
foods.
Ruby and Heine (2011) conducted two studies on gendered
perceptions of vegetarians (also assessing perceptions of targets'
virtuousness). In these studies, participants read short vignettes
about a male or female target who was depicted as following a
vegetarian or omnivorous diet. Results from Study 1, with 247
vegetarian and omnivorous participants from college and online
samples, indicated that targets following a vegetarian diet were
perceived as less masculine than those following an omnivorous
diet. In contrast, results from Study 2, with 88 participants from a
college sample (participant diets were not reported), indicated that
only male vegetarians were perceived as less masculine than
omnivorous males, with no differences in the perceptions of mas-
culinity between the female targets. In contrast, Browarnik (2012)
conducted a study with 102 vegetarian and omnivorous college
M.A. Thomas / Appetite 97 (2016) 79e8680
students, but found that male vegetarians (designated vegetarian
by making lentil burgers for parties) were perceived equally
masculine in comparison to male omnivores (designated omnivo-
rous by making hamburgers for parties).
The conflicting results of the Ruby and Heine (2011) and
Browarnik (2012) studies are interesting and warrant a detailed
analysis. Perhaps most importantly, none of these studies explicitly
label targets as vegetarian, instead relying on descriptions of foods
associated with the target. Although targets in all prior studies
were associated with only meatless foods, there was no explicit
mention of vegetarianism, leaving room for ambiguity in overall
diet. Participants in prior studies may have assumed that the tar-
gets still occasionally consumed meat. Additionally, in all three
studies, vegetarian and omnivorous participants rated vegetarian
and omnivorous targets. However, neither Ruby and Heine (2011)
nor Browarnik (2012) indicated whether participant diet affected
ratings of the targets. It is possible that rating one's ingroup may be
different than rating one's outgroup, as decades of research sup-
ports phenomena such as ingroup bias (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, &
Flamant, 1971) and outgroup homogeneity (Park &Judd, 1990). In
the domain of perceptions of vegetarians, research indicates that
omnivorous participants rate vegetarian targets negatively when
concerned about moral reproach from the targets (Minson &
Monin, 2012).
In addition to the limitations present in earlier research, there
has been a dramatic and rapid shift in the awareness and con-
sumption of meatless foods in the few years since these studies
were published. A recent poll conducted for the Vegetarian
Resource Group (2015) by Harris Interactive indicates that 36% of
Americans (33% of men and 39% of women) are semi-vegetarian,
eating one or more vegetarian meal per week. In contrast, only
13% of Americans could be described as semi-vegetarian in 2007
(Humane Research Council). This is supported by research from
the United States Department of Agriculture (n.d.), which shows a
small but steady decrease in the consumption of beef in the United
States. The percentage of those polled who were aware of the
Meatless Monday campaign (encouraging consumers to abstain
from eating meat every Monday) jumped from 26% in late 2010 to
43% in late 2012, according to the history timeline on the Meatless
Monday website (The Monday Campaigns, Inc., n.d.). Sales of meat
analogs have also been on the rise (Peterson, 2014), with tech
startups getting involved (“Silicon Valley,”2015). Also, meatless
items are of increased importance for younger Americans, with 27%
of Millennials expressing concern about vegan items, but only 13%
of Baby Boomers (The Harris Poll, 2014).
Given the limitations in prior research on perceptions of vege-
tarians, combined with the rapid changes in familiarity with
vegetarianism and consumption of vegetarian meals for both
women and men, future research is necessary to understand cur-
rent perceptions of those who consume meatless diets, which in-
cludes both vegetarians and vegans. It is possible that perceptions
of those who follow a vegetarian diet have shifted as more people
become familiar with meatless food and eating, even without
associated increases in people identifying as vegetarian or vegan. To
this end, I conduct a series of studies to address limitations and
extend past research. In Study 1, I conceptually replicate earlier
research on gendered perceptions of vegetarians, making sure to
include the “vegetarian”label, rather than relying on assumptions
stemming from common foods consumed. In Study 2, I compare
gendered perceptions of vegetarians and vegans, both of whom
consume meatless diets. In Study 3, I compare gendered percep-
tions of vegans and omnivores, expanding our understanding of
perceptions of those who consume meatless diets beyond vege-
tarians. Finally, in Study 4, I investigate a possible mechanism
behind differences in gendered perceptions for those who follow a
meatless diet by focusing on reasons for following a vegan diet.
4. Study 1
Study 1 is designed to replicate and clarify past research.
Explicitly, this study is a conceptual replication of Ruby and Heine
(2011) and Browarnik (2012), investigating gendered perceptions
of vegetarians. However, Study 1 addresses a major limitation with
those prior studies by making sure to include the label of “vege-
tarian”in the description of targets.
