Understanding the Meat-Masculinity Link: Traditional and Non-Traditional Masculine Norms Predicting Men’s Meat Consumption.

Abstract

Men are the biggest meat consumers worldwide, placing themselves at greater risk of disease and early death from red and processed meat consumption. Despite these serious health outcomes, men tend to be unwilling to reduce their meat intake. It has been theorised that adherence to masculine norms plays a role in this unwillingness. The current study sought to determine which traditional and non-traditional masculine norms predict men’s meat consumption, intention to eat meat, and willingness to reduce meat consumption. Five hundred and seventy Australian and English self-identified males completed the Meat Consumption and Intention Scale, and three psychometrically validated measures of traditional and non-traditional masculinity. The traditional masculine norms violence, importance of sex, and heterosexual self-presentation positively predicted men’s meat consumption; the non-traditional masculine norm sensitivity to male privilege negatively predicted men’s meat consumption. Toughness, emotional control, and holistic attentiveness were also important predictors of men’s willingness to reduce. Our results suggest that informational campaigns, designed for men, that help challenge and break perceived links between meat consumption and attitudes to violence, sexual virility, heterosexuality, and physical strength may be effective in reducing meat consumption.

Full text

Page 1/25
Understanding the Meat-Masculinity Link:
Traditional and Non-Traditional Masculine Norms
Predicting Men’s Meat Consumption.
Lauren Camilleri (  lauren.camilleri6@live.vu.edu.au )
Victoria University
Peter Richard Gill
Victoria University
Jessica Scarfo
Victoria University
Andrew Jago
Victoria University
Melissa Kirkovski
Victoria University
Research Article
Keywords: meat-masculinity link, conformity to masculine norms, men’s meat consumption, men’s health,
gendered eating.
Posted Date: March 28th, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2697662/v1
License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 
Read Full License

Page 2/25
Abstract
Men are the biggest meat consumers worldwide, placing themselves at greater risk of disease and early
death from red and processed meat consumption. Despite these serious health outcomes, men tend to be
unwilling to reduce their meat intake. It has been theorised that adherence to masculine norms plays a
role in this unwillingness. The current study sought to determine which traditional and non-traditional
masculine norms predict men’s meat consumption, intention to eat meat, and willingness to reduce meat
consumption. Five hundred and seventy Australian and English self-identied males completed the Meat
Consumption and Intention Scale, and three psychometrically validated measures of traditional and non-
traditional masculinity. The traditional masculine norms violence, importance of sex, and heterosexual
self-presentation positively predicted men’s meat consumption; the non-traditional masculine norm
sensitivity to male privilege negatively predicted men’s meat consumption. Toughness, emotional control,
and holistic attentiveness were also important predictors of men’s willingness to reduce. Our results
suggest that informational campaigns, designed for men, that help challenge and break perceived links
between meat consumption and attitudes to violence, sexual virility, heterosexuality, and physical
strength may be effective in reducing meat consumption.
Introduction
Current meat consumption trends pose a serious threat to human and planetary health. Evidence
suggests that higher red and processed meat consumption is linked to men’s infertility, and various
diseases, such as colorectal and prostate concer, cardiovasular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, obesity,
and overall mortality (Grosso et al.,2022; Libera et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2019). In 2015 the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classied processed meat as carcinogenic, and red meat as
probably carcinogenic (De Smet & Vossen, 2016). As such, the IARC and other research bodies, such as
the American Institute for Cancer Research (2022) and the World Cancer Research Fund International
(2022), recommend that people limit their red and processed meat consumption. Furthermore, meat
production contributes to the destruction of the environment and planetary health as a result of
deforestation, biodiversity loss, ocean acidication, and eutrophication (Clark et al., 2019; Machovina et
al., 2015). Various studies have identied that meat-based diets emit substantially more greenhouse
gases than plant-based diets (Chai et al., 2019) and that current levels of meat consumption in developed
countries are unsustainable (Parlasca & Qaim, 2022).
As the biggest meat consumers worldwide (Graça et al., 2019; Horgon et al., 2019), men are at greater risk
than women of early death from red and processed meat consumption (Battaglia Richi et al., 2015;
Rohrmann et al., 2013). Despite these poor health consequences, men demonstrate less willingness than
women to reduce their meat intake (Graça, et al., 2019), and are less likely to reduce their meat
consumption, or choose meat-free meals, in intervention studies (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2014; Jalil et al.,
2020; Pohlmann, 2022). Remarkably, despite gender having been identied as one of the strongest
predictors of meat consumption (Graça et al., 2019), relatively few studies have adopted a gender lens
and focused specically on the factors inhibiting men’s meat reduction. One factor that partly explains

Page 3/25
men’s meat consumption is conformity to masculine norms. A recent study found that some men’s
unwillingness to reduce their meat intake was partly due to their adherence to traditional masculine ideals
and expectations of how “real” men ought to behave (Bogueva et al., 2020). Many male meat-eaters in
the study believed that it was “unmanly” for men to abstain from eating meat. Hence, adherence to
traditional masculine norms presents a unique challenge for reducing men’s meat intake, and has thus
been dubbed a “masculinity dilemma” (Bogueva et al., 2020). The present study aimed to expand our
understanding of the link between men’s meat consumption and masculinity by investigating which
masculine norms best predict men’s meat consumption, intention to eat meat, and willingness to reduce
their meat intake. Understanding which masculine norms drive men’s meat consumption can help inform
men’s dietary interventions.
The meat-masculinity link
In many Western cultures eating meat is viewed as a stereotypically masculine behaviour (Johnston et
al., 2021; Rozin et al., 2012), and meat-eaters are perceived as more masculine than vegetarians
(Bogueva et al., 2020; Ruby & Heine, 2011). Conversely, vegetarianism is associated with femininity
(Bogueva et al., 2020; Cavazza et al., 2020). Several researchers propose that this meat-masculinity link is
perpetuated and explained by conformity to traditional masculinity ideology (e.g., De Backer et al., 2020;
Rosenfeld & Tomiyama, 2021; Timeo & Suitner, 2018). Over the past four decades, a set of dominant and
widely adhered to masculine norms have repeatedly been identied, collectively referred to as “traditional”
masculinity (Levant & Wong, 2017). For example, traditional masculine norms assert that men should be
stoic, powerful, competitive, and sexually virile (Levant & Wong, 2017). Men of different races and sexual
orientations have been found to conform to these dominant ideological standards of masculinity, which
serve as implicit guides for how men ought to behave (Isacco & Wade, 2017). Research has found that
men who conform more to traditional masculinity ideology are more likely to eat meat—a stereotypically
masculine behaviour—and less likely to consider adopting a vegetarian (i.e., “feminine”) diet (Rosenfeld &
Tomiyama, 2021; Rothgerber, 2013). Conversely, men who subscribe to emerging, non-traditional
masculine norms have been found to eat less meat and have greater willingness to reduce their meat
consumption (De Backer et al., 2020). It has been theorised that eating meat is a means of gender
performance, enabling men to present a traditionally masculine self-image (Buerkle, 2009), and
experimental evidence demonstrates that at in certain contexts men eat meat to enhance and manage
their masculine identity (Mesler et al., 2022; Pohlmann, 2022).
While quantitative studies show that conformity to masculine norms is associated with meat
consumption when masculinity is measured as a single overarching (i.e., unidimensional) construct, this
method does not capture the multidimensional nature of masculinity. To the authors’ knowledge, only one
study has investigated which aspects of masculinity predict men’s meat consumption. In a study of the
relationship between four traditional masculine norms and food intake in men and women, Campos et al.
(2020) found that conformity to norms regarding violence, playboy, disdain for homosexuals, and risk-
taking did not predict men’s meat consumption. However, this study did not measure other traditional
masculine norms, nor non-traditional norms. Furthermore, no known studies have investigated the

