Plate Size and Color Suggestibility: The

Delboeuf Illusion’s Bias on Serving and

Eating Behavior

KOERT VAN ITTERSUM

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

BRIAN WANSINK

Despite the challenged contention that consumers serve more onto larger din-
nerware, it remains unclear what would cause this and who might be most at risk.
The results of five studies suggest that the neglected Delboeuf illusion may explain
how the size of dinnerware creates two opposing biases that lead people to over-
serve on larger plates and bowls and underserve on smaller ones. A countercyclical
sinus-shaped relationship is shown to exist between these serving biases and the
relative gap between the edge of the food and the edge of the dinnerware. Although
these serving biases are difficult to eliminate with attention and education, changing
the color of one’s dinnerware or tablecloth may help attenuate them. By showing
that the Delboeuf illusion offers a mechanistic explanation for how dinnerware size
can bias serving and intake, we open new theoretical opportunities for linking
illusions to eating behavior and suggest how simple changes in design can improve
consumer welfare.

T here is a growing belief that the size of dinnerware

influences how much people serve and consume during
a single serving occasion. Indeed, the three largest health-
nerware simply has less food capacity (Rozin et al. 2003).
Yet even when plates and bowls are exaggeratedly large and
capacity is not a constraint, the average consumer—includ-
related websites—WebMD.com (86 million visitors per ing dieticians and nutrition experts—consistently serves
month), NIH.gov (31 million), and Medicinenet.com (14 more onto relatively larger dinnerware than onto relatively
million)—each recommend that consumers replace larger smaller dinnerware (Wansink 2006). Knowing why this oc-
dinnerware with smaller dinnerware to reduce consumption. curs will enable useful, low-involvement interventions to
A seemingly obvious initial explanation is that smaller din- be developed for health-care professionals, policy makers,
dishware designers, dieters, and responsible parents.
Koert Van Ittersum ([email protected]) is associate From a consumer welfare perspective, the effect of din-
professor of marketing, Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Man- nerware size on serving behavior is significant, since the
agement, Atlanta, GA 30308-1149. Brian Wansink ([email protected]) average size of a sample of dinner plates increased almost
is John S. Dyson Professor of Marketing, Cornell University, Charles H. 23%, from 9.6 inches to 11.8 inches, since 1900 (see fig.
Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Ithaca, NY 14853- 1). Should the size of a plate or bowl encourage a person
7801. Correspondence: Koert Van Ittersum. The authors are grateful for to eat only 50 more calories a day, the resulting mathematical
the generous support of the Illinois Attorney General. The authors thank
Pierre Chandon, Ronald C. Goodstein, and Collin R. Payne for their val-
increase in weight would be approximately 5 pounds each
uable comments on earlier drafts of this article. Special thanks to Melanie year. Whereas we know that the shape of a glass (or cylinder)
Yakemovic for creating the stimuli used in study 1. Thanks also to Brandon can influence visual perceptions of volume (Chandon and
Antic, Lynda Chang, Stephen He, Tony Hsu, Melissa Lau, Carter Posey, Ordabayeva 2009; Raghubir and Krishna 1999), serving be-
Matthew Queen, Bonnie Shaw, Daniel Sheehan, Kushal Sukthankar, Bruria havior, and consumption (Wansink and Van Ittersum 2003,
Miron, and Clark Hale for their assistance with data collection. Finally, 2005), it is not known when and why this might happen
the authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful input of the editors and with dinnerware, and what could most easily be done to
reviewers throughout the review process. prevent it.
John Deighton and Mary Frances Luce served as editors and Joel Huber In 1865, Delboeuf documented a puzzling perceived dif-
served as associate editor for this article. ference in the size of two identical circles when one of the
circles was surrounded by a much larger circle and the other
Electronically published November 11, 2011
one was surrounded by only a slightly larger circle. We
215

䉷 2011 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. ● Vol. 39 ● August 2012

All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2012/3902-0001$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/662615
216 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 1

THE SIZE OF AMERICAN-MANUFACTURED PLATES APPEARS TO INCREASE FROM 1900 TO 2010

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

NOTE.—To investigate this general trend, we plotted the dates and the sizes of all the different American dinner plates being offered for sale
on eBay.com on March 31, 2010. Among this sample frame of distinct American plates (N p 75), the basic correlation between date and dinner
plate size was r p 0.59 ( p ! .01).

