Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/317630800
Eating Meat Makes You Sexy: Conformity to Dietary Gender Norms and
Attractiveness
CITATIONS READS
0 490
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Exploring the self and social cognition by means of language View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Susanna Timeo Ph.D. on 27 August 2018.
Eating meat makes you sexy: Conformity to dietary gender norms and attractiveness.
corresponding author:
Susanna Timeo
susanna.timeo@unipd.it
via Venezia 8, 35131, Padova, Italy
tel. +39 049 827 6402
Acknowledgments. For precious advise and manuscript revision, thanks to Anne Maass, Mara
Cadinu, Silvia Galdi and Francesca Guizzo. For data collection, thanks to Roberta Azzini, Ana
Cristina Fernandez Bermudez, Paola Buccio, Marta Businaro, Maddalena Daniele, Francesca
Lazzaro, Victoria Mailleux, Carol Martinelli, Ilaria Ongaretto, Elisa Paluan, Giada Stevanin,
Pasqualina Trocchia.
Author note: The preliminary results of the present research were presented the National
Congress of the Italian Psychology Association (AIP), Social psychology section, Neaples,22th-
Abstract
Past research has highlighted links between meat consumption and masculine gender role
norms such that meat consumers are generally attributed more masculine traits than their
vegetable-consuming counterparts. However, the direct link between gender roles and men’s
food choices has been somewhat neglected in the literature. Three studies conducted in Italy
investigated this link between meat and masculinity . Studies 1 and 2 analyzed female mating
preference for vegetarian and omnivorous partners, confirming that women preferred
omnivorous men (Study 1 and 2), rated them as more attractive (Study 1 and 2) and felt more
positive about them (Study 1) than vegetarians. Moreover Study 2 showed that the attribution of
masculinity mediated this relationship, such that vegetarian men were considered less attractive
because they were perceived as less masculine. Study 3 tested the relationship between the
endorsement of food-related gender norms and food choices in a sample of Italian men. The
results showed that men who perceived vegetarianism as feminine preferred meat-based dishes
for themselves and expected their female partners to choose vegetarian dishes. Together, these
findings show that gender-role norms prescribing that men eat meat are actively maintained by
both women and men and do in fact guide men’s food choices.
Keywords: food choice, gender norms, vegetarian, mating choice, meat consumption
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 3
Eating meat makes you sexy: Eating meat makes you sexy: Conformity to dietary gender norms
and attractiveness.
Gender role norms regulate a wide variety of daily life, from the way people dress to the
sports they choose to practice. Masculinity norms, for example, may prescribe that a man
practice football instead of ballet. One of the most famous theoretical accounts of the masculine
gender norms is the model of “hegemonic masculinity” (Connell, 1995), which relies on the
concepts of dominance and power as characteristics of “real men”. Even though this definition
has been criticized as being too rigid (Demetriou, 2001), many studies have continued to use
these features to describe traditional masculine norms. Despite some variability, the stereotypes
that tell men how to be and behave are relatively stable in their content across countries (Cuddy,
Fiske, Kwan, et al., 2009) and over time (Haines, Deaux, & Lofaro, 2016).
Masculinity has been defined as a precarious state (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). In effect,
men, more so than women, need to constantly and publicly demonstrate their masculinity
through their actions. Implications of precarious manhood are a) higher levels of anxiety
connected to the concept of masculinity, b) more engagement in aggressive or risky behavior and
c) the avoidance of feminine activities. An important implication of these predictions is that men
tend to engage in more dangerous or unhealthy activities such as avoidance of medical or mental
health care (Addis & Mahalik, 2003), less health care prevention(Mahalik, Lagan, & Morrison,
2006), risky sexual and driving behavior (Mahalik et al., 2006), substance abuse (Blazina &
Watkins, 1996). In a sense, this is the pledge men must pay for their dominant and hegemonic
position in society.
Recent interest is emerging in the social drives of a new area of health-related behavior,
namely food consumption. Recent studies have demonstrated that, for example, greater amount
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 4
of food intake is associated with masculinity (Vartanian, Herman, & Polivy, 2007) and that
certain types of food are perceived as more masculine than others (Mooney & Lorenz, 1997). As
Vartanian and collaborators reported in their review (Vartanian et al. 2007), people who eat
unhealthy food and larger meals are typically seen as more masculine. Conversely, people who
eat healthy food and smaller meals are perceived as more feminine. Conversely, people who eat
healthy food and smaller meals are perceived as more feminine. Among the vast variety of food,
meat seems to have the strongest association with masculine role and identity. Recent research
has brought consistent evidence of a strong link between men and meat. A large-scale survey on
the American population, indicated that men actually eat more animal-derived food (especially
meat), whereas women eat more vegetables, fruit, yogurt and eggs (Shiferaw et al., 2012). A
similar pattern can be observed in other populations, including Finland and Baltic (Prättälä et al.,
2007), Italian (Vanuzzo, 2014), and UK (Gossard & York, 2003) populations, suggesting that
this gender difference in food consumption is relatively stable across several societies. From an
anthropological point of view, men were traditionally in charge of hunting and fishing (Nath,
2011). Moreover, meat consumption has always been associated with strength and power
(Stavick, 1996) and meat such as raw beef is considered more masculine than vegetables or
fruits, such as a peach (Cavazza, Guidetti & Butera, 2015a; Mooney & Lorenz, 1997). Such
attributions are related to gender stereotypes and are culture specific. In fact, culture beliefs and
attitudes towards non-meat eaters have also been reported. For example, a recent study
conducted in Argentina, Brazil, France, and the USA (Ruby et al., 2016) showed that French
people had negative attitudes towards vegetarians while American and Brazilian women showed
admiration for them. However the meat-masculinity association appears to be quite consistent
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 5
across social contexts (Mooney & Lorenz, 1997; Rothgerber, 2013; Cavazza, Guidetti & Butera,
Given that food consumption is a common activity during social interactions, not only
gender stereotypes prescribe that women and men eat particular types of food, but also what
women and men eat leads to attributions about their femininity and masculinity. The amount and
the type of food eaten is culturally informative during impression management processes. These
prescriptions are culturally embedded, and as such culture-specific associations can be identified.
For example eating eggs is considered an effeminate act in some tribes of southern Sudan
(Adams, 1991). In Western Societies, women who eat lower quantities of food and healthier
meals are perceived as more feminine and attractive (for a review see Vartanian, Herman, &
Polivy, 2007). The meat-masculinity link is evident on attributions of maleness based on meat
preference. When presented with hypothetical targets, participants’ impression formation was
driven by the type of diet, with a target person consuming a beef diet being perceived as more
masculine and less feminine than a target person characterized by a vegetarian diet (Rozin,
We can therefore observe a circularity in the meat–masculinity link, with meat being
associated with masculinity (Rothgerber, 2013), and people who do not eat meat being perceived
management has been under-investigated (Vartanian, 2015). From this perspective, it is not clear
whether people, and particularly men, may choose certain types of food in order to match a
specific gender norm. To our knowledge, no previous study has directly tested the association
between personal beliefs about gender norms linked to food consumption and the actual food
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 6
choices. Moreover, the social context and the meal situation become central in order to
understand the motives that drive men to eat (or not) meat. Previous studies have demonstrated
that women tend to eat less in a romantic dinner situation in order to “make a good impression”
(Remick, 2010). On the contrary, there are few studies investigating the social influence on
men’s eating habits and there is little evidence that men may modify their food choices in order
to fit a specific situation (Cavazza, Guidetti & Butera, 2017; Dibb-Smith & Brindal, 2015;
Vartanian, 2015). Moreover, even if there is some evidence showing that the social context
might moderate people’s eating choices, there is almost no research on the direct relation
between the eating behavior and specific impression motives (see also Vartanian, 2015). In this
A better understanding of the meat-masculinity link is also critical with regard to health.