Page 4/25
relationship between masculine norms and other variables relevant to dietary change (i.e., intentions to
change diet, and willingness to change diet; Kwasny et al., 2022; Sheeran & Webb, 2016). By including a
broad range of masculine norms, as well as several factors of interest to behaviour change, the current
study will extend knowledge of the meat-masculinity link by highlighting the most important masculine
norms related to men’s meat consumption, and provide insights into the potential barriers and facilitators
of dietary change.
Masculine Norms Related to Men’s Meat Consumption
Although evidence regarding the relationship between specic masculine norms and men’s meat
consumption is limited, the literature indicates that certain traditional masculine norms may be the
strongest predictors of men’s meat consumption. Meat consumption is positively associated with the
endorsement of violence, with meat-eaters being more likely than vegetarians to support various forms of
violence, such as the use of nuclear weapons, capital punishment, and blood sports (Hamilton, 2015).
Although Campos et al. (2020) found that conformity to violence did not predict men’s meat
consumption, they found that violence mediated the relationship between sex and meat consumption,
such that men’s conformity to violence explained their higher meat intake. Hence, conformity to violence
may be an important predictor of men’s meat consumption.
Meat consumption is also associated with traditional masculine ideals such as social status, being
physically tough, and having emotional control. Experiments have found that people have a greater
preference for meat when motivated to enhance their perceived social status (Chan & Zlatevska, 2019a),
suggesting that men who pursue social status may be more likely to eat meat. Men commonly believe
that eating meat is necessary for building muscles and physical strength (i.e., being “tough”; Bogueva et
al., 2017; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2020; Kildal & Syse, 2017). Moreover, people who feel empathy for animal
suffering are less willing to eat meat (Earle et al., 2019; Kunst & Hohle, 2016), and men consistently
exhibit less empathy for animals than women (Angantyr et al., 2015; Camilleri et al., 2020; Estevez-
Moreno et al., 2021). It has been theorised that men may fail to express concern for animal suffering, and
therefore, eat more meat, because it conicts with the masculine norm of restrictive emotionality
(Rothgerber, 2013).
Meat consumption has also been linked to male heterosexuality, with scholars observing the glorication
of meat consumption in stereotypically heterosexual masculine popular culture and social settings
(Buerkle, 2009; Lapina & Leer, 2016). Homophobic comments questioning heterosexual vegetarian men’s
sexuality also reveal that some people expect heterosexual men to eat meat (Bogueva et al., 2020; Mycek,
2018). Hence, men who attempt to present as heterosexual may be more motivated to eat meat. This
need not apply solely to heterosexual men; in heteronormative culture, non-heterosexual men may at
times feel pressure to present themselves as heterosexual (Ozbilgin et al., 2022).
Experiments have also found that men show a greater preference for meat when sexually motivated
(Chan & Zlatevska, 2019b; Timeo & Suitner, 2018) and that some men and women believe that meat-
eating men are more sexually attractive (Bogueva et al., 2020; Timeo & Suitner, 2018). Hence,

Page 5/25
heterosexual men in particular may be motivated to eat meat to enhance their sexual appeal.
Alternatively, some men believe that eating meat enhances sexual virility (Bogueva et al., 2017).
Therefore, when controlling for sexual orientation, men who conform to traditional masculine norms
regarding sexuality, such as placing high importance on sex drive, or on obtaining multiple sexual
partners (i.e., being a “playboy”), may eat more meat. Although Campos et al. (2020) found that playboy
did not predict men’s meat consumption, it may predict intention to eat meat or willingness to reduce
meat intake.
In addition to traditional masculine norms, an alternate set of new, non-traditional masculine norms have
recently been identied and linked to men’s meat consumption. These new norms endorse non-traditional
ideals, such as self-reection, self-expression, greater sensitivity to self and others, the reprioritisation of
life goals, and gender-egalitarian views (Kaplan et al., 2017). Men who conform to non-traditional
masculine norms have been found to eat less meat and be more willing to reduce their meat intake (De
Backer et al., 2020). Two non-traditional norms directly oppose traditional masculine ideals, and therefore
may be the strongest negative predictors of men’s meat consumption. “Questioning denitions of
masculinity” rejects traditional masculine ideals such as having to perform sexually or having to avoid
“feminine” occupations. Additionally, “authenticity” endorses the open expression of emotion, potentially
removing the barrier to showing compassion for animals.
Hypotheses
Regarding traditional masculinity, it was hypothesised that
pursuit of status
;
violence
;
toughness
;
importance of sex
;
playboy
;
emotional control
; and
heterosexual self-presentation
would positively predict
men’s meat consumption and intention to eat meat, and negatively predict willingness to reduce. The
remaining traditional masculine norms (
power over women; winning; risk-taking; primacy of work; self-
reliance
) were not expected to predict the outcome variables.
Regarding non-traditional masculinity, it was hypothesised that
questioning denitions of masculinity
and
authenticity
would negatively predict men’s meat consumption and intention to eat meat, and
positively predict willingness to reduce meat consumption. The remaining non-traditional masculine
norms (
sensitivity to male privilege; holistic attentiveness; domesticity/nurturing
) were not expected to
predict the outcomes variables.
Methods
Participants & Procedure
The study was approved by the [Anonymous] University Human Research Ethics Committee (Application
ID: HRE21-162). A convenience sample of Australian and English participants, who self-identied their
gender as male, was obtained from an online recruitment site “Prolic” ( https://www.prolic.co/ ). An
additional 45 Australian participants were recruited on Facebook via survey participant recruitment
groups as well as the principal researcher’s personal network. Participants provided informed consent

Page 6/25
before completing the survey online via Qualtrics, and were paid $12 AUD for their time. Twenty-nine
incomplete datasets were deleted, leaving 575 men who had completed all measures. Twenty-four
missing values were replaced with the participant’s mean score on that variable. Four cases with single-
item demographic questions missing (income and geographic location), which could not be replaced with
the participant’s mean score, were deleted listwise from the analysis, leaving a nal sample of 570
Australian and English men (56.3% Australian; mean age 38.52,
SD
= 13.32), which is sucient for
regression analysis (Fritz & Berger, 2015). Overall, the sample was predominantly heterosexual, left-wing,
well-educated men living in metropolitan areas, aged 18–44 (Table1).