propose that the well-established perceptual biases described this, a field experiment investigates the robustness of these
by this Delboeuf illusion may explain how and why the size biases in a luncheon context. Key findings for health pro-
of dinnerware causes serving biases that occur meal by meal. fessionals, public policy makers, and responsible parents are
Such biases imply an important interplay between percep- outlined along with a range of suggestions that may help
tions and compensating serving behavior. In turn, this sug- improve consumer welfare.
gests that not all consumers may be similarly influenced by
environmental cues, but it might be magnified by situational HOW PERCEPTUAL ILLUSIONS BIAS
variables. There are four contributions of this research.
SERVING SIZE ESTIMATES
1. It introduces the Delboeuf illusion as a neglected
but possible explanation for the link between the Despite contentions that dinnerware size positively influ-
size of dinnerware and serving biases. ences serving and consumption behavior, it remains unclear
2. It extends the Delboeuf illusion from the perceptual why this might happen. This lack of understanding hinders
to the behavioral domain, thereby helping refute the a deeper investigation that could suggest key moderating
notion that there are separate visual pathways for conditions and simple, straightforward solutions to the po-
perception and action that prevent visual illusions tential problem. For instance, it remains unclear why Wan-
from having behavioral consequences (Franz et al. sink, Van Ittersum, and Painter (2006) found that even nu-
2000). tritional experts (nutrition professors and graduate students)
3. It theorizes and demonstrates that there is a greater served and ate more at an ice cream social when given larger
tendency for consumers to be mindlessly influenced dinnerware, while Rolls et al. (2007) found people eating
by these environmental cues if they are distracted, in isolated tasting booths did not.
unaware, or uneducated. When investigating the visual perception literature in this
4. It demonstrates how the color contrast between the area, it is striking to note the resemblance between a plate
food, the dinnerware, and the tablecloth influences filled with food and the two concentric circles that constitute
the Delboeuf illusion. the Delboeuf illusion (compare the top two rows of fig. 2).
As indicated earlier, Delboeuf (1865) demonstrated an in-
This research is organized as follows. First, the Delboeuf teresting perceived difference in size between two identical
illusion is introduced as a potential explanation for the link circles when one was surrounded by a much larger circle
between the size of dinnerware and serving behavior and and the other one was surrounded by only a slightly larger
consumption. Second, four lab studies examine the opposing circle. His finding may help resolve the puzzle of dinnerware
biases resulting in underserving and overserving. Following size and serving biases.
PLATE SIZE AND COLOR SUGGESTIBILITY 217

FIGURE 2 The Delboeuf illusion is illustrated in the second row of

figure 2. Here the same-sized central circle (the test circle)
DINNERWARE SIZE AND THE DELBOEUF ILLUSION appears smaller when surrounded by a much larger con-
centric circle (the inducing circle) than when instead sur-
rounded by only a slightly larger concentric circle. A non-
standard version of this illusion is presented in the third row
of figure 2, where the test circle on the right appears to have
the same size as the test circle on the left—even though the
left test circle actually is 20% larger. The Delboeuf illusion
is visually robust with two-dimensional objects—the illu-
sion is shown to exist for perfectly concentric circles but
also for eccentric circles and, for instance, noncircular

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

shapes such as squares, triangles, and rectangles (Weintraub
and Cooper 1972; Weintraub and Schneck 1986).
It is well established that the Delboeuf illusion is caused
by contrast and assimilation (Coren and Girgus 1978; Ni-
colas 1995; Oyama 1960; Ward and Lockhead 1970, 1971).
More specifically, the pool and store theory explains this
illusion based on the relative size of the gap between the
test and the inducing circle (Goto et al. 2007; Jaeger and
Lorden 1980; Nicolas 1995; Roberts, Harris, and Yates
2005). When the gap between both circles is relatively small
and both circles are perceived as a whole (Morinaga 1935),
individuals holistically pool and assimilate them in the short-
term sensory store, leading the test circle (see fig. 2, second
row) to be perceived as larger than it actually is (Girgus
and Coren 1982). When the gap between both circles is
relatively large and both circles are perceived as two separate
percepts, individuals emphasize the differences between
them and contrast both circles during the encoding process
(Weintraub, Wilson, and Greene 1969), leading the test circle
(see fig. 2, third row) to be perceived as smaller than it
actually is (Pollack 1964). Although some variation exists
based on the absolute size of the stimuli (Nicolas 1995),
people are believed to be most susceptible to assimilation
when the ratio between the diameters of the test and inducing
circle is close to 0.67 (Piaget et al. 1942), and they are
believed to be most susceptible to contrast when this di-
ameter ratio is closer to 0.33 (Gentaz and Hatwell 2004;
Ogasawara 1952).
The main objective here is to determine whether the well-
established perceptual biases associated with the Delboeuf
illusion have a corresponding effect on serving behavior.
Our main contention is that the Delboeuf illusion biases
consumers’ ability to accurately determine how much food
they need to serve to reach the target serving size they would
otherwise typically serve and consume. Consider two con-
sumers (A and B) who independently intend to serve them-
NOTE.—Food on large vs. small plate (first row); standard Delboeuf selves identical target serving sizes of cereal (see fig. 2,
illusion (second row); nonstandard Delboeuf illusion (third row); fourth row). Consumer A serves into a relatively large bowl,
estimation and serving biases (fourth row). while consumer B serves into a relatively smaller bowl that
still holds a nonbinding capacity. The gray circle in the
fourth row of figure 2 represents the exact same target serv-
ing size both consumers typically serve if no biasing influ-
ence existed. The relatively larger gap between the edges
of the serving size and the bowl—associated with diameter
ratios smaller than 0.5—leads consumer A to encode and
218 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

