This meat or that alternative? How masculinity stress influences food choice when goals are conflicted
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This research integrates literature on masculinity stress-the distress experienced as the result of a perceived discrepancy with male gender norms-with research on goal conflict to examine preferences for plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs). Men experiencing masculinity stress are likely to hold salient a goal of being masculine, which should lead to less preference for PBMAs. However, many of these men simultaneously hold competing goals, such as making ethical food choices, which remain inhibited in favor of the focal masculinity goal. We argue that once men experiencing masculinity stress highlight their masculinity through the selection of a manly product, they satisfy that higher-order goal and are then free to pursue previously inhibited goals, such as making an ethical choice through the selection of PBMAs. Methods: We present the results of three studies supporting these expectations. Study 1 tests the link between masculinity stress and meat (alternative) consumption using consumer search behavior collected from Google Trends, showing that masculinity stress is positively (negatively) correlated with searches for red meat (PBMAs). Study 2 shows that men experiencing masculinity stress are more inclined to choose PBMAs, provided they are presented within a masculine product context. Study 3 presents a parallel mediation model, showing that ethical considerations (as opposed to masculine goals) shape the choice of PBMA preference. Results and discussion: We conclude with a discussion of theoretical implications for the impression management strategies utilized by men experiencing masculinity stress and practical implications for the growing PBMA industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".