Page 7/25
Table 1
Sociodemographic Statistics of Sample
Demographic Variable
N
%
Country
Australia
England
Self-identied diet
321
249
56.3%
43.7%
Unrestricted meat-eater 340 59.6%
Meat-reducer 183 32.1%
Meat-avoider 47 8.3%
Age  
18–29 165 28.9%
30–44 245 43.0%
45–59 108 18.9%
≥ 60 51 8.9%
Education  
≤ Secondary school 124 21.8%
Trade/vocational training 97 17.0%
Bachelor degree 240 42.1%
Postgraduate degree 109 19.1%
Geographic Location  
Metropolitan 451 79.1%
Rural 119 20.9%
Sexual Orientation  
Heterosexual 507 88.9%
Homo/bisexual 63 11.1%
Political Views  
Left-wing 285 50.0%
Centre 166 29.1%
Right-wing 119 20.9%

Page 8/25
Demographic Variable
N
%
Religion  
None 378 66.3%
Buddhism 11 1.9%
Christianity 130 22.8%
Hindu 7 1.2%
Islam 12 2.1%
Judaism 4 .7%
Other 24 4.2%
Note.
“Meat reducer” refers to self-identied pescatarians and participants who reported purposely
limiting their meat consumption; “meat avoider” refers to vegetarians and vegans.
Materials
Meat Consumption and Intention to Eat Meat
Participants completed the Meat Consumption and Intention Scale, which was developed and
psychometrically validated prior to the current analysis (Camilleri et al., 2023). Participants reported their
consumption of beef, lamb, poultry, pork, bacon/ham, other processed meats, and sh/seafood in the
past two weeks, indicating 1) the number of times they ate each type of meat; 2) the average quantity of
each serving for each meat type (
very small
(less than 10% of a typical meal);
small
(10–20% of a typical
meal);
medium
(21–30% of a typical meal);
large
(31–40% of a typical meal; and
very large
(more than
40% of a typical meal)); and 3) the extent to which they intended to change their consumption of each
meat over the next two weeks (-4 =
greatly decrease
, -2 =
somewhat decrease
, 0 =
not change
, 2 =
somewhat increase
, 4 =
greatly increase
). For each meat category, frequency scores were multiplied by
quantity scores; these scores were then summed to create a total meat consumption score (α = .54, 95%
CI [.481 − .596]). Higher scores indicated greater meat consumption. An intention to eat meat score was
calculated by summing the intention items (α = .60, 95% CI [.548, .648]). Higher scores indicated the
intention to increase meat consumption.
Willingness to Reduce Meat Consumption
To measure willingness to reduce meat consumption we adapted a 3-item scale used in previous
research that has demonstrated good reliability (Graça, et al., 2015; α = .91). The scale comprised three
items asking the extent of the participants’ willingness to 1) “slightly reduce your meat consumption”; 2)
“drastically reduce your meat consumption”; and 3) “stop eating meat altogether”, from 1 (
very unwilling
)
to 5 (
very willing
). Higher scores indicated greater willingness to reduce (current study α = .87).
Traditional Masculine Norms

Page 9/25
Ten subscales of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory Short Form (CMNI-30; Levant et al., 2020),
each containing three items, measured:
winning
(α = 72);
emotional control
(α = .92);
playboy
(α = .83);
violence
(α = 76);
heterosexual self-presentation
(α = .93);
pursuit of status
(α = 68);
primacy of work
(α
= .87);
power over women
(α = 79);
self-reliance
(α = .82); and
risk-taking
(α = .88). The CMNI-30 subscales
have demonstrated good model t, convergent validity, test-retest reliability and internal reliability in
various ethnic groups (Krivoshchekov et al., 2022; Levant et al., 2020). Two subscales from the Male Role
Norms Inventory Short Form (MRNI-SF; Levant et al., 2013) measured
toughness
(α = .75) and
importance
of sex
(α = .84). The MRNI-SF subscales have demonstrated good construct, discriminant, and concurrent
validity (Levant et al., 2015; Levant et al., 2016). Participants answered on a 1 (
strongly disagree
) to 6
(
strongly agree
) scale. Total and subscale scores were calculated by adding each item. Higher scores
indicated greater endorsement of masculine norms.
Non-traditional Masculine Norms
On a scale of 1 (
strongly disagree
) to 6 (
strongly agree
), ve subscales from the New Masculinity
Inventory (NMI; Kaplan et al., 2017) measured:
holistic attentiveness
(4 items; α = .76);
questioning
denitions of masculinity
(4 items; α = .68);
sensitivity to male privilege
(2 items; α = .36);
authenticity
(4
items; α = .74); and
domesticity/nurturing
(3 items; α = .59). The NMI has demonstrated good convergent
and discriminant validity (Kaplan et al., 2017).
Control Variables
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; i.e., endorsement of establishing social hierarchies and maintaining
power over outgroups) is positively associated with meat consumption (Dhont & Hodson, 2014; Holler et
al., 2021). Conceptually, SDO is an overlapping construct to masculine norms such as violence and power
over women. To ensure that results were not explained by this factor we controlled for SDO using the
Short Social Dominance Orientation Scale (Pratto et al., 2013), which has demonstrated reliability and
construct validity in 20 countries (Braunsberger et al., 2021; Pratto et al., 2013). People from urban areas
are more likely to follow plant-based diets than people living in rural areas (Graça, et al., 2019), therefore
geographic location was also controlled for (0 =
urban
; 1 =
rural
). As older (Horgan et al., 2019; Pfeiler &
Egloff, 2020) and more educated (Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017; Ruby, 2012) people tend to eat less
meat, age and education were also controlled for. People’s meat consumption and intention may be partly
explained by the affordability of certain meats, hence, personal income was also used as a control
variable. Finally, heterosexual men may have more reason to eat meat than non-heterosexual men, if they
believe women nd meat-eaters more sexually attractive. Hence, sexual orientation was controlled for (0
= heterosexual, 1 = non-heterosexual).
Results
Regression assumptions outlined by Allen et al. (2014) were tested and addressed before conducting the
analysis. Skewness and kurtosis values fell into the acceptable range of +/- 2 for skewness (George &
Mallery, 2010) and +/- 7 for kurtosis (Byrne, 2016), with the exception of intention to eat meat, which had

Page 10/25
a kurtosis value of 12.04 due to the majority of the sample having no intentions to change their meat
intake. Overall, however, visual inspection of P-P plots indicated that the data were approximately
normally distributed, therefore the intention to eat meat variable was left untreated. Multivariate outliers
were assessed using Mahalanobis distance. For traditional masculine variables, Mahalanobis distance
did not exceed the critical chi-square value of 42.31 at 18 degrees of freedom (
p
= .001), or 31.26 at 11
degrees of freedom (
p
= .001) for the non-traditional masculinity variables, indicating there were no
multivariate outliers. There was no multicollinearity between variables (Pearson’s correlation coecients
between variables were less than .85). The assumption of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity of
residuals was also met.
Partial correlations
Partial correlations (controlling for age, education, geographic location, income, sexual orientation, and
SDO) inspected the relationships between outcome variables and all traditional and non-traditional
masculine norms (see Table2). For traditional masculine norms, results indicated that toughness,
violence, importance of sex, and heterosexual self-presentation were positively correlated with meat
consumption, though weakly (r < .2). Violence was the only traditional masculine norm correlated with
intention to eat meat, with men high on violence being more likely to intend on increasing their meat
consumption (again weakly,
r
= .11). Willingness to reduce their meat intake was negatively but weakly (
r
< .2) correlated with emotional control, power over women, heterosexual self-presentation, violence, and
toughness. Total traditional masculinity scores were positively correlated with meat consumption and
negatively correlated with willingness to reduce, though weakly. For non-traditional masculine norms,
meat consumption was negatively correlated with questioning denitions of masculinity, sensitivity to
male privilege, and domesticity/nurturing (all weakly,
r
< .2). Intention to eat meat was negatively
correlated with holistic attentiveness and sensitivity to male privilege (
r
≤ .1), and willingness to reduce
was negatively correlated with all ve non-traditional masculinity norms (
r
≤ .2). Total conformity to non-
traditional masculinity was negatively correlated with men’s meat consumption and intention to eat meat
(though very weakly,
r
< .1), and positively correlated with willingness to reduce (
r
= .2). Results are
presented in Table2.

