Greater conformity to traditional gender roles predicted more frequent consumption of beef and chicken and lower openness to vegetarianism among men but offered no predictive value among women

Gender differences in meat consumption and openness to vegetarianism. Daniel L. Rosenfeld, A. Janet Tomiyama. Appetite, Volume 166, November 1 2021, 105475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105475

Abstract: Understanding gender differences in meat consumption can help strengthen efforts to improve the sustainability of eating patterns. Compared to women, men eat more meat and are less open to becoming vegetarian. Simply considering between-gender differences, however, may overlook meaningful within-gender heterogeneity in how masculine and feminine identities associate with eating behavior. Distinguishing between specific types of meat is also important, given that some meats (e.g., beef) pose greater challenges to sustainability than do other meats. Through a highly powered, preregistered study (N = 1706), we investigated the predictive value of traditional gender role conformity and gender identity centrality for meat consumption frequency and openness to becoming vegetarian. Greater conformity to traditional gender roles predicted more frequent consumption of beef and chicken and lower openness to vegetarianism among men but offered no predictive value among women. No effects were observed for pork or fish consumption. Among women, greater traditional gender role conformity and gender identity centrality were associated with openness to becoming vegetarian for health reasons. Among men, lower traditional gender role conformity was associated with openness to becoming vegetarian for environmental reasons. These findings suggest that understanding meat consumption calls for greater distinctions between specific types of meat as well as deeper consideration of within-gender heterogeneity.

Keywords: MeatVegetarianismEating behaviorGenderSustainability

Check also People tend to belittle the extent of their meat consumption to mitigate the cognitive dissonance triggered by the meat paradox:

Meat‐related cognitive dissonance: The social psychology of eating animals. Hank Rothgerber,  Daniel L. Rosenfeld. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, April 7 2021. https://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2021/04/people-tend-to-belittle-extent-of-their.html