Although meat is an good source of protein and other nutrients, it has been shown that an
exaggerated consumption of red meat and meat products (i.e., ham, sausages) may be risky for
people’s health as it increases the probability of long-term diseases as colorectal, pancreatic and
prostate cancer (Bouvard et al., 2015). Previous research highlighting sex differences in meat
consumption (Shiferaw et al., 2012), found no differences on chicken consumption (white meat),
but did find that men eat more ham, steak or roast, wild game, hot dogs, bacon, beef stew and
jerky. In this perspective, since the consumption of those meat products has been linked to health
issues, this eating habit could be included among other risky behaviors (e.g., fast driving or
alcohol drinking) that men carry out in order to reinforce their sense of masculine strength
foster the meat-masculinity association also has important practical implications and benefits. If
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 7
men were to consume more red meat because they fear appearing feminine, then appropriate
The choice to become vegetarian is commonly linked to the ethical and health-related
concerns not to eat animals. In recent years, vegetarian and vegan eating habits have become
more common worldwide as also acknowledged by a keyword search in Google Trends (Mintel,
2014; Probios, 2016; Sareen, 2013). Notably, there is a greater percentage of women than men
following a vegetarian diet (The Two Vegans, 2016). One cause of this disparity could be the
social rule prescribing men to eat meat. In fact, beyond a well-known stigma against vegetarians
as part of the do-gooder stigma (Minson & Monin, 2011), vegetarian men may undergo even
harsher discrimination, probably because they challenge their gender identity. In previous
studies, for example, non-meat-eating men reported to be verbally derided and called effeminate
or gay (Merriman & Wilson-Merriman, 2014; Nath, 2011). Even if recent studies reported that
vegetarians are seen as more virtuous, they are still considered less masculine and physically
weaker (Monin, 2007; Ruby & Heine, 2011). One important implication of this stereotype is that
vegetarian men may be considered less attractive than meat-eating men. In effect, a study
involving 37 countries (Buss, 1990) investigated mate preferences showing that the
characteristics that participants valued in a potential mate are in line with the content of gender
roles (see also Eagly & Wood, 1999), and that this pattern is relatively stable across cultures. In
this perspective, if women rewarded meat-eating men this would foster even more this conduct
psychological factors that may motivate men to eat (or not) meat. The present investigation was
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 8
conducted in the Italian socio-cultural context. Indeed, food preferences are highly socially
grounded in this context. In Italy for example, parents’ food repertories and a shared cultural
environment have an important impact on children’s food preferences (Cavazza & Guidetti,
2008). Moreover, peole decide the quantity of their food intake depending on the social norm of
the group they eat with (Cavazza, Graziani, & Guidetti, 2011). Despite evidence suggesting less
adherence to traditional gender norms among Italian than American students (Tager & Good,
2005), norms about food consumptions are strongly related to gender roles. Similarly to gender
norms reported in other social contexts (Mooney & Lorenz, 1997; Rothgerber, 2013), meat-
based dishes are perceived as more masculine than the vegetarian counterparts by Italian
participants as well (Cavazza, Guidetti & Butera, 2015a; 2015b). The link between meat and
masculinity is therefore well established in the literature. However it is not clear whether this
In the first study, we investigated how vegetarian males were evaluated by young
vegetarian men as possible mates, thus fostering or reducing men’s preference for meat. As
demonstrated by previous research (Buss, 1990; Eagly & Wood, 1999), people prefer potential
mates that follow gender-role norms. Taking into account that gender norms prescribe meat
consumption to men, we expect women to seek potential partners that consume meat. We also
expect this mating preference to be related to the attribution of masculinity to meat-eating men
and to the belief that vegetarianism is a feminine eating style. This is specifically investigated in
Study 2. In the third study, we investigated the social motivation behind food choices among
young men. As already said, men face a precarious gender identity that requires social proof and
validation (Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, & Weaver, 2008), and eating behavior can be
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 9
strategically used to affirm gender identity. In this study, we specifically tested the relationship
between the gendered beliefs about vegetarianism and personal food choices. We hypothesized
that the endorsement of the belief that vegetarianism is feminine would be linked to the reduction
Study 1
studying the potential role of women in maintaining this specific gender prescription. The
association between meat and masculinity (Rothgerber, 2013), together with the attribution of
femininity to people who do not eat meat (Rozin et al., 2012; Ruby & Heine, 2011), envisage a
gender norm related to food consumption, suggesting that men are expected to consume meat.
According to the social-role theory of mate selection, the criteria that define the characteristic of
potential mates are driven by culturally expected gender roles and the stereotypes derived from
them (Eagly & Wood, 1999). We therefore hypothesized that eating habits would affect
attractiveness ratings, and specifically that meat-eating men would be preferred over vegetarian
ones.
We ran a pilot study asking fifty Italian women (age M= 23.26, SD= 2.72) to rate
point scale. Participants rated vegetarian dishes as more feminine (Mveg= 3.74, SDveg= .38 vs.
Mmeat= 2.55, SDmeat= .64, paired-sample t=10.53, p <.001, Cohen’s d=2.26) and indicated that
they ate them more frequently (Mveg= 3.15, SDveg= .69 vs. Mmeat= 2.26, SDmeat= .72, paired-
sample t=6.87, p<.001, Cohen’s d=1.26), even though they like them equally (Mveg= 3.92, SDveg=
.90 vs. Mmeat= 3.64, SDmeat= .97, paired t=1.87, p =.067). Thus, in line with previous literature,
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 10
participants not only endorsed the gender stereotypes about food consumption but also
Study 1 tested how food choices may influence the evaluation of male attractiveness. We
expected females to prefer meat-eaters over vegetarian men and to evaluate them more
positively. We also hypothesized that holding a more favorable attitude towards vegetarians
would raise the preference for vegetarian males. Finally, we qualitatively assessed whether
Method
needed to detect the relation between food and gender stereotypes which is typically of medium
size (e.g., Rozin et al. 2012, Study 2), that is N=80 (based on a Cohen’s d= .30, desired
power=.80, and alpha=.05). Eighty-One Italian female participants completed an online survey.
Nine participants were excluded as either not heterosexual or not omnivorous, leaving a final
sample of seventy-two participants (age M= 22.67, SD= 2.25). This research was approved by
online survey. They were presented with six different profiles of male targets. Each profile
included several pieces of information, such as age, height, weight, profession and hobbies.
Moreover, they contained information about targets’ eating habits and favorite dishes.
Importantly, three profiles were vegetarian and three omnivorous. The presentation order and the
match between a profile and his eating orientation were counterbalanced across participants. A
personal trainer and lives in an apartment with a friend. His hobbies are playing tennis and
playing bass guitar. His favorite color is orange. He has a pet: a rabbit. His favorite dishes are
polenta, salami and mushrooms, and strudel.” The corresponding vegetarian target was identical
except for the dishes “He follows a vegetarian diet. His favorite dishes are onion soup, fried
Participants were asked to rate each profile on attractiveness and valence. In order to
identify the most relevant traits that construct these two dimensions, we conducted a focus group
involving 8 female participants, demographically similar to the final sample. From the group
ideal partner, sexy, I would date him, α= .83) and 8 items investigated valence, with 4 positive
(kind, independent, intelligent, bright) and 4 negative attributes (competitive, cold, selfish,
introverted). The items were rated on 5-point Likert scale (from 1= Totally disagree to 5 =
Totally agree). The reliability of the valence scale reached α=.60 after removing the competitive
and independent items. At the end of each profile, participants were also asked to freely write
down why each profile did or did not match their ideal partner.
