Recent Increases in Vegetarianism may be Limited to Women: A 15-Year Study of Young Adults at an American University

Abstract

The present study examined changes in the rates of vegetarianism among a sample of young American adults. Over 15 years, students at an American university (N = 12,704) described their dietary habits. Multilevel modeling analyses (participants nested within semesters) found that overall, the percentage of vegetarians increased over time, whereas the percentage of omnivores decreased over time; however, these changes occurred only for women. The dietary habits of men did not change over time. In a second study, in a sample of 363 adult vegetarians from the US, we found that women were more likely than men to become vegetarians due to concerns about the ethics of raising animals for food and eating them, suggesting that increased societal concern about animal rights may be responsible in part for the gender differences over time in vegetarianism. These results extend existing research on gender differences and suggest that if current trends continue, gender differences in vegetarianism may be more pronounced in the future.

Full text

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Sex Roles (2024) 90:1234–1243
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01504-y
in the consumption of processed red meat between 2007
and 2017 in national samples of adult Finns. Although these
ndings are suggestive, the fact that rates of vegetarianism
were higher in 2017 than in 2007 does not provide a strong
basis to draw inferences about trends in vegetarianism over
time.
Moreover, although studies consistently nd that women
are more likely than men to adopt a vegetarian diet (e.g.,
Ruby, 2012), we are unaware of any research that has exam-
ined gender dierences in changes in vegetarianism over
time. As explained below, our working hypothesis was that
although increases in vegetarianism may have occurred for
both men and women, such increases would be more pro-
nounced among women than among men. Throughout this
article, we use the term “vegetarian” to refer collectively
to vegans and vegetarians. Although specic denitions of
vegetarianism and veganism can vary, as described below in
the methods section, we dened vegetarians as individuals
who do not eat esh of any kind, including sh. Vegans are
dened as individuals who do not consume animal prod-
ucts of any kind. This goes beyond consuming animal-based
food and includes non-food products such as woolen clothes
and leather.
From health, sustainability, and animal welfare perspectives,
reducing the intake of animal-based foods has a variety of
potential positive outcomes. Nevertheless, meat consump-
tion remains a prominent element of Western dietary pat-
terns, and by all accounts, vegetarians constitute a minority
of the populations of most countries (Leahy et al., 2010;
“Vegetarianism by Country”, 2024). One of the motivations
for the present study was the suggestion that the number
of vegetarians has increased recently in many countries
(Buchholz, 2022). Although studies that have systemati-
cally examined changes over time in vegetarianism are rare
(i.e., using the same, well-dened measures of vegetarian-
ism administered to comparable populations), there is some
evidence that vegetarianism has increased in some coun-
tries. For example, Lehto et al. (2022) found an increase in
the percentage of vegetarians and a corresponding decrease
John B. Nezlek
jbnezl@wm.edu
1 Center for Climate Change and Social Transformations,
Institute of Psychology, SWPS University, ul. Chodakowska
19/31, Warsaw 03-815, Poland
2 College of William & Mary, Department of Psychological
Sciences, Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795, USA
Abstract
The present study examined changes in the rates of vegetarianism among a sample of young American adults. Over
15 years, students at an American university (N = 12,704) described their dietary habits. Multilevel modeling analyses
(participants nested within semesters) found that overall, the percentage of vegetarians increased over time, whereas the
percentage of omnivores decreased over time; however, these changes occurred only for women. The dietary habits of
men did not change over time. In a second study, in a sample of 363 adult vegetarians from the US, we found that women
were more likely than men to become vegetarians due to concerns about the ethics of raising animals for food and eating
them, suggesting that increased societal concern about animal rights may be responsible in part for the gender dierences
over time in vegetarianism. These results extend existing research on gender dierences and suggest that if current trends
continue, gender dierences in vegetarianism may be more pronounced in the future.
Keywords Vegetarianism · Gender dierences · Trends in vegetarianism · Animal welfare · Meat consumption
Accepted: 18 July 2024 / Published online: 14 August 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Recent Increases in Vegetarianism may be Limited to Women: A 15-
Year Study of Young Adults at an American University
John B.Nezlek1,2 · Catherine A.Forestell2
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sex Roles (2024) 90:1234–1243
Motives to Follow a Vegetarian or Vegan Diet
Understanding rates of vegetarianism requires understand-
ing the reasons why people follow a vegetarian diet. There
is broad agreement that people adopt a vegetarian diet for
three reasons: concerns about the environmental impact of
raising animals for slaughter, concerns about the negative
eects consuming meat has on health, and concerns about
the ethics of raising animals and slaughtering them for food
(e.g., Rosenfeld, 2018). Although the relative importance of
these motives varies across studies, they have been consis-
tently found to be the most important.
Changes in people’s awareness and concern about these
issues may change over time, and these changes may moti-
vate reductions in meat consumption. It is possible that
changes in rates of vegetarianism reect changes in peo-
ple’s perceptions of the importance of (1) environmental
sustainability, (2) animal welfare, and (3) eating healthfully.
Although precise estimates of the changes of such percep-
tions over the past two decades are not readily available,
research suggests that concerns about animal welfare and
the environmental impact of meat production and consump-
tion have increased over time (e.g., Alonso et al., 2020).
The research on changes in concerns about the health of
diets is somewhat mixed. For example, according to Pew
Research, a majority of Americans (54%) believe that “peo-
ple in the US pay more attention to eating healthy foods
today compared with 20 years ago – the same percentage
who said Americans’ actual eating habits are less healthy
today than they were 20 years ago” (DeSilver, 2016, para
2). Globally, it appears that diets are becoming less healthy
(Shaughnessy, 2017), adding to the diculty in reaching an
unambiguous conclusion.