Page 11/25
Table 2
Correlations of Masculine Norms with Meat Consumption, Intention to Eat Meat, and Willingness to
Reduce
Meat Consumption Intention to Eat Meat WRMC
Traditional Masculine Norms Pearson’s
r
Pearson’s
r
Pearson’s
r
Winning .06 − .02 − .08
M
Emotional Control .07 .07 − .09*
Pursuit of Status .07 − .06 − .06
Playboy .06 .03 − .01
Power Over Women .06 .05 − .09*
Risk-Taking .04 .07 − .00
Primacy of Work .04 − .02 − .02
Heterosexual Self-Presentation .11* .03 − .09*
Violence .11* .11** − .10*
Self-Reliance .06 .08 − .03
Physical Toughness .12** .06 − .10*
Importance of Sex .11** .03 − .04
Total Traditional Masculinity .18*** .09 − .13**
Non-Traditional Masculine Norms   
Holistic Attentiveness − .03 − .09* .15***
Questioning Denitions of Masculinity − .10* − .08
M
.16***
Sensitivity to Male Privilege − .13** − .10* .20***
Authenticity − .00 − .06 .12**
Domesticity & Nurturing − .09* − .05 .14***
Total Non-Traditional Masculinity − .09* − .10* .20***
Note.
Results of partial correlations between masculine norms and outcome variables, while
controlling for age, education, geographic location, income, sexual orientation, and social dominance
orientation. WRMC = willingness to reduce meat consumption.
* p
< .05,
** p
≤ .01,
*** p
≤ .001,
M
indicates marginal signicance (
p
< .06).
Hierarchical stepwise regression

Page 12/25
A series of hierarchical stepwise linear regressions identied which masculine norms predicted meat
consumption, intention to eat meat, and willingness to reduce meat consumption, using age, education,
geographic location, personal income, sexual orientation, and SDO as control variables. Variables were
evaluated and selected for inclusion in the model based on the probability of F as the criterion (using F-to-
enter
p-
value at .05 and F-to-remove
p-
value at .051). Results of the nal stepwise regression models are
reported in Table3, with standardised beta coecients reported to provide an indication of the relative
strength of each predictor.

Page 13/25
Table 3
Traditional and Non-Traditional Masculine Norms Predicting Meat Consumption, Intention to Eat
Meat, and Willingness to Reduce
Dependent
Variable Traditional Masculine Norms Non-Traditional Masculine Norms
 Sig. Predictors β
t
Sig. Predictors β
t
Meat Consumption Age
Personal
Income
Social
Dominance
Orientation
Violence
Importance of
Sex
Heterosexual
Presentation
− .26***
.10*
.09*
.12**
.10*
.09*
-6.13
2.34
2.06
2.94
2.20
2.03
Age
Personal Income
Social Dominance
Orientation
Sensitivity to Male
Privilege
− .27***
.10*
.13**
− .13**
− .6.60
2.42
2.92
-3.01
Intention to Eat
Meat Social
Dominance
Orientation
Violence
.12**
.12**
2.66
2.62
Social Dominance
Orientation
Sensitivity to Male
Privilege
.11*
− .11*
2.30
-2.32
Willingness to
Reduce Meat
Consumption
Age
Personal
Income
Sexual
Orientation
Social
Dominance
Orientation
Toughness
Emotional
Control
.09*
− .09*
.11**
− .25***
− .11*
− .09*
2.22
-2.04
2.79
-5.62
-2.40
-2.17
Age
Personal Income
Sexual Orientation
Social Dominance
Orientation
Sensitivity to Male
Privilege Holistic
Attentiveness
.10*
− .09*
.12**
− .19***
.18***
.11**
2.38
-2.13
3.00
-4.22
4.08
2.69
Note.
Separate hierarchical stepwise regression analyses were run with traditional and non-traditional
masculine norms predicting meat consumption, intention to eat meat, and willingness to reduce meat
consumption, while controlling for age, education, geographic location, personal income, sexual
orientation, and social dominance orientation. Only signicant predictors are displayed. “Sig.” =
signicant.
* p
< .05,
** p
≤ .01,
*** p
≤ .001. β = standardised beta coecient.

Page 14/25
Discussion
To design effective dietary interventions and improve men’s health, it is imperative to understand which
aspects of masculinity explain the meat-masculinity link. Hence, the current study sought to identify
which masculine norms predict men’s meat consumption, intention to eat meat, and willingness to reduce
meat consumption, while controlling for age, education, personal income, geographic location, sexual
orientation, and social dominance orientation (SDO).
Regarding the control variables, younger men, and those with higher incomes, were signicantly more
likely to eat meat, and less willing to reduce their meat consumption, than older men, or those with lower
incomes. Non-heterosexual men were signicantly more willing to reduce their meat intake than
heterosexual men. Education and geographic location were not signicant predictors. Consistent with the
rmly established relationship between SDO and meat consumption in the literature (Dhont & Hodson,
2014; Holler et al., 2021; Veser et al., 2015), men who scored higher on SDO ate greater quantities of meat,
intended to increase their meat consumption, and were more unwilling to reduce.
Explaining the Meat-Masculinity Link
Partially supporting the rst hypothesis, of the 12 traditional masculine norms, violence, importance of
sex, and heterosexual self-presentation positively predicted men’s meat consumption. This is inconsistent
with Campos et al. (2020) who found that disdain for homosexuals (the original name for the
heterosexual self-presentation norm before revision of the scale) and violence did not predict men’s meat
consumption. However, Campos and colleagues used a different research design and method to the
For traditional masculinity norms, meat consumption was signicantly negatively predicted by age, and
signicantly positively predicted by income, SDO, violence, importance of sex, and heterosexual self-
presentation. Together the variables explained 13.6% of the variability in men’s meat consumption scores
(
F
(9, 569) = 9.79,
p
< .001, R2 = .136). Intention to eat meat was signicantly positively predicted by SDO
and violence, with the variables explaining 4.2% of the variability (
F
(7, 569) = 3.51,
p
< .001, R2 = .042).
Willingness to reduce was signicantly positively predicted by age and sexual orientation, and negatively
predicted by personal income, SDO, toughness, and emotional control, together explaining 14.5% of the
variability (
F
(8, 569) = 11.90,
p
< .001, R2 = .145).
For non-traditional masculinity norms, meat consumption was signicantly positively predicted by
income and SDO, and signicantly negatively predicted by age and sensitivity to male privilege, together
explaining 12.0% of the variability (
F
(7, 569) = 10.97,
p
< .001, R2 = .120). Intention was signicantly
positively predicted by SDO, and negatively predicted by sensitivity to male privilege, together explaining
3.9% of the variability (
F
(7, 569) = 3.30,
p
< .001, R2 = .039). Willingness to reduce was signicantly
negatively predicted by income and SDO, and signicantly positively predicted by age, sexual orientation,
sensitivity to male privilege, and holistic attentiveness, together the variables explaining 17.4% of the
variability (
F
(8, 569) = 14.76,
p
< .001, R2 = .174).