Finally, participants were administered the Attitudes towards Vegetarians Scale (Chin,
Fisak, & Sims, 2002; α= .83), using a 5-point Likert scale. High scores indicated more positive
attitudes towards vegetarians. Given that previous studies showed that menstrual cycle affects
participants’ responses in tasks related to mate selection (e.g., Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins,
Garver-Apgar & Christensen, 2004), participants were asked to provide information about their
menstrual cycle. Since this index did not show any effects on our dependent variables, it will not
be discussed hereafter.
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 12
Results
A mixed-effect model approach was employed to test our hypotheses (Pinheiro & Bates,
2006). This analysis allowed us to consider the combination of fixed effects, controlled or
assessed by the experimenter (in our case, the Eating Habits and the Attitudes Towards
Vegetarians), and random effects, which are sources of random variation (in our case the
Participant and the single Profile presented). Moreover, in the present experiment, the mixed
effect regression allowed us to a) consider the variability induced by random factors (i.e., the
participant), b) handle in a better way the variance-covariance structures deriving from repeated-
measure data and (c) eliminate the need to average responses across trials by performing
analyses on the number of observations (N =432) rather than on the number of participants (N =
72). To analyze the data we used the R software package (R core team, 2015). Data were
analyzed with the lme4 package (Bates, Maechler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015). For all dependent
variables, we tested the fixed effects of Eating Habits (vegetarian/omnivorous) and of Attitudes
Towards Vegetarians, with Participant (72) and Profile (6) included as random effects. We
followed a model selection procedure in order to identify the best-predicting model for our data.
We used the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC; Bozdogan, 1987) as an index of relative fit in
which the best fitting model is the one with the lowest AIC. We compared the null model to the
model including the main effects of all predictors and to the model including main effects and
Attractiveness. Results on attractiveness revealed that the best-fitting model included the
interaction between Eating Habits and Attitudes towards vegetarians (see Table 1). This model
showed a main effect of Eating Habits, F (1, 358) = 13.60, p <.001 with higher ratings for
omnivorous (M= 3.24, SD= 0.82) than for vegetarian men (M= 2.95, SD= 0.71), and an
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 13
interaction between Eating Habits and Attitudes towards vegetarians, F (1,358) = 10.31, p = .001
(see Figure 1). As the attitudes towards vegetarians became more positive, the difference
- Table 1 –
- Figure 1-
Valence. The same models comparison was conducted on the valence scale. The best
predicting model included only main factors, χ2 (2) = 35.15, p< .001, showing an effect of Eating
Habits, F (1, 354) = 35.40, p<.001. Participants attributed more positive characteristics to
omnivorous (M=3.48, SD= .49) than to vegetarian profiles (M=3.26, SD= .44). However this
result requires some caution given the limited reliability of the scale assessing the construct.
Content analysis. Finally, we analyzed the content of the open answers, where
participants indicated why each profile did or did not match their ideal partner. Six food-related
words were chosen upon agreement of the authors (“vegetarian”, “eat”, “diet/dietary”, “food”,
“meat”, “fast-food”). Words were inserted in a word-recognition algorithm and their frequency
of appearance was counted. Twenty-two out of seventy-two participants used the word
“vegetarian” at least once. Almost all of the comments were about the negative aspect of
vegetarianism, (e.g., “He is far from my ideal mate because he is vegetarian”) and often
participants commented only this characteristic (18 out of 32 comments totally). Finally, forty
participants used other food-related words (12 “eat”; 11 “diet/dietary”; 6 “food”; 6 “meat”; 5
“fast-food”).
Discussion
In this study, we investigated the effects of deviance from gender norms related to food
against vegetarian men in the field of mate selection. Previous studies have investigated attitudes
towards vegetarians, showing that females hold more favorable attitudes than males (Ruby et al.,
2016; Walker, 1995). In this study, however, we specifically tested how much females find
vegetarian men attractive and if they would choose them as possible partners. Women holding
negative attitudes towards vegetarians unsurprisingly showed a preference for omnivorous men.
Importantly, the main effect of targets’ eating habits remained significant even after controlling
for attitudes. We hypothesized that this preference may be linked to greater perceived
masculinity of omnivorous than of vegetarian men. This would be in line with the social-role
theory according to which mate selection is affected by gender role adherence (i.e., men eating
meat), and women are more attracted by males that conform to the traditional stereotype (Eagly
& Wood, 1999; see also Urbaniak & Kilmann, 2006). Indeed, about one-third of participants
acknowledged eating habits in their mating criteria, despite the availability of different
information. This suggests that eating preferences are spontaneously taken into account when
As it concerns the valence, we found that omnivorous men were more positively
evaluated than vegetarian ones. This result, moreover, did not interact with the attitudes towards
vegetarians, which were generally good (M= 3.55, SD = .43). Previous studies have often found
that vegetarians are perceived as more moral and virtuous (Monin, 2007), so the present result
may be somehow conflicting with previous literature. It is important to note, however, that the
low reliability of the valence measure makes it necessary to interpret any result concerning this
Taking into account all these results, another mechanism of mate selection might have taken
may have favored omnivorous mates not because they were more masculine but because they
shared the same diet, and similarity is a well-known determinant of attraction (Byrne & Griffitt,
1969). On the contrary, vegetarian men might have been seen as a minority outgroup and may
have been, then, devalued as potential partners. In effect, vegetarian people are statistically a
minority group (about 8% in Italy, Eurispes, 2016), and represent a deviation from the typical
omnivorous diet. Previous studies have already highlighted how vegetarian people are
stigmatized because they are seen as a threat to other people’s morality, a phenomenon known as
the do-gooder stigma (Minson & Monin, 2011). Moreover, vegetarians and vegans tend to be
closed groups favoring individuals with the same eating habits to start romantic relationships
measure of this out-group stigma or derogation. In effect, people who positioned themselves at
the bottom of this scale expressed a general negative attitude against a specific and defined social
group. However, the mean attitude towards vegetarians was above the mid-point, showing a
general positive attitude towards this group, which is in line with previous research showing that
females tend to express more favorable attitudes towards vegetarians than males (Ruby et al.,
2016). We may envisage two possible explanations of this incongruence between attitudes
toward the group and mating preferences. On one side one may argue that the attitudes toward
the group is measured with an explicit question, which may be subject to social desirability
processes. In contrast, mating preferences were assessed in a more indirect way, as behavioral
intention. This difference in the measurement type may correspond to divergent responses (see
Kruglanski, & Gigerenzer, 2011). On the other side, we could also argue that even when a target
belongs to a positive outgroup, his membership makes him undesirable. As we observed ingroup
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 16
bias irrespectively to attitudes toward the outgroup (Brewer, 2007), the actual mating choice may
be biased even if the general attitude is positive. However these arguments are merely
speculative and the mechanisms that drive mating choice towards omnivorous males have to be
investigated.