Gender Dierences in Vegetarianism
A considerable body of research has found that men view
meat more favorably than women do. For example, men
consume meat more frequently than women (e.g., Rosen-
feld & Tomiyama, 2021a), have stronger implicit associa-
tions between meat and healthiness (Love & Sulikowski,
2018), and report stronger meat attachment than women
report (Graça et al., 2015). Some research suggests that
these gender dierences emerge in childhood. For example,
school-age and adolescent girls have been found to prefer
and consume fruit and vegetables more than boys, whereas
school-age and adolescent boys prefer and consume meat
products more often than girls do (Caine-Bish & Scheule,
2009).
A frequently cited explanation for gender dierences in
vegetarianism is that consuming meat is associated with
masculinity (Rothgerber, 2013). Eating meat is a dening
characteristic of being a man, whereas eating meat is not
a dening characteristic of being a woman. As a result,
compared to men who view themselves as less traditionally
masculine, men who consider themselves to be more tradi-
tionally masculine consume more meat (De Backer et al.,
2020; Rosenfeld & Tomiyama, 2021a), are more likely to
view meat as natural, necessary, and nice, and are less likely
to consider reducing their meat intake or adopting vegetar-
ian eating habits (Stanley et al., 2023). Moreover, men who
adopt vegetarian eating habits are viewed by others as less
masculine and report experiencing gender stereotypical
treatment reecting or suggesting diminished masculinity
(Adamczyk et al., 2023).
It is also possible that motives for being a vegetarian
predispose women to be vegetarians more than they pre-
dispose men. For example, women have consistently been
found to have more positive attitudes toward animal welfare
than men (Randler et al., 2021) and to express more concern
about animal welfare than men (Weathers et al., 2020). As
discussed above, concerns for animal welfare are an impor-
tant part of ethical motives for adopting a vegetarian diet.
Gender dierences in attitudes about animal welfare may
reect women’s greater empathy in general (Pang et al.,
2023). There are also gender dierences in attitudes about
climate change, with women consistently reporting being
more concerned about the environment, being less skeptical
about climate change than men, and being less satised with
eorts to combat climate change (Egan & Mullin, 2017;
Flynn et al., 2024).
The Current Studies
Research on vegetarianism has used dierent denitions of
vegetarianism and has studied dierent groups of people.
Such variety makes it dicult to estimate changes across
time because it may not be clear if changes across time
are due to dierent denitions of vegetarianism, dierent
samples, or other factors that are unrelated to diet per se.
Estimating changes across time is best done using the same
denition of vegetarianism measured on individuals drawn
from the same population.
To examine potential changes across time in rates of veg-
etarianism, the present study used an archival database of
surveys completed by undergraduate students in the United
States. From 2008 to 2023, undergraduate students at the
same university answered the same question about their
dietary habits. Responses to this question provided a basis
to estimate if the percent of vegetarians in this population
had increased over time. Participants also indicated their
1 3
1235
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sex Roles (2024) 90:1234–1243
gender, which provided a basis for examining changes over
time for men and women.
Our general expectation was that the percent of par-
ticipants who described themselves as vegetarian would
increase over time. In addition to this general trend, we were
interested in whether following a vegetarian diet would
increase for both men and women. Although we are unaware
of any studies that have examined this question specically,
we suspected that increases would be more pronounced for
women than for men, given that women are more open to
adopting a vegetarian lifestyle than men are (Rosenfeld &
Tomiyama, 2021a). This may be due at least in part to the
fact that consuming meat is more central to men’s identity
than it is to women’s, and the association of meat and mas-
culinity may inhibit men from adopting a vegetarian diet
despite other inuences to do so, e.g., increased recognition
of the negative eects of raising meat for consumption on
the environment.
We conducted a second study to examine gender dif-
ferences in motives to adopt a vegetarian diet. This study
used the same measures of participants’ dietary habits (i.e.,
whether they followed a vegetarian or omnivorous diet)
and gender used in the rst study. Consistent with previous
research, we expected that female vegetarians would report
that they were motivated to follow a vegetarian diet by con-
cerns for animal rights and by concerns for the environment
more often than male vegetarians.
All raw data for both studies are available via the Open
Science Framework at https://osf.io/d6gnt/?view_only=b0
d9e3992e574241b0c507ba855eade8. For both studies, this
includes a raw data le in SPSS format, a raw data le in
CSV format, and a codebook containing descriptions of the
variables and responses. Both studies were approved by the
IRB of the co-authors’ home institution, and in both studies,
participants provided explicit (electronic) informed consent
and had the right to refuse to answer any question without
penalty.
Study 1: Gender Dierences Across Time in
Rates of Vegetarianism
Method
Participants
Participants were 12,828 undergraduate students who took
an introductory psychology course at the College of Wil-
liam & Mary in the spring or fall between the spring of 2008
and the spring of 2023. Participants’ dietary habits were not
measured in the spring of 2009 and in the spring and fall of
2015 and 2016. This left 25 semesters of data. Individuals
voluntarily participated in partial fulllment of a course
requirement. Participants provided informed consent and
were informed that they could refuse to answer any ques-
tion without penalty.
Gender was measured by asking participants to select
one of the following: female, male, transgender, other, and
prefer not to respond. Given the small number of partici-
pants who did not identify as either female or male (approxi-
mately 1%), we limited our primary analyses to participants
who described themselves as either female or male. We con-
ducted a separate analysis of the dietary habit of the 121
individuals who did not indicate that they were female or
male. Excluding participants who did not select female or
male and did not answer the question about diet, left 12,707
participants for the primary analyses (mean n for semester:
M = 508, SD = 109, 7451 women, 5256 men).