Page 15/25
current study (they conducted an interaction regression model to test whether the relationship between
masculine norms and meat consumption was inuenced by an experimental condition that induced
gender salience), which may explain why their results are inconsistent with our ndings. When
conducting a simple mediation analysis between sex, masculine norms, and meat consumption, Campos
et al. found that men’s conformity to violence partly explained why they ate more meat than women,
which aligns with our ndings. Importantly, by controlling for SDO, our results were not explained by the
participants’ proclivity for maintaining social dominance over outgroups, but rather, by men’s attitudes
towards violence. Holding an accepting attitude about violence towards others may extend to animals, as
animal slaughter is an inherently violent act. It is possible that men who feel morally comfortable
perpetrating violence against humans would have less objection with violence towards farm animals.
Alternatively, support of physical violence may reect a more aggressive disposition, which could explain
our nding that violence predicted the intention to eat more meat. Research has found that when gender
identity is threatened, men will respond with aggressive cognition (Stanaland & Gaither, 2021). Although
we did not explicitly state to participants the aims of the study were to reduce men’s meat consumption,
participants may have sensed a threat to their meat consumption practices simply due to the fact that it
was being questioned. If indeed meat consumption is connected to men’s masculine identity then men
with more aggressive tendencies may have been more likely to respond with an intention to defend and
protect their meat consumption habits (i.e., increase their meat intake). Such a defensive response has
been observed in male participants in previous research (Dowsett et al., 2018).
Our results also support the connection previous scholars have drawn between heterosexuality and meat
consumption (Buerkle, 2009; Lapina & Leer, 2016). To present a heterosexual image, some men avoid
engaging in behaviours associated with femininity (Hunt et al., 2016; Wilkinson, 2004). Because meat is
associated with masculinity, and vegetables and vegetarianism are associated with femininity (Cavazza
et al., 2020; Rozin et al., 2012), men concerned with presenting a heterosexual image may eat meat to
distance themselves from femininity, associate themselves with masculinity, and preserve a heterosexual
appearance. Assuming that non-heterosexual men are less motivated than heterosexual men to present a
heterosexual image, this premise is further supported by our nding that non-heterosexual men were
more willing to reduce their meat intake.
It was hypothesised that masculine norms related to men’s sexuality would positively predict outcomes
variables. Importance of sex signicantly and positively predicted men’s meat consumption; this norm
asserts that men should desire and “be ready” for sex at all times, indicating that men who placed greater
importance on being sexually virile tended to eat more meat. This result may be explained by the belief
that eating meat enhances sex drive, as this was reported as a reason for eating red meat by 22.4% of
male meat-eaters in a previous study (Bogueva et al., 2017). However, like Campos et al.’s (2020) ndings,
the playboy norm—that men should have multiple sexual partners—did not predict any outcome variable.
Previous studies have found that men showed a greater preference for meat when sexually motivated
(Chan & Zlatevska, 2019b; Timeo & Suitner, 2018). In both studies, researchers attributed men’s
preference for meat to the intention to increase their sexual attractiveness. Arguably, men who desire
multiple sexual partners have greater motivation to enhance their sexual attractiveness. Therefore, as the

Page 16/25
playboy norm was not related to men’s meat consumption in the current study, our results appear to
suggest that men may prefer meat when sexually motivated to enhance their sexual virility.
Unexpectedly, toughness, emotional control, and pursuit of social status did not predict meat
consumption. In fact, pursuit of status was not a signicant predictor of any outcome variable. Hence,
our results did not support past studies that suggest people eat meat to enhance their perceived social
status (Bogueva et al., 2017; Chan & Zlatevska, 2019a). Our results may be attributed to our
measurement of meat consumption, which included all meat types; previous research suggests that men
eat red meat in particular to display their social status (Bogueva et al., 2017). Toughness and emotional
control, however, were signicant negative predictors of willingness to reduce meat intake: men who
believed in the importance of being tough and emotionally stoic were more unwilling to reduce.
Compassion and concern for animals is a common motivator for meat reduction (Stoll-Kleemann &
Schmidt, 2017). It has been argued that expressing concern for animals may not align with some men’s
beliefs about acceptable masculine behaviour, particularly regarding restrictive emotionality (Rothgerber,
2013). Indeed, research has highlighted that some meat-eating men have criticised vegetarian men’s
compassion for farm animals, perceiving it as weak and unmanly (Bogueva et al., 2020). Thus, it could
be suggested that some men who are more emotionally restrictive may lack this motivation to reduce.
Alternatively, previous research suggests that men concerned with toughness may believe that meat is
necessary for achieving and maintaining physical strength (Worsley, 2003; Kildal & Syse, 2017); and may
be unwilling to adopt plant-based diets for fear of losing muscle mass and strength (Lea et al., 2006;
Wyker & Davison, 2010). Finally, in line with the rst hypothesis, the remaining traditional norms power
over women, winning, risk-taking, primacy of work, and self-reliance did not predict any outcome variable.
Hence, the current study suggests that the traditional masculine norms best explaining the relationship
between meat and masculinity are violence, importance of sex, heterosexual self-presentation, toughness,
and emotional control.
The second hypothesis regarding non-traditional masculine norms was not supported. Unexpectedly,
questioning denitions of masculinity and authenticity were not signicant predictors of men’s meat
consumption, intention to eat meat, or willingness to reduce. Instead, sensitivity to male privilege
predicted all outcome variables, suggesting that men who hold gender egalitarian views are less attached
to meat. Research has shown that an individual’s attitudes towards animals tends to reect their attitude
towards human outgroups (Dhont et al., 2014). Men who view women as equals may therefore be more
likely to view animals in higher regard, providing less justication for eating them (see “hierarchical
justication” subscale; Rothgerber, 2013). Additionally, holistic attentiveness positively predicted
willingness to reduce meat consumption. These men had greater concern for their personal health and
may therefore have been willing to reduce their meat intake for the potential health benets.
Implications and practical applications
This study conrms that masculine norms partly explain why some men eat more meat and are more
unwilling to reduce their meat intake. Furthermore, the ndings deepen our understanding of the meat-
masculinity link by elucidating which masculine norms may act as drivers of men’s meat consumption,