4.1. Method
4.1.1. Participants and design
Participants were 138 Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk)
workers (74 male, 64 female) whose average age was 32.55 years
and who resided in the United States. MTurk is a crowd-sourced
labor pool that is increasingly used for data collection by social
scientists. In general, American MTurk workers tend to be slightly
younger, more educated, more tech-savvy, but with lower income
levels than the general internet-using American public, but show
roughly comparable geographic distribution (Ipeirotis, 2010;
Paolacci, Chandler, &Impeirotis, 2010). Participants were
compensated at an effective hourly rate of $8.07 per hour. For self-
identified race, the sample consisted of White (N ¼106), African-
American (N ¼13), Asian-American (N ¼7), Latino/a (N ¼7),
Middle-Eastern (N ¼1), American Indian/Native Alaskan (N ¼1),
those identifying with multiple racial groups (N ¼2), and one
person who did not respond. The majority of the sample self-
identified as heterosexual (N ¼124), with others identifying as
bisexual (N ¼11), or gay/lesbian (N ¼3). Based on responses to a
question about the foods included regularly in their diet, the ma-
jority of participants (N ¼124) were classified as omnivorous, with
others classified as pesceterian (N ¼7), vegetarian (N ¼5), or vegan
(N ¼2). The seven vegetarian and vegan participants were excluded
from all analyses, since judgments of ingroup members may differ
from those of outgroup members (Park &Judd, 1990). Thus, the
final sample was 131 participants. This study was a 2 (sex of target:
female or male) x 2 (diet of target: omnivorous or vegetarian)
between-participants design.
4.1.2. Procedure
Participants accessed the link to the study, which they were told
was a study on first impressions, via Amazon's MTurk. Participants
were presented with informed consent information and told to
click an option indicating whether or not they agreed to participate
in the study. Participants were then randomly assigned to a
vignette that depicted a vegetarian or omnivorous female or male
target. The text of the vignette read as follows: “Jessica/Jacob enjoys
going to the movies, attending concerts for any type of music, and
hiking in her/his spare time. She/he is average height and college
educated.”Next, depending on the diet depicted, participants read
one of the following:
Vegetarian: “She/he follows a varied vegetarian diet, eating a
broad range of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dairy, eggs, nuts,
and beans (but no meat or fish). She/he usually cooks for her/
himself.”
Omnivore: “She/he follows a varied omnivorous diet, eating a
broad range of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, dairy, eggs, meat,
and fish. She/he usually cooks for her/himself.”
After reading the vignette, participants were asked to indicate
how much the person in the vignette possesses 12 qualities (e.g.,
M.A. Thomas / Appetite 97 (2016) 79e86 81
friendly, health-conscious, independent, forceful) to bolster the
cover story. Two traits, masculine and feminine, were included to
assess perceptions of gender. Finally, participants answered basic
demographic questions before being debriefed.
4.2. Results
To assess whether target sex and target diet affected perceptions
of gender, I first assessed the correlation between ratings of
“masculine”and “feminine.”These two variables had a strong
negative correlation, r¼.68, p<.000. Thus, I reverse-coded scores
for “feminine”and then created a composite variable of
“masculinity.”
Next, I computed a 2 (target sex) x 2 (target diet) ANOVA with
the “masculinity”composite score as a dependent variable. There
was a main effect for target sex, F(1, 127) ¼167.52, p<.001, partial
h
2
¼.57, such that female targets (M¼2.76, SE ¼.13) were rated
lower in masculinity than male targets (M¼5.04, SE ¼.12). There
were no other significant main or interactive effects. To compare to
Ruby and Heine (2011) and Browarnik (2012), the effect for target
diet was not significant, F(1,127) ¼2.14, p¼.15, partial
h
2
¼.02, and
there was no significant interaction between target sex and target
diet, F(1, 127) <1, p¼.99, partial
h
2
¼.00. The lack of a main effect
for target diet or interaction between target diet and target sex
indicates that vegetarianism is no longer associated with lower
levels of masculinity (see Table 1 for cell means across all studies).
These patterns were the same when ratings of “health-conscious”
were included as a covariate, given that previous research indicates
that vegetarianism is viewed as more “healthy”(Ruby &Heine,
2011). An additional ANOVA including participant sex yielded the
same effects as above, as well as a main effect for participant sex,
F(1, 123) ¼6.05, p¼.02, partial
h
2
¼.05, such that female partici-
pants gave higher overall ratings of masculinity (M¼4.12, SE ¼.13)
than did male participants (M¼3.70, SE ¼.12). Participant sex was
not involved in any other main or interactive effects.
4.3. Discussion
The non-significant results for ratings of masculinity based on a
target's diet indicate that vegetarianism may not be associated with
decreased perceptions of masculinity. The results from Study 1
contradict the results of Ruby and Heine (2011) but supported those
of Browarnik (2012). Instead, the only variables in Study 1 that
influenced perceptions of the target's masculinity was the target's
sex and sex of participant. Unsurprisingly, male targets were rated
higher in masculinity than female targets. In addition, male par-
ticipants also rated targets lower in masculinity than female tar-
gets. This may have been a self-protective effect, allowing male
participants to assert their own masculinity over other men
(Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, &Weaver, 2008).