contrast the circle information of the serving size and the anism. For instance, both assimilation and contrast effects
bowl when envisioning the target serving size into the large have been shown to be weakened by manipulating the color
bowl (Nicolas 1995). As a result, we hypothesize she will contrast of the inducing circles (Oyama 1960; Weintraub
perceive the target serving size to be smaller than its actual and Schenck 1986). Reducing the color contrast of the in-
size (Pollack 1964) and compensate by overserving herself. ducing circle (e.g., by using gray instead of black lines)
The opposite is expected for consumer B. The relatively lowers the salience of and thus participants’ reliance on the
smaller gap between the edges of the serving size and the circle when judging the test circle (Weintraub and Cooper
bowl—associated with diameter ratios larger than 0.5— 1972). This reduced reliance on the inducing circle has a
leads consumer B to holistically pool and assimilate the corresponding effect on estimation biases (Coren and Girgus
circle information of the serving size and the bowl (Jaeger 1972) for circles as well as other figure-ground illusions (Li
and Lorden 1980). As a result, we hypothesize he will per- and Guo 1995). Thus, reducing the color contrast of the
ceive the target serving size to be larger than its actual size inducing circle—for instance, by placing a white plate on

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

(Ward and Lockhead 1971) and compensate by underserving a white versus black tablecloth—should reduce assimilation
himself. Therefore, and contrast effects, and serving biases, because consumers
are more likely to ignore a low color-contrast-inducing cir-
H1: When the diameter ratio between the target serv- cle.
ing size and the dinnerware is:
H2: Reducing the color contrast between dinnerware
H1a: smaller than 0.5 (but larger than 0, which is typ- and a tablecloth:
ical with larger dinnerware), consumers serve
more than the target serving size. H2a: reduces overserving when the diameter ratio be-
tween the serving size and the dinnerware is
H1b: larger than 0.5 (but smaller than 1, which is typical smaller than 0.5 (but larger than 0), typically
with smaller dinnerware), consumers serve less with larger dinnerware.
than the target serving size.
H2b: reduces underserving when the diameter ratio
When the diameter ratio approaches zero (i.e., the di- between the serving size and the dinnerware is
ameter of the serving size approaches zero) or one (i.e., the larger than 0.5 (but smaller than 1), typically
diameter of the serving size approaches the diameter of the with smaller dinnerware.
dinnerware), perceptual biases disappear because there is no
longer contrast and assimilation. This suggests that the per-
ceptual biases for the entire range of diameter ratios can be Increasing people’s attention to biasing stimuli may either
presented by a sinus shape (see fig. 3). With these perceptual exacerbate or attenuate the associated biases (Raghubir
biases driving consumers’ serving behavior, we expect to 2008). In the context of visual illusions, it has been shown
find an inverse pattern for serving biases. that making people mindful of the stimuli involved, without
If assimilation and contrast effects drive the hypothesized making them aware of the actual influence of the stimuli,
serving biases, existing research on these perceptual biases helps reduce the associated biases (Coren and Girgus 1978).
may be helpful in better understanding the underlying mech- The basic explanation of this effect of attention is related

FIGURE 3

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DIAMETER RATIO OF THE SERVING SIZE AND DINNERWARE
AND THE ESTIMATION AND CORRESPONDING SERVING BIASES
PLATE SIZE AND COLOR SUGGESTIBILITY 219

to the movements of the eyes that, through continued in- STUDY 1: THE EFFECT OF
spection, allow for cognitive recalibration (Coren and Hoe- THE DELBOEUF ILLUSION
nig 1972).
ON SERVING BEHAVIOR
H3: Attention to the target serving size and the din- To test hypothesis 1, an experiment was conducted with 225
nerware: students (44.9% female) at the Georgia Institute of Tech-
nology. Their average age was 21.1 years (range 19–35).
H3a: reduces overserving when the diameter ratio be-
tween the serving size and the dinnerware is
smaller than 0.5 (but larger than 0), typically Design and Procedure
with larger dinnerware.
Study 1 consisted of a between-subject design with seven