Page 17/25
barriers to men’s meat reduction, and which norms should be fostered to reduce men’s meat
consumption. In line with the application of “doing gender” (DeLessio-Parson, 2017; Mycek, 2018) and
impression management theories (Nakagawa & Hart, 2019; Timeo & Suitner, 2018) to eating behaviour,
eating meat may enable men to embody masculine ideals regarding violence, sexual virility,
heterosexuality, toughness, and emotional control.
Not all masculine norms were correlated with or predicted outcomes variables, demonstrating that only a
subset of masculine norms explain the meat-masculinity link. This has implications for research
methodology in this eld by indicating that masculinity should be investigated as a multidimensional
construct, where specic masculine norms are measured, rather than as a single overarching construct.
Such an approach will help build a more accurate and nuanced account of men’s meat consumption, and
may apply to other dietary and health-related behaviours.
This study also has implications for health practitioners, social marketing campaigns, or interventions
aiming to reduce men’s meat intake. The prospect of reducing meat consumption appears to pose a
greater personal threat to men who identify strongly with masculine ideals regarding physical toughness
and emotional control. To challenge the “meat = strength” myth, men could be informed that meat is not
necessary for strength; numerous studies have found no differences in men’s muscle growth or strength
between groups eating plant-based versus meat-based diets (e.g., Hevia-Larrain et al., 2021; Page et al.,
2022; Pohl et al., 2021). To overcome the emotional control barrier, it may be necessary to provide a
scientic rationale for meat reduction (e.g., for health or sustainability) rather than making emotional
appeals to animal welfare. As violence was the strongest positive predictor of men’s meat consumption
and intention to eat meat, challenging men’s attitudes towards violence may be a key mechanism to
reducing men’s meat intake. Social marketing campaigns may be needed to shift associations between
meat and heterosexuality, or away from vegetarian food and femininity, as men concerned with
presenting a heterosexual image may be eating meat to avoid engaging in “feminine” behaviour. As
importance of sex was a key predictor, there may be an underlying belief that meat enhances men’s sex
drive, possibly because red meat is rich in zinc, a mineral that supports men’s fertility and libido (Fallah et
al., 2018; Zitzmann et al., 2006). Informing men about alternate sources of zinc could be accompanied
with information on the impacts of diet on sexual functioning. For example, a systematic review found
high meat consumption is positively associated with erectile dysfunction, against which the
Mediterranean diet offers the best protection (Defeudis et al., 2022), which includes higher consumption
of vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, cereals and sh, and lower meat and dairy consumption (Davis et al.,
2015). Finally, many people reduce meat intake for health benets (Stoll-Kleemann & Schmidt, 2017).
Increasing public awareness of the health risks associated with red and processed meat consumption
may be effective in motivating men high on holistic attentiveness to reduce their meat intake to protect
their health, as these men valued their health and were willing to reduce their meat intake. Overall, this
study shows that strategies to reduce meat consumption need to consider the inuence of gender role
norms. Simultaneously challenging traditional masculine norms, which present multiple barriers to men’s
meat reduction, whilst fostering non-traditional norms, which appear to support and align with men’s
meat reduction, is likely to aid the ecacy of interventions.

Page 18/25
Limitations & Future Research
Several limitations should be noted. Cronbach’s alpha for the sensitivity to male privilege subscale was
low, meaning results may not be replicable. However, lower internal consistency is to be expected with
scales that contain only two items (Agbo, 2010; Taber, 2018). Further research is necessary to conrm the
results of the current study, as ndings were based on data from a relatively small convenience sample of
Australian and English men. Additionally, traditional masculinity ideology is based heavily on white,
Western, heterosexual masculine norms. Thus, the ndings cannot necessarily be generalised to broader
or more diverse populations. Having said that, men of diverse cultural backgrounds are found to conform
to traditional masculine norms (e.g., Levant et al., 2007; Vogel et al., 2011). As cross-sectional study
designs cannot infer causal relationships, future experiments could determine whether conformity to the
masculine norms highlighted in this study inuence meat-preferences in experimental designs or
intervention outcomes. Moreover, explanations for why these masculine norms predicted men’s meat
consumption remain speculative. Investigating how and why these norms predict men’s meat
consumption can better inform theory and interventions.
Conclusion
Overall, traditional (13.6% of variance) and non-traditional (12.0% of variance) masculine norms
signicantly predicted men’s meat consumption, conrming that masculine norms explain a substantial
portion of the variance in men’s meat intake and should be considered in meat consumer research.
Traditional and non-traditional masculine norms also partly explained other important factors relevant to
dietary change—intention to eat meat in the future and willingness to reduce meat intake. Violence,
importance of sex, and heterosexual self-presentation norms were the key predictors of men’s high meat
consumption, whereas sensitivity to male privilege was the primary predictor of men’s low meat intake.
Results were not attributed to differences in participants’ age, education, personal income, geographic
location, sexual orientation, or endorsement of SDO. By demonstrating that numerous aspects of
masculinity predict men’s meat consumption, the ndings support a multidimensional perspective of the
meat-masculinity link. Challenging and modifying men’s attitudes to violence, beliefs about meat and
sexual virility, and associations between plant-based foods and femininity may be important strategies to
reduce men’s meat intake and ultimately improve men’s health outcomes.
Declarations
Declarations of interest: none
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was conducted in accordance with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of
Research (2018) and with approval from the Victoria University Human Ethics Committee. Application ID:
HRE21-162. All participants provided informed consent.

Page 19/25
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Availability of data and materials
The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is available for request at the EASY data repository,
https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-266-5j45.
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Funding
This research did not receive any specic grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-
for-prot sectors.
Authors’ contributions
Lauren Camilleri: conceptualisation, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, writing – original draft.
Peter Richard Gill, Jessica Scarfo, Andrew Jago: conceptualisation, methodology, supervision, writing –
review and editing. Melissa Kirkovski: supervision, writing – review and editing.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
References
1. Agbo AA. Cronbach's alpha: Review of limitations and associated recommendations. J Psychol Afr.
2010;20(2):233–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2010.10820371.
2. Allen P, Bennett K, Heritage B. SPSS statistics version 22: A practical guide In. 3rd ed. Cengage
Learning; 2014.
3. American Institute of Cancer Research. (2022).
Recommendation: Limit consumption of red and
processed meat.
https://www.aicr.org/cancer-prevention/recommendations/limit-consumption-of-
red-and-processed-meat/#overview-top-tips
4. Angantyr M, Eklund J, Hansen EM. A comparison of empathy for humans and empathy for animals.
Anthrozoös. 2015;24(4):369–77. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303711x13159027359764.
5. Battaglia Richi E, Baumer B, Conrad B, Darioli R, Schmid A, Keller U. Health risks associated with
meat consumption: A review of epidemiological studies. Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2015;85(1–2):70–8.
https://doi.org/10.1024/0300-9831/a000224.

Page 20/25
. Bogueva D, Marinova D, Gordon R. Who needs to solve the vegetarian men dilemma? J Hum Behav
Social Environ. 2020;30(1):28–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2019.1664966.
7. Bogueva D, Marinova D, Raphaely T. Reducing meat consumption: The case for social marketing.
Asia Pac J Mark Logistics. 2017;29(3):477–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjml-08-2016-0139.
. Braunsberger K, Flamm RO, Buckler B. The relationship between social dominance orientation and
dietary/lifestyle choices. Sustainability. 2021;13(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168901.
9. Buerkle CW. Metrosexuality can stuff it: Beef consumption as (heteromasculine) fortication. Text
and Performance Quarterly. 2009;29(1):77–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10462930802514370.
10. Camilleri L, Gill PR, Jago A. The role of moral disengagement and animal empathy in the meat
paradox. Pers Indiv Differ. 2020;164:110103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110103.
11. Camilleri L, Gill PR, Scarfo J, Jago A, Rehman A. (2023). Introducing the Meat Consumption and
Intention Scale: Psychometric properties and convergent validity. [Unpublished manuscript].
https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/esgd7
12. Campbell-Arvai V, Arvai J, Kalof L. Motivating sustainable food choices: The role of nudges, value
orientation, and information provision. Environ Behav. 2014;46(4):453–75.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512469099.
13. Cavazza N, Graziani AR, Guidetti M. Impression formation via #foodporn: Effects of posting gender-
stereotyped food pictures on instagram proles. Appetite. 2020;147:104565.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104565.
14. Chai BC, van der Voort JR, Grofelnik K, Eliasdottir HG, Klöss I, Perez-Cueto FJA. Which diet has the
least environmental impact on our planet? A systematic review of vegan, vegetarian and omnivorous
diets. Sustainability. 2019;11(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154110.
15. Chan EY, Zlatevska N. Is meat sexy? Meat preference as a function of the sexual motivation system.
Food Qual Prefer. 2019a;74:78–87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.01.008.
1. Chan EY, Zlatevska N. Jerkies, tacos, and burgers: Subjective socioeconomic status and meat
preference. Appetite. 2019b;132:257–66.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.08.027.
17. Clark MA, Springmann M, Hill J, Tilman D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods.
PNAS. 2019;116(46):23357–62. https://doi.org/doi:10.1073/pnas.1906908116.
1. Corrin T, Papadopoulos A. Understanding the attitudes and perceptions of vegetarian and plant-
based diets to shape future health promotion programs. Appetite. 2017;109:40–7.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.018.
19. Davis C, Bryan J, Hodgson J, Murphy K. Denition of the Mediterranean diet: A literature review.
Nutrients. 2015;7(11):9139–53. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7115459.
20. De Backer C, Erreygers S, De Cort C, Vandermoere F, Dhoest A, Vrinten J, Van Bauwel S. (2020). Meat
and masculinities. Can differences in masculinity predict meat consumption, intentions to reduce
meat and attitudes towards vegetarians?
Appetite
,
147
, 104559.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104559