Though the results of Study 1 indicated that lower levels of
perceived masculinity are no longer associated with vegetarianism,
these results may be due to a number of factors. Building on those
prior studies, the results from Study 1 are more focused on vege-
tarians due to the use of the vegetarian label in descriptions of
targets. Given the aforementioned change in the consumption of
meatless food products, vegetarian eating seems to be on the rise,
which may account for the conflicting results across Study 1, Ruby
and Heine, and Browarnik. However, there are other possible ex-
planations. First, although comparable to the number of partici-
pants in Study 2 from Ruby and Heine and from Browarnik (2012),
Study 1 is limited by sample size. Another limitation of Study 1 is
that it did not address gendered perceptions of those who follow
vegan diets, wherein no animal products are consumed.
5. Study 2
Study 2 was designed to build on Study 1 by comparing
gendered perceptions of vegetarians and vegans and including a
larger sample size.
5.1. Method
5.1.1. Participants and design
Participants in this study were 236 MTurk workers (97 male, 139
female) whose average age was 33.17 years. Participants were
compensated at an effective hourly rate of $5.09 per hour. For self-
identified race, the sample consisted of White (N ¼181), African-
American (N ¼20), Asian-American (N ¼15), Latino/a (N ¼15),
American Indian/Native Alaskan (N ¼2), Middle Eastern (N ¼1),
and those who identified with more than one racial group (N ¼2).
The majority of the sample self-identified as heterosexual
(N ¼220), with others identifying as bisexual (N ¼8), and gay/
lesbian (N ¼8). Based on responses to the foods included regularly
in their diet, the majority of participants (N ¼222) were classified
as omnivorous, with others classified as pesceterian (N ¼4),
vegetarian (N ¼7), or vegan (N ¼3). One person did not indicate
consuming any food. As in Study 1, the vegetarian and vegan par-
ticipants, as well as the participant without diet-related data, were
excluded from all analyses. Thus, the final sample was 225 partic-
ipants. This study was a 2 (target sex: male or female) x 2 (target
diet: vegetarian or vegan) between-participants design.
5.1.2. Procedure
The basic procedure for Study 2 wasthe same as in Study 1. The only
difference was in the vignettes used. The full text of the diet vignette is
as follows: “Jessica/Jacob enjoys going to the movies, attending con-
certs for any type of music, and hiking in her/his spare time. She/he is
average height and college educated. She/he follows a varied vege-
tarian/vegan diet, eating a broad range of fruits, vegetables, whole
grains, …She/he usually cooks her/his ownfoodratherthaneatingata
restaurant.”The ellipsis in the vegetarian condition included “dairy,
and eggs (but no meat or fish).”The ellipsis in the vegan condition
included “nuts, and beans (but no meat, fish,dairy,oreggs).”
5.2. Results
To assess whether target sex and target diet affected perceptions
of gender, I first assessed the correlation between ratings of
“masculine”and “feminine.”These two variables had a strong
negative correlation, r¼.55, p<.000. As in Study 1, I reverse-
coded scores for “feminine”and then created a composite vari-
able of “masculinity.”
Table 1
Cell means and standard errors for ratings of masculinity in studies 1e4.
Male targets Female targets
Study 1
Omnivore 5.17 (.17) 2.89 (.18)
Vegetarian 4.91 (.18) 2.63 (.18)
Study 2
Vegetarian 4.55 (.15) 2.60 (.14)
Vegan 4.47 (.15) 2.76 (.15)
Study 3
Omnivore 4.89 (.19) 2.97 (.18)
Vegan 4.13 (.18) 2.55 (.18)
Study 4
Vegan by choice 4.04 (.18) 2.60 (.17)
Vegan by requirement 4.62 (.17) 2.91 (.18)
Note. When participant sex had any effect in the study, means reflect inclusion of
participant sex in the ANOVA.
M.A. Thomas / Appetite 97 (2016) 79e8682
Next, I computed a 2 (target sex) x 2 (target diet) ANOVA with
the “masculinity”composite score as a dependent variable. There
was a main effect for target sex, F(1, 232) ¼151.73 , p<.001, partial
h
2
¼.40, such that female targets (M¼2.70, SE ¼.10) were rated
lower in masculinity than male targets (M¼4.51, SE ¼.11). There
was no main effect for target diet and no interaction between target
sex and target diet (see Table 1 for cell means). The pattern of re-
sults was the same when ratings for “health-conscious”were
included as a covariate. An additional ANOVA including participant
sex yielded one additional effect, an interaction between partici-
pant sex and target diet, F(1, 232) ¼3.83, p¼.05, partial
h
2
¼.02. To
decompose this interaction, I computed separate t-tests for mas-
culinity ratings based on target diet. For vegan targets, participant
sex did not affect perceptions of masculinity, t(112) <1, p¼n.s. For
vegetarian targets, participant sex exerted a marginal effect on
perceptions of masculinity, t(120) ¼1.89, p¼.06, Cohen's
d¼.35, such that male participants (M¼3.85) rated vegetarian
targets as more masculine than female participants (M¼3.35).
5.3. Discussion
Study 2 addressed the limitation of sample size from Study 1
while comparing the gendered perceptions of vegetarian and vegan
targets. Although there were no differences in overall ratings of
masculinity when comparing vegan and vegetarian targets of the
same sex, male and female participants differed in their gendered
perceptions of vegetarian targets. Perhaps gendered perceptions of
vegetarians are just more variable than perceptions of vegans. Thus,
when trying to understand the effect of a meatless diet on per-
ceptions of gender, using a vegan target may minimize statistical
noise from other variables.
