Agata Gasiorowska
Michał Folwarczny
Lynn K. L. Tan
Tobias Otterbring- 1Faculty of Psychology in Wroclaw, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland
- 2Department of Business Administration, Reykjavik University, Reykjavik, Iceland
- 3School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University, Singapore, Singapore
- 4Department of Management, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
Consumers often use their food choices as an impression management strategy to signal desirable aspects about themselves to others, especially in public places like restaurants and cafeterias, where the presence of others can promote certain consumption choices and preference patterns. In mating contexts, people prefer gender-typical traits and characteristics in a potential partner. Food options can also be classified according to their gender typicality, with certain alternatives perceived as feminine (e.g., salad, seafood) and with other options perceived as more masculine (e.g., steak, burger). Drawing on impression management theories from the drinking and dining domain and literature on sex differences in human mate preferences, we present a high-powered experiment investigating whether consumers’ preferences for masculine or feminine foods depend on the social setting in which the food consumption takes place: dining with an attractive date (mating) or meeting and eating with friends (non-mating). Participants (N = 162, 46.9% females, 53.1% males; age M = 41.8 years, SD = 14.5) were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions (mating vs. non-mating) and were asked to indicate their food preferences for 15 dishes that differed markedly in perceived femininity/masculinity. Consistent with our theorizing, females (males) generally had a stronger preference for foods perceived as more feminine (masculine), thereby supporting the gender-typicality thesis at the aggregate level. Furthermore, females in the mating condition—but not females in the non-mating condition—reported significantly stronger preferences for more feminine food alternatives. However, in direct contrast to our theorizing, males preferred more masculine meals in the non-mating condition (i.e., when dining with friends), whereas this gender-typical tendency did not emerge in the mating condition (i.e., when dining with an attractive date). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings and present a set of fruitful avenues for future research.
1. Introduction
Imagine you are on a date, dining with someone you find attractive. You pick up the menu and browse through the array of food options. Are you more likely to order a beast burger with greasy fries or a slim salad? What about if you were dining, instead, with friends?
Consumption preferences differ depending on who we dine with [e.g., friends vs. family; (1)] and are highly sensitive to social cues in the dining environment, such as the physique of others (2–7) and their physical attractiveness (3, 8, 9). These variations in food preferences are not random, but are driven by specific motives, such as impression management (10–12). An important dimension of food choice in the context of impression management motives is the extent to which a food option signals masculinity or femininity (13). In other words, depending on the social setting, people may have different preferences for foods that are perceived as either masculine or feminine, as choosing such foods may serve as a self-presentation strategy to convey a positive image of oneself to others. In the current study, we sought to examine consumer preferences along the femininity-masculinity continuum in two distinct social contexts: ordering food on a romantic date and eating out with friends. Further, we sought to examine whether this pattern depends on the sex of the consumer (14, 15).
1.1. Food choices as an impression management strategy
People are constantly behaving in ways that send signals in social settings to elicit desirable (or prevent undesirable) thoughts or reactions from others (16–18), with this tendency being boosted when the motivation to impress others has been activated (19, 20). One such situation is the date, as the presence of a prospective romantic partner activates mating motives, making people more motivated to engage in impression management to improve their own attractiveness and hence increase their chances on the mating market (21–23). For instance, after viewing images of attractive opposite-sex individuals in “first date” setting rather than stimuli devoid of any romantic connotations, women behave more altruistically (20), with these acts of altruism improving others’ attractiveness judgments of seemingly altruistic targets (24).
Importantly, the strategies of self-presentation to a prospective mate often differ by sex. When a mating motive is active, females are more likely than males to engage in beauty-boosting activities. For example, after seeing pictures of attractive-looking (vs. less attractive) males, females show increased motivation to engage in health-threatening activities (e.g., taking diet pills or tanning) that might amplify their attractiveness (25). Moreover, when females are motivated to outcompete same-sex rivals to get access to mates with good financial prospects (e.g., during a recession), their consumption of beauty-enhancing products increases (26). This urge to signal beauty to prospective mates is also evident in the diet domain. Females prefer to consume lower-calorie foods in the presence of a male (vs. female) dining companion (15); possibly reflecting women’s efforts to convey a desirable impression in the presence of a potential romantic partner. In contrast, males are less concerned with how they present themselves on to potential romantic partners on the healthiness dimension in drinking and dining contexts (27, 28). While women eat significantly less junk food in the presence of an attractive (vs. non-attractive) male companion, men’s junk food consumption appear to be uninfluenced by the attractiveness of their female dining companion (29). Corroborating this finding, exposure to more (vs. less) attractive men decreases women’s willingness to spend money on unhealthy food while increasing their inclination to consume healthy meal alternatives, whereas exposure to more (vs. less) attractive women does not influence men’s drinking and dining decisions between healthy and unhealthy foods, although it increases their desire to acquire expensive foods and beverages (8). Thus, there are clear sex differences in what specific impression management strategies people use after exposure to stimuli that triggers a mating mindset, with females typically displaying “lighter” food consumption preferences (e.g., healthier meal alternatives or food options with fewer calories) and with males preferring pricier food alternatives.
These sex differences are consistent with evolutionary theories of human mate preferences. Males more than females have evolved to prioritize potential mates that are physically attractive, whereas females more than males tend to prioritize status, good financial prospects, and high commitment in a potential mate (30–32), as these strategies optimize reproductive outcomes across the sexes. As such, to improve attractiveness, each sex tends to behave following the mate preferences of the opposite sex, with women who radiate cues of beauty and health having better mate-seeking and reproductive outcomes (33, 34) and with men who embody cues of wealth and status enjoying better mate-attraction prospects (35, 36). Moreover, these strategies to appeal to the opposite sex probably come into play in certain food selection situations. After all, many dates involve food consumption. Hence, in the dating context, females are likely to prefer foods that signal attractiveness and health (e.g., healthier and/or lower-calorie options), while males are more likely to prefer food options that demonstrate their wealth. Such strategies have indeed been shown to be effective. Females are judged as more feminine and less masculine when they eat food with a “good reputation” (e.g., oatmeal with fruits and nuts) compared to females who eat foods with a “bad reputation” (e.g., cake), whereas judgments of males’ masculinity/femininity (as well as other traits such as likability, health, and athleticism) do not differ noticeably depending on what they eat (37). Similarly, females who have eaten smaller (vs. larger) meals are judged by others as more feminine, less masculine, and possessing more gender-typical traits. They are also viewed as having more pronounced appearance concerns and a better physical appearance. At the same time, judgments of males do not differ materially based on their described meal size (27).