Page 21/25
21. Defeudis G, Mazzilli R, Di Tommaso AM, Zamponi V, Carlomagno F, Tuccinardi D, Gianfrilli D. Effects
of diet and antihyperglycemic drugs on erectile dysfunction. A systematic review. Andrology. 2022;1–
13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.13192.
22. DeLessio-Parson A. Doing vegetarianism to destabilize the meat-masculinity nexus in La Plata,
Argentina. Gend Place Cult. 2017;24(12):1729–48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1395822.
23. De Smet S, Vossen E. Meat: The balance between nutrition and health. A review. Meat Sci.
2016;120:145–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.008.
24. Dhont K, Hodson G. Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat
consumption? Pers Indiv Differ. 2014;64:12–7.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.002.
25. Dhont K, Hodson G, Costello K, MacInnis CC. (2014). Social dominance orientation connects
prejudicial human–human and human–animal relations.
Personality and Individual Differences
,
61–
62
, 105–108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.020
2. Earle M, Hodson G, Dhont K, MacInnis C. Eating with our eyes (closed): Effects of visually
associating animals with meat on antivegan/vegetarian attitudes and meat consumption
willingness. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2019;22(6):818–35.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219861848.
27. Estévez-Moreno LX, María GA, Sepúlveda WS, Villarroel M. & Miranda-de la Lama, G. C. (2021).
Attitudes of meat consumers in Mexico and Spain about farm animal welfare: A cross-cultural study.
Meat Science
,
173
, 108377. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108377
2. Fallah A, Mohammad-Hasani A, Colagar AH. Zinc is an essential element for male fertility: A review
of Zn roles in men's health, germination, sperm quality, and fertilization. J Reprod Infertility.
2018;19(2):69–81. https://doi.org/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6010824/#.
29. Fritz M, Berger PD. (2015). Can you relate in multiple ways? Multiple linear regression and stepwise
regresion. In
Improving the user experience through practical data analytics
(pp.239–269). Elsevier
Inc. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800635-1.00010-0
30. George D, Mallery M. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update.
10th ed. Allyn & Bacon; 2010.
31. Graça J, Calheiros MM, Oliveira A. Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more
plant-based diet. Appetite. 2015;95:113–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.024.
32. Graça J, Godinho CA, Truninger M. Reducing meat consumption and following plant-based diets:
Current evidence and future directions to inform integrated transitions. Trends Food Sci Technol.
2019;91:380–90. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.046.
33. Grosso G, La Vignera S, Condorelli RA, Godos J, Marventano S, Tieri M, Galvano F. Total, red and
processed meat consumption and human health: An umbrella review of observational studies. Int J
Food Sci Nutr. 2022;73(6):726–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637486.2022.2050996.

Page 22/25
34. Hamilton M. Eating death. Food Cult Soc. 2015;9(2):155–77.
https://doi.org/10.2752/155280106778606053.
35. Hartmann C, Siegrist M. Our daily meat: Justication, moral evaluation and willingness to substitute.
Food Qual Prefer. 2020;80:103799. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103799.
3. Hevia-Larraín V, Gualano B, Longobardi I, Gil S, Fernandes AL, Costa LAR, Roschel H. High-protein
plant-based diet versus a protein-matched omnivorous diet to support resistance training
adaptations: A comparison between habitual vegans and omnivores. Sports Med. 2021;51(6):1317–
30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01434-9.
37. Holler S, Cramer H, Liebscher D, Jeitler M, Schumann D, Murthy V, Kessler CS. (2021). Differences
between omnivores and vegetarians in personality proles, values, and empathy: A systematic
review.
12
(4258). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579700
3. Horgan GW, Scalco A, Craig T, Whybrow S, Macdiarmid JI. Social, temporal and situational inuences
on meat consumption in the UK population. Appetite. 2019;138:1–9.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.03.007.
39. Hunt CJ, Fasoli F, Carnaghi A, Cadinu M. Masculine self-presentation and distancing from femininity
in gay men: An experimental examination of the role of masculinity threat. Psychol Men Masculinity.
2016;17(1):108–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039545.
40. Isacco AJ, Wade JC. (2017). A review of selected theoretical perspectives and research in the
psychology of men and masculinities. In
The Psychology of Men and Masculinities.
(pp.139–168).
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000023-006
41. Jalil AJ, Tasoff J, Bustamante AV. Eating to save the planet: Evidence from a randomized controlled
trial using individual-level food purchase data. Food Policy. 2020;95:101950.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101950.
42. Johnston J, Baumann S, Oleschuk M. Capturing inequality and action in prototypes: The case of
meat-eating and vegetarianism. Poetics. 2021;87:101530.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2021.101530.
43. Kaplan D, Rosenmann A, Shuhendler S. What about nontraditional masculinities? Toward a
quantitative model of therapeutic new masculinity ideology. Men and Masculinities.
2017;20(4):393–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X16634797.
44. Kildal CL, Syse KL. Meat and masculinity in the Norwegian Armed Forces. Appetite. 2017;112:69–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.12.032.
45. Krivoshchekov V, Gulevich O, Ostroverkhova M. The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-30:
Validity and measurement invariance of a Russian-language version. Psychol Men Masculinity.
2022;23(1):59–73. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000379.
4. Kunst JR, Hohle SM. Meat eaters by dissociation: How we present, prepare and talk about meat
increases willingness to eat meat by reducing empathy and disgust. Appetite. 2016;105:758–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.07.009.

Page 23/25
47. Kwasny T, Dobernig K, Rieer P. Towards reduced meat consumption: A systematic literature review
of intervention effectiveness, 2001–2019. Appetite. 2022;168:105739.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105739.
4. Lapina L, Leer J. Carnivorous heterotopias: Gender, nostalgia and hipsterness in the Copenhagen
meat scene. Int J Masculinity Stud. 2016;11(2):89–109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2016.1184479.
49. Lea E, Worsley A. The factors associated with the belief that vegetarian diets provide health benets.
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2003;12(3):296–303. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true.
&AuthType=shib&db=mnh&AN=14505993&site=eds-live&custid=s1145751.
50. Lea EJ, Crawford D, Worsley A. Consumers' readiness to eat a plant-based diet. Eur J Clin Nutr.
2006;60(3):342–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602320.
51. Levant R, F., Wong YJ. The Psychology of Men and Masculinities. American Psychological
Association; 2017. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0000023-000.
52. Levant RF, Hall RJ, Rankin TJ. Male Role Norms Inventory-Short Form (MRNI-SF): Development,
conrmatory factor analytic investigation of structure, and measurement invariance across gender. J
Couns Psychol. 2013;60(2):228–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031545.
53. Levant RF, Hall RJ, Weigold IK, McCurdy ER. Construct validity evidence for the Male Role Norms
Inventory-Short Form: A structural equation modeling approach using the bifactor model. J Couns
Psychol. 2016;63:534–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000171.
54. Levant RF, McCurdy ER, Hall RJ, Weigold IK. Construct distinctiveness and variance composition of
multi-dimensional instruments: Three short-form masculinity measures. J Couns Psychol.
2015;62(3):488–502. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000092.
55. Levant RF, McDermott R, Parent MC, Alshabani N, Mahalik JR, Hammer JH. Development and
evaluation of a new short form of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI-30). J Couns
Psychol. 2020;67(5):622–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000414.
5. Levant RF, Smalley KB, Aupont M, House AT, Richmond K, Noronha D. Initial Validation of the Male
Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R). J Men’s Stud. 2007;15(1):83–100.
https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1501.83.
57. Libera J, Iłowiecka K, Stasiak D. Consumption of processed red meat and its impact on human
health: A review. Int J Food Sci Technol. 2021;56(12):6115–23.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.15270.
5. Lupton D. Food, the body and the self. SAGE Publications Ltd; 1998.
https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221761.
59. Machovina B, Feeley KJ, Ripple WJ. Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat
consumption. Sci Total Environ. 2015;536:419–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022.
0. Mesler RM, Leary RB, Montford WJ. The impact of masculinity stress on preferences and willingness-
to-pay for red meat. Appetite. 2022;171:105729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105729.

Page 24/25
1. Mycek MK. Meatless meals and masculinity: How veg* men explain their plant-based diets. Food
and Foodways. 2018;26(3):223–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/07409710.2017.1420355.
2. Nakagawa S, Hart C. Where’s the beef? How masculinity exacerbates gender disparities in health
behaviors. Socius. 2019;5:2378023119831801. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119831801.
3. Ozbilgin MF, Erbil C, Baykut S, Kamasak R. Passing as resistance through a Goffmanian approach:
Normalized, defensive, strategic, and instrumental passing when LGBTQ + individuals encounter
institutions. Gend Work Organ. 2022. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12928.
4. Page J, Erskine RM, Hopkins ND. Skeletal muscle properties and vascular function do not differ
between healthy, young vegan and omnivorous men. Eur J Sport Sci. 2022;22(4):559–68.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2021.1923814.
5. Parlasca MC, Qaim M. Meat consumption and sustainability. Annual Rev Resource Econ.
2022;14(1):17–41. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340.
. Pfeiler TM, Egloff B. Personality and eating habits revisited: Associations between the big ve, food
choices, and body mass index in a representative Australian sample. Appetite. 2020;149:104607.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104607.
7. Pohl A, Schünemann F, Bersiner K, Gehlert S. The impact of vegan and vegetarian diets on physical
performance and molecular signaling in skeletal muscle. Nutrients. 2021;13(11).
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13113884.
. Pohlmann A. The taste of compassion: Inuencing meat attitudes with interhuman and interspecies
moral appeals. Appetite. 2022;168:105654.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105654.
9. Pratto F, Çidam A, Stewart AL, Zeineddine FB, Foels R, Aranda M, Henkel KE. Social dominance in
context and in Individuals: Contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation
in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social Psychol Personality Sci. 2013;4(5):587–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612473663.
70. Rohrmann S, Overvad K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Jakobsen MU, Egeberg R, Tjønneland A, Linseisen J.
Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer
and Nutrition. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-63.
71. Rosenfeld DL, Tomiyama AJ. Gender differences in meat consumption and openness to
vegetarianism. Appetite. 2021;166:105475.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105475.
72. Rothgerber H. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justication of meat
consumption. Psychol Men Masculinity. 2013;14(4):363–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030379.
73. Rozin P, Hormes JM, Faith MS, Wansink B. Is meat male? A quantitative multimethod framework to
establish metaphoric relationships. J Consum Res. 2012;39(3):629–43.
https://doi.org/10.1086/664970.
74. Ruby MB. Vegetarianism. A blossoming eld of study. Appetite. 2012;58(1):141–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019.

Page 25/25
75. Ruby MB, Heine SJ. Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite. 2011;56(2):447–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.018.
7. Sheeran P, Webb TL. The intention–behavior gap. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2016;10(9):503–18.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265.
77. Stoll-Kleemann S, Schmidt UJ. Reducing meat consumption in developed and transition countries to
counter climate change and biodiversity loss: A review of inuence factors. Reg Envriron Chang.
2017;17(5):1261–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1057-5.
7. Taber KS. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in
science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48(6):1273–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
79. Timeo S, Suitner C. Eating meat makes you sexy: Conformity to dietary gender norms and
attractiveness. Psychol Men Masculinity. 2018;19(3):418–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000119.
0. Twigg J. Vegetarianism and the meanings of meat. In: Murcott A, editor. The sociology of food and
eating: Essays on the sociological signicance of food. Hants, UK: Gower; 1983. pp. 18–30.
1. Veser P, Taylor K, Singer S. Diet, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and predisposition to
prejudice. Br Food J. 2015;117(7):1949–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0409.
2. Vogel DL, Heimerdinger-Edwards SR, Hammer JH, Hubbard A. Boys don't cry": Examination of the
links between endorsement of masculine norms, self-stigma, and help-seeking attitudes for men
from diverse backgrounds. J Couns Psychol. 2011;58(3):368–82.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023688.
3. Wilkinson WW. (2004). Authoritarian hegemony, dimensions of masculinity, and male antigay
attitudes. In Psychology of Men & Masculinity (Vol. 5,pp.121–131):American Psychological
Association (APA).
4. Willard BE. The American story of meat: Discursive inuences on cultural eating practice. J Popular
Cult. 2002;36(1):105–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5931.00033.
5. World Cancer Research Fund International. (n.d.).
Limit red and processed meat
.
https://www.wcrf.org/diet-activity-and-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations/limit-red-and-
processed-meat/
. Wyker BA, Davison KK. Behavioral change theories can inform the prediction of young adults'
adoption of a plant-based diet. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2010;42(3):168–77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2009.03.124.
7. Zheng Y, Li Y, Satija A, Pan A, Sotos-Prieto M, Rimm E, Hu FB. Association of changes in red meat
consumption with total and cause specic mortality among US women and men: Two prospective
cohort studies. BMJ. 2019;365:l2110. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2110.
. Zitzmann M, Faber S, Nieschlag E. Association of specic symptoms and metabolic risks with serum
testosterone in older men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(11):4335–43.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2006-0401.