See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317630800

Eating Meat Makes You Sexy: Conformity to Dietary Gender Norms and
Attractiveness

Article  in  Psychology of Men & Masculinity · June 2017

DOI: 10.1037/men0000119

CITATIONS READS
0 490

2 authors:

Susanna Timeo Ph.D. Caterina Suitner

University of Padova University of Padova
5 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   585 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Spatial Cognition View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Susanna Timeo Ph.D. on 27 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 1

Eating meat makes you sexy: Conformity to dietary gender norms and attractiveness.

Susanna Timeoa and Caterina Suitnera

a Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, University of Padova, Italy

e-mail corresponding author: susanna.timeo@unipd.it

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-

24th September 2016

EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 2

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,

2015a; Cavazza, Guidetti Butera, 2015b).

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,

Hormes, Faith, & Wansink, 2012).

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

as more feminine (Rozin et al., 2012; Ruby & Heine, 2011).

Up to this point, meat consumption as a strategy of self-presentation and impression-

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

perspective, there is a lack of evidence directly acknowledging meat consumption as a means to

prove or affirm masculinity.

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

(Courtenay, 2000). Therefore, an understanding of the socio-psychological factors that might

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

campaigns may be developed to change this dangerous association.

Vegetarianism and masculinity

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

among the male population.

Following this perspective, in the present research we aimed to investigate socio-

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

link affects mating choices.

In the first study, we investigated how vegetarian males were evaluated by young

women. Specifically, we aimed at exploring whether women would prefer omnivorous or

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

of vegetarian alternatives in food choices. The self-presentation component of meat preference

was investigated by comparing food choices in a romantic vs. alone context.

Study 1

Study 1 investigated the meat-masculinity stereotype from the female perspective,

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

carnivorous and vegetarian dishes on Femininity, Likeability and Frequency of eating on a 6-

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

conformed to it in their eating habits.

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

eating habits were explicitly mentioned among women’s evaluation criteria.

Method

Participants. Based on previous research, we collected a sample that is typically

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

Psychology Ethics Committee at the University.

Procedure. After providing informed consent, participants were asked to complete an

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

sample profile could be as follows:

EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 11

“Alessandro is a 29-year-old guy. He is 1.79 m tall and he weighs 78 kg. He works as 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

mozzarella, and tiramisù”.

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

discussion, 12 items were identified. Of these, 4 items investigated attractiveness (attractive,

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

two-way interactions of all predictors.

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

between omnivores and vegetarians decreased.

- 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

consumption in a population of young Italian females, specifically testing a possible backlash

EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 14

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

evaluating possible mates.

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

variable with extreme caution.

Taking into account all these results, another mechanism of mate selection might have taken

place, namely an ingroup-outgroup effect. In this perspective, omnivorous female participants

EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 15

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

(Potts & Parry, 2010).

In this perspective, the variable Attitudes Towards Vegetarians may be considered a

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

explained by the do-gooder stigma (operationalized as the Attitudes Towards Vegetarians).

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

membership of vegetarian participants, thus fostering intergroup processes (e.g., outgroup-

derogation, do-gooder stigma). A final limitation consists in the poor reliability of the valence

scale, which undermines the validity of the conclusion on this construct.

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.

However, the process underneath this choice needs to be further explored.

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.

In this study, we expected to replicate previous findings, so that a) participants would

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

Psychology Ethics Committee at the University.

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

feminine?”), from 1= Highly masculine to 7= Highly feminine.

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

more positive, the difference between omnivores and vegetarians decreased.

In order to test the influence of the Vegetarian-Femininity Association on the

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

vegetarians became marginally significant, F (1,312) = 3.60, p = .059.

In order to inspect the potential mediating role of Masculinity, we ran a mediation

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

(ADE) of Eating Habits on Attrcativeness was reduced (see Figure 2)1.

- 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

attitudes towards vegetarians.

The second part of our analysis has focused on the ascription of masculinity/femininity

to vegetarian potential mates. Results showed no moderation effect of the endorsement in a

general vegetarianism-femininity association. Instead the attribution of masculinity mediated the

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

of masculinity to the specific target).

EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 21

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

the generalizability of this phenomenon.

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

examined this path in Study 3.

EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 22

Study 3

Study 3 investigated the role of masculinity impression-management in meat

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.

Moreover, since meat consumption might be conceived as a strategy of self-presentation

(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

more participants endorsed the vegetarianism-femininity association.

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-

alcoholic beverages for their partners.

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=

3.47). Research was approved by the ethics committee of the University.

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.,

2015). The choice of menu was analyzed with a log-linear model.

We first tested whether participants endorsed the vegetarian-feminine association, by

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

preferred meat-based dishes (M=3.95, SD=1.34) to vegetarian alternatives (M=2.92, SD=1.54).

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

endorsing a negative attitude towards vegetarians or endorsing a high attribution of femininity to

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,

χ2(1) = 2.47, p=.12.

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.

Beverage ratings. We analyzed the respondents’ beverage choice, running mixed-effect

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

Study 3 analyzed the link between masculinity impression-management and meat

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

vegetarianism-femininity endorsement exacerbated the meat preference, even when controlling

EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 28

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

part of an impression-management strategy.

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

actual meals (Dibb-Smith & Brindal, 2015).

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

generalizability of the present findings.

Although the endorsement of the vegetarianism-femininity association seems to be a

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

by more biological/health-related factors and by more psycho-social and cultural variables.

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

indicator of participant’s conformity to gender norms prescription. Finally, the perceived

healthiness of meat consumption may also be a predictor of men’s food choices.

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

self-presentation strategies, and in particular to manage gender self-identity.

General Discussion

In Western societies people are typically raised on a diet that includes meat and

vegetarianism represents a conversion usually driven by health, ethical or environmental

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

they are used as a self-presentation strategy in order to convey a gender-congruent image of

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

strategy, namely food choice.

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

cycle of meat-eating behavior.

EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 33

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.

Comparison of models based on the AIC criterion.

Comparison with previous

model

Models DF AIC χ2 DF p (>χ2)

Null 3 993.80

Eating Habits+Attitudes 5 979.29 18.513 2 9.55e-05

Eating Habits*Attitudes 6 971.06 10.227 1 0.001384

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.

Average direct and mediation effects (ADE and ACME):

β 95 % CI p

Lower Upper

-.154 -.009 .03

ACME -.077

ADE -.074 -.219 .076 .32

EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 40

Overall -.309 .009 .07

-.151
effect

Figures

Figure 1. Interaction between targets’ eating habits and participants’ attitudes towards
vegetarians. Error bands represent 95% confidence intervals.

β = -.15, p= .04 β = .53, p< .001

Masculinity

Eating Habits Attractiveness

β = -.15, p= .07
(β = -.07, p= .32)
Vegetarian = 1
EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 41

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

represent 95% confidence intervals.

 EATING MEAT MAKES YOU SEXY 43

Figure 4. Interaction between Type of dish, Self-Partner choices and the Vegetarian-

Femininity Association. Error bands represent 95% confidence intervals.

View publication stats