The evidence presented above largely focuses on third-party evaluations of consumers’ food choices [(e.g., 37, 38)]. In contrast, the current research focuses on first-person preferences in the food domain. Specifically, we test whether and how the social context (mating vs. friendship) may influence consumers’ food preferences. Moreover, while previous literature has investigated whether motives related to mate attraction and affiliation may influence food preferences, such scholarly work has mainly examined consumers’ food choices on the healthiness dimension (healthy vs. unhealthy). As a complement to such prior research, we test how mating and friendship motives may alter food preferences on a different dimension; that is, whether the food itself is perceived as feminine or masculine.
1.2. Strategic choices of masculine or feminine foods
People tend to perceive foods on a gender continuum, and this perception may influence their consumption preferences (29, 39). Feminine foods are characterized by smaller portion sizes, elegant presentation styles, and lower calorie content (e.g., vegetables, dairy products, fruits, or fish), whereas masculine foods have larger portion sizes, rough presentation style, and often include meat (e.g., hamburgers or steaks) (40, 41). Across sexes, red meat is generally associated with masculinity, possibly due to the physical strength associated with its acquisition (42, 43), while healthier foods are associated more with femininity (44). When exposed to cues that convey femininity rather than masculinity, men and women are more inclined to prefer healthy foods, while exposure to cues of masculinity mainly motivates consumers across sexes toward unhealthy foods (45). Therefore, because people generally associate foods with femininity or masculinity, these associations can serve important impression management purposes in various social situations. In this study, we focus on the propensity to choose food perceived as feminine or masculine when having a meal with an attractive potential partner and a meal with friends, respectively.
In the context of mating, sexual dimorphism increases attractiveness (46, 47). In other words, to increase their own attractiveness to potential mates, individuals should conform more closely to gender norms. Accordingly, we expect that both sexes should make food choices that are more gender-typical in a dating context relative to a friendship context. Given the link between femininity and perceptions of health (48, 49), which is strongly valued by males in mate selection (30, 31), females should be more inclined to signal femininity in a dating context than in a friendship context. Healthier and lower-calorie foods are judged as more feminine (40), and females prefer lower-calorie foods when dining with a male (vs. female) companion (15). Thus, it is plausible that females are more inclined to choose feminine foods to increase their attractiveness when in a mating mindset. Based on this rationale, we expect that females’ preferences for more feminine foods should be stronger in a dining situation that involves a date with an attractive person rather than meeting and eating with friends.
Using a similar logic, males should be more likely to signal masculinity to enhance their attractiveness in a dating situation when compared to a friendship setting. Although previous studies have found that third-party judgments of females—more than males—are contingent on their food preferences (27, 37), in theory, it is still beneficial for males to strategically present themselves positively in the presence of a prospective mate. Indeed, males expend high levels of cognitive functioning to impress females, whereas this pattern does not emerge to the same extent among females attempting to impress males (50). Thus, regardless of how perceivers judge males’ self-presentation, it is reasonable to expect males to engage in impression management using food choices in a mating context. When males’ gender is emphasized, those who report high conformity to the norms of being a playboy (i.e., a mating motivation) also report lower consumption of vegetables (51), a food perceived as feminine. Presumably, this avoidance of feminine foods strategically improves their attractiveness to females, at least in short-term mating contexts (23). Indeed, when females are asked to rate omnivorous and vegetarian males, they consider omnivorous males more attractive, with this effect mediated by higher levels of masculinity associated with the omnivores (44). Therefore, we expect that men’s preferences for more masculine foods should be stronger when they go out to eat with an attractive date rather than meeting and eating with friends.
2. Study overview and research hypotheses
In this study, we present participants with pictures of 15 dishes that differ in terms of femininity and masculinity and ask them for their preferences for these foods in a dating or a friendship context. We used a paradigm proposed by Otterbring et al. (52), in which participants are presented with several cues presumably varying on a certain dimension, and evaluate these cues on this dimension—in this project, the perceived masculinity or femininity of a given meal alternative. A “masculinity index” for each meal option and each participant is then used as a moderator of the effects of interest. We hypothesize that experimentally induced impression management motive via a mating (vs. non-mating) context triggers a stronger preference for gender-typical foods. More specifically, we expected that (H1a) females should have a stronger preference for foods they perceive as more feminine (less masculine), while (H1b) males should be more prone to prefer foods they perceive as more masculine (less feminine), with these presumed effects being particularly pronounced in the mating context (date) compared to the non-mating context (dinner with friends) both for females (H2a) and males (H2b).
3. Method
3.1. Participants
We recruited 163 US heterosexual participants who reported no dietary restrictions via Prolific Academic; for the purpose of this study, we requested a sex-stratified sample (age M = 41.7 years, SD = 14.5, range: [19, 93]; Sex: 46.6% females, 52.8% males, 0.6% did not provide information) to take part in an online study in exchange for 0.75 GBP. We excluded one participant whose self-reported sex was neither female nor male because this cell size was too small for meaningful analyses. The final sample included N = 162 (age M = 41.8 years, SD = 14.5, range: [19, 93]; Sex: 46.9% females, 53.1% males).
The relevant literature does not provide a meta-analytic effect size for our predicted effects. Moreover, to our knowledge, no studies have been conducted using a similar manipulation as the one designed for the purpose of the current research. Therefore, given the lack of information regarding the expected strengths of our hypothesized effects and the complexity of power simulations for hypothesized interactions in the context of multilevel modeling (53), we decided to conduct a post-hoc power analysis instead of an a priori power simulation. Post-hoc power analysis using the simr package for R (54) revealed that our final sample size provided a power of 96% to detect our obtained three-way interaction between femininity/masculinity of the available food options, experimental condition, and participant sex, given our analytic approach, the conventional alpha level of 0.05, and our obtained effect size of β = 0.07. The research was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Code of Ethics (Declaration of Helsinki) for human experimentation and was approved by the local ethics committee (decision no. 05/P/01/2022).
3.2. Stimuli development
Before the main study, we pretested and chose the stimuli for the main investigation. Although there are several existing and validated databases in the literature, such as Food-pics (55), these databases generally show simple images of food against a monochrome background. Therefore, to maximize the ecological validity of our study, we created our own set of food stimuli in a restaurant-like setting that included dishes likely to be served in restaurants.
