Whether Smaller Plates Reduce Consumption Depends on Who's Serving and Who's Looking: A Meta-Analysis

The literature on whether varying plate size has an effect on consumption is mixed and contradictory.This meta-analysis of 56 studies from 20 papers shows that varying the size of the container holding food (e.g., plate orbowl) has a substantial effect on amount self-served and/or consumed (Cohen’s d 5 .43). More generally, we found adoubling of plate size increased the amount self-served or amount consumed by 41%. Our analysis resolves the variouscontradictions of past reviews: we found that the plate-size effect had a substantial effect on amount self-served (d 5.51) and on amount consumed when the portion was self-served (d 5 .70) or manipulated along with (confoundedwith) plate size (d 5 48). However, plate size had no effect on amount consumed when the portion size was held constant(d 5 .03). Overall, plate size had a stronger effect when participants were unaware that they were participatingin a food study (d 5 .76)

Regional differences in portion size consumption behaviour: Insights for the global food industry

Abstract: Given the influence of globalization on consumer food behaviour across the world, the purpose of this paper is to contribute to the theoretical discourse around food portion size as a global consumption-related symbol and its underlying socio-economic drivers for food industry strategy. Overall, 25,000 global food consumers were surveyed across 24 countries to elicit insight on portion size consumption behaviour as well as consumer perception on eating and drinking small portion size within selected socio-economic classes. The data was quantitatively analysed to answer the pertinent research objectives. In 20 out of the 24 global markets surveyed, large food portion size was statistically established as a prevalent consumption-related symbol. The paper found that there are regional differences in portion size food consumption behaviour, and further disparities exist across age, gender and income status in 24 countries covering all regions, including Australia, China, Mexico, South Africa, United Kingdom and United States of America. The outlined food industry implications reveal that adaptation and standardisation strategies are still relevant in global food and nutrition strategy as revealed by the variations in the preference for food portion sizes across various countries of the world

Is Failing to Plan Always Planning to Fail? When Planning Facilitates Failure

Mental simulation involving envisioning future scenarios in the mind’s eye, has been found to positively impact self-regulatory behavior. In the present research, we questioned whether this is always the case. We find that individuals disengage from the pursuit of goal attainment following process simulation, but not following outcome simulation

The partitioning paradox: The big bite around small packages

© 2015 Elsevier B.V. We replicate the research of Do Vale et al. (2008) and Scott et al. (2008) showing that the diet-conscious tend to eat more when a portion is broken into multiple smaller partitions than when it is unpartitioned. The results show that the partitioning paradox is clearer when diet-consciousness is manipulated than measured. A meta-analysis reveals that the partitioning paradox among the diet-conscious is a medium size effect, but also that partitioning has an opposite and equal size effect on the non-diet conscious: they eat more from the unpartitioned than the partitioned package

Is meat sexy? Meat preference as a function of the sexual motivation system

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd When their sexual motivation system is activated, men behave in ways that would increase their desirability as a mating partner to women. For example, they take greater risks and become more altruistic. We examine the possibility that men's sexual motivation, when elicited, can influence their preference for meat because meat signals status to others, including women—and signalling status is one way to help men achieve their mating goals. We find support for this hypothesis in three studies involving consumption (Study 1) and preference (Studies 2 and 3) for meat. Men's desire for status mediates their liking for meat. In contrast, when their sexual motivation system is activated, women like meat less, possibly since they pursue other strategies such as beauty and health to make themselves desirable to men. Thus, we suggest that evolutionary processes shape food preferences. We discuss the contributions and limitations of our results as well as practical implications for reducing meat consumption—to not only improve one's physical health but food sustainability

Jerkies, tacos, and burgers: Subjective socioeconomic status and meat preference

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd In mankind's evolutionary past, those who consumed meat were strong and powerful and thus man saw meat as indicative of social status. This symbolic connection between meat and status persists today. Thus, based upon psychological theories of compensation, individuals low on subjective socioeconomic status (SES) should have a greater preference for meat, as meat may be substitutable for the status that they lack. Three experiments tested this premise. Participants who felt low on subjective SES preferred meat-based foods compared to participants who felt high on it (Experiment 1). The effect is driven by a desire for status (Experiments 2–3) and not by felt hunger or power (Experiments 1–2) and not generalizable to plant foods (Experiment 3). The results suggest a symbolic link between meat and status, which has intriguingly not yet been empirically shown, and we also demonstrate a consequence of the link for food preference. The results may be of use for doctors who advise eating less meat to improve physical health and for environmental advocates who argue that meat consumption exacerbates global warming. We will also discuss the contributions of and further avenues based on our work

Do Violent Social Cause Advertisements Promote Social Change? An Examination of Implicit Associations

Violent content is used in social cause advertising campaigns as a means of discouraging antisocial attitudes and behaviors, despite the fact that findings regarding the effectiveness of including violence in advertisements are equivocal. The present research explores the efficacy of violent advertisements by investigating how such ads affect implicit associations with violent words/acts. The importance of implicit associations is that they can affect judgments and behaviors long after explicit memory for the advertisement has decayed. The findings of the research point to the prevalence of individual differences in response to violent ads. Specifically, social cause advertisements are effective in weakening implicit associations with violence for nonaggressive individuals, as would be desired. However, these campaigns strengthen implicit associations for aggressive individuals. Ameliorating their aggressive associations would be advantageous both to the individual and society; however, the results suggest such advertisements make matters worse. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Mandatory Calorie Disclosure: A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Effect on Consumers and Retailers

© 2017 In 2018 restaurants in the United States will need to provide calorie information on their menus as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In the present research, we examine the efficacy of this legislation in reducing restaurant based food calorie consumption. Specifically, we explore the likely effect of the new policy on both the supply and demand side, that is, consumer and retailer behaviors. To achieve this, two studies are included in this research: a meta-analysis of 186 studies investigating the effect of calorie disclosure on calories selected, and a meta-analysis of 41 studies examining the effect of calorie disclosure on calories offered by retailers. Across these two studies we reveal a significant and unequivocal calorie disclosure effect for menu labels; disclosure results in both fewer calories selected (−27 Calories) and fewer calories offered by retailers (−15 Calories)