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

bowl-size conditions. All participants were shown a target
H3b: reduces underserving when the diameter ratio
serving size of Campbell’s tomato soup in a petri dish (d p
between the serving size and the dinnerware is 9 centimeters). The diameter of 9 centimeters closely re-
larger than 0.5 (but smaller than 1), typically sembles the diameter of one serving of soup in a standard
with smaller dinnerware. soup bowl with a diameter of 18 centimeters. Next, partic-
ipants were asked to serve soup with the exact same 9-
Serving oneself food is a frequent activity that often oc- centimeter diameter in one of seven randomly assigned
curs in distracting environments. Even if we found that mak- bowls of different sizes. After a short break, participants
ing people more mindful of the target serving size and din- were asked to determine to what extent the diameter of a
nerware would help attenuate serving biases, informing pre-serving of soup in one of seven randomly assigned
consumers that they simply need to pay attention when serv- bowls was smaller or larger than the diameter of a target
ing themselves may not be practical. Educating consumers serving of soup (d p 9 centimeters).
specifically about the Delboeuf illusion and how it might A professional potter was hired to create two sets of cus-
bias serving may be a more feasible and effective strategy. tom-made white bowls according to specification. The di-
That is, people are generally unaware of the effect of din- ameters of the bowls were determined based on the desired
nerware size on serving behavior (Wansink and Van Ittersum ratios between the target and the bowl diameter. Research
2003), let alone what causes it. While there is research to has shown that the maximum under- and overestimation
suggest that education may lead to overreactive overcon- takes place at ratios of about 0.33 and 0.67. To capture these,
sumption (Martin, Seta, and Crelia 1990), we expect that the range of ratios studied was 0.25–0.75 (ratios beyond
educating consumers about the Delboeuf illusion and its 0.75 and 0.25 result in unrealistically small and large serving
effect on serving behavior allows them to be more con- sizes and bowls). We included one bowl that resulted in a
sciously involved and reduce or even eliminate the effects diameter ratio of 0.50, which research suggests may be the
(Coren and Girgus 1972; Raghubir 2008). Research suggests transition point between under- and overestimation. We ex-
that expertise reduces biases in a variety of domains (Shan- pected that the average bias for this bowl will be close to
teau 1992; Shanteau and Stewart 1992). Research on the zero. The diameters and the ratios between the target di-
effectiveness of educating people on the presence and effects ameter and the diameter of the bowl are included in figure
of illusions also suggests that education reduces biases. 4.
However, Wansink and Van Ittersum (2005) report that while Upon entering the lab, participants were informed that
education reduces serving biases associated with pouring they would be presented with a petri dish of soup and asked
to reproduce the target diameter of soup by pouring soup
drinks in differently shaped glasses, it did not eliminate
into a bowl. Participants were then guided to a station in
them.
the lab where they were presented with the 9-centimeter
H4: Education about the Delboeuf illusion: petri dish filled with tomato soup on a white tablecloth and
asked to take a good look at the target diameter of soup.
Next, participants walked to a different station, where they
H4a: reduces overserving when the diameter ratio be- found one of the seven white bowls on a Bordeaux red
tween the serving size and the dinnerware is tablecloth and a white hot pot (with a cap) that was filled
smaller than 0.5 (but larger than 0), typically with 40 ounces of tomato soup. Participants picked up the
with larger dinnerware, but it does not eliminate hot pot and poured tomato soup in the bowl until they felt
overserving. that the soup in the bowl reached the same diameter as the
target diameter. Next, participants were asked to take a seat
H4b: reduces underserving when the diameter ratio while the researcher measured the diameter of the poured
between the serving size and the dinnerware is soup with a digital inside caliper and cleaned the bowl.
larger than 0.5 (but smaller than 1), typically Following a short break, participants were guided to a
with smaller dinnerware, but it does not elimi- different station in another part of the lab to start the per-
nate underserving. ceptual task. After participants took a look at the target
220 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 4

ESTIMATION AND SERVING BIASES AS A FUNCTION OF THE DIAMETER RATIO OF THE TARGET SERVING SIZE AND BOWL SIZE

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

NOTE.—The asterisks in the figure show whether the bias is significant (( 0); * p ! .10; ** p ! .05; *** p ! .01.