In effect, the present study shows some limitations. The most important one is that we did not
directly investigate the masculinity perception of the vegetarian and omnivorous profiles. In this
perspective, we cannot clearly conclude that the preference of omnivorous over vegetarian men
is due to the greater masculinity attributed to the former. Furthermore, based on these
exploratory results, we should conclude that at least some of the variability of this choice is
However, since the main effect of eating habits remains significant, we can hypothesize that
other mechanisms might have also intervened in this mating choice. One of these possible
additional mechanism is the attribution of masculinity, which is further investigated in the next
study. A second limitation consists in the presentation of the vegetarian targets. In effect, while
the omnivorous men were coupled with carnivorous dishes, the vegetarian ones were openly
labeled as vegetarians. This asymmetry in the explicit categorization might have stressed group
derogation, do-gooder stigma). A final limitation consists in the poor reliability of the valence
Together, these results can be considered a first exploratory analysis of the female’s mate
selection strategy based on food choices and eating habits. We have found that, in the Italian
context, females seem to prefer omnivorous over vegetarian males as possible mates, and that
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 17
this discrimination is stronger among participants holding negative attitudes towards vegetarians.
Study 2
Study 2 was conducted in order to a) replicate the findings of Study 1, b) shed light onto
the mechanisms that make females to prefer omnivorous over vegetarian men and c) overcome
the limitations of Study 1. For these purposes, the procedure of Study 2 was identical to that of
Study 1, except for some improvements. First, we removed any direct reference to the vegetarian
eating habit in the profiles, so that only favorite dishes were displayed. This reduces the
likelihood that explicit categorization would artificially (or asymmetrically) boost the observed
results. We therefore envisage this as a conservative change. If the effects were to be found even
in the absence of explicit labeling, this would provide further evidence for the robustness of the
phenomenon. Second, we removed the valence scale, because its reliability was below the
standards. Third, we added two measures of masculinity. On one side, we measured the
attribution of masculinity to each of the profiles and, on the other side, we added one item
investigating the endorsement of the general association between vegetarianism and femininity.
prefer omnivorous over vegetarian males, and that b) this effect would be stronger among
participants holding negative attitudes towards vegetarians. We also predicted that, beyond the
attitudes towards the group, participants would prefer omnivorous males the more they associate
vegetarianism to femininity. Finally, regarding the mechanism behind this mating choice, we
predicted that the influence of eating habits on attractiveness would be mediated by the
attribution of masculinity. If this prediction were to be confirmed, we could conclude that the
discrimination against vegetarian men follows tow path, being on side driven by the general
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 18
attitudes toward vegetarians, and on the other side, driven by the attribution of masculinity. The
understanding of the specific process behind this discrimination is critical as it may guide
intervention projects.
Method
Participants. Eighty Italian female participants completed the online survey. Ten
participants were excluded as either not heterosexual or not omnivorous. Two participants older
than 50 years were excluded in order to maintain the sample homogenous. The final sample
consisted of sixty-eight participants (age M= 21.47, SD= 3.07). This research was approved by
Procedure. The procedure of Study 2 was identical of that of Study 1, with some
exceptions. We removed any reference to the vegetarian eating habits as “He’s vegetarian” or
“He follows a vegetarian diet”. We assessed Attractiveness with the same items used in Study 1
(α= .90) whereas we removed the Valence Scale and the open-ended question. For each profile,
we added a rating of Masculinity (“How much do you think this profile is masculine?”), rated on
a scale from 0 to 100. At the end, we presented the Attitudes towards vegetarians scale (Chin,
Fisak, & Sims, 2002, α= .83) and we added one item on a 7-point scale, assessing the belief that
vegetarianism is feminine (“How much do you think that the vegetarian diet is masculine or
Results.
In order to test the first hypothesis and to replicate previous findings, we ran the same
analysis of Study1 on the Attractiveness. We included Participant (68) and Profile (6) as random
effects. We tested the fixed effects of Eating Habits (vegetarian/omnivorous) and of Attitudes
towards vegetarians. To identify the best-predicting model, we compared the null model to the
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 19
model including the main effects of all predictors (Eating Habits + Attitudes) and to the model
including main effects and two-way interactions of all predictors (Eating Habits * Attitudes)
using the AIC index (Bozdogan, 1987). Results showed that the best model is the one with the
two-way interaction between Eating Habits and Attitudes towards vegetarians, χ2 (1) = 4.97, p=
.026. This model showed a main effect of Eating Habits, F (1, 325) = 5.92, p = .016, with higher
Attractiveness rates for omnivorous (M=3.29, SD= 0.21) than for vegetarian profiles (M=3.13,
SD= 0.21). Moreover, it showed a significant interaction between Eating Habits and Attitudes
Towards Vegetarians, F (1,325) = 5.00, p = .026. As the attitude towards vegetarians became
Attractiveness rates, we added this factor to the previous model (i.e., Eating Habits * Attitudes
Towards Vegetarians). This model, however, did not show a better fit than the previous one
indicating that the Vegetarian-Femininity Association does not explain a significant amount of
variance.
Finally, we tested the role of Masculinity. First, we added this factor to the model
including Eating Habits * Attitudes Towards Vegetarians. This model showed a better fit than
the previous one, χ2 (1) = 80.99, p< .001. Masculinity showed a significant effect, F (1, 320) =
103.94, p< .001, while the interaction between the Eating Habits and Attitudes towards
analysis using the library Mediation (Tingley, Yamamoto, Hirose, Keele, & Imai, 2014) included
in the R software (R Core Team, 2015). The vegetarian profile was dummy-coded as treatment
condition (vegetarian =1). The average causal mediation effect (ACME) was negative and
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 20
reliable (see Table 2)., . The average causal pathway through Masculinity attribution was
estimated to account for the 49% of the total effect. The Overall Effect was marginally
significant (p = .07), but adding Masculity as mediator to the model, the Average Direct Effect
- Table 2 –
- Figure 2-
Discussion.
Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1, while at the same time overcoming its
limitations. Results of Study 2 showed us that participants still preferred omnivorous over
vegetarian men, even when they were not labeled as such. Moreover, the correlation with the
attitudes towards vegetarians is still significant, with an increased preference for omnivorous
men for women holding negative attitudes. From these results, we should conclude that a) some
implicit categorization based on the eating habits took place since participants made a distinction
between omnivorous and vegetarian targets, and b) mating choice is partially related to the
The second part of our analysis has focused on the ascription of masculinity/femininity
effect of eating habits on attractiveness, so that vegetarian males were rated as less attractive in
that they were perceived as less masculine. In this sense, the link between meat-eaters and
masculinity seems to be confirmed. This mechanism does not seem to act at the level of general
beliefs (i.e., vegetarian-femininity association), but in a more indirect and covert way (attribution
To summarize these results, we can conclude that at least two processes are at play in
the discrimination of vegetarian men as possible partners, one related to the general attitude
toward the group, and the other related to gender norms. Vegetarian people represent less than
the 10% of the population and are faced with the usual obstacles of a social minority group.
However, males seem to undergo an even harsher discrimination because they are seen as less
masculine and their gender identification is threatened. In this context, females foster the meat-
masculinity association and reward men who adhere to this stereotypical behavior.