Measure of Dietary Habit
From the spring of 2008 to the fall of 2020, participants
described their dietary habits using a measure presented by
Forestell et al. (2012). In the spring of 2021, the category
‘plant-based dieter’ was added to these habits. The dietary
habits included vegan (a person who does not eat or use
any animal products, including food, clothing, cosmetics,
etc.), plant-based diet (a person on a plant-based diet), lacto-
vegetarian (a person who eats dairy, but does not eat eggs,
sh, seafood, poultry, or red meat), lacto-ovo-vegetarian (a
person who eats dairy and eggs, but does not eat sh, sea-
food, poultry, or red meat), pescatarian (a person who eats
dairy, eggs, sh, and seafood, but does not eat poultry or red
meat), semi-vegetarian (a person who eats fruits, vegetables,
grains, dairy products, eggs, seafood, and chicken but no red
meat), occasional omnivore (a person who occasionally eats
red meat, white meat, seafood, eggs, dairy products, fruits,
vegetables, and grains), and omnivore (a person who regu-
larly eats most meats, seafood, eggs, dairy products, fruits,
vegetables, and grains).
We created two dummy-coded variables to represent
dietary habit. One, which we refer to as ‘veg,’ was coded
1 for vegans, plant-based dieters, lacto-vegetarians, and
lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and was coded 0 for omnivores,
occasional omnivores, semi-vegetarians, and pescatarians.
The second measure, which we refer to as ‘vegpesc,’ was
coded 1 for vegans, plant-based dieters, lacto-vegetarians,
lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and pescatarians, and was coded 0
for omnivores, occasional omnivores, and semi-vegetarians.
We created the vegpesc measure because of an increased
interest in pescatarianism (Nezlek et al., 2023; Rosenfeld
& Tomiyama, 2021b). This also reects the beliefs of some
that pescatarianism is a type of vegetarianism because pes-
catarians do not consume red meat or poultry.
1 3
1236
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sex Roles (2024) 90:1234–1243
(γ00) was − 2.94, corresponding to a mean of 5.02% across
all semesters. The semester-level variance (the variance
of µ0j) was 0.040, which was signicantly dierent from
0, χ2(24) = 49.35, p < .01. For the vegspec measure, the
mean log-odds (γ00) was − 2.54, corresponding to a mean
of 7.89% across all semesters. The semester-level variance
(the variance of µ0j) was 0.042, which was signicantly dif-
ferent from 0, χ2(24) = 60.13, p < .001. The signicance of
these error terms indicates how generalizable dierences
across the semesters are.
To examine trends across time the mean log-odds for
each semester was regressed onto a linear trend represent-
ing the semesters the study spanned. This linear trend was
taken from Anderson and Houseman (1942). The between-
semester model is below. The linear trend predictor was
entered uncentered.
Between-semester: β0j = γ00 + γ01 * Linear + µ0j.
The results of these analyses were clear. Both the per-
cent of vegetarians excluding pescatarians (the veg mea-
sure) and the percent of vegetarians including pescatarians
(the vegpesc measure) increased over time: veg measure,
γ01 = 0.009, t = 3.48, p < .01; vegpesc measure, γ01 = 0.007,
t = 2.56, p < .02. In light of the gender dierences described
below, we do not discuss the probabilities these log-odds
represent, although for the sake of thoroughness, they are
presented in Table 1.
Gender Dierences Across Time
Our primary interest was in gender dierences in changes in
vegetarianism across time. Such dierences were examined
with analyses that included two Level-1 predictors, one for
women and one for men. These predictors were dummy-
coded (0, 1), and they were entered uncentered. The inter-
cept was dropped, resulting in the model presented below.
Such a “no-intercept” model estimated a mean log-odds
for each gender for each semester. This type of analysis is
described in Nezlek (2011, pp. 27–28). As in the previous
analysis, changes across time were modeled at the between-
semester level with a variable representing the linear trend.
Within-semester: ηij = β 1j (women) + β2j (men).
Between-semester: β1j = γ10 + γ11 * Linear + µ1j.
β2j = γ20 + γ21 * Linear + µ2j.
The results of these analyses were clear. For both the veg
and vegpesc measures, the linear trend for women was sig-
nicant and the linear trend for men was not signicant. For
the veg measure: women, γ11 = 0.013, t = 4.34, p < .001; veg
men, γ21 = 0.005, t < 1. For the vegpesc measure: women,
γ11 = 0.009, t = 3.110, p < .01; men, γ21 = 0.004, t < 1. Over
time, the percent of women who described themselves as
vegetarians (in terms of both the veg and vegpesc mea-
sures) increased, whereas the percent of men who described
Results
Overview of Analyses
We treated the data as a hierarchically nested data structure
in which participants were nested within semesters, and we
conducted a series of multilevel modeling (MLM) analyses
using the program HLM (Raudenbush & Congdon, 2021).
We analyzed the data using MLM rather than ordinary least
squares (OLS) regression because individual-level observa-
tions across semesters were not statistically independent,
i.e., all students in the same semester shared the character-
istics of student-life unique to that semester. This lack of
independence violates one of the fundamental assumptions
of OLS regression. Moreover, although we had samples of
a few hundred in each semester, MLM estimates parameters
using “precision weighting.” This meant that the percent-
ages estimated for each semester reected the number of
observations (students) in each semester, and the consis-
tency of responses in each semester.
Analyzing the data using a traditional, single-level
OLS regression in which students were the unit of analy-
sis would have confounded within- and between-semester
variances and would not have provided an appropriate basis
to examine changes across time in means. Using the per-
cent of individuals following a certain dietary type based on
an aggregate for each semester would not have taken into
account dierences in the number of observations across
each semester. See Nezlek (2023) for a discussion of the use
of multilevel modeling in psychological research.