diameter of soup, they walked over to another station with ratios, for readability purposes we implicitly refer to dif-
a bowl of prepoured soup. The size of the bowl was ran- ferences in diameter ratios based on larger versus smaller
domized. The soup in the bowl had the exact same diameter bowls (noting that the target serving size is constant across
as the target diameter. Next, participants were asked to de- conditions).
termine whether and how much smaller or larger the di- If the Delboeuf illusion drives these pouring biases, a
ameter of the soup in the bowl was than the target diameter. reversal should be found for the estimation biases. The re-
They could use a magnitude scale to mark how much smaller sults confirm this. First, analysis of variance revealed a sig-
or larger the diameter of the soup in the bowl was. After nificant main effect for bowl size (F(6, 218) p 15.9, p !
the participants were done, they were asked for their gender .01). Participants perceived the diameter of the pre-served
and age. serving size in the smaller bowls to be 8.9% larger than the
diameter of the target serving (t(93) p 7.93, p ! .01), while
Results and Discussion the opposite is found for the larger bowl (⫺8.6%, t(91) p
Analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect ⫺5.18, p ! .01). Participants estimating the diameter of the
for bowl size (F(6, 218) p 42.26, p ! .01). Consistent with pre-served soup in the control bowl overestimate by an in-
hypothesis 1a, participants poured 8.2% less in the three significant 0.8% (t(38) p 0.60, p 1 .10).
smaller bowls (diameter ratios 10.5 and !1) than the target To gain a more detailed understanding of the mechanism
serving size (t(95) p ⫺10.49, p ! .01). As illustrated in that drives these main effects, we next examined whether
figure 4, participants poured 9.9% more in the three larger and how these serving and estimation biases relate to the
bowls (diameter ratios !0.5 and 10), thereby confirming ratio between the target and bowl diameters (as visualized
hypothesis 1b (t(96) p 8.89, p ! .01). Those who poured in fig. 3). First, consistent with expectations, the results (see
in the control bowl (diameter ratio p 0.5) poured an insig- fig. 4) suggest that the relationship between the diameter
nificant 0.9% less than the target serving size (t(31) p ⫺.91, ratios and the serving biases follows a sinus shape. As would
p 1 .10). While technically we test the effect of diameter be expected, this shape is reversed for estimation. Both re-
PLATE SIZE AND COLOR SUGGESTIBILITY 221

lationships can be captured almost perfectly by a three- Results and Discussion

degree polynomial model (estimation bias: R2 p .99; serv-
ing bias: R2 p .98). Furthermore, the polynomial model Analysis of variance revealed a significant main effect
significantly outperforms the linear model for both esti- for plate size (F(1, 43) p 4.37, p ! .05) and a significant
mation bias (DF(2, 3) p 120.7, p ! .01) and for serving interaction effect between plate size and color contrast (F
bias (DF(2, 3) p 40.2, p ! .01). In both polynomial models, (1, 43) p 6.22, p ! .05). Between-subject tests using the
all three coefficients are significant ( p ! .01). Second, the data of the first serving task further confirmed these findings.
estimation and serving biases follow an inverse pattern, sug- Planned comparisons showed that participants in the high
gesting that perceptual biases drive the serving biases. Fi- color-contrast condition served 9.8% more than the target
nally, the results suggest that these biases are largest when serving size on the larger plate (t(46) p 5.27, p ! .01) and
the ratios between the target and bowl diameter approach 13.5% less than the target serving size on the smaller plate
0.33 and 0.67, respectively, and the biases approach zero (t(46) p 5.66, p ! .01; see fig. 5). The reduction in color