From this conclusion, new limits and research questions arise. Although we showed an
effect of the attitudes towards vegetarians in mating choices, we cannot be sure on which kind of
intergroup process takes place (i.e. the do-gooder stigma, the outgroup derogation). In effect,
vegetarian people might have been devalued just because belonging to a minority outgroup (with
general outgroup derogation), or because they carry out a threatening moral behavior (do-gooder
stigma) or a combination of the two. Future studies are needed to better investigate these
intergroup processes between the omnivorous and the vegetarian community. Another point
concerns the sociocultural context in which the study was carried out, namely Italy. The Italian
food tradition is grounded in the Mediterranean diet and Italian culture gives great importance to
food. In this perspective, the importance of the eating habits and food consumption for mating
choice might be particularly relevant to Italian females. A cross-cultural comparison might help
Together, these results corroborate the hypothesis that women prefer omnivorous men,
therefore encouraging males to eat meat. If this were the case, men may decide to eat more meat
in order to appear more attractive to women, thus fostering the meat-masculinity cycle. We
Study 3
consumption among men. People conform to gender stereotypes at a daily basis, and this
conformity is rewarded with positive outcomes, such as higher self-esteem (Witt & Wood, 2010)
and good feelings (Wood, Christensen, Hebl, & Rothgerber, 1997). In the domain of food
consumption, previous studies have shown that men eat more meat than women (Shiferaw et al.,
2012). It has been suggested that a reason for this displacement might be the social stereotype
linking meat to masculinity (Rothgerber, 2013; Vartanian, 2015). However this connection has
not been directly tested so far. In this study, we investigated men’s food choices in relation to
their social beliefs about vegetarianism. We hypothesized that the more men associate
vegetarianism with femininity, the more they will prefer meat-based dishes.
(Vartanian, 2015) and we have shown in Study 1 and 2 that females tend to favor omnivorous
male partners, we compared men’s food choices during a meal alone or with a female partner.
We hypothesized a stronger preference for meat-based dishes in the couple than in the alone
condition. In the couple condition, participants were also asked to imagine their female partner’s
food preferences. Since the gender stereotype for the feminine counterpart links women with
more vegetarian and light food (Cavazza et al., 2015a), we hypothesized that participants would
imagine their partner choosing more vegetarian dishes and that this effect would be stronger the
Finally, we assessed also beverage choices. As men consume more alcohol than women
(de Visser & Smith, 2007; Keyes, Grant, & Hasin, 2008), we expected participants to choose
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 23
more alcoholic beverages for themselves (especially in the romantic dinner context), and non-
Method
Participants. Based on the same sample size selection of Study 1 and 2, eighty-one
Italian male participants voluntarily completed an online survey. After excluding the only non
heterosexual participant, the final sample consisted of eighty participants (Mage= 24.76, SDage=
Procedure. After providing informed consent, participants were either asked to imagine
going on a date with a partner or having dinner alone in a new city during a business trip. In
order to make the situation more vivid, participants were asked to choose among four pictures of
possible partners (couple condition) or among four pictures of possible cities (alone condition).
They were then presented with 4 hypothetical restaurants run by either vegetarian (Mike Tyson
and Stefano Gabbana) or carnivorous (Dwayne Johnson and Elton John) celebrities. The specific
celebrity promoting the menu did not affect participants’ choices, therefore its role will not be
further discussed. After the descriptions, the menus of all restaurants were shown. The dishes of
the courses were pretested among a group of men (N=20) for perceived healthiness, capability to
satisfy hunger, and femininity on a 6-point Likert scale. Menu dishes were chosen in order to be
as comparable as possible among each other (e.g., pasta with basil and tomato sauce vs. pasta
with pancetta and tomato sauce). In line with the literature, analyses revealed that vegetarian
menus were perceived as healthier (M= 4.23, SD= .68), t (19) = 9.84, p<.001, Cohen’s d= 2.23,
and more feminine (M= 3.62, SD= .72), t (18) = 3.52, p=.002, Cohen’s d= 1.31, than their
carnivorous counterparts (for Healthy M= 2.79, SD= .14; for Feminine M= 2.71, SD= .15).
Ratings of the capability to satiate hunger for carnivorous (M= 4.01, SD= .19) and vegetarian
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 24
menus (M= 3.56, SD= .15) was not statistically different from each other t (19) = -1.87, p=.077,
Cohen’s d=0.59. In the main survey, participants’ level of appetite was assessed in order to
control for its potential role. Since this factor was not associated with our dependent variables, it
will not be further discussed. For each dish of each menu, participants were asked to rate how
likely they were to choose that dish, from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very likely). At the end, participants
were also asked to choose their favorite menu among the 4 alternatives. In the couple condition,
participants were also asked to rate how it is their partner would choose each dish and which
menu sheshet would choose. Participants were also asked to rate the probability of choosing 4
beverages (water, beer, wine and nonalcoholic beverage). At the end, they completed the
Attitudes towards Vegetarians Scale (Chin et al. 2002, α = .85). Finally, they indicated on a 7-
point scale (1= Highly masculine, 7= Highly feminine) how feminine they considered
vegetarianism.
Results
We used the lme4 package for linear mixed-effect to analyze dish ratings (Bates et al.,
testing whether the vegetarian-femininity score was higher than the scale mid-point (i.e., 4). In
line with the literature (Ruby & Heine, 2011), participants associated vegetarianism slightly
more with femininity than with masculinity (M=4.26, SD= 1.02), one-sample t(79)= 2.31,
p=.023. Similarly, we assessed the general attitudes toward vegetarians by testing whether the
average score was higher than the scale mid-point (i.e., 3), which showed general positive
attitudes toward vegetarians (M=3.36, SD= .50), one-sample t (79) =6.90, p<.001.
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 25
Dish ratings. To identify the best-fitting model, we built the full model including all four
predictors (Dish Type, Dinner Context, Attitudes Towards Vegetarians and Vegetarian-
Femininity Association) and two random effects (Participant and Particular Dish). According to
our hypotheses, we stepwise compared the full models until the third level of interaction (i.e.,
model with only main effects, two-way and three-way interactions) using the AIC (Bozdogan,
1987). The best predicting model included two-way interactions, χ2 (6) = 54.53, p< .001 and
showed a main effect of Dish Type, F (1, 209) = 15.65, p<.001, suggesting that male participants
This preference was moderated by Attitudes Toward Vegetarians, F (1, 551) = 34.28, p<.001
(see Figure 3) and by Vegetarian-Femininity Association (see Figure 4 left panel), F (1, 551) =
13.31, p<.001. The preference for meat-based dishes was evident only among participants
vegetarianism. Although the interaction between Dinner Context and Dish Type did not reach the
conventional threshold of significance, F(1, 551)= 3.27, p=.071, it is worthwhile to notice the
tendency to prefer meat-based dishes slightly more in the couple condition (Mmeat=4.09, SDmeat=
1.29 vs. Mveg=2.91, SDveg=1.53) than in the alone condition (Mmeat=3.78, SDmeat=1.37 vs.
Mveg=2.94, SDveg=1.55).
- Figure 3 –
In order to compare results for the self and the partner, we ran a second analysis
including the dish ratings attributed to the partner. The full model included the same variables of
the previous analysis, except for Dinner Context, which was replaced by Self-Partner choice. The
best predicting model included the three-way interaction, χ2 (4) = 26.11, p<.001. Results showed
still a main effect of Dish Type, F (1, 844) = 5.21, p= .023, with greater preference for meat-
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 26
based (M= 3.69, SD= 1.33) than for vegetarian dishes (M= 3.21, SD= 1.51). This preference was
moderated by Attitudes Towards Vegetarians, F (1, 894) = 5.05, p= .025, with higher preference
for carnivorous dishes only for participants holding negative attitudes towards vegetarians.
