“But I Don’t Eat that Much Meat”

Situational Underreporting of Meat Consumption by Women

in Society & Animals
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



As arguments become more pronounced that meat consumption harms the environment, public health, and nonhuman animals, meat-eaters should experience increased pressure to justify their behavior. The present research further tested the notion that women employ indirect meat-eating justification strategies relative to men, specifically the claim that as a form of self-justification, women would underreport meat consumption when the context called in to question their dietary behavior. Men and women were randomly assigned to a treatment condition in which they were informed that they would watch a PETA documentary about meat production or to a control condition, and then they completed a questionnaire assessing the amount of various meats they consumed. Women reported eating less meat when threatened by watching the documentary, while male estimates were unchanged across conditions. Furthermore, this effect was sensitive to how much participants believed nonhuman animals shared similar emotions to humans.

“But I Don’t Eat that Much Meat”

Situational Underreporting of Meat Consumption by Women

in Society & Animals



  • AdamsC. (1990). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist vegetarian critical theory. New York, NY: Continuum.

  • AllenM. W. & NgS. H. (2003). Human values, utilitarian benefits and identification: The case of meat. European Journal of Social Psychology33(1) 37-56.

  • AllenM. W.GuptaR. & MonnierA. (2008). The interactive effect of cultural symbols and human values on taste evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research35(2) 294-398.

  • AllenM.WilsonM.Ng.S. & DunneM. (2000). Values and beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores. Journal of Social Psychology140(4) 405-423.

  • AspinwallL. G. & TaylorS. E. (1997). A stitch in time: Self-regulation and proactive coping. Psychological Bulletin121(3) 417-436.

  • BanduraA. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues46(1) 27-46.

  • BanduraA. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review3(3) 193-209.

  • BastianB.LoughnanS.HaslamN. & RadkeH. (2012). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin38(2) 247-256.

  • BeermanK.JenningsG. & CrawfordS. (1990). The effect of student residence on food choice. Journal of American College Health38(5) 215-220.

  • BilewiczM.ImhoffR. & DrogoszM. (2009). The humanity of what we eat: Conceptions of human uniqueness among vegetarians and omnivores. European Journal of Social Psychology41(2) 201-209.

  • BockB. C. & KanarekR. B. (1995). Women and men are what they eat: The effects of gender and reported meal size on perceived characteristics. Sex Roles33(1-2) 109-119.

  • BraithwaiteJ. & BraithwaiteV. (1982). Attitudes toward animal suffering: An exploratory study. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems3(1) 42-49.

  • BratanovaB.LoughnanS. & BastianB. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite57(1) 193-196.

  • BroidaJ.TingleyL.KimballR. & MieleJ. (1993). Personality differences between pro- and anti-vivisectionists. Society & Animals1(2) 129-144.

  • ChaikenS. & PlinerP. (1987). Women, but not men, are what they eat: The effect of meal size and gender on perceived femininity and masculinity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin13(2) 166-176.

  • ChinM.FisakB. & SimsV. (2002). Development of the attitudes toward vegetarians scale. Anthrozoos15(4) 332-342.

  • CooperJ. & FazioR. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. Advances in experimental social psychology17229-266.

  • CourtenayW. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science and Medicine50(10) 1385-1401.

  • CunninghamJ. (2009). How many vegetarians are there? Vegetarian Journal29(4) Article 3. Retrieved from http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2009issue4/index.php.

  • EldridgeJ. & GluckJ. (1996). Gender differences in attitudes toward animal research. Ethics and Behavior6(3) 239-256.

  • FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

  • FoerJ. S. (2009). Eating animals. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.

  • GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • GoldbergL. & StyckerL. (2002). Personality traits and eating habits: The assessment of food preferences in a large community sample. Personality and Individual Differences32(1) 49-65.

  • GossardM. & YorkR. (2003). Social structural influences on meat consumption. Society for American Ecology10(1) 1-9.

  • GruzalskiB. (1983). The case against raising and killing animals for food. In H. B. Miller & W. H. Williams (Eds.) Ethics and animals (pp. 251-265). Clifton: Humana Press.

  • HarelN. (2006). Vegetarianism as feminism: Meat as a symbol of male domination. In Anonymous for Animal Rights. Retrieved March 2009 from http://www.anonymous.org.il/efeminism.htmanonymous.org.

  • HenrichJ.HeineS. J. & NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences33(2-3) 61-83.

  • HerzogH. (2011). Some we love some we hate some we eat: Why it’s so hard to think straight about animals. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

  • HewittJ. P. & StokesR. (1975). Disclaimers. American Sociological Review401-11.

  • HolmL. & MohlM. (2000). The role of meat in everyday food culture: An analysis of an interview study in Copenhagen. Appetite34(3) 277-283.

  • HooglandC. T.de BoerJ. & BoersemaJ. J. (2005). Transparency of the meat chain in the light of food culture and history. Appetite45(1) 15-23.

