A key difference between men and women lies in how they justify meat-eating, according to researchers from Turkey’s Middle East Technical University.
Men tend to rely on direct strategies associated with masculinity – such as viewing meat as necessary for strength and health – while women tend to adopt indirect strategies such as avoiding thoughts about how meat is obtained.
The findings suggest that men who endorse beliefs such as speciesism – the idea that some species are inherently superior to others – tend to consume more meat and justify this behaviour more strongly.
“Compared to men, women reported significantly less meat consumption, endorsed meat-eating justifications less, were less committed to meat consumption, had less social dominance orientation and speciesism,” wrote researchers in BMC Psychology.
The study also found a positive correlation between meat consumption and social dominance orientation (SDO) – an orientation characterised by a preference for hierarchy in society.
These insights come amid a global push for alternative protein sources to support food security.
The findings could help brands and policymakers refine messaging to encourage adoption of alternative proteins, with an understanding of meat-eating psychology as a starting point.
“Future attempts to reduce meat consumption could be informed by these findings in the sense that specific justifications could be targeted and confronted depending on the participants’ demographic characteristics,” researchers said.
How researchers measured meat-eating justifications
The study surveyed 520 participants 18 years or older, with a mean age of 25.43. About 60% were women.
The participants were a mix of undergraduate students (68.6%) and those who had undergraduate or graduate degrees (25.8%).
Researchers used the 4N scale to determine how strongly individuals endorse common meat-eating justifications. Higher scores on the scale indicate stronger endorsement of meat-eating justifications.
The four Ns refer to beliefs that meat consumption is Necessary (a healthy diet requires at least some meat), Nice (meals without meat would be bland and boring), Natural (humans naturally crave meat), and natural (it is normal to eat meat).
They also used the Meat-Eating Justification (MEJ) Scale – a point-system that measures agreement on pro-meat attitudes. Researchers categorised the subscales into direct strategies and indirect strategies that people use to justify meat eating.
Direct strategies include hierarchical justification (“It’s acceptable to eat certain animals because they’re bred for that purpose”), religious justification (“God intended for us to eat animals”), and health justification (“We need meat for a healthy diet”).
The indirect strategies are dissociation (“I do not like to think about where the meat I eat comes from”, avoidance (“I would have problems touring a slaughterhouse”), and denial (“Animals don’t really suffer when being raised and killed for meat”).
Results
Based on the results, researchers found that men reported higher meat consumption than women, and stronger endorsement of masculinity was also associated with eating meat.
The researchers suggest this may be partly explained by psychological and ideological factors, where some individuals justify meat consumption through mind denial (the act of downplaying animals’ ability to think or feel) or by holding beliefs that place humans above other species.
This aligns with prior research findings, which found that men who endorse meat-eating justifications more tend to be older, less educated, have a higher social dominance orientation, display more speciesism, and think less of farm animals.
Researchers also observed that men who consume meat more frequently tend to be younger, have higher social dominance orientation, displayed more speciesism, and endorse meat-eating justifications more.
What this means for the industry
Apart from highlighting the taste experience and sustainability of alternative proteins, brands could also pay attention to the demographic details of their target audience.
The desire to fit into societal moulds – such as endorsing traditional masculinity – appears to be a significant factor that could shape consumption patterns based on the study results.
Supporting these findings, a separate study conducted by Istanbul University found that eating meat was seen as a symbol of masculinity, and vegetarian or vegan diets were perceived to be feminine. The study participants claimed that men who do not eat meat could be “excluded from homosocial circles and activities such as having a barbecue”.
Beyond gender expectations, religious orientation can shape eating behaviours as well.
Researchers believe that those who are more religious appear to be a more resistant demographic for behaviour change interventions although they might not necessarily consume more meat than the average person.
Young educated adults, on the other hand, may be a particularly promising group for interventions since they reported consuming meat most frequently while endorsing fewer justifications.
This pattern suggests that interventions like implementing plant-based defaults or nudges in university dining settings could effectively decrease meat consumption, said researchers.
Source: BMC Psychology
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03490-6
“Meat-eating justifications in Türkiye: cultural adaptation, validation, and correlates of the MEJ and 4Ns scales”
Authors: Ruşen Ali Sayat & Özlem Bozo