Importantly, a three-way interaction emerged between Dish type, Self-partner choice and
Vegetarian-femininity Association, F (1, 894) = 17.46, p< .001. Participants who associated to
greater extent femininity with vegetarianism chose more meat-based dishes for themselves and
more vegetarian dishes for their female partners (see Figure 4).
- Figure 4 –
Menu choice. In order to test whether the choice of the menu was modified by the Dinner
context, we ran a log-linear analysis on the 2x2 contingency table of observed frequencies of
choices of vegetarian vs. meat Menu and to Dinner context (couple vs. alone). A main effect of
Menu, χ2(1) = 89.20, p< .001, suggested that participants selected more frequently the meat-
based (F=60) than the vegetarian menus (F=12). The expected higher rate of meat preference in
the couple (Fmeat= 38 vs. Fveg= 6, χ2(1) = 23.27, p< .001) than in the alone situation (Fmeat= 26 vs.
Fveg= 10, χ2(1) = 7.11, p= .008) did not reach the conventional level of statistical significance,
In order to compare the selection of the restaurant for themselves and what they expected
their partner would choose (only for the couple dinner condition, n=44), we ran a log-linear
analysis on the 2x2 frequency table of choices of vegetarian vs. meat Menu, for Themselves and
for the Partner. A main effect of Menu confirmed that participants chose the meat-based menu
more frequently than the vegetarian menu, χ2(1) = 4.08, p< .04. The interaction was also
significant, χ2(1) = 12.02, p< .001 confirming the expected difference of the meat preferences for
themselves (Fmeat=38 vs. Fveg= 6), and not for their female partner (Fmeat=21 vs. Fveg=23, χ2(1) <
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 27
1). Post-hoc comparisons confirmed that the vegetarian menu was more likely chosen for the
female partner than for themselves, χ2(1) = 8.33, p= .004, whereas the meat menu was more
likely chosen for themselves than for the female partner, χ2(1) = 3.69, p= .05.
models. Fixed effects comprised Alcohol Content (alcoholic vs. non-alcoholic), Self-Partner
choice and Dinner context, and random effect comprised Participant. We stepwise compared the
three interaction levels of the full model using the AIC. The best predicting model included two-
way interactions, χ2(2) = 11.58, p= .003. We found a main effect of the Alcohol Content, F (1,
490) = 9.56, p=.002, with participants choosing more non-alcoholic (M= 3.80, SD= 1.69) than
alcoholic drinks (M= 3.52, SD= 1.65). More importantly, we found a two-way interaction
between the Alcohol Content and the Self-Partner choice, F (1, 490) = 11.70, p< .001, with
participants choosing less alcoholic drinks for their partners (M= 3.18, SD= 1.55 vs. M= 4.08,
SD= 1.61) than for themselves (M= 3.70, SD= 1.68 vs. M= 3.65, SD= 1.71).
Discussion
consumption. In line with previous literature, we found that men chose more meat-based dishes
and menus (Shiferaw et al., 2012), and more alcoholic beverages (Keyes et al., 2008) for
themselves than for a female partner. Similarly to Study 2, two processes behind the preference
for meat can be envisaged, one related to attitudes towards the group of vegetarians, the other
related to masculine gender norms. The relation between meat selection and attitudes towards
vegetarians, suggests that socialization and intergroup processes are critical in the field of food
choices, and in particular in meat consumption which has important health implications. The
for attitudes towards vegetarians. These findings suggest that gender-norm endorsement is an
additional and critical element for the meat-masculinity phenomenon, as food choices may be
If one latent aim of food consumption is to convey a more masculine image of oneself,
then men would be more inclined to choose dishes while imagining a romantic dinner. Although
in the predicted direction, results concerning the dinner context are not robust, suggesting that
social norms about food consumption may be internalized and not easily modifiable by the
contextual situation. In this perspective, with or without an external observer men may decide to
choose meat as an appropriate masculine option. Another alternative hypothesis could be that,
even in the alone condition, the experimental context may represent an evaluative situation,
which would in turn activate the stereotypic response. Moreover, despite hat that tried to make
the scene as realistic as possible (we asked participant to choose the partner/city to make the
situation more vivid), hypothetical meal scenarios have been proven to have weaker effects than
In effect, a limitation of the present study is the use of a hypothetical scenario. The
online procedure and the speculative choice may have led to an underestimation of the effects.
Future research, involving participants in face-to-face interaction with partners and in a realistic
context would give us a more precise esteem of this phenomenon. Another limitation concerns
the specific socio-cultural context, namely the Italian, one, in which the experiment was
conducted. Masculinity norms are actually a product of the social environment and culture
(Eagly &Wood, 1999). One recent study suggested that Italian young men endorsed less
traditional masculinity norms compared to a group of young American men (Tager & Good,
2005). In this perspective, results of the present research may be even amplified in other cultures
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 29
endorsing more traditional gender norms. However, more studies are needed to test the
promising predictor of men’s choice to eat meat, we cannot exclude that other factors may have
come into play. In effect, we did not control for participant’s eating restriction or dietary regime.
Surely, some food-related issues (i.e. allergies, diabetes) may have influenced dish choices. In
this sense, more research is needed in order to take into account the unique variability explained
Moreover, future research should take into account personality and individual variables
as possible predictors of food choices. For example, the masculinity of the participants may play
a role, as men may prefer food that resemble their own perceived level of masculinity. Another
variable that should be measured in the future is the adherence to masculine norms, as an
To summarize, the third study showed that the stronger participants endorsed the belief
that vegetarianism is feminine, the stronger they chose meat-based food for themselves, and
vegetarian food for their female partner. This may suggest that meat preference may be related to
General Discussion
In Western societies people are typically raised on a diet that includes meat and
concerns (Fox & Ward, 2008). Although a vegetarian diet entails both benefits and risks (Pilis,
2014), some research has started to point out the possible hazards connected with consumption
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 30
of red meat and meat products (Bouvard et al., 2015). Despite the well-known gender differences
in meat consumption, little attention has been devoted to socio-psychological factors that induce
men to eat meat. Past research linked meat to masculinity (Vartanian, 2015) but there is lack of
knowledge about the endorsement of food-related gender norms and its consequences within this
context. Present studies investigated the vicious cycle of the meat-masculinity association from
both female and male perspectives, confirming the prescriptive aspect of gender stereotypes
regarding dietary choices and back-lash that vegetarian men are subject to in mating contexts.
Results suggest that gender norms are sustained in a circular way, with men consuming more
meat than women, and woman encouraging this behavior with their mating preferences.
To our knowledge this is the first systematic attempt to investigate the prescriptive role of
gender stereotypes in eating habits, taking into account the complementary perspective of both
genders. One previous study, including a single item (i.e., “I would prefer to date a vegetarian”),
reported more positive attitudes towards vegetarians among females than males (Ruby et al.,
2016). Importantly, although we found generally positive attitudes toward vegetarians among
both genders, Study 1 and 2 showed that females discriminated vegetarians as potential mates,
preferring omnivores, thus suggesting that food-choices and eating habits drive mate preferences.