6. Study 3
Study 3 is designed extend prior research by focusing on the
gendered perceptions of vegans, who consume a diet without any
animal products. Vegan diets are less similar to omnivorous diets
than are vegetarian diets, as omnivores and vegetarians eat dairy
and eggs, but vegans do not. In addition, based on the results of
Study 2, targets following vegan diets have the added advantage of
being perceptually similar to male and female participants. Thus,
minimizing the variability between perceptions of male and female
targets may offer a more controlled assessment of the gendered
perceptions of labeled meatless diets.
6.1. Method
6.1.1. Participants and design
Participants in this study were 138 MTurk workers (89 male, 49
female) whose average age was 31.67 years. Participants were
compensated at an effective hourly rate of $6.98 per hour. For self-
identified race, the sample consisted of White (N ¼100), Asian-
American (N ¼21), Latino/a (N ¼9), African-American (N ¼7),
and American Indian/Native Alaskan (N ¼1). The majority of the
sample self-identified as heterosexual (N ¼126), with others
identifying as bisexual (N ¼5), gay/lesbian (N ¼5), asexual (N ¼1),
and one who did not answer. Based on responses to the foods
included regularly in their diet, the majority of participants
(N ¼132) were classified as omnivorous, with others classified as
pesceterian (N ¼1), vegetarian (N ¼3), or vegan (N ¼2). As in
Study 1, the 5 vegetarian and vegan participants were excluded
from all analyses. Thus, the final sample was 133 participants. This
study was a 2 (target sex: male or female) x 2 (target diet: vegan or
omnivore) between-participants design.
6.1.2. Procedure
The basic procedure for Study 3 was the same as in prior studies.
The only difference was in the vignettes used. The target was
depicted as eating a vegan diet, using the same vegan vignette as in
Study 2. The text of the omnivore vignette was identical to the
vegan vignette, with the substitution of the same sentence about
foods consumed as in Study 1.
6.2. Results
To assess whether target sex and target diet affected perceptions
of gender, I first assessed the correlation between ratings of
“masculine”and “feminine.”These two variables had a strong
negative correlation, r¼.55, p<.000. As in prior studies, I
reverse-coded scores for “feminine”and then created a composite
variable of “masculinity.”
Next, I computed a 2 (target sex) x 2 (target diet) ANOVA with
the “masculinity”composite score as a dependent variable. There
was a main effect for target sex, F(1, 129) ¼90.02, p<.001, partial
h
2
¼.41, such that female targets (M¼2.77, SE ¼.13) were rated
lower in masculinity than male targets (M¼4.51, SE ¼.13). There
was also a main effect for target diet, F(1, 129) ¼10.06, p<.005,
partial
h
2
¼.07, such that omnivorous targets (M¼3.93, SE ¼.13)
were rated higher in masculinity than vegan targets (M¼3.35,
SE ¼.13). There was no interaction between target sex and target
diet (see Table 1 for cell means) and the patterns were the same
when ratings for “health-conscious”were included as a covariate.
To see the main effects, see Fig. 1. An additional ANOVA including
participant sex yielded the same patterns and no new main or
interactive effects.
Although there was not an interaction between the two inde-
pendent variables, visual inspection of the means suggested that
the effect of diet on perceptions of masculinity may be stronger for
male than female targets. To assess this possibility, I computed
separate t-tests for masculinity ratings based on diet for male and
female targets. For male targets, there was a significant main effect
for target diet, t(63) ¼2.62, p¼.01, Cohen's d¼.66. For female
targets, there was only a marginal effect for target diet,
t(66) ¼1.78, p¼.08, Cohen's d¼.44.
6.3. Discussion
The results from Study 3 expand our knowledge of how meat-
less diets can impact perceptions of gender. Targets following vegan
diets were perceived as less masculine than targets following
omnivorous diets. The results of Study 3 parallel the results of Ruby
and Heine (2011) with vegetarian targets, while adding certainty
about the results being due to meatless diets due to the use of a
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
Female Male
Masculinity
Target Sex
Vegan
Omnivore
Fig. 1. Mean ratings of masculinity based on target sex and target diet in Study 3.
M.A. Thomas / Appetite 97 (2016) 79e86 83
label, rather than depending on conjecture by participants.
Although not tested in Study 3, there are multiple possible reasons
for the lower ratings of perceived masculinity for vegan targets.
Participants may have stereotypes about vegans as being effemi-
nate, although I know of no research assessing stereotypes of
vegans. Alternatively, masculinity may be cumulatively calculated,
such that the absence of things traditionally associated with mas-
culinity (in this case, meat and high-fat foods), may dock targets'
levels of masculinity in the eyes of perceivers. Future research
should test these possibilities.
Combined with no effect on perceptions of masculinity when
comparing vegetarian and omnivorous diets in Study 1 and the lack
effects including participant sex, results from Study 3 provide
clarified and controlled information about how meatless diets
affect perceptions of masculinity, at least in this smaller sample. In
addition, although both male and female vegan targets were rated
lower in masculinity than their omnivorous counterparts, the
simple effects tests indicate that the effect of consuming a vegan
diet seems to be more influential for male targets than for female
targets. The decrease in ratings of masculinity for male vegans
compared to male omnivores was larger than the decrease in rat-
ings of masculinity for female vegans compared to female
omnivores.