Because our outcomes were binary (Bernoulli), we used
a logistic model. The basic model is below.
Within-within (Level-1): Prob(Dietij = 1|βj) = φij.
log[φij /(1 - φij)] = ηij.
ηij = β0j.
Between-semester (Level-2): β0j = γ00 + µ0j.
In this model, the outcome is Diet (following a specic
diet or not), and there are i participants nested within j
semesters. A probability is estimated for each of j semesters,
and these probabilities are converted to log-odds, which are
then analyzed at Level-2 (the semester level). Because the
outcome is categorical, by denition, there is no Level-1
(within-semester level) variance, and the variance between
semesters is estimated at Level-2 (the between-semester
level, i.e., the variance of µ0j).
Basic Models
The rst analyses were ‘unconditional’ models, i.e., no pre-
dictors at either level of analysis. Such models estimate the
basic descriptive statistics for a multilevel analysis: means
and variances. For the veg measure, the mean log-odds
1 3
1237
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sex Roles (2024) 90:1234–1243
examining the impact on the model t of constraining the
two slopes (the γ11 and γ12 coecients) to be equal (Nezlek,
2011, pp. 25–28, 92–93). The results of these tests of con-
straints indicated that the linear trends for women were
stronger than the linear trends for men for changes in the
percent of vegetarians excluding pescatarians, χ2(1) = 7.70,
themselves as vegetarians (in terms of both the veg and
vegpesc measures) did not increase. The estimated percents
for each semester for women and men for each measure are
presented in Table 1 and are depicted graphically in Fig. 1.
Moreover, these analyses provided the basis to compare
the linear trends for men and women. This was done by
Table 1 Estimated percentage of women and men who were vegetarians by semester
Semester nExcluding pescatarians Including pescatarians
Women Men Total Women Men Total
F-2008 674 4.3 2.5 3.4 6.4 3.2 5.0
S-2009 382 4.8 2.8 3.9 7.7 3.8 6.0
S-2010 363 4.9 2.9 4.0 7.4 3.5 5.7
F-2010 649 5.0 2.8 4.0 7.4 3.4 5.6
S-2011 386 5.0 2.5 3.9 7.9 3.5 6.0
F-2011 715 5.1 2.4 4.0 8.6 3.6 6.4
S-2012 502 5.4 3.0 4.3 8.9 3.8 7.0
F-2012 593 5.6 2.6 4.4 9.6 3.9 7.2
S-2013 375 6.4 2.7 5.0 11.5 4.2 8.3
F-2013 595 6.3 2.6 4.9 10.0 3.8 7.4
S-2014 514 6.1 2.9 4.7 9.6 3.6 7.1
F-2014 629 6.2 2.7 4.7 9.1 3.4 6.8
S-2017 401 7.3 3.0 5.5 12.6 4.0 9.1
F-2017 527 7.3 3.1 5.5 11.9 3.8 8.7
S-2018 439 7.8 3.6 6.0 11.2 3.7 8.4
F-2018 554 7.5 3.3 5.6 10.6 3.5 7.8
S-2019 375 7.9 2.2 5.7 11.8 3.4 8.3
F-2019 552 8.0 2.5 5.9 11.0 3.2 8.1
S-2020 387 8.0 2.2 5.8 11.3 3.2 8.2
F-2020 523 8.2 2.1 5.9 12.1 3.3 8.6
S-2021 375 8.4 2.5 5.9 11.1 3.1 7.8
F-2021 622 8.5 2.0 6.0 12.3 3.2 8.6
S-2022 479 8.7 2.0 6.1 12.2 3.2 8.5
F-2022 608 8.0 1.8 5.4 9.6 2.5 6.7
S-2023 488 8.7 1.9 5.8 11.0 2.7 7.3
Note. For semester, F indicates the fall academic semester, S indicates the spring academic semester. Individuals who did not select female or
male (n = 121) are not included in this table. The total percentage refers to all par ticipants each semester
Fig. 1 Estimated percentage of women and men who were vegetarians
by semester. Note. Panel 1A contains the percentages of women and
men who adopted vegan, plant-based, lacto-vegetarian, and lacto-ovo-
vegetarian diets. Panel 1B contains the percentage of women and men
who adopted vegan, plant-based, lacto-vegetarian, lacto-ovo-vegetar-
ian and pescatarian diets. For semester, F indicates the fall academic
semester, S indicates the spring academic semester. These graphs do
not include individuals who did not select female or male (n = 121)
1 3
1238
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sex Roles (2024) 90:1234–1243
have a sample of 500 vegetarians and 500 non-vegetarians,
and the nal sample consisted of 517 vegetarians and 541
non-vegetarians.
We limited our analyses to vegetarians. Due to a pro-
gramming error, 158 participants were not asked about
their motives for following a vegetarian diet, and some
respondents chose not to answer this question. Gender was
measured using the same item used in Study 1, and three
participants selected other or chose not to respond, and these
participants were excluded from the analyses. This left a
sample of 360 vegetarians, 239 women and 121 men. All of
these participants had at least a high school degree, and 84%
had more than a high school degree (including vocational
school). Their average age was 44.7 years (SD = 13.7).
Participants described their motives for following a veg-
etarian diet by responding to the following question:
Broadly speaking, most people become vegans or
vegetarians or reduce their consumption of meat for
three reasons. (1) Ethical reasons, including beliefs
that it is wrong to kill animals to produce food and
other products and that animals that are raised for
slaughter are treated inhumanely. (2) Environmental
reasons, including beliefs that the negative impact of
raising animals to produce food and other products
is too great to justify doing this. (3) Health reasons,
including beliefs that eating animal esh and animal-
based foods is not as healthy as eating plant-based
foods. Please indicate which of these reasons is the
most important to you, and which are second and third
most important.