Moreover, in both studies the discrimination against vegetarian men was stronger among
participants holding negative attitudes toward vegetarians in general. Similarly, in Study 3 the
preference for meat is stronger among male participants holding negative attitudes towards
vegetarians. This suggests that intergroup processes may be at play. Indeed, previous studies
conducted on vegans showed a preference for people with similar eating habits (Potts & Parry,
2010). Moreover, vegetarians and vegans are still minorities undergoing stigma (Minson &
Monin, 2011). Future research including vegetarian participants would shed light on the
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 31
intergroup nature of the discrimination. For a group of vegetarian females, moreover, the ingroup
and masculinity-norm motivations are in contrast, with the first favoring vegetarian and the
second favoring omnivorous men. By investigating this population, researchers might directly
compare the two processes, thus also highlighting which one is most powerful.
In Study 2, vegetarian men were devalued not only because they belong to a minority
outgroup, but also because they are perceived as less masculine. In Study 3, male participants
who believed that vegetarianism is feminine showed a stronger preference for meat dishes.
Together, the results suggest a consistent pattern of gender norms in meat-eating, with meat
being conceived as the normative food for males. In this perspective, omnivorous males are
preferred as they appear more masculine and men are more likely to eat meat if they believe that
vegetarianism is feminine. These findings support the claim that, on one side, food choices are
used asmeans to evaluate people’s conformity to gender-role norms and, on the other side, that
oneself. It is important to note a displacement in the effect of this food-related gender norm for
the two groups, namely women and men. Although for women the general and overt belief that
vegetarianism is feminine did not show any effect on their mating selection, for men it was
sufficient to produce different food choices. In this sense, we hypothesize that the meat-
masculinity association for females might not be fully conscious or that the devaluation of
vegetarian men would not be openly expressed. For the male part, instead, we hypothesized that
participants consciously relied on their beliefs about vegetarianism to build up their presentation
In this sense, although men seem fully aware of the meat-masculinity association, this
association might be less overt in the female population. The pressure that women exert on their
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 32
male counterpart, might be then partly unwanted and oblivious. In a speculative way, since
women seem to choose more vegetarian and healthy food (Shiferaw, 2012), they might openly
express the belief that people (also men) should eat more vegetables, but unwittingly fostering
meat consumption for men. This has extremely important consequences, as excessive red meat
consumption has been related to several health problems. Since people tend to reward mates who
adhere to the gender stereotypic role (Eagly & Wood, 1999), the detachment from an unhealthy
or risky conduct may become more difficult for men. It is however true that new models of
masculinity are emerging (McDowell, 2009) and that the hegemonic model might be overcome.
In this perspective, the model of “Masculine Capital” might give us some advice for the future
(de Visser & McDonnell, 2013). This model looks at masculinity as at a social capital that men
should always maintain above a certain level. In this perspective, different actions might make
men gain or lose a quantity (different for each action) of this capital. If a man gains enough
masculinity capital then he can allow himself to do some “feminine” action. In our context, for
example, practicing sport may protect a man enough to let him eat less meat.
To summarize, the present results extend our knowledge of gender norms to people’s
dietary choices, highlighting how the joint influence of both males and females fosters a vicious
Footnote
1 The opposite causal mediation model with attraction as mediator between eating habits
and masculinity showed no significant mediation effect (ACME β = -0.6, CI[-.144; .008], p= .09;
ADE β = -0.8, CI[-.189; .039], p=.17 ; Total Effect β =-.15, CI[-0.275; -.014], p= .02)
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 34
References
Adams, C. J. (1991). The sexual politics of meat. In A. M. Jaggar (Ed.), Living with
contradictions: Controversies in feminist social ethics (pp. 548–557). Boulder, CO, CO:
Westview Press.
Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking.
American Psychologist, 58, 5–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.5
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Linear Mixed-Effects Models using
“Eigen” and S4. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html
Blazina, C., & Watkins, C. E., Jr. (1996). Masculine gender role conflict: Effect on men’s
psychological well-being, chemical substance usage, and attitudes toward help-seeking. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 43, 461–465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43.4.461
Blok, A. (1981). Rams and billy-goats: A key to the Mediterranean code of honor. Man, 16, 427–
440. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2801293
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., . . .
Straif, K., & the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group.
(2015). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology,
16(16), 1599–1600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1
Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC): The general
theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52(3), 345–370.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02294361
Brewer, M. B. (2007). The social psychology of intergroup relations: Social categorization,
ingroup bias, and outgroup prejudice. In Kruglanski, Arie W. (Ed); Higgins, E. Tory (Ed).
(2007). Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, 2nd ed., (pp. 695-715). New York,
NY, US: Guilford Press
Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. (1969). Similarity and awareness of similarity of personality
characteristics as determinants of attraction. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality,
3(3), 179–186.
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., . . .
Ekehammar, B. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(1), 5–47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022190211001
Cavazza, N., Graziani, A. R., & Guidetti, M. (2011). Looking for the “right” amount to eat at the
restaurant: Social influence effects when ordering. Social Influence, 6(4), 274–290.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2011.632130
Cavazza, N., Guidetti, M., & Butera, F. (2017). Portion size tells who I am, food type tells who
you are: Specific functions of amount and type of food in same- and opposite-sex dyadic eating
contexts. Appetite, 112, 96–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.01.019
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 35
Cavazza, N., Guidetti, M., & Butera, F. (2015a). Ingredients of gender-based stereotypes about
food. Indirect influence of food type, portion size and presentation on gendered intentions to eat.
Appetite, 91, 266–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.068
Cavazza, N., Guidetti, M., & Butera, F. (2015b). The gender-based stereotype about food is on
the table. Food choice also depends on co-eater’s gender. Psicologia e Sociedade, 10(2), 161–
172.
Cavicchiolo, V. (2005). Consumare il cibo oggi. Stati Uniti e Italia a confronto. [Consuming
food today. Usa and Italy: a comparison]. Master thesis, Chin, M. G., Fisak Jr, B., & Sims, V. K.
(2002). Development of the attitudes toward vegetarians scale. Anthrozoös, 15(4), 332-342.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.
Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being:
A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1385–1401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. P., . . . Ziegler, R.
(2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some
differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(Pt 1), 1–33.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466608X314935
de Visser, R. O., & McDonnell, E. J. (2013). “Man points”: Masculine capital and young men’s
health. Health Psychology, 32(1), 5–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029045
de Visser, R. O., & Smith, J. A. (2007). Alcohol consumption and masculine identity among
young men. Psychology & Health, 22(5), 595–614.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14768320600941772
Demetriou, D. Z. (2001). Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and
Society, 30(3), 337–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1017596718715
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved
dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
Eurispes (2016, January 28). Italia: superare la sindrome del Palio, passare dal contro al per e
trasformare la nostra potenza in energia. Italy: overcome the Palio syndrome, make cons become
pro and transform our power in energy. Retrieved from http://eurispes.eu/content/rapporto-italia-
2016-la-sindrome-del-palio
Fox, N., & Ward, K. (2008). Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian
motivations. Appetite, 50(2-3), 422–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.007
Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., Cousins, A. J., Garver-Apgar, C. E., & Christensen, P. N.
(2004). Women’s preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle.
Psychological Science, 15(3), 203–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503010.x
Gossard, M. H., & York, R. (2003). Social structural influences on meat consumption. Human
Ecology Review, 10(1), 1–9.
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 36
Guidetti, M., & Cavazza, N. (2008). Structure of the relationship between parents’ and children’s
food preferences and avoidances: An explorative study. Appetite, 50(1), 83–90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.06.001
Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing… or are they not?
A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, •••,
0361684316634081.