  • How many veggies…? (2007). In European Vegetarian Union. Retrieved March 2009 from http://www.euroveg.eu/lang/en/info/howmany.php.

  • IacobboK. & IacobboM. (2006). Vegetarians and vegans in America today. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

  • JoyM. (2011). Why we love dogs eat pigs and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. San Francisco, CA: Conari Press.

  • KalofL.DietzT.SternP. C. & GuagnanoG. A. (1999). Social psychological and structural influences on vegetarian beliefs. Rural Sociology64(3) 500-511.

  • KellertS. R. & BerryJ. K. (1987). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin15363-371.

  • KnightS.VrijA.CherrymanJ. & NunkoosingK. (2004). Attitudes toward animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoos17(1) 43-62.

  • KubberodE.UelandO.TronstadA. & RisvikE. (2002a). Attitudes toward meat and meat-eating among adolescents in Norway: A qualitative study. Appetite38(1) 53-62.

  • KubberødE.UelandØ.RødbottenM.WestadF. & RisvikE. (2002). Gender specific preferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Quality and Preference13(5) 285-294.

  • LeaE. & WorsleyA. (2001). Influences on meat consumption in Australia. Appetite36(2) 127-136.

  • LeeC. & OwensG. (2002). The psychology of men’s health. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

  • LinderD. E.CooperJ. & JonesE. E. (1967). Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology6(3) 245-254.

  • LoughnanS.HaslamN. & BastianB. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite55(1) 156-159.

  • MayfieldL. E.BennettR. M.TranterR. B. & WooldridgeM. J. (2007). Consumption of welfare-friendly food products in Great Britain, Italy and Sweden, and how it may be influenced by consumer attitudes to, and behaviour towards, animal welfare attributes. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture15(3) 59-73.

  • MoriD.ChaikenS. & PlinerP. (1987). “Eating lightly” and the self-presentation of femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology53(4) 693-702.

  • NorcrossW.RamirezC. & PalinkasL. (1996). The influence of women on the health care seeking behaviour of men. Journal of Family Medicine43(5) 475-480.

  • Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (2008). Putting meat on the table: Industrial farm animal production in America.

  • PlousS. (1993). Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Journal of Social Issues49(1) 11-52.

  • PrättäläR.PaalanenL.GrinbergaD.HelasojaV.KasmelA. & PetkevicieneJ. (2007). Gender differences in the consumption of meat, fruit and vegetables are similar in Finland and the Baltic countries. The European Journal of Public Health17(5) 520-525.

  • RichardsonN.ShepherdR. & EllimanN. (1993). Current and future influences on meat consumption in the U.K. Appetite21(1) 41-51.

  • RobertsP. (2008). The end of food. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

  • RothgerberH. (2012November 12). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. The Psychology of Men and Masculinity doi: 10.1037/a0030379.

  • RozinP.HormesJ. M.FaithM. S. & WansinkB. (2012). Is meat male? A quantitative multimethod framework to establish metaphoric relationships. Journal of Consumer Research39(3) 629-643.

  • RubyM. & HeineS. (2011). Meats, morals and masculinity. Appetite56(2) 447-450.

  • SantosM. & BoothD. (1996). Influences on meat avoidance among British students. Appetite27(3) 197-205.

  • SchiesslM. & SchwagerlC. (August 272008). Meat’s contribution to global warming. In Spiegel Online International. Retrieved Jan 3 2012 from http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0151857475400.html.

  • ScottM. B. & LymanS. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review3346-62.

  • SearsD. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(3) 515-530.

  • ShiferawB.VerrillL.BoothH.ZanskyS. M.NortonD. M.CrimS. & HenaoO. L. (2012). Sex-Based Differences in Food Consumption: Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) Population Survey, 2006-2007. Clinical Infectious Diseases54(Suppl. 5) S453-S457.

  • Signicom. (1997). Dierenwelzijn in de bio-industrie. Amsterdam: Signicom.

  • SilversteinL. B.AuerbachC. F. & LevantR. F. (2002). Contemporary fathers reconstructing masculinity: Clinical implications of gender role strain. Professional Psychology: Review and Practice33(4) 361-369.

  • SlovicP. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making2(2) 79-95.

  • SmartJ. (1995). The gender gap. Vegetarian Times February74-81.

  • SteeleC. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21 pp. 261-302). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • StokesR. & HewittJ. P. (1976). Aligning actions. American Sociological Review838-849.

  • SykesG. M. & MatzaD. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review22(6) 664-670.

  • TaylorS. E. & BrownJ. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin103(2) 193-210.

  • United Nations. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

  • VollumS.Buffington-VollumJ. & LongmireD. R. (2004). Moral disengagement and attitudes about violence toward animals. Society & Animals12(3) 209-235.


  • View in gallery
    Gender differences in consumption by experimental condition

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 108 108 108
Full Text Views 10 10 10
PDF Downloads 7 7 7
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0