It is important to understand why a vegan diet seems to be more
influential over gendered perceptions of males than females. One
possibility is that perceivers assume targets are vegan by choice. A
vegan diet, which excludes two types of food associated with
masculinity (meat and high-fat items), may be seen as a direct
violation of masculinity. If so, choosing to deviate from traditional
masculine norms may lead to perceptions of diminished mascu-
linity as that choice may violate the need for continuous social
proof of manhood (Vandello et al., 2008). Given than women do not
need to prove their masculinity, choosing to violate masculine
norms may not impact perceptions of them in the same way. Study
4 tests this possibility.
7. Study 4
In Study 3, both male and female targets eschewing meat and
high fat foods (i.e., vegan diets) were perceived as less masculine,
but may only be perceived that way because perceivers assume that
the target's diet was a choice. Thus, in Study 4, I test a possible
mechanism for this effect, that the choice to be vegan (as opposed to
the necessity) leads to lower levels of perceived masculinity.
Although the necessity to follow a specific diet could be linked to
health issues, there is no reason to assume that gendered infor-
mation becomes divorced from perceptions when something is
compulsory for health. For example, research on femininity in fe-
male mastectomy patients, wherein removal of the breasts was due
to medical necessity, indicates that for many women, losing breasts
leads to feelings of diminished femininity (Fallbj€
ork, Salander, &
Rasmussen, 2012). Similarly, the presence of breast prostheses are
important to feelings of femininity for a large proportion of women
being fitted for them (Gallagher, Buckmaster, O'Carroll, Kiernan, &
Geraghty, 2009). Finally, given that sex is a basic social category
(Macrae &Bodenhausen, 2000), it infuses our thinking about
others and is difficult, if not impossible, to sever from our
perceptions.
7.1. Method
7.1.1. Participants and design
Participants in this study were 146 MTurk workers (74 male, 72
female) whose average age was 33.01 years. Participants were
compensated at an effective hourly rate of $7.26 per hour. For self-
identified race, the sample consisted of White (N ¼106), Asian-
American (N ¼16), Latino/a (N ¼15), African-American (N ¼5),
American Indian/Native Alaskan (N ¼2), and two who identified
with more than one racial category. The majority of the sample self-
identified as heterosexual (N ¼134), with others identifying as gay/
lesbian (N ¼5), bisexual (N ¼4), asexual (N ¼2), and one who did
not answer. Based on responses to the foods included regularly in
their diet, the majority of participants (N ¼141) were classified as
omnivorous, with others classified as pesceterian (N ¼2), vegan
(N ¼1), and two who indicated eating only one type of food (either
fish or dairy). As in the previous studies, the vegan participant was
excluded from all analyses, but I also excluded the two participants
who said they ate only one type of food since they could not be
reliably categorized into a diet. Thus, the final sample was 143
participants. This study was a 2 (target sex: male or female) x 2
(reason for vegan diet: choice or necessity) between-participants
design.
7.1.2. Procedure
The basic procedure for Study 4 was the same as in the previous
studies. All targets were depicted as consuming a vegan diet. Half of
the participants read a sentence indicating that the target chose a
vegan diet, whereas the other half read that the target needed to
consume a vegan diet. The full text of the vignette is as follows:
“Jessica/Jacob enjoys spending time with friends and hiking in her/
his spare time. She/he is average height. [Due to her/his personal
beliefs, she/he chooses OR Due to her/his digestive issues, she/he has]
to eat a varied vegan diet, eating a broad range of fruits, vegetables,
whole grains, nuts, and beans (but never eats meat, fish, dairy, or
egg). Because of her/his diet, she/he generally cooks her/his own
food rather than eating at a restaurant. Other than cooking more
than most people, Jessica/Jacob's diet does not affect her/his daily
behaviors.”This last sentence was included to prevent any associ-
ation of “digestive issues”with infirmity (e.g., anaphylaxis due to
allergies).
7.2. Results
To assess whether target sex and target diet affected perceptions
of gender, I first assessed the correlation between ratings of
“masculine”and “feminine.”These two variables had a strong
negative correlation, r¼.59, p<.000. As before, I reverse-coded
scores for “feminine”and then created a composite variable of
“masculinity.”
Next, I computed a 2 (target sex) x 2 (reason for vegan diet)
ANOVA with the “masculinity”composite score as a dependent
variable. There was a main effect for target sex, F(1, 136) ¼82.98,
p<.001, partial
h
2
¼.38, such that female targets (M¼2.72,
SE ¼.13) were rated lower in masculinity than male targets
(M¼4.33, SE ¼.13). There was also a main effect for target diet, F(1,
136) ¼4.23, p<.05, partial
h
2
¼.03, such that targets vegan by
necessity (M¼3.71, SE ¼.13) were rated higher in masculinity than
targets vegan by choice (M¼3.34, SE ¼.13). There was no inter-
action between target sex and target diet (for cell means see
Table 1) and the patterns were the same when ratings for “health-
conscious”were included as a covariate. To see the main effects, see
Fig. 2.