We downloaded 99 images of complex meals arranged similarly to restaurant dishes from websites that grant an irrevocable, nonexclusive, worldwide copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use photographs, such as unsplash.com. Forty U.S. participants who did not take part in the main study (age M = 35.9 years, SD = 18.0; 45.0% females, 55% males) were recruited through Prolific Academic and rated these dishes in terms of masculinity and femininity using a 201-point scale from −100 = “Very feminine” to 100 = “Very masculine” (M = −1.22; SD = 10.93).
We performed multidimensional scaling (MDS) using Jamovi (56, 57). MDS is a multivariate data analysis approach used to visualize the similarity/dissimilarity between the evaluations of objects (here, dishes plotted in a two-dimensional space). We found that the first dimension indeed represented the perceived masculinity or femininity of the foods, while the second dimension seemed to represent whether the dishes presented in the pictures were “ordinary/cheap/canteen style” vs. “classy/expensive/fancy restaurant style.”
Considering that women prioritize cues of status in men (36) and are more inclined to prefer food alternatives with an elegant presentation style themselves (40), males might have been more prone to signal status not only via choosing masculine foods but also through preferences for foods that appear more expensive (8), whereas women could have opted for foods with a classy presentation style rather than food alternatives that mainly conveyed femininity. To control for these confounds, we selected stimuli that differed materially on the first dimension but not considerably on the latter. Therefore, we selected five dishes that participants deemed very feminine (e.g., salads; M = −43.74, SD = 30.01, 95%CI [−53.34, −34.15]), five dishes that were evaluated as relatively neutral in terms of their gender image (e.g., tacos and pasta; M = 1.97, SD = 26.44, 95%CI [−6.48, 10.43]), and five dishes that were considered very masculine (e.g., steak with fries and burger; M = 52.07, SD = 28.89, 95%CI [42.83, 61.31]). All dishes had average scores on the second dimension.
3.3. Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: an outing with friends (n = 84) or a date (n = 78). Then, they were asked to perform two tasks presented in a randomized order. In the first task, participants were presented with the 15 pictures of dishes chosen previously and were asked to indicate whether each of the previously rated foods was feminine or masculine using a sliding scale with 1-point intervals (−100 = “very feminine,” 100 = “very masculine”; M = 1.07, SD = 10.89). In the second task, participants were asked to imagine going out to dinner with friends (non-mating) or going out to dinner with someone they found attractive for a romantic relationship (mating). To strengthen our manipulation, participants were asked to describe the dinner by writing at least 75 characters (about 12 words) about how they would dress and what such an outing with friends would look like or how the date would be [for a similar procedure, see, (e.g., 10, 58–60)]. Next, using a 201-point slider scale, participants had to indicate whether they would order each of the 15 dishes (−100 = “definitely not,” 100 = “definitely yes”). After completing these two tasks, participants provided their demographic data: age and sex.
We refrained from including extensive attention or comprehension checks because we strived to minimize participant fatigue. However, participants were asked to provide a description of an imaginary dinner that was at least 75 characters long. All participants followed these instructions, thus indicating attention. Additionally, participants recruited through Prolific Academic tend to be more attentive and show better task comprehension than individuals recruited through many other crowdsourcing platforms (61, 62). Nevertheless, to further ensure that participants were really paying attention, we embedded a 60-s video showing a cartoon in which an elf gave advice on safe driving in Iceland. Participants were asked to name this character after watching the video. Only four participants were unable to correctly state the character’s name, indicating that they were attentive to the tasks assigned during the experiment.
3.4. Analytic approach
Our data were nested because we measured our dependent variable multiple times; that is, each participant was exposed to and rated 15 foods in total. Therefore, we applied linear mixed models to our data using the lme4 package for R (63). Significance levels were estimated using the lmerTest package (64). We used food preferences as the dependent variable (continuous variable ranging from −100 to 100) and the following variables as predictors (fixed effects), including the interaction terms between them: (1) the rated femininity/masculinity of the foods (continuous variable ranging from −100 to 100), (2) experimental condition (z-scored), and participant sex (z-scored). We added random intercepts for participants and food pictures. After testing the three-way interaction model, we decomposed the interactions to formally test our research hypotheses, as described in the results section [for a similar approach, (see 65)]. All analyses were performed on standardized (z-scored) continuous variables.
4. Results
To test our main hypotheses, we regressed food preferences on food femininity/masculinity, experimental condition, and participant sex, including all interactions between these three predictors.1 Consistent with H1a and H1b, we found a two-way interaction between food femininity/masculinity and participant sex, β = 0.21, 95% CI [0.17, 0.24], p < 0.001, indicating that males (vs. females) generally preferred more masculine (vs. feminine) foods. Moreover, we found a main effect of food femininity/masculinity, such that more masculine foods were generally more preferred compared to less masculine (more feminine) foods, β = 0.06, 95% CI [0.00, 0.12], p = 0.033. The main effect of the experimental condition was non-significant, β = 0.06, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.12], p = 0.083. However, males showed higher food preferences overall than females, β = 0.12, 95% CI [0.05, 0.18], p < 0.001 (i.e., when asked whether they would order each of the featured dishes, the mean score on the sliding scale was higher for males than for females). We also found a two-way interaction between food femininity/masculinity and experimental condition, β = 0.15, 95% CI [0.12, 0.19], p = 0.001, such that more masculine foods were preferred to a greater extent when eating with friends than with a date. There was no interaction between experimental condition and participant sex, β = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.04, 0.09], p = 0.419. Of particular importance for the current investigation, we found a significant three-way interaction between food femininity/masculinity, experimental condition, and participant sex, β = 0.07, 95% CI [0.03, 0.10], p < 0.001 (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The three-way interaction between participants sex, food masculinity-femininity and social context. The dashed lines represent the regression slopes estimated by fitting linear mixed models to our data. The dots represent individual data points.
We decomposed the three-way interaction by performing a simple slopes analysis by participant sex using the interactions package for R (66). For females, we found a significant main effect of food femininity/masculinity, β = −0.09, 95% CI [−0.17, −0.01], p = 0.034, thus further supporting H1a. The main effect of experimental condition was non-significant, β = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.12], p = 0.556. Importantly, we found a significant interaction between experimental condition and females’ food evaluations, β = 0.08, 95% CI [0.03, 0.14], p = 0.003. For females in the non-mating condition, the slope of food femininity/masculinity was non-significant, β = −0.08, 95% CI [−0.16, 0.00], p = 0.057. However, consistent with H2a, this effect was negative and highly significant in the mating condition, β = −0.24, 95% CI [−0.33, −0.16], p < 0.001, suggesting that when females imagined an attractive potential partner, they preferred more feminine (vs. masculine) foods.
For males, in further support of H1b, we found a significant main effect of food femininity/masculinity, β = 0.19, 95% CI [0.11, 0.27], p < 0.001, while the effect of experimental condition was non-significant, β = 0.08, 95% CI [0.00, 0.17], p = 0.066. Importantly, we found a significant interaction between experimental condition and males’ food evaluations, β = 0.22, 95% CI [0.17, 0.26], p < 0.001. For males in the non-mating condition (i.e., those asked to imagine going out to eat with friends), the slope of the femininity/masculinity of the food alternatives was significant and positive, β = 0.46, 95% CI [0.38, 0.55], p < 0.001, indicating that they showed a stronger preference for masculine relative to feminine foods when going out to eat with friends. However, among males in the mating condition (i.e., those asked to imagine eating with an attractive date), the slope of food femininity/masculinity was non-significant, β = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.11], p = 0.425, suggesting that they showed a similar preference for the available food alternatives, regardless of their perceived femininity/masculinity. This leaves H2b unsupported. Surprisingly, males preferred more masculine meals when dining with friends rather than, as we predicted, with a date.
5. Discussion
People change their food preferences depending on the social setting in which meals are consumed (27, 29, 37). In this work, we investigated whether people change their consumption patterns when on a date compared to when they meet and eat with friends. Specifically, we examined how consumer preferences for feminine vs. masculine food options change in each of these settings. Our findings revealed that females (males) reported a stronger preference for foods that they perceive as more feminine (masculine), thus supporting our initial hypotheses (H1a and H1b). We further predicted (as per H2a and H2b) that these gender-typical food preferences should be amplified when a mating (vs. non-mating) motive is activated, such that these preference patterns should be particularly powerful when dining with an attractive date rather than meeting and eating with friends. Supporting H2a, females asked to imagine having a dinner with a date reported significantly stronger preferences for more feminine (less masculine) meal alternatives, with this effect not emerging at the conventional levels of statistical significance among females who were rather asked to dine with friends. These results are consistent with existing theories postulating that sexual dimorphism and the embodiment of gender-typical traits are perceived as more attractive (47, 67). Thus, females seem to strategically seek to enhance their attractiveness to prospective mates by choosing more feminine foods, particularly in mating-relevant contexts.
However, in contrast to H2b postulating that males should prefer more masculine foods when dining with an attractive date rather than with friends, we found the opposite result. Males reported a significantly stronger preference for masculine rather than feminine foods when dining with friends, but not when dining with an attractive date. We elaborate on this unexpected finding below, first commenting on the absence of enhanced preferences for masculine foods among males in the mating context and subsequently on the presence of such preferences in the friendship context.
5.1. Why are males not more prone to prefer masculine foods when dining with a date?
The lack of increased preferences for masculine foods among males in the mating context corroborates some findings showing that males are not evaluated based on their food choices to the same extent as females, at least regarding meal sizes and food healthiness. Females who eat healthy rather than unhealthy foods are judged by third parties to be more feminine, likable, healthier, and more athletic, while these social judgments do not differ for males based on what they eat (37). Furthermore, females consuming smaller (vs. larger) meals are evaluated as more attractive, whereas meal size does not affect judgments of males’ attractiveness (27). These results suggest that food choices might be a source of social evaluation of the attractiveness of females more than males, although the attributes to be conveyed by means of one’s meal choices (beauty and health vs. status and wealth) seem to play a sex-differentiated role in shaping such findings (8, 14).
Our results tentatively point to a new angle to understanding male self-presentation strategies to mates, at least in short-term mating contexts (i.e., dates rather than marriage partners). The result that men in our study were more motivated to prefer masculine foods when dining with friends rather than with a date defies theoretical explanations postulating that men are particularly prone to present themselves in gender-typical ways to attract potential partners. Traditionally, the consumption of meat—especially red meat—is seen as a representation of one’s masculine identity in the traditional, “hegemonic masculinity” sense (68). Although “hegemonic masculinity” is broadly accepted as a social norm and is still widely used (69, 70), its validity for describing contemporary masculinity is increasingly being questioned. Recently, Kaplan et al. (71) proposed a measure of “new masculinity,” conceptualized through a set of components such as holistic mindfulness, challenging masculine norms, authenticity, domesticity and caring, and sensitivity to male privilege—most of which has been associated with femininity rather than masculinity. Moreover, De Backer et al. (72) showed that endorsing such a “new masculinity” norm was associated with a weaker attachment to meat, a greater tendency to reduce meat intake, and less negative attitudes toward vegetarians. In addition, excessive meat consumption is harmful to the environment [(e.g., 73)], and to human health, particularly men’s health (74), a fact consumers are becoming increasingly aware of. Therefore, our results point to a novel self-presentation strategy that (some) males may undertake to attract mates—they possibly present themselves in “new masculinity” terms and might hence become more concerned about the impact of meat consumption on the environment and their own health in mating contexts (e.g., dining with a date) relative to non-mating contexts (e.g., having a feast with friends). To date, however, these reflections are merely based on post-hoc reasoning, underscoring the need for further validation in subsequent research relying on the hypothetico-deductive method, preferably using preregistered designs, predictions, and sample sizes.
Finally, food choices seem more directly associated with health, a highly-valued trait that males seek in females (33). Therefore, the lack of male preferences for more masculine foods that we observed in the mating context may be due to the inability of masculine foods to effectively signal other traits important to females, such as status and wealth (36). Thus, whereas females use food choices as an avenue to improve perceptions of their beauty and health, males might be more strongly evaluated based on cues of status and wealth. It is plausible that males’ food choices influence social judgments of their attractiveness if the foods consumed act as a signal of spending power, as former work suggests (8). Hence, future studies can investigate whether males’ preferences for more expensive drinking and dining options are higher on a date than when they eat out with friends.
5.2. Why are males more prone to prefer masculine foods when dining with friends?
In the current research, we hypothesized that males would report stronger preferences for masculine foods when dining with an attractive date rather than friends. We found the complete opposite. Below, we put forth two plausible explanations for this surprising result.
First, compared to females, males are more motivated to achieve, maintain, and demonstrate social dominance, and this social process occurs primarily when males are with same-sex platonic friends as opposed to (opposite-sex) dates (75–77). Moreover, expectations of norm conformity are more stringent for males than females (78, 79), and these norms in male friendships often include displays of dominance. Corroborating this, threats to males’ manhood—but not females’ womanhood—elicits aggressive cognitions (80). It has also been argued that males’ manhood is difficult to earn, yet easily lost, resulting in males (vs. females) facing larger declines in well-being due to the stress of not meeting certain gender expectations (81). Therefore, males in friendships may face social pressure to conform to masculine gender norms (82). Hence, the stronger preferences for masculine foods among males dining with friends might stem from the fact that strict gender-role expectations are experienced by males when they are with their (presumably, same-sex) friends. It seems plausible that this effect should be most prevalent in males whose friends represent a more traditional view of masculinity. Future research should test this possibility.
Second, some men might strategically choose feminine foods on a date to present themselves as prosocial, caring, or environmentally conscious because these traits influence how attractive they are perceived by women (76), and such choices might still be viewed as a failure to meet to “real” masculine standards and threats to their masculinity. Indeed, compared to males whose masculinity is not threatened, males who feel their masculinity is threatened are more likely to (1) consume red meat because they believe eating red meat can improve their masculinity (83), (2) report higher strength abilities during gym exercises (84), (3) avoid purchasing products with a feminine connotation, such as engaging in green consumption (85), (4) choose more masculine beverages (86), and (5) eat more meat pizza than vegetarian pizza (87). If females expect modern males to be masculine in a “new” rather than a “hegemonic” way, and if males mirror those expectations to impress females in the mating context, then men might use masculine foods as a compensatory strategy to “redeem” their masculinity in the face of their peers. Future research should examine whether males have higher expectations of adherence to traditional gender norms when they are with friends than when they are dating, and whether males perceive adherence to non-traditional norms in a mating context as a threat to their masculinity that must be compensated for subsequently.
5.3. Limitations
There are several limitations in our research that can be improved in future work. First, the study was based on data from a Prolific Academic sample and relied solely on self-report. Although the data quality from online labor markets has been questioned, research shows that self-report data collected on Prolific Academic, if anything, are superior to similar data collected using traditional methods and other crowdsourced online platforms (61, 62). However, while self-report measures such as hypothetical choice, willingness to pay, and behavioral intentions are common in this stream of research and have been found to produce comparable results as those obtained for behavioral variables [(e.g., 3)], it remains to be tested to what extent our results reflect the actual attitudes, judgments, or preferences of our participants. Therefore, despite the fact that we sought to boost the realism of our work by using real food images, as such procedures can compellingly enhance the ecological validity of lab-based experiments (88, 89), future studies should optimally collect data from participants who are not members of online panels, and use behavioral measures and real-life settings to test the effects examined herein (90–93).
Second, we did not account for individual differences that may have influenced our results. Specifically, factors such as the tendency for strategic impression management (94), acceptance of traditional (vs. nontraditional) gender norms or ideologies (71), and the perception of one’s own femininity/masculinity might moderate our obtained results.
Third, our study was restricted to US participants, while preferences for femininity and masculinity in potential mates, and hence the propensity to signal these traits through food choices, might depend on specific ecological conditions that differ across countries and continents (95, 96). For example, prior work has revealed that females prefer more masculine males (67), whereas males prefer more feminine females in countries with better health indices and economic circumstances (46). In contrast, males prefer masculine traits in females under adverse and harsh conditions, where scarcity is prevalent, because masculinity is associated with higher dominance and the ability to acquire resources necessary for survival (46). This pattern demonstrated for country-level data has also been observed at the individual level: after exposure to cues of food scarcity, people generally prefer masculine and calorie-dense foods (40, 41, 97). Therefore, future research should examine how the individual experience of financial threat/hardship (98) and real or anticipated food scarcity/insecurity (97, 99, 100) may increase the tendency to choose masculine foods to enhance attractiveness perceptions and enhance people’s prospects on the mating market.
Fourth, as we sought to rule out presentation style as a design flaw and hence a potential confound to the masculinity or femininity of participants’ preferred food options, we opted for solely choosing food images that did not differ materially in terms of their presentation style. While this decision arguably created a “cleaner” dependent variable that was not confounded by other important dimensions—providing rigor, control, and internal validity—this design decision may also have resulted in lower realism and external validity. Therefore, mixing methods might be important in future research on this topic to maximize not only internal validity but also to boost realism, external validity, and real-world applicability of the theorizing underlying the current research.
Finally, as in previous related research [(e.g., 9, 20, 23)], our study refers to heterosexual mating and relationships. Therefore, considering that we refer to specific types of romantic relationships and binary conceptualization of sex and gender, our results are restricted to those approximately 96 ± 2% of the population whose sexual orientation can be described as heterosexual (101–103). Accordingly, our results cannot necessarily be generalized to the remaining 4 ± 2% of the population, characterized by other sexual orientations, gender identities, and relationships.
6. Conclusion
The current study shows that gender and social context are important factors that determine impression management strategies through food preferences. We demonstrate that females (males) prefer more feminine (masculine) food choices in general. Importantly, females are particularly prone to prefer feminine foods when dining with an attractive date but not when they eat with friends. In contrast, men are materially more inclined to prefer masculine foods when eating with friends but not when dining with a date.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the local ethics committee (decision no. 05/P/01/2022). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication. The order of authorship was determined by the authors’ impression management motivation, after adjusting for their meat preferences.
Funding
This project was financed by a grant from the Institute of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, awarded to AG.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1. ^Participant age did not moderate the impact of experimental condition or participant sex (or their interaction) on preferences for masculine (vs. feminine) foods, thus attesting to the generalizability of our main findings.
References
1. Guidetti, M, Cavazza, N, and Graziani, AR. Healthy at home, unhealthy outside: food groups associated with family and friends and the potential impact on attitude and consumption. J Soc Clin Psychol. (2014) 33:343–64. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2014.33.4.343
2. Döring, T, and Wansink, B. The Waiter’s weight: does a Server’s BMI relate to how much food diners order? Environ Behav. (2017) 49:192–214. doi: 10.1177/0013916515621108
3. McFerran, B, Dahl, DW, Fitzsimons, GJ, and Morales, AC. I’ll have what She’s having: effects of social influence and body type on the food choices of others. J Consum Res. (2010) 36:915–29. doi: 10.1086/644611
4. McFerran, B, Dahl, DW, Fitzsimons, GJ, and Morales, AC. Might an overweight waitress make you eat more? How the body type of others is sufficient to alter our food consumption. J Consum Psychol. (2010) 20:146–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2010.03.006
5. Otterbring, T, Gidlöf, K, Rolschau, K, and Shams, P. Cereal Deal: how the physical appearance of others affects attention to healthy foods. Perspect Behav Sci. (2020) 43:451–68. doi: 10.1007/s40614-020-00242-2
6. Otterbring, T, and Shams, P. Mirror, mirror, on the menu: visual reminders of overweight stimulate healthier meal choices. J Retail Consum Serv. (2019) 47:177–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.11.019
7. Shimizu, M, Johnson, K, and Wansink, B. In good company. The effect of an eating companion’s appearance on food intake. Appetite. (2014) 83:263–8. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.09.004
8. Otterbring, T. Healthy or wealthy? Attractive individuals induce sex-specific food preferences. Food Qual Prefer. (2018) 70:11–20. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.02.014
9. Otterbring, T. Appetite for destruction: counterintuitive effects of attractive faces on people’s food choices. Psychol Mark. (2020) 37:1451–64. doi: 10.1002/mar.21257
10. Folwarczny, M, Otterbring, T, and Ares, G. Sustainable food choices as an impression management strategy. Curr Opin Food Sci. (2022) 49:100969. doi: 10.1016/j.cofs.2022.100969
11. Martins, Y, Pliner, P, and Lee, C. The effects of meal size and body size on individuals’ impressions of males and females. Eat Behav. (2004) 5:117–32. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2004.01.008
12. Roth, DA, Herman, CP, Polivy, J, and Pliner, P. Self-presentational conflict in social eating situations: a normative perspective. Appetite. (2001) 36:165–71. doi: 10.1006/appe.2000.0388
13. Vartanian, LR, Herman, CP, and Polivy, J. Consumption stereotypes and impression management: how you are what you eat. Appetite. (2007) 48:265–77. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.10.008
14. Chan, EY, and Zlatevska, N. Is meat sexy? Meat preference as a function of the sexual motivation system. Food Qual Prefer. (2019) 74:78–87. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.01.008
15. Young, ME, Mizzau, M, Mai, NT, Sirisegaram, A, and Wilson, M. Food for thought. What you eat depends on your sex and eating companions. Appetite. (2009) 53:268–71. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2009.07.021
16. Argo, JJ, Dahl, DW, and Manchanda, RV. The influence of a mere social presence in a retail context. J Consum Res. (2005) 32:207–12. doi: 10.1086/432230
17. Otterbring, T. Peer presence promotes popular choices: a “spicy” field study on social influence and brand choice. J Retail Consum Serv. (2021) 61:102594. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102594
18. Weisberg, J, te'eni, D, and Arman, L. Past purchase and intention to purchase in e-commerce: the mediation of social presence and trust. Internet Res. (2011) 21:82–96. doi: 10.1108/10662241111104893
19. Cheng, Y-H, Huang, MC-J, Chuang, S-C, and Ju, YR. Burger or yogurt? Indulgent consumption in impression management contexts. Int J Psychol. (2015) 50:345–53. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12099
20. Griskevicius, V, Tybur, JM, Sundie, JM, Cialdini, RB, Miller, GF, and Kenrick, DT. Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: when romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2007) 93:85–102. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.85
21. Griskevicius, V, Goldstein, NJ, Mortensen, CR, Cialdini, RB, and Kenrick, DT. Going along versus going alone: when fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2006) 91:281–94. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.281
22. Kowal, M, Sorokowski, P, Pisanski, K, Valentova, JV, Varella, MAC, Frederick, DA, et al. Predictors of enhancing human physical attractiveness: data from 93 countries. Evol Hum Behav. (2022) 43:455–74. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.08.003
23. Sundie, JM, Kenrick, DT, Griskevicius, V, Tybur, JM, Vohs, KD, and Beal, DJ. Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2011) 100:664–80. doi: 10.1037/a0021669
24. Arnocky, S, Piché, T, Albert, G, Ouellette, D, and Barclay, P. Altruism predicts mating success in humans. Br J Psychol. (2017) 108:416–35. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12208
25. Hill, SE, and Durante, KM. Courtship, competition, and the pursuit of attractiveness: mating goals facilitate health-related risk taking and strategic risk suppression in women. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. (2011) 37:383–94. doi: 10.1177/0146167210395603
26. Hill, SE, Rodeheffer, CD, Griskevicius, V, Durante, K, and White, AE. Boosting beauty in an economic decline: mating, spending, and the lipstick effect. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2012) 103:275–91. doi: 10.1037/a0028657
27. Chaiken, S, and Pliner, P. Women, but not men, are what they eat: the effect of meal size and gender on perceived femininity and masculinity. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. (1987) 13:166–76. doi: 10.1177/0146167287132003
28. Otterbring, T, and Rolschau, K. Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder but rarely because of the beer. Personal Individ Differ. (2021) 179:110921. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.110921
29. Mori, D, Chaiken, S, and Pliner, P. “Eating lightly” and the self-presentation of femininity. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1987) 53:693–702. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.693
30. Buss, DM, and Schmitt, DP. Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev. (1993) 100:204–32. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
31. Li, NP, Bailey, JM, Kenrick, DT, and Linsenmeier, JAW. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2002) 82:947–55. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947
32. Shackelford, TK, Schmitt, DP, and Buss, DM. Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personal Individ Differ. (2005) 39:447–58. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023
33. Buss, DM. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci. (1989) 12:1–14. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00023992
34. Walter, KV, Conroy-Beam, D, Buss, DM, Asao, K, Sorokowska, A, Sorokowski, P, et al. Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: a large-scale replication. Psychol Sci. (2020) 31:408–23. doi: 10.1177/0956797620904154
35. Conroy-Beam, D, Buss, DM, Pham, MN, and Shackelford, TK. How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences? Personal Soc Psychol Bull. (2015) 41:1082–93. doi: 10.1177/0146167215590987
36. Townsend, J, and Levy, G. Effects of potential partners’ costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection. J Psychol Interdiscip Appl. (2012) 124:371–89. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1990.10543232
37. Oakes, ME, and Slotterback, CS. Prejudgments of those who eat a “healthy” versus an “unhealthy” food for breakfast. Curr Psychol. (2004) 23:267–78. doi: 10.1007/s12144-004-1001-6
38. Steim, RI, and Nemeroff, CJ. Moral overtones of food: judgments of others based on what they eat. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. (1995) 21:480–90. doi: 10.1177/0146167295215006
39. Kimura, A, Wada, Y, Goto, S, Tsuzuki, D, Cai, D, Oka, T, et al. Implicit gender-based food stereotypes. Semantic priming experiments on young Japanese. Appetite. (2009) 52:521–4. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.002
40. Cavazza, N, Guidetti, M, and Butera, F. Ingredients of gender-based stereotypes about food. Indirect influence of food type, portion size and presentation on gendered intentions to eat. Appetite. (2015) 91:266–72. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.068
41. O’Doherty Jensen, K, and Holm, L. Preferences, quantities and concerns: socio-cultural perspectives on the gendered consumption of foods. Eur J Clin Nutr. (1999) 53:351–9. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600767
43. Rothgerber, H. Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychol Men Masculinity. (2013) 14:363–75. doi: 10.1037/a0030379
44. Timeo, S, and Suitner, C. Eating meat makes you sexy: conformity to dietary gender norms and attractiveness. Psychol Men Masculinity. (2018) 19:418–29. doi: 10.1037/men0000119
45. Zhu, L, Brescoll, VL, Newman, GE, and Uhlmann, EL. Macho nachos: the implicit effects of gendered food packaging on preferences for healthy and unhealthy foods. Soc Psychol. (2015) 46:182–96. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000226
46. Marcinkowska, UM, Kozlov, MV, Cai, H, Contreras-Garduño, J, Dixson, BJ, Oana, GA, et al. Cross-cultural variation in men’s preference for sexual dimorphism in women’s faces. Biol Lett. (2014) 10:20130850. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0850
47. Sidari, MJ, Lee, AJ, Murphy, SC, Sherlock, JM, Dixson, BJW, and Zietsch, BP. Preferences for sexually dimorphic body characteristics revealed in a large sample of speed daters. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. (2021) 12:225–36. doi: 10.1177/1948550619882925
48. Moore, FR, Law Smith, MJ, Taylor, V, and Perrett, DI. Sexual dimorphism in the female face is a cue to health and social status but not age. Personal Individ Differ. (2011) 50:1068–73. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.026
49. Singh, D. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1993) 65:293–307. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.293
50. Karremans, JC, Verwijmeren, T, Pronk, TM, and Reitsma, M. Interacting with women can impair men’s cognitive functioning. J Exp Soc Psychol. (2009) 45:1041–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.05.004
51. Campos, L, Bernardes, S, and Godinho, C. Food as a way to convey masculinities: how conformity to hegemonic masculinity norms influences men’s and women’s food consumption. J Health Psychol. (2020) 25:1842–56. doi: 10.1177/1359105318772643
52. Otterbring, T, Elbæk, CT, and Lu, C. Masculine (low) digit ratios predict masculine food choices in hungry consumers. Food Qual Prefer. (2021) 90:104168. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104168
53. Mathieu, JE, Aguinis, H, Culpepper, SA, and Chen, G. Understanding and estimating the power to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling. J Appl Psychol. (2012) 97:951–66. doi: 10.1037/a0028380
54. Green, P, and MacLeod, CJ. SIMR: an R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods Ecol Evol. (2016) 7:493–8. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12504
55. Blechert, J, Meule, A, Busch, NA, and Ohla, K. Food-pics: an image database for experimental research on eating and appetite. Front Psychol. (2014) 5:617. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00617
56. Jamovi (2022). jamovi—open statistical software for the desktop and cloud. Available at: https://www.jamovi.org/.
57. Seol, H. (2022). SnowCluster [R]. Available at: (Original work published 2020)https://github.com/hyunsooseol/snowCluster.
58. Mittal, C, Griskevicius, V, Simpson, JA, Sung, S, and Young, ES. Cognitive adaptations to stressful environments: when childhood adversity enhances adult executive function. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2015) 109:604–21. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000028
59. Otterbring, T, Folwarczny, M, and Tan, LKL. Populated places and conspicuous consumption: high population density cues predict consumers’ luxury-linked brand attitudes. Front Psychol. (2021) 12:728903. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.728903
60. Young, ES, Griskevicius, V, Simpson, JA, Waters, TEA, and Mittal, C. Can an unpredictable childhood environment enhance working memory? Testing the sensitized-specialization hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol. (2018) 114:891–908. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000124
61. Palan, S, and Schitter, C. Prolific.Ac—a subject pool for online experiments. J Behav Exp Financ. (2018) 17:22–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
62. Peer, E, Rothschild, D, Gordon, A, Evernden, Z, and Damer, E. Erratum to Peer et al. (2021) Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behav Res Methods. (2022) 54:2618–20. doi: 10.3758/s13428-022-01909-1
63. Bates, D, Mächler, M, Bolker, B, and Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. (2015) 67:1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
64. Kuznetsova, A, Brockhoff, PB, and Christensen, RHB. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw. (2017) 82:1–26. doi: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
65. Folwarczny, M, Otterbring, T, Sigurdsson, V, and Gasiorowska, A. Seasonal cues to food scarcity and calorie cravings: winter cues elicit preferences for energy-dense foods. Food Qual Prefer. (2022) 96:104379. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104379
66. Long, J. A. (2019). A comprehensive, user-friendly toolkit for probing interactions. A Comprehensive, User-Friendly Toolkit for Probing Interactions. Available at: https://interactions.jacob-long.com/.
67. Marcinkowska, UM, Rantala, MJ, Lee, AJ, Kozlov, MV, Aavik, T, Cai, H, et al. Women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions. Sci Rep. (2019) 9:3387. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-39350-8
69. Connell, RW, and Messerschmidt, JW. Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gend Soc. (2005) 19:829–59. doi: 10.1177/0891243205278639
70. Sumpter, KC. Masculinity and meat consumption: an analysis through the theoretical Lens of hegemonic masculinity and alternative masculinity theories. Sociol Compass. (2015) 9:104–14. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12241
71. Kaplan, D, Rosenmann, A, and Shuhendler, S. What about nontraditional masculinities? Toward a quantitative model of therapeutic new masculinity ideology. Men Masculinities. (2017) 20:393–426. doi: 10.1177/1097184X16634797
72. De Backer, C, Erreygers, S, De Cort, C, Vandermoere, F, Dhoest, A, Vrinten, J, et al. Meat and masculinities. Can differences in masculinity predict meat consumption, intentions to reduce meat and attitudes towards vegetarians? Appetite. (2020) 147:104559. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104559
73. Walker, C, Gibney, ER, Mathers, JC, and Hellweg, S. Comparing environmental and personal health impacts of individual food choices. Sci Total Environ. (2019) 685:609–20. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.404
74. Nakagawa, S, and Hart, C. Where’s the beef? How masculinity exacerbates gender disparities in health behaviors. Socius. (2019) 5:237802311983180. doi: 10.1177/2378023119831801
75. Gutierres, SE, Kenrick, DT, and Partch, JJ. Beauty, dominance, and the mating game: contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender differences in mate selection. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. (1999) 25:1126–34. doi: 10.1177/01461672992512006
76. Jensen-Campbell, L, Graziano, W, and West, S. Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: do Nice guys really finish last. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1995) 68:427–40. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.427
77. Otterbring, T, Ringler, C, Sirianni, NJ, and Gustafsson, A. The Abercrombie & Fitch Effect: the impact of physical dominance on male customers’ status-signaling consumption. J Mark Res. (2018) 55:69–79. doi: 10.1509/jmr.15.0247
78. Kurt, D, Inman, JJ, and Argo, JJ. The influence of friends on consumer spending: the role of agency–communion orientation and self-monitoring. J Mark Res. (2011) 48:741–54. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.48.4.741
79. MacLean, A, Sweeting, H, and Hunt, K. ‘Rules’ for boys, ‘guidelines’ for girls: gender differences in symptom reporting during childhood and adolescence. Soc Sci Med. (2010) 70:597–604. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.042
80. Stanaland, A, and Gaither, S. “Be a man”: the role of social pressure in eliciting Men’s aggressive cognition. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. (2021) 47:1596–611. doi: 10.1177/0146167220984298
81. Vandello, JA, and Bosson, JK. Hard won and easily lost: a review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychol Men Masculinity. (2013) 14:101–13. doi: 10.1037/a0029826
82. Migliaccio, T. Men’s friendships: performances of masculinity. J Men’s Stud. (2010) 17:226–41. doi: 10.3149/jms.1703.226
83. Mesler, RM, Leary, RB, and Montford, WJ. The impact of masculinity stress on preferences and willingness-to-pay for red meat. Appetite. (2022) 171:105729. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105729
84. Frederick, DA, Shapiro, LM, Williams, TR, Seoane, CM, McIntosh, RT, and Fischer, EW. Precarious manhood and muscularity: effects of threatening men’s masculinity on reported strength and muscle dissatisfaction. Body Image. (2017) 22:156–65. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.07.002
85. Brough, AR, Wilkie, JEB, Ma, J, Isaac, MS, and Gal, D. Is eco-friendly unmanly? The Green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. J Consum Res. (2016) 43:567–82. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucw044
86. Gal, D, and Wilkie, J. Real men Don’t eat quiche: regulation of gender-expressive choices by men. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. (2010) 1:291–301. doi: 10.1177/1948550610365003
87. Lipschitz, LJ, and Herman, CP. Being manly men: conveying masculinity through eating behaviour In: Poster presented the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, poster presented the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Las Vegas, NV: (2010)
88. Morales, AC, Amir, O, and Lee, L. Keeping it real in experimental research—understanding when, where, and how to enhance realism and measure consumer behavior. J Consum Res. (2017) 44:465–76. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucx048
89. Otterbring, T, Folwarczny, M, and Gidlöf, K. Hunger effects on option quality for hedonic and utilitarian food products. Food Qual Prefer. (2023) 103:104693. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104693
90. Baumeister, RF, Vohs, KD, and Funder, DC. Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspect Psychol Sci. (2007) 2:396–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x
91. Doliński, D. Is psychology still a science of behaviour? Soc Psychol Bull. (2018) 13:e25025. doi: 10.5964/spb.v13i2.25025
92. Otterbring, T, Sundie, J, Jessica Li, Y, and Hill, S. Evolutionary psychological consumer research: bold, bright, but better with behavior. J Bus Res. (2020) 120:473–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.010
93. Patterson, ML. Back to social behavior: mining the mundane. Basic Appl Soc Psychol. (2008) 30:93–101. doi: 10.1080/01973530802208816
94. Kacmar, KM, Harris, KJ, and Nagy, BG. Further validation of the Bolino and Turnley impression management scale. J Behav Appl Manag. (2007) 9:16–32. doi: 10.21818/001c.16777
95. Henrich, J, Heine, SJ, and Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci. (2010) 33:61–83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
96. Muthukrishna, M, Bell, AV, Henrich, J, Curtin, CM, Gedranovich, A, McInerney, J, et al. Beyond Western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) psychology: measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychol Sci. (2020) 31:678–701. doi: 10.1177/0956797620916782
97. Folwarczny, M, Otterbring, T, Sigurdsson, V, and Tan, LKL. Naturally green, irrationally lean: how background scenery affects calorie judgments. Food Res Int. (2022) 164:112339. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/jwe24
98. Frankham, C, Richardson, T, and Maguire, N. Psychological factors associated with financial hardship and mental health: a systematic review. Clin Psychol Rev. (2020) 77:101832. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101832
99. Elbæk, CT, Mitkidis, P, Aarøe, L, and Otterbring, T. Honestly hungry: acute hunger does not increase unethical economic behaviour. J Exp Soc Psychol. (2022) 101:104312. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104312
100. Folwarczny, M, Li, NP, Sigurdsson, V, Tan, LKL, and Otterbring, T. Development and psychometric evaluation of the anticipated food scarcity scale (AFSS). Appetite. (2021) 166:105474. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105474
101. Conron, KJ, and Goldberg, SK. Adult LGBT population in the United States Williams Institute (2020) Available at: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/adult-lgbt-pop-us/.
102. Geary, RS, Tanton, C, Erens, B, Clifton, S, Prah, P, Wellings, K, et al. Sexual identity, attraction and behaviour in Britain: the implications of using different dimensions of sexual orientation to estimate the size of sexual minority populations and inform public health interventions. PLoS One. (2018) 13:e0189607. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189607
103. Sharfman, A, and Cobb, P. Sexual orientation, UK:2020—Office for National Statistics, vol. 2020 Sexual Orientation (2022) Available at: https://cy.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2020.
Keywords: impression management, self-presentation, masculine, feminine, gender image, food preferences, sex differences, mating
Citation: Gasiorowska A, Folwarczny M, Tan LKL and Otterbring T (2023) Delicate dining with a date and burger binging with buddies: impression management across social settings and consumers’ preferences for masculine or feminine foods. Front. Nutr. 10:1127409. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1127409
Edited by:
Andrew Scholey, Monash University, AustraliaReviewed by:
Naomi Kakoschke, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), AustraliaDavid Dickinson, Appalachian State University, United States
Copyright © 2023 Gasiorowska, Folwarczny, Tan and Otterbring. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tobias Otterbring, dG9iaWFzLm90dGVyYnJpbmdAdWlhLm5v