Results
We examined gender dierences in the most important
reason for following a vegetarian diet with a 2 (gender) by
3 (reason) χ2 test. This analysis found that the percentage
of the three reasons diered across gender, χ2(2) = 16.06
p < .001. The percentage of women and men who selected
each reason as the most important reason for following a
vegetarian diet are presented in Table 2.
To examine these dierences in more detail, we con-
ducted a series of analyses in which we compared the per-
centage of women and men who endorsed each reason as
the most important reason for adopting a vegetarian diet.
Ranks of each of the three reasons measures were coded
as selected as most important or not (coded 1, 0 respec-
tively). These analyses found that women selected ethical
concerns as the most important reason more often than men
did, χ2(1) = 9.76, p = .002, and that men selected environ-
mental concerns as the most important reason more often
p < .01, and for changes in the percent of vegetarians includ-
ing pescatarians, χ2(1) = 6.82, p < .01.
Dietary Habits of Individuals Who Did Not Identify as Male
or Female
Initially, participants were given three options to describe
their gender: female, male, and prefer not to respond. Over
time, more response options were added to this question,
e.g., transgender. The number of participants who selected
an option other than female or male was very low, regardless
of the available options. On an exploratory basis we ana-
lyzed the dietary habits of the 121 respondents who selected
an option other than female or male. Due to small samples
and the inconsistency of the response options across time,
these analyses could not examine changes across time.
Analyzing the sample as a whole (i.e., without regard
to semester), these analyses found that respondents who
selected an option other than male or female were more
likely than men or women to follow a vegetarian or pes-
catarian diet: vegetarian, 11.6%, vegetarian + pescatarian,
14.0%; women, vegetarian, 6.7%, vegetarian + pescatarian,
10.0%; men, vegetarian, 2.6%, vegetarian + pescatarian,
3.4%. Paired comparisons of men vs. other were signi-
cantly dierent at p < .01. Paired comparisons of women
vs. other were signicantly dierent at p < .05 for percent
vegetarian and were not signicantly dierent for percent
vegetarian + pescatarian.
Study 2: Gender Dierences in Motives for
Following a Vegetarian Diet
Method
Participants and Measures
We examined gender dierences in motives for follow-
ing a vegetarian diet in a sample of US adults recruited
by Qualtrics, a professional survey company. Participants
described their dietary habits using the same measure used
in Study 1. As part of another, larger study, we aimed to
Table 2 Most important reason to become vegetarian for men and
women
Most Important Reason Men Women
Ethics Count 35 110
Percentage 28.9 46.0
Environmental Count 37 35
Percentage 30.6 14.6
Health Count 49 94
Percentage 40.5 39.3
Note. Percentage represents percent age within gender
1 3
1239
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sex Roles (2024) 90:1234–1243
Such possibilities are inherent in constructs such as meat
attachment (Graça et al., 2015). Consistent with the idea that
men are more attached to meat than women are, Graça et al.
found that men had higher scores than women on the Meat
Attachment scale. It should be noted that women’s scores
were not close to the minimum on this scale, suggesting that
although meat attachment may be a stronger inuence on
men’s resistance to adopting a vegetarian diet than it is for
women, it is likely to inuence women’s resistance also.
What Might Explain Increases in Vegetarianism
Among Women but Not Men?
Overall, women are more likely than men to follow a vege-
tarian diet, something that has been true for some time, per-
haps since the advent of the modern vegetarian movement
in the middle of the 19th century (Standen, 2023). Although
the reasons for this are not entirely clear, two possibilities
seem likely, and these explanations may also provide a basis
for understanding the trends across time we found.
As noted previously, women tend to be more concerned
about the ethical treatment of animals than men are (Randler
et al., 2021; Weathers et al., 2020), which may partially
explain higher rates of vegetarianism among women than
men. Moreover, it appears that concerns about animal rights
have been increasing over time among the general popula-
tion (e.g., Rikin, 2015). Taken together, these two trends
suggest that increases in vegetarianism should be greater for
women then they are for men. Women are more sensitive to
animal rights as a social issue, and animal rights are becom-
ing a more important social issue.
A parallel argument can be made regarding concerns
about the environmental impact of consuming meat. There
is little doubt that producing meat for human consumption
contributes meaningfully to increased greenhouse gas emis-
sions (e.g., Oreskes, 2022). Moreover, it appears that women
are more concerned about the environment than men are
(Flynn et al., 2024) and that concern about the environment
is increasing over time (e.g., Saad, 2022). Taken together,
these trends suggest that increases in vegetarianism should
be greater for women then they are for men. Nevertheless,
we found that men’s vegetarian eating habits were more
likely to be motivated by environmental concerns than those
of women. We are at a loss to account for this discrepancy.
Although other studies have assessed motives for follow-
ing a vegetarian diet, most have not focused on the motives
of vegetarians per se (e.g., Hopwood et al., 2020; Rosenfeld
& Tomiyama, 2021a; Schenk et al., 2018). That is, studies
have asked non-vegetarians what they think of vegetar-
ian diets. In contrast, our study examined the motivations
of vegetarians. Nevertheless, consistent with our results,
Schenk et al. (2018) and Hopwood et al. (2020) found that
than women did, χ2(1) = 12.75, p < .001. There was no sig-
nicant gender dierence in the selection of health concerns
as being the most important reason for adopting a vegetarian
diet χ2(1) < 1.