Although there was not an interaction between the two inde-
pendent variables, visual inspection of the means indicated that the
effect of diet on perceptions of masculinity may be stronger for
male than female targets, as was seen in Study 3. To assess this
possibility, I computed separate t-tests for masculinity ratings
based on the reason for veganism for male and female targets. For
male targets, there was a significant main effect for the reason for
veganism, t(69) ¼2.06, p<.05, Cohen's d¼.50. For female
M.A. Thomas / Appetite 97 (2016) 79e8684
targets, there was no effect for the reason for veganism,
t(70) ¼1.15 , p¼n.s., Cohen's d¼.27.
An additional ANOVA including participant sex yielded the same
effects as above, with an additional interaction between target sex
and participant sex, F(1, 135) ¼7.82, p<.01, partial
h
2
¼.06. Follow-
up t-tests indicate that female targets were rated equally in terms
of masculinity by male (M¼2.87, SE ¼.20) and female (M¼2.61,
SE ¼.13) participants, whereas male targets were rated higher in
masculinity by female participants (M¼4.66, SE ¼.20) than male
participants (M¼4.01, SE ¼.13). Again, this may be due to male
participants asserting their own masculinity over other men
(Vandello et al., 2008). Participant sex was not involved in any other
main or interactive effects.
7.3. Discussion
The results from Study 4 indicate that choosing veganism, not
veganism itself, is associated with lower levels of masculinity.
Choosing to deviate from normative dietary habits by eating a diet
absent of food associated with masculinity may explain why vegans
(or more broadly, those consuming meatless diets) are seen as less
masculine, even when information about reasons for a diet is not
included. In contrast, when information about dietary necessity is
provided, it leaves open the possibility that the target would prefer
to eat foods associated with masculinity, thus leading to the higher
masculinity ratings. It is notable that the difference in masculinity
ratings for those choosing versus needing to be vegan was larger for
male than female targets. This difference may be due to the
expectation that men are masculine, leading to more negative
evaluations when points of deviance occur (Biernat &Manis, 1994).
The stronger effect may also be due to the belief in the precarious
nature of manhood as being more based on social proof than is
womanhood, a belief that is endorsed by both male and female
college students (Vandello et al., 2008).
8. Conclusions
Across four studies, results indicate that dietary preference can
affect gendered perceptions of a target. Contrary to Ruby and Heine
(2011) but supporting Browarnik (2012), Study 1 indicated that
vegetarianism is no longer associated with lower ratings of
perceived masculinity. This null effect could be due to a variety of
reasons. First, vegetarian diets include higher-fat dairy and eggs,
and higher-fat food items are associated with elevated levels of
masculinity (Stein &Nemeroff, 1995). This explanation seems un-
likely, as vegetarian diets have always included higher-fat items,
and previous research does show that vegetarians are perceived to
be less masculine than omnivores. Instead, with more than one-
third of Americans eating as least one meatless meal per week
(Vegetarian Research Group, 2015), vegetarians may be considered
within the ingroup of non-vegetarian participants. If vegetarians
are considered ingroup members for non-vegetarians, such par-
ticipants may be unwilling to derogate ingroup members due to
ingroup bias (Tajfel et al., 1971). The results from Study 2 (in
conjunction with prior research) also indicate that perceptions of
vegetarians are similar to, but more variable than, perceptions of
vegans, a group who also consumes a meatless diet. This variability
may be due to the inclusion of vegetarians inparticipants' ingroups.
Although future research should investigate these possibilities,
Studies 1 and 2 expand on past research on perceptions of those
consuming meatless diets by removing any ambiguity about food
consumption through the use of dietary labels.
Expanding on past research and Studies 1 and 2, the results from
Study 3 indicate that veganism may be a more reliable category to
assess the effects of meatless diets on the gendered perceptions. In
Study 3, targets consuming a vegan diet were perceived to be less
masculine than those eating an omnivorous diet. However, the
results from Study 4 indicate that it is the choice to be vegan that
leads to lower ratings of masculinity. Visually comparing the av-
erages across studies (see Table 1), ratings of perceived masculinity
for male targets who are vegan by necessity in Study 4 are elevated
over ratings of perceived masculinity for male vegans in Study 3. In
contrast, ratings of perceived masculinity for male targets who are
vegan by choice in Study 4 are nearly identical to ratings of
perceived masculinity for male vegans in Study 3. Moreover,
Studies 3 and 4 significantly expand our knowledge of how diets
affect person perception, as I know of no research to date that has
investigated perceptions of vegans, who are similar, but not iden-
tical, to vegetarians. Clearly, gender may be only one way in which
perceptions of vegans differ from perceptions of non-vegans, which
can be investigated in future research. Overall, these four studies
build on the previous literature investigating how food consump-
tion patterns influence person perception.
8.1. Limitations and future directions
Like all research, these studies are not without limitations. One
major limitation is the use of MTurk workers as participants.