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

when the diameter ratio approaches 0.50. contrast significantly reduced overserving on large plates
The results show a countercyclical relationship between (9.8% vs. 0.3%; F(43) p 3.98, p ! .05), thereby confirming
estimation biases and serving biases. This shows a double hypothesis 2a. Consistent with hypothesis 2b, the reduction
jeopardy of bowl size: while big bowls lead to overserving, in color contrast reduced underserving on small plates
small bowls lead to underserving for the same reason. This (⫺13.5% vs. ⫺4.7%; F(43) p 4.06, p ! .05). Note that a
notion of assimilation and contrast is further explored in significant underserving bias is still observed in the low
study 2 by manipulating contextual contrast. color-contrast condition (⫺4.7%; t(46) p 3.24, p ! .05).
The effect of plate size remains significant in the low color-
contrast condition (F(1, 46) p 7.83, p ! .01). Between-
STUDY 2: THE EFFECT OF COLOR subject tests using the data of the first task further supported
these findings.
CONTRAST BETWEEN DINNERWARE Consistent with existing literature that suggests that the
AND TABLECLOTH AND THE DELBOEUF perceptual biases caused by assimilation and contrast can
ILLUSION ON SERVING BEHAVIOR be mitigated by reducing the color contrast of the inducing
circle and its background, the results of study 2 demonstrate
The results of study 1 suggest that assimilation and contrast the corresponding effects of this strategy on actual serving
cause people to under- and overserve on smaller and larger biases. The results corroborate that assimilation and contrast
bowls, respectively. To provide additional evidence for the facilitate perceptual biases that subsequently result in op-
proposed mechanism driving these serving biases and ex- posing serving biases.
amine hypothesis 2, study 2 manipulated the color contrast
of the dinnerware against its background. It involved 47 STUDY 3: THE EFFECT OF ATTENTION
Georgia Tech students (40.4% female) with an average age
of 21.7 (range 18–26 years).
AND THE DELBOEUF ILLUSION ON
SERVING BEHAVIOR INTENTIONS
To strengthen and generalize the results of studies 1 and 2
Design and Procedure and test hypothesis 3, a third experiment was conducted
with 91 students (42.2% female) at the Georgia Institute of
Study 2 consisted of a 2 # 2 design where we manip- Technology. Their average age was 21.6 years (range 18–
ulated diameter ratio with bowl size (small vs. large) and 27).
color contrast (low vs. high) as within-subject experimental
factors. All participants were shown a target serving size of Design and Procedure
cereal (d p 10.5 centimeters, 15 grams of cereal) and asked
to reproduce this circle on two small (d p 17.0 centimeter) Study 3 involved a 2 # 2 design where we manipulated
and two large plates (d p 26.4 centimeter) with an identical diameter ratio with plate size (small vs. large) and one’s
depth (1.75 centimeter) by serving themselves cereal with degree of focused attention (low vs. high) as within and
the same diameter. In the context of pouring or serving between-subject experimental factors, respectively. All par-
food, one way that color contrast might naturally vary ticipants were shown a target serving size of cereal (d p
would be through the contrast between the plate and its 10.5 centimeters, 15 grams of cereal) and asked to draw a
surroundings—this could be the color of the table or the circle with the same diameter as the target serving size on
tablecloth. To manipulate the color contrast of the inducing a smaller (d p 17.0 centimeters) and larger plate (d p 26.4
circle (plate), we placed white plates on a white tablecloth centimeters) with an identical depth (1.75 centimeters), both
(low color contrast) versus a black tablecloth (high color of which were presented in different stations in the lab. Half
contrast). The four conditions were spread out over four of the participants were asked to enter the station, take a
adjacent labs. The order was randomized, and no order ef- brief glance at the stimuli (2 seconds or less), and then draw
fects were found. The weights of all serving sizes were the circle (control condition). The other half were asked to
recorded. take 1 minute (using a 1-minute timer) to inspect both stimuli
222 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 5

LOW COLOR CONTRAST BETWEEN PLATE AND TABLECLOTH REDUCES OVER- AND UNDERSERVING
ON LARGER AND SMALLER PLATES

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

NOTE.—The diameter of the target serving size is 10.5 centimeters; * p ! .10; ** p ! .05; *** p ! .01.

and then draw the circle. The diameters of the serving circles STUDY 4: THE EFFECT OF EDUCATION
they drew were calculated by averaging two orthogonal di- AND THE DELBOEUF ILLUSION
ameter measures (r p .98).
ON SERVING BEHAVIOR
Results and Discussion To test whether education about the Delboeuf illusion elim-
inates perceptual biases, an experiment was conducted with
Analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction be- 101 students (41.6% female) at the Georgia Institute of Tech-
tween plate size and attention (F(1, 85) p 16.27, p ! .01). nology. Their average age was 21.6 years (range 18–39).
Planned comparisons showed that participants in the control
condition served 8.3% more than the target serving size on
the larger plate (t(43) p 6.51, p ! .01), thereby confirming Design and Procedure
hypothesis 1a. In line with hypothesis 1b, participants served
11.2% less than the target serving size on the smaller plate Study 4 consisted of a 2 # 2 design where we manip-
(t(43) p 9.68, p ! .01). ulated diameter ratio with plate size (small vs. large) and
As figure 6 shows, attention significantly reduced the Del- education (uneducated vs. educated) as within and between-
boeuf illusion’s effect on serving behavior from a ⫺11.2% subject experimental factors, respectively. Participants were
⫹ 8.3% p 19.5% serving bias to a ⫺7.2% ⫹ 1.0% p presented with the target serving size of cereal (d p 10.5
8.2% serving bias. Free inspection of the stimuli reduced centimeters, 15 grams of cereal) and asked to serve them-
both the assimilation associated with smaller plates (F(1, selves the exact same amount of cereal on both a smaller
85) p 4.71, p ! .05) and the contrast associated with larger (17.0 centimeters) and a larger plate (26.4 centimeters) with
plates (F(1, 85) p 6.58, p ! .05). Consistent with hypothesis an identical depth (1.75 centimeters; presented in different
3a, attention reduced overserving on larger plates (1.0% ≈ stations in the lab). Prior to the serving task, half the par-
0; t(46) p .56, p 1 .10). In line with hypothesis 3b, attention ticipants were informed about the Delboeuf illusion—the
reduced underserving on smaller plates from 11.2% to 7.2% biases were explained and visualized—and its effect on serv-
(t(43) p 2.57, p ! .05). ing behavior. The weights of all serving sizes were recorded.
Making people mindful of the target serving size and plate
size reduces the effects of the Delboeuf illusion. Despite Results
these promising results, one could question the practicality
of asking consumers to pay close attention when they serve Analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction ef-
themselves. A more effective strategy may be to explicitly fect between plate size and education (F(1, 99) p 6.65, p
educate consumers about how the Delboeuf illusion biases ! .05). Planned comparisons revealed that education reduced
behavior. To examine this and test hypotheses 4a and 4b, the effect of the Delboeuf illusion on serving behavior from
study 4 was conducted. a ⫺10.6% ⫹ 7.1% p 17.7% serving bias to a ⫺4.4% ⫹
PLATE SIZE AND COLOR SUGGESTIBILITY 223