General Discussion
Among the American university students we studied, the
percentage who identied as vegan or vegetarian increased
from 3.4% in 2008 to 5.8% in 2023, percentages that are
similar to estimates of vegetarianism in the general popu-
lation in the US. Importantly, this increase was limited to
women. The percentage of women who were vegetarians
increased from 4.3 to 8.7% from 2008 to 2023, whereas the
percentage of men who were vegetarians did not change
from 2008 (3.2%) to 2023 (2.7%). These trends occurred
whether pescatarians were included as vegetarians or not.
Barriers to the Adoption of Vegetarian Diets
The demonstrated advantages of a vegetarian diet over
an omnivorous diet in terms of individual health and sus-
tainability beg the question: Why has vegetarianism not
increased more dramatically? To some extent, this may be
due to the fact that these advantages are unrecognized or
undervalued (Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017). People may
simply not understand that consuming animal-based protein
can present a risk to one’s health and to the health of the
planet. This may be particularly true for young adults who
may not fully grasp the long-term consequences of their
actions.
The possibility that people do not appreciate the health
risks of eating meat is understandable given the nutritional
advice people have received. For example, over the years,
the US government’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans
(DGA) have emphasized the importance of animal-based
foods (seafood, lean meats, poultry, and eggs) as part of a
healthy diet. Vegetarian diets were rst endorsed in 2015
(Oce of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2016)
and in 2020 the DGA started to include guidance for veg-
etarian diets beginning at 12 months of age (Oce of
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2022). Young
Americans (and their parents) have grown up during a time
when leading authorities were recommending the consump-
tion of animal-based food as being part of a healthy diet. It
will probably take some time for evidence-based informa-
tion about the nutritional suciency of plant-based diets to
inuence dietary habits in both men and women.
There is also the issue of dietary habits and traditions.
People have been eating meat for millennia, and eating meat
may simply be part and parcel of people’s everyday lives.
1 3
1240
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sex Roles (2024) 90:1234–1243
Practice Implications
There is a growing body of research that suggests that
adopting a vegetarian diet leads to increased physical
health (You et al., 2022), and there is a growing body
of research that suggests that the production of meat has
deleterious eects on the environment, eects that can
be mitigated if more people followed a vegetarian diet
(Eisen & Brown, 2022). This research has led numer-
ous scholars to examine how to increase the likelihood
that people will adopt a vegetarian diet, or at the least,
eat more vegetarian meals and reduce their consumption
of meat. In their review of interventions to reduce meat
consumption, Kwasny et al. (2022) concluded that “…
linking meat to living animals or to the humanness of ani-
mals activates negative emotions and, thus, reduces meat
consumption. Further, increasing the visibility and vari-
ety of vegetarian dishes in food environments decreases
meat-eating. Also, educational courses on how to shop
and cook vegetarian food are eective in reducing meat
consumption. There is less evidence on the eectiveness
of interventions addressing socio-cultural factors such as
social norms” (p. 1). Unfortunately, Kwasny et al. (2022)
did not provide a summary conclusion regarding sex dif-
ferences. Nevertheless, the present results suggest that it
might be more eective to design dierent interventions
to reduce meat consumption for men and women rather
than rely on a one-size-ts-all approach.
In our sample of Americans, women were more likely
than men to indicate that ethical concerns constituted
the primary reason they became vegetarians, whereas
men were more likely than women to indicate that envi-
ronmental concerns constituted the primary reason they
became vegetarians. Interestingly, we found no gender
dierences for health concerns, which was the most
important motive for approximately 40% of men and
women and was mentioned more often as a primary
motive than either ethical or environmental concerns.
The greater importance of health concerns we found in
our study, in combination with previous research, sug-
gests that if an intervention needs to be limited in its
focus, focusing on the health benets of vegetarianism
may be the most eective, whereas appealing to environ-
mental concerns may be eective for encouraging men to
reduce their meat intake.
Conclusion
Our nding that women were more likely than men to fol-
low a vegetarian diet is consistent with much previous
research, at least research conducted among residents of
although environment, health, and animal welfare concerns
were all important reasons for people to consider owing a
vegetarian diet, health was the most important reason. Addi-
tionally, Rosenfeld and Tomiyama (2021a) found that men
who had a weaker traditional gender role identity were more
open to becoming vegetarians for environmental reasons
than men who had a stronger gender role identity. These
ndings suggest that motives to adopt a vegetarian diet are
likely to be expressed within a context that is informed by
gender role expectations, something that may have implica-
tions for future trends in the adoption of vegetarian diets.
Limitations and Future Directions
To the extent our results are generalizable to other popula-
tions, they suggest that recent increases in vegetarianism may
be due to changes in women’s diets, not changes in men’s
diets. Of course, the critical issue is estimating that extent.
The present sample consisted of students at a selective public
university in the United States. Although the percentage of
vegetarians in our sample was comparable to estimates of the
US population, our sample may have diered from the gen-
eral population in ways that are related to gender dierences
in the tendency to adopt a vegetarian diet.
There is also the general issue of whether rates of vegetari-
anism are increasing. For example, based on Gallup polls, it
appears that the percentage of vegetarians in the US has been
stable (5% +/- 1%) since 1999 (Gallup, 2023). Nevertheless, it
is possible that these overall rates obscure changes in specic
groups, e.g., younger women. In terms of future directions,
the present results suggest that gender remains an important
factor to consider for understanding the adoption of vegetar-
ian diets or meat reduction. Unfortunately, many articles we
consulted about various aspects of meat reduction (inter-
ventions, attitudes, and beliefs, etc.) did not report analyses
using participant gender. In terms of promoting the reduced
consumption of meat, reporting that men have more positive
attitudes toward meat does not say anything about whether
the eectiveness of an intervention to reduce meat consump-
tion varies as a function of gender. We believe that in studies
of vegetarianism, meat reduction, attitudes toward meat, and
so forth, researchers should report gender dierences in their
ndings, absent compelling reasons not to do so.