Research has indicated that MTurk workers are more liberal than
the general US population (Paolacci et al., 2010). Increased liber-
alism has been associated with increased tolerance and decreased
prejudice (Carney, Jost, Gosling, &Potter, 2008), which means that
replications using a non-MTurk sample could lead to stronger ef-
fects (i.e., greater differentiation between masculinity ratings of
vegans and omnivores or vegans by choice versus necessity). This is
particularly important given the recent research by Sch€
osler et al.
(2015), which indicated that traditional views of masculinity are
associated with a stronger meat-masculinity link.
There are number of directions for future research that will lead
to increased understanding of how specific diets and the reasoning
for those diets affect perceptions of food consumers. First, future
research could investigate the effects of a high-fat vegan diet (e.g.,
French fries, cookies, etc.) on perceptions of masculinity compared
to a healthy vegan diet. This is particularly interesting given that
anecdotal evidence indicates that non-vegans associate vegan diets
with exclusively healthy foods. Second, future research could also
investigate other diets, as some of them may show opposite pat-
terns from veganism and lead to increased perceptions of mascu-
linity. For example, a person following a “Paleolithic”diet, which
has more emphasis on meats, may be rated higher in masculinity
than a person following the standard American diet. Third, it would
also be interesting to conduct future studies to elaborate on the
effects of eating specific ways due to necessity. Perhaps lower
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Female Male
Masculinity
Target Sex
Choice
Necessity
Fig. 2. Mean ratings of masculinity based on target sex and reason for diet in Study 4.
M.A. Thomas / Appetite 97 (2016) 79e86 85
ratings of masculinity would associated with a person who was
depicted as following an omnivorous diet by necessity, indicating a
desire, but inability, to be vegan. Fourth, future research could
investigate the effect of inclusion of vegetarians and vegans in one's
ingroup impacts perceptions. Self-identified vegans, vegetarians, or
even semi-vegetarians may show the same or different patterns in
the perception of masculinity in those following meatless diets.
Finally, the production of meat has significant negative environ-
mental consequences (Pimental &Pimental, 2003). Thus, research
identifying ways to create positive impressions of meatless diets
could induce people to eat less meat, leading to an overall positive
environmental impact (Stehfest et al., 2009). Given the centrality of
food to existence and identity, future research in this domain will
be important and enlightening.
References
Adams, C. (2010). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory
(20th anniversary edition). New York, NY: The Continuum International Pub-
lishing Group.
Barker, M. E., Tandy, M., & Stookey, J. D. (1999). How are consumers of low-fat and
high-fat diets perceived by those with lower and higher fat intake? Appetite, 33,
309e317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0248.
Basow, S. A., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1993). What is she eating? the effects of meal size
on impressions of a female eater. Sex Roles, 28,335e344. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/bf00289889.
Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judg-
ments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,5e20. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.5.
Bock, B. C., & Kanarek, R. B. (1995). Women and men are what they eat: the effects
of gender and reported meal size on perceived characteristics. Sex Roles, 33,
109 e119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01547938.
Browarnik, B. (2012). Attitudes toward male vegetarians: Challenging gender norms
through food choices. Psychology honors papers, paper 25. Last accessed 01.05.15.
Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/psychhp/25.
Buerkle, C. W. (2009). Metrosexuality can stuff it: beef consumption as (hetero-
masculine) fortification. Text and Performance Quarterly, 29,77e93. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10462930802514370.
Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals
and conservatives: personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they
leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807e840. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9221.2008.00668.x.
Chaiken, S., & Pliner, P. (1987). Women, but not men, are what theyeat: the effect of
meal size and gender on perceived femininity and masculinity. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 13,166e176 . http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0146167287132003.
Fallbj€
ork, U., Salander, P., & Rasmussen, B. H. (2012). From ‘no big deal’to ‘losing
oneself’: different meanings of mastectomy. Cancer Nursing, 35,E41eE48.
Gal, D., & Wilkie, J. (2010). Real men don't eat quiche: regulation of gender-
expressive choices by men. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1,
291e301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550610365003.
Gallagher, P., Buckmaster, A., O'Carroll, S., Kiernan, G., & Geraghty, J. (2009). Expe-
riences in the provision, fitting and supply of external breast prostheses:
findings from a national survey. European Journal of Cancer Care, 18, 556e568.
Gerrits, J., De Ridder, D. T. D., de Wit, J., & Kuijer, R. (2011). Looking fat or being bad?
effects of body size and eating style on peer evaluation and adolescents. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 41,579e587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2011.00727.x.
Humane Research Council. (2007). Advocating meat reduction and vegetarianism to
US adults. Last accessed 01.05.15. Retrieved from http://spot.humaneresearch.
org/node/1956.
Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). [Demographics of mechanical Turk.] working paper. Last
accessed 17.09.15. Retrieved from http://hd1.handle.net/2451/29585.
Johnston, B. C., Kanters, S., Bandayrel, K., Wu, P., Naji, F.,
Siemieniuk, R. A. …Mills, E. J. (2014). Comparison of weight loss among named
diet programs in overweight and obese adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA: Journal of
the American Medical Association, 312, 923e933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/
jama.2014.10397.
Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: thinking categorically
about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51,93e120.
Martins, Y., Pliner, P., & Lee, C. (2004). The effects of meal size and body size on
individuals' impressions of males and females. Eating Behaviors, 5,117e132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2004.01.008.
Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: disparaging morally
motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 3,200e207.
Monday Campaigns, Inc., The (n.d.) History. Last accessed 01.05.15. Retrieved from
http://www.meatlessmonday.com/about-us/history/.
Mooney, K. M., DeTore, J., & Malloy, K. A. (1994). Perceptions of women related to
food choice. Sex Roles, 31, 433e442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01544199.
Mooney, K. M., & Lorenz, E. (1997). The effects of food and gender on interpersonal
perceptions. Sex Roles, 36.http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1025622125603,
639e633.
Mori, D., Chaiken, S., & Pliner, P. (1987). “Eating lightly”and the self-presentation of
femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 693e702. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.693.
Nath, J. (2010). Gendered fare? a qualitative investigation of alternative food and
masculinities. Journal of Sociology, 47,261e278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1440783310386828.
Oakes, M. E., & Slotterback, C. S. (2004-2005). Prejudgments of those who eat a
“healthy”versus and “unhealthy”food for breakfast. Current Psychology, 23,
267e278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-004-1001-6.
O'Doherty Jensen, K., & Holm, L. (1999). Preferences, quantities and concerns: socio-
cultural perspectives on the gendered consumption of foods. European Journal
of Clinical Nutrition, 53,351e359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600767.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Impeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon
mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5,411e419.
Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,173e191. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.173.
Peterson, H. (2014, October 30). We tried the meatless burgers and nuggets coming to
a restaurant near you. [Blog post]. Last accessed 01.05.15. Retrieved from http://
www.businessinsider.com/gardein-coming-to-restaurants-near-you-2014-10.
Pimental, D., & Pimental, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based
diets and the environment. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78(suppl.),
660Se663S.
Pliner, P., & Chaiken, S. (1990). Eating, social motives, and self-presentation in
women and men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 240e254. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(90)90037-m.
Pliner, P., Rizvi, S., & Remick, A. K. (2009). Competition affects food choice in
women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 42,557e564. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/eat.20649.
Rothgerber, H. (2012). Real men don't eat (vegetable) quiche: masculinity and the
justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14,
363e375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030379.
Rozin, P., Hormes, J. M., Faith, M. S., & Wansink, B. (2012). Is meat male? a quan-
titative multimethod framework to establish metaphoric relationships. Journal
of Consumer Research, 39, 629e643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/664970.
Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56,
447e450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.018.
Sch€
osler, H., de Boer, J., Boersema, J. J., & Aiking, H. (2015). Meat and masculinity
among young Chinese, Turkish and Dutch adults in the Netherlands. Appetite,
89,152e159.
Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D. P., den Elzen, M. G. J., Eickhout, B., &
Kabat, P. (2009). Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change, 95,83e102.
Stein, R. I., & Nemeroff, C. J. (1995). Moral overtones of food: judgments of others
based on what they eat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 480e490.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167295215006.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flamant, C. (1971). Social categorization and
intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1,149e178 .
The Harris Poll. (2014, June 10). Majority of American households have someone
monitoring or restricting a part of their daily diet. Last accessed 01.05.15.
Retrieved from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris%20Poll%2055%
20-%20Healthy%20Eating_06.10.2014.pdf.
The Vegetarian Resource Group. (2015). How often to Americans eat vegetarian
meals? and how many adults in the U.S. are vegetarian?. Last accessed 16.09.15.
Retreived from http://www.vrg.org/blog/2015/05/29/how-often-do-americans-
eat-vegetarian-meals-and-how-many-adults-in-the-u-s-are-vegetarian-2/.
Thomas, M. A. (2015). Food and gender: Perceptions and actuality. Unpublished raw
data.
Truby, H., Baic, S., deLooy, A., Fox, K. R., Livingstone, M. B. E., Logan, C. M., et al.
(2006). Randomised controlled trial of four commercial weight loss pro-
grammes in the UK: initial findings from the BBC ‘diet trails.’.BMJ: British
Medical Journal, 332, 1309e1314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.38833.411204.80.
Turner, K., Ferguson, S., Craig, J., Jeffries, A., & Beaton, S. (2013). Gendered identity
negotiations through food consumption. Young Consumers, 14, 280e288. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/yc-02-2013-00342.
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Cattle and beef statistics and in-
formation. Last accessed 17.09.15. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/
topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx.
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008).
Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95,1325e1339.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012453.
Vartanian, L. R. (2015). Impression management and food intake. Current directions
in research. Appetite, 86,74e80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.021.
Vartanian, L. R., Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (2007). Consumptions stereotypes and
impression management: how you are what you eat. Appetite, 48, 265e277.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.10.008.
Young, M. E., Mizzau, M., Mai, N. T., Sirisegaram, A., & Wilson, M. (2009). Food for
thought. What you eat depends on your sex and eating companions. Appetite,
53, 268e271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.07.021.
Silicon Valley gets a taste for food.(2015, March 7). Last accessed 01.05.15. Retrieved
from http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21645497-tech-
startups-are-moving-food-business-make-sustainable-versions-meat.
M.A. Thomas / Appetite 97 (2016) 79e8686