FIGURE 6

ATTENTION REDUCES SERVING BIASES

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

NOTE.—The diameter of the target serving size is 10.5 centimeters; * p ! .10; ** p ! .05; *** p ! .01.

4.3% p 8.7% serving bias (see fig. 7). Plate size influenced given larger bowls served 32.5% more cereal than those
serving behavior, but less so among educated participants. given smaller bowls (70.7 vs. 51.6 grams; F(1, 80) p 16.54,
Consistent with hypotheses 4a and 4b, education reduced p ! .01). Consistent with the empirical generalization that
both the assimilation associated with smaller plates (F(1, people, on average, will consume around 92% of what they
99) p 5.97, p ! .05) and the contrast associated with larger serve themselves (Wansink 2006, 59), 97.3% of the diners
plates (F(1, 99) p 4.01, p ! .05). Furthermore, in accor- in these three field studies consumed all they had served.
dance with expectations, education does not eliminate over- Despite the fact that these three field studies demonstrate
serving on larger plates (4.3% 1 0; t(48) p 2.50, p ! .05) that the size of dinnerware influences serving and con-
nor underserving on smaller plates (⫺4.4% ! 0; t(48) p sumption behavior, they do not provide direct evidence that
⫺2.11, p ! .05). the Delboeuf illusion is actually driving these results. To
more closely examine whether the robustness of the Del-
boeuf illusion holds up in real-life serving situations, we
Discussion of Studies 1–4 conclude with a field experiment involving adults who
The results of studies 1–4 suggest that the well-estab- served themselves lunchtime pasta during a college reunion.
lished contrast and assimilation biases that constitute the
Delboeuf illusion have corresponding influences on serving
behavior. The results soundly refute the notion that reported STUDY 5: THE EFFECT OF COLOR
dinnerware-size effects represent a main effect (Wansink et CONTRAST BETWEEN FOOD AND
al. 2006). Instead, the seemingly main effect of dinnerware DINNERWARE AND THE DELBOEUF
size is the joint outcome of two opposing forces that lead ILLUSION ON SERVING BEHAVIOR
consumers to serve more than a target serving size on large
dinnerware and less than a target serving size on small On the first day of a college reunion in upstate New York,
dinnerware. we directed 60 (30 female) lunch goers to a buffet table
Different food intake studies in the field have shown re- where they served themselves pasta that was premixed with
sults consistent with what the Delboeuf illusion would pre- a red tomato sauce or to a buffet table where they served
dict. First, Wansink et al. (2006) demonstrated that when themselves pasta that was premixed with a cream-based
85 nutrition experts were given a larger bowl, they served white Alfredo sauce. At each of these tables, they were
themselves 31.0% more (6.3 vs. 4.8 ounces, F(1, 80) p randomly given a white plate or a dark red plate.
8.05, p ! .01). In a second field study, involving 113 over- If the Delboeuf illusion influences serving behavior as
weight teenagers at a 6-week health and fitness camp in studies 1–4 suggest, we would expect to find that lunch
New Hampshire, the authors found that those given larger goers serving themselves white (red) sauce pasta on a white
bowls served 27.8% more cereal at breakfast than those (red) plate serve a different amount than those serving white
given smaller bowls (49.6 vs. 38.8 grams; F(1, 112) p (red) sauce pasta on a red (white) plate. The rationale for
27.24 , p ! .01). In a third study, similar results were found this is that differences in color contrast between the pasta
with 81 adult jazz musicians attending a 3-day jazz impro- and the plate influence the Delboeuf illusion, depending on
visation camp in western Massachusetts. Those who were the size of the plate. Study 2 showed that reducing the color
224 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

FIGURE 7

EDUCATION OF THE BIAS MITIGATES BUT DOES NOT ELIMINATE SERVING BIASES

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

NOTE.—The diameter of the target serving size is 10.5 centimeters; * p ! .10; ** p ! .05; *** p ! .01.

contrast of the inducing circle relative to its background premixed with a white cream-based Alfredo sauce while the
(white plate on a white tablecloth) reduces the magnitude other half served themselves pasta that was premixed with
of the Delboeuf illusion. However, reducing the color con- a red tomato-based sauce. After they finished serving them-
trast of the test circle relative to the inducing circle (e.g., selves, their pasta was weighed by hidden scales, and they
white-sauce pasta on white plate) has shown to increase the then continued through the line to serve themselves a bev-
magnitude of the Delboeuf illusion (Weintraub and Cooper erage and dessert.
1972) as the low color-contrast test circle increases the need According to the Food Guide Pyramid and the Diabetic
for the visual comparisons. This will increase one’s tendency Exchange System, a serving of pasta is one-half cup of
to overserve onto larger dinnerware and to underserve onto cooked pasta (114.3 grams), which closely resembles the
smaller dinnerware. This is confirmed in a lab experiment size of a fist (d p 8.3 centimeters). The diameter ratio of
resembling study 2. Participants serving white cereal on a this serving size and the plate (d p 27.3 centimeters) is
small white plate underserved themselves more than partic- 0.30, which stimulates contrast and thus overserving under
ipants serving dark cereal (⫺19.4% vs. ⫺12.0%; F(1, 86) high color-contrast conditions (see study 1). In accordance
p 7.1, p ! .01). Likewise, participants serving white cereal with the research by Weintraub and Cooper (1972), we ex-
on a large white plate overserved themselves more than pect participants in the low color-contrast conditions (white-
those serving dark cereal (17.3% vs. 9.8%; F(1, 86) p 5.7, sauce pasta on white plate; red-sauce pasta on red plate) to
p ! .05). overserve themselves significantly more pasta than those in
the high color-contrast conditions.
Design and Procedure
Results and Discussion
Upon entering the serving area, participants were ran-
domly led to one of two buffet tables. One table only offered Consistent with expectations, participants in the low color-
pasta in a white cream-based Alfredo sauce; the other table contrast conditions overserved significantly more pasta than
only offered pasta in a red tomato-based sauce. Participants those in the high color-contrast conditions (182.7 vs. 140.6
were not aware that the two tables offered different flavors grams; F(1, 58) p 7.92, p ! .01). Figure 8 illustrates that
(colors) of pasta sauce. Once in line at the buffet, each people overserved themselves more pasta when given the
participant was randomly given either a large dark red plate same color plate (i.e., white-sauce pasta on a white plate,
or a white plate of equal diameter (27.3 centimeters). Plate or red-sauce pasta on a red plate) than when given a con-
size was kept constant to minimize the chance of lunch goers trasting color plate (i.e., white-sauce pasta on a red plate,
becoming suspicious. We chose larger plates to examine or red-sauce pasta on a white plate).
whether using high-contrasting larger dinnerware could help The serving sizes in the two low color-contrast conditions
consumers reduce their food intake compared to those using did not differ. Lunch goers overserved as much red-sauce
low-contrasting larger dinnerware. pasta on red plates as they did white-sauce pasta on white
Half of the lunch goers served themselves pasta that was plates (184.0 vs. 181.5 grams; F(1, 27) p .01, p 1 .20).
PLATE SIZE AND COLOR SUGGESTIBILITY 225

FIGURE 8

HIGH COLOR CONTRAST BETWEEN PASTA AND A PLATE REDUCES OVERSERVING AT A COLLEGE REUNION

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

*
Note.— p ! .10; ** p ! .05; *** p ! .01.

Similarly, the serving sizes in the two high color-contrast plain why they also tend to underserve when using smaller
conditions did not differ. Lunch goers overserved as much ones.
red-sauce pasta on white plates as they did white-sauce pasta These results uniquely suggest a range of characteristics
on red plates (141.5 vs. 139.8 grams; F(1, 29) p .23, p 1 that could moderate the influence of external cues (see table
.20). Consistent with earlier findings, in both conditions, 1). It was found that attention and education may reduce
people overserved themselves relative to the recommended the overