The authors of this study set out to explain a familiar but underexplored pattern: men eat more meat than women. Drawing on surveys from 20,802 participants in 23 countries across four continents, they tested three competing possibilities:

1. The gender gap is universal and roughly stable across cultures;
2. The gender gap narrows as gender equality and human development rise, if cultural gender roles are the primary drivers; or
3. The gender gap actually widens in more developed, more gender-equal societies, mirroring other “paradoxical gender effects” seen in psychology.

Participants indicated how often they ate different food categories on an 11-point scale, and the main outcome was a meat frequency index that averaged consumption of beef, pork, chicken or other fowl, and other land animals.

To measure human development and gender equality, the authors used the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) and World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI). The HDI ranks countries according to the health, level of education, and standard of living of their citizens. The GGGI looks at a country’s gender differences in economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.

The analysis used multilevel models to separate individual-level from country-level variation and to test whether the gender gap shifts with HDI or GGGI, which were included as moderators. Because human development and gender equality are related, the authors tested HDI and GGGI in separate models to better isolate their effects.

The Gender Gap Persists Across Cultures

Across almost every country, men ate meat more often than women. China, Indonesia, and India were the only exceptions. Importantly, this difference was larger in countries scoring higher on human development and gender equality. In short, the paradoxical account fits best: as development and equality increase, the gender gap in meat-eating widens rather than shrinks.

Why Is The Gender Gap So Persistent?

The authors situate this pattern alongside prior findings that gender differences in traits, interests, and self-esteem are often greater in more egalitarian settings. Two explanations are discussed:

• First, greater wealth and opportunity in highly developed, gender-equal societies may allow people to express their underlying preferences more fully.
• Second, “reference group” effects may be at play. That is, in less equal countries, people answering questions about themselves tend to compare themselves to same-gender peers, which can obscure actual gender differences. In more equal contexts, people are more likely to compare themselves to the broader population, which can make gender gaps look larger.

However, the authors note that because they asked participants to report on the frequency of a behavior rather than do a self-assessment, the findings should be less influenced by these reference-group distortions. Thus, the first explanation is more likely.

Limitations

There are some important caveats to consider:

• Relatively few countries were included in the study (and no countries from Africa, for instance), which could have impacted the authors’ ability to tease apart the unique effects of human development versus gender equality.
• The data are cross-sectional self-reports from an online panel, meaning that they captured just a single point in time and didn’t measure actual meat consumption (e.g., portion sizes). The authors can’t isolate causal mechanisms or fully rule out reporting biases, even with careful validity checks and exclusions.
• A total of 164 non-binary participants were removed from analyses, limiting what the authors can conclude about gender diversity and meat consumption.

Even so, the central finding is consistent and theoretically informative: men report more frequent meat consumption than women in almost every country sampled, and that gender gap is larger where gender equality and human development are higher.

Implications

For advocates, several implications follow. The gender gap appears across almost all sampled countries, so programs seeking population-level reductions should plan for different baselines by gender.

Because the gap is largest in wealthier, more gender-equal contexts, the toughest ground may lie in engaging men directly with interventions that make plant-forward choices appealing on their own terms: emphasizing flavor and satisfaction, showcasing culinary skill and social occasions where meat is salient (e.g., grilling, sports gatherings), and addressing protein adequacy and performance without reinforcing stereotypes.

In settings with lower income and greater gender disparity, broad household-level strategies and strong price, convenience, and institutional levers may deliver outsized impact.

Finally, because the outcome here is frequency rather than amount, researchers may consider tracking both to avoid underestimating men’s total intake and to detect changes that start with smaller portions before fewer meat-eating occasions.