Keyes, K. M., Grant, B. F., & Hasin, D. S. (2008). Evidence for a closing gender gap in alcohol
use, abuse, and dependence in the United States population. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,
93(1-2), 21–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.08.017
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on
common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020762
Mahalik, J. R., Lagan, H. D., & Morrison, J. A. (2006). Health behaviors and masculinity in
Kenyan and US male college students. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7, 191–202.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.7.4.191
McDowell, L. (2009). New masculinities and femininities. Handbook of Youth and Young
Adulthood: New Perspectives and Agendas, 58.
Merriman, B., & Wilson-Merriman, S. (2014). Radical Ethical Commitments on Campus:
Results of Interviews with College-Aged Vegetarians. Journal of College and Character, 10(4).
Minson, J. A., & Monin, B. (2011). Do-Gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally Motivated
Minorities to Defuse Anticipated Reproach. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3(2),
200–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550611415695
Mintel. (2014). Number of global vegetarian food and drink product launches doubles between
2009 and 2013 | Mintel.com. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://www.mintel.com/press-
centre/food-and-drink/number-of-global-vegetarian-food-and-drink-product-launches-doubles-
between-2009-and-2013
Monin, B. (2007). Holier than me? Threatening Social Comparison in the Moral Domain. Revue
Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 20(1), 53–68.
Mooney, K. M., & Lorenz, E. (1997). The effects of food and gender on interpersonal
perceptions. Sex Roles, 36(9-10), 639–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025622125603
Nath, J. (2011). Gendered fare?: A qualitative investigation of alternative food and masculinities.
Journal of Sociology (Melbourne, Vic.), 47(3), 261–278.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1440783310386828
Pilis, W., Stec, K., Zych, M., & Pilis, A. (2014). Health benefits and risk associated with
adopting a vegetarian diet. Roczniki Panstwowego Zakladu Higieny, 65(1), 9–14.
Pinheiro, J., & Bates, D. (2006). Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer
Verlag.
Potts, A., & Parry, J. (2010). Vegan Sexuality: Challenging Heteronormative Masculinity
through Meat-free Sex. Feminism & Psychology, 20(1), 53–72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959353509351181
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 37
Prättälä, R., Paalanen, L., Grinberga, D., Helasoja, V., Kasmel, A., & Petkeviciene, J. (2007).
Gender differences in the consumption of meat, fruit and vegetables are similar in Finland and
the Baltic countries. European Journal of Public Health, 17(5), 520–525.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckl265
Probios. (2016). Eurispes - Italy 2016 Report: Vegetarians and Vegans Increasing - Probios.
Retrieved April 4, 2016, from http://www.probios.it/en/eurispes-italy-2016-report-vegetarians-
and-vegans-increasing/
R Core Team. (2015). European Environment Agency. Retrieved from
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/oxygen-consuming-substances-in-rivers/r-
development-core-team-2006
Reich, J. (2004). Beyond the Latin lover: Marcello Mastroianni, masculinity, and Italian cinema.
Indiana University Press.
Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real Men Don’t Eat (Vegetable) Quiche: Masculinity and the
Justification of Meat Consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363–375.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030379
Rozin, P., Hormes, J. M., Faith, M. S., & Wansink, B. (2012). Is Meat Male? A Quantitative
Multimethod Framework to Establish Metaphoric Relationships. The Journal of Consumer
Research, 39(3), 629–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/664970
Ruby, M. B., Alvarenga, M. S., Rozin, P., Kirby, T. A., Richer, E., & Rutsztein, G. (2016).
Attitudes toward beef and vegetarians in Argentina, Brazil, France, and the USA. Appetite, 96,
546–554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.018
Ruby, M. B., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56(2), 447–450.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.018
Sareen, A. (2013). Interest In Vegan Diets On The Rise: Google Trends Notes Public’s Increased
Curiosity In Veganism. Retrieved April 4, 2016, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/interest-in-vegan-diets-on-the-rise_n_3003221.html
Shiferaw, B., Verrill, L., Booth, H., Zansky, S. M., Norton, D. M., Crim, S., & Henao, O. L.
(2012). Sex-based differences in food consumption: Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance
Network (FoodNet) Population Survey, 2006-2007. Clinical Infectious Diseases : An Official
Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 54(SUPPL.5).
Stavick, J. (1996). Love at first beet: Vegetarian critical theory meats Dracula. The Victorian
Newsletter, 28, 23–29.
Tager, D., & Good, G. E. (2005). Italian and American masculinities: A comparison of
masculine gender role norms. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(4), 264–274.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.6.4.264
Taurino, A. (2003). Identita’ in transizione: Dall’analisi critica delle teorie delle differenza ai
modelli culturali della mascolinita [[Identity in transition: From critical analysis of the theory of
differences to cultural models of masculinity]]. Milano, Italy: Unicopoli.
Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., & Imai, K. (2014). Mediation: R package for
causal mediation analysis.
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 38
The Two Vegans. (2016). Vegan survey: some statistics about our community. Retrieved April
4, 2016, from http://thetwovegans.com/
Urbaniak, G. C., & Kilmann, P. R. (2006). Niceness and dating success: A further test of the nice
guy stereotype. Sex Roles, 55(3-4), 209–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9075-2
Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of
theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029826
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious
manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012453
Vanuzzo, D., & Cardiovascolare, G. D. P. O. E. (2014). La salute cardiovascolare degli italiani.
Terzo Atlante Italiano delle Malattie Cardiovascolari-Edizione 2014. [The Italian cardiovascular
health. The third Italian Atlas of cardiovascular diseases, 2014 Edition]. Giornale Italiano di
Cardiologia, 15(4), 7–31.
Vartanian, L. R. (2015). Impression management and food intake. Current directions in research.
Appetite, 86, 74–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.021
Vartanian, L. R., Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (2007). Consumption stereotypes and impression
management: How you are what you eat. Appetite, 48(3), 265–277.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.10.008
Witt, M. G., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex
Roles, 62(9-10), 635–646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9761-y
Wood, W., Christensen, P. N., Hebl, M. R., & Rothgerber, H. (1997). Conformity to sex-typed
norms, affect, and the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 523–
535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.523
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 39
Table 1.
model
Null 3 993.80
Table 2.
Causal mediation effects. The vegetarian profile was chosen as treatment condition. The Overall
effect represents the total regression coefficient between the treatment variable (eating habits)
and the dependent variable (attractiveness), while the Average Direct Effect (ADE) is the
coefficient of this relation when the mediator is added to the model. The Average Causal
Mediation Effect (ACME) is the coefficient of the mediation. Beta coefficients and 95%
confidence intervals are shown.
β 95 % CI p
Lower Upper
Figures
Figure 1. Interaction between targets’ eating habits and participants’ attitudes towards
vegetarians. Error bands represent 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 2. Causal mediation model of masculinity on the relation between eating habits
and attractiveness. Vegetarian condition was chosen as treatment condition. Vegetarian targets
elicited less masculinity attribution, which was directly correlated to attractiveness. Values in
parentheses represent the relation between the treatment condition (eating habits) and the
dependent variable (attractiveness) when the mediator (masculinity) is added to the model.
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 42
Figure 3. Interaction between Dish Type and Attitudes Towards Vegetarians. Participants
who hold a negative attitude towards vegetarians prefer carnivorous dishes. Error bands
Figure 4. Interaction between Type of dish, Self-Partner choices and the Vegetarian-