We also examined how health concerns, environmental
issues, and animal welfare inuenced vegetarians’ decision
to adopt a vegetarian diet. These reports were retrospective,
and it may have been dicult for participants to remem-
ber their initial motivations for adopting a vegetarian diet.
We also did not assess other factors that may aect or con-
strain people’s decisions to adopt a vegetarian diet such as
their liking of meat and the convenience (or lack thereof) of
maintaining a vegetarian diet (Schenk et al., 2018).
1 3
1241
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sex Roles (2024) 90:1234–1243
References
Adamczyk, D., Modlińska, K., Maison, D., & Pisula, W. (2023). Gen-
der, masculinity, and the perception of vegetarians and vegans:
A mixed-methods investigation. Sex Roles, 89(9–10), 595–609.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01420-7
Alonso, M. E., González-Montaña, J. R., & Lomillos, J. M. (2020).
Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare.
Animals, 10(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10030385
Anderson, R. L., & Houseman, E. E. (1942). Tables of orthogonal
polynomial values extended to N = 104. Iowa Agriculture and
Home Economics Experiment Station Research Bulletin, 25(297),
695–772.
Buchholz, K. (2022). The rise (or fall?) of vegetarian-
ism. Statista. https://www.statista.com/chart/28584/
gcs-vegetarianism-countries-timeline/
Caine-Bish, N. L., & Scheule, B. (2009). Gender dierences in
food preferences of school-aged children and adolescents.
The Journal of School Health, 79(11), 532–540. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00445.x
Corrin, T., & Papadopoulos, A. (2017). Understanding the attitudes
and perceptions of vegetarian and plant-based diets to shape
future health promotion programs. Appetite, 109, 40–47. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.018
De Backer, C., Erreygers, S., De Cort, C., Vandermoere, F., Dhoest,
A., Vrinten, J., & Van Bauwel, S. (2020). Meat and masculinities.
Can dierences in masculinity predict meat consumption, inten-
tions to reduce meat and attitudes towards vegetarians? Appetite,
147, 104559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104559
DeSilver, D. (2016). What’s on your table? How America’s diet has
changed over the decades. Pew Research Center. http://pewrsr.
ch/2htxtkX
Egan, P. J., & Mullin, M. (2017). Climate change: US public opin-
ion. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 209–227. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022857
Eisen, M. B., & Brown, P. O. (2022). Rapid global phaseout of ani-
mal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas lev-
els for 30 years and oset 68% of CO2 emissions this century.
PLOS Climate, 1(2), e0000010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pclm.0000010
Flynn, C., Jardon, S. T., Fisher, S., Blayney, M., Ward, A., Smith, H.,
Strutho, P., & Fillingham, Z. (2024). Peoples’ Climate Vote 2024.
United Nations Development Programme. https://climatepromise.
undp.org/research-and-reports/peoples-climate-vote-2024
Forestell, C. A., Spaeth, A. M., & Kane, S. A. (2012). To eat or not to
eat red meat. A closer look at the relationship between restrained
eating and vegetarianism in college females. Appetite, 58(1),
319–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.10.015
Gallup (2023). Nutrition and food. Gallup Poll Social Series. https://
news.gallup.com/poll/6424/Nutrition-Food.aspx
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2015). Attached to
meat? (Un)willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-
based diet. Appetite, 95, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appet.2015.06.024
Hopwood, C. J., Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., & Chen, S. (2020).
Health, environmental, and animal rights motives for vegetarian
eating. Plos One, 15(4), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0230609
Kwasny, T., Dobernig, K., & Rieer, P. (2022). Towards reduced
meat consumption: A systematic literature review of interven-
tion eectiveness, 2001–2019. Appetite, 168, 105739. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105739
Leahy, E., Lyons, S., & Tol, R. S. J. (2010). An estimate of the num-
ber of vegetarians in the world (ESRI Working Paper No. 340).
Western, industrialized countries. The primary contribution
of our study is to suggest that if rates of vegetarianism have
increased over time, which is the subject of some debate,
this increase may be limited to women. Such a possibility
may have implications for designing interventions to reduce
meat consumption that appeal more specically to men and
to women.
Funding This research was supported by a grant from SWPS Uni-
versity and by grant 2018/31/B/HS6/02822 from the Polish National
Science Centre (Narodowe Centrum Nauki), both awarded to John
Nezlek.
Declarations
Ethical Approval All participants in both studies provided informed
consent, including the right to refuse to answer any question without
penalty.
For Study 1, for each semester, the research protocol was approved
by Protection of Human Subjects Committee, College of William &
Mary. The protocols were:
PHSC-2023-02-01-16086-ajbravo
PHSC-2022-09-07-15836-ajbravo
PHSC-2022-01-22-15411-ajbravo
PHSC-2021-01-26-14724-ajbravo
PHSC-2021-01-26-14724-ajbravo
PHSC-2020-08-12-14441-tmthra
PHSC-2019-08-19-13808-tmthra
PHSC-2018-08-28-13123-ccconway
PHSC-2018-01-02-12586-ccconway
PHSC-2017-09-18-12357-ccconway
PHSC-2017-02-07-11803-jbnezl
PHSC-2016-09-12-11427-jbnezl
PHSC-2016-02-12-10920-jbnezl
PHSC-2015-09-07-10585-jbnezl
PHSC-2015-02-17-10114-pmvish
PHSC-2014-01-21-9252-cldickter
PHSC-2014-09-04-9771-pmvish
Some protocols were valid for two semesters. Due to a data storage
malfunction, protocol identiers were not available for semesters be-
fore the Fall of 2104. Copies of verbatim informed consent are avail-
able for all semesters.
For Study 2, the research protocol was approved by Komisja ds. Etyki
Badań Naukowych, Uniwersytet SWPS, Filia w Poznaniu (Commis-
sion on Ethics Scientic Research, Poznan), protocol No. 2022-149.
Conict of Interest The authors declare no conict of interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
1 3
1242
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sex Roles (2024) 90:1234–1243
Rosenfeld, D. L., & Tomiyama, A. J. (2021a). Gender dierences in
meat consumption and openness to vegetarianism. Appetite, 166,
105475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105475
Rosenfeld, D. L., & Tomiyama, A. J. (2021b). How proximal are pesca-
tarians to vegetarians? An investigation of dietary identity, motiva-
tion, and attitudes toward animals. Journal of Health Psychology,
26(5), 713–727. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105319842933
Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Mas-
culinity and the justication of meat consumption. Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0030379
Ruby, M. B. (2012). Vegetarianism. A blossoming eld of study. Appe-
tite, 58(1), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.019
Saad, L. (2022). A seven-year stretch of elevated environmental
concern. Gallup Poll Social Series. https://news.gallup.com/
poll/391547/seven-year-stretch-elevated-environmental-concern.
aspx
Schenk, P., Rössel, J., & Scholz, M. (2018). Motivations and con-
straints of meat avoidance. Sustainability, 10(11), 3858. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su10113858
Shaughnessy, N. O. (2017). The changing face of global eat-
ing patterns. https://khni.kerry.com/news/white-papers/
the-changing-face-of-global-eating-patterns/
Standen, S. (2023). A feminist history of vegetarianism. Empowered
Journalism. https://www.empowordjournalism.com/all-articles/
features/a-feminist-history-of-vegetarianism/
Stanley, S. K., Day, C., & Brown, P. M. (2023). Masculinity matters
for meat consumption: An examination of self-rated gender typi-
cality, meat consumption, and veg*nism in Australian men and
women. Sex Roles, 88(3–4), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-023-01346-0
Vegatarianism by country. (2024, January 3). In Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=
Vegetarianism_by_country&oldid=1191937460
Weathers, S. T., Caviola, L., Scherer, L., Pster, S., Fischer, B.,
Bump, J. B., & Jaacks, L. M. (2020). Quantifying the valuation
of animal welfare among americans. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 33(2), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10806-020-09824-1
You, W., Henneberg, R., Saniotis, A., Ge, Y., & Henneberg, M. (2022).
Total meat intake is associated with life expectancy: A cross-sec-
tional data analysis of 175 contemporary populations. Interna-
tional Journal of General Medicine, 15, 1833–1851. https://doi.
org/10.2147/IJGM.S333004
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional aliations.
The Economic and Social Research Institute. https://hdl.handle.
net/10419/50160
Lehto, E., Kaartinen, N. E., Sääksjärvi, K., Männistö, S., & Jallinoja,
P. (2022). Vegetarians and dierent types of meat eaters among
the Finnish adult population from 2007 to 2017. British Jour-
nal of Nutrition, 127(7), 1060–1072. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0007114521001719
Love, H. J., & Sulikowski, D. (2018). Of meat and men: Sex dier-
ences in implicit and explicit attitudes toward meat. Frontiers in
Psychology, 9, 559. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00559
Nezlek, J. B. (2011). Multilevel modeling for social and personality
psychology. Sage Publications Ltd.
Nezlek, J. B. (2023). Multilevel modeling for psychologists. In H.
Cooper, M. N. Coutanche, L. M. McMullen, A. T. Panter, D.
Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research meth-
ods in psychology: Data analysis and research publication (2nd
ed., pp. 219–242). American Psychological Association. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0000320-010
Nezlek, J. B., Forestell, C. A., Tomczyk, J., & Cypryańska, M. (2023).
Dierences among vegans, non-vegan vegetarians, pescatarians,
and omnivores in perceived social disapproval and approval as a
function of diet and source of treatment. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 163(3), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545
.2022.2158059
Oce of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (2016). 2015–
2020 dietary guidelines for Americans.
Oce of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (2022). Dietary
guidelines for Americans. https://health.gov/our-work/
nutrition-physical-activity/dietary-guidelines
Oreskes, N. (2022). Eat to save the plant. Scientic American Magazine,
326(1), 78. https://doi.org/10.1038/scienticamerican0122-78
Pang, C., Li, W., Zhou, Y., Gao, T., & Han, S. (2023). Are women
more empathetic than men? Questionnaire and EEG estimations
of sex/gender dierences in empathic ability. Social Cognitive
and Aective Neuroscience, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/
scan/nsad008
Randler, C., Adan, A., Antoe, M. M., Arrona-Palacios, A., Candido,
M., Boeve-de Pauw, J., Chandrakar, P., Demirhan, E., Detsis, V.,
Di Milia, L., Fančovičová, J., Gericke, N., Haldar, P., Heidari, Z.,
Jankowski, K. S., Lehto, J. E., Lundell-Creagh, R., Medina-Jerez,
W., Meule, A., & Vollmer, C. (2021). Animal welfare attitudes:
Eects of gender and diet in university samples from 22 coun-
tries. Animals, 11(7), 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071893
Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. T. (2021). HLM 8: Hierarchical
linear and nonlinear modeling. Scientic Software International,
Inc.
Rikin, R. (2015). In U.S., more say animals should have same rights
as people. Gallup Social and Policy Issues. https://news.gallup.
com/poll/183275/say-animals-rights-people.aspx
Rosenfeld, D. L. (2018). The psychology of vegetarianism: Recent
advances and future directions. Appetite, 131, 125–138. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.011
1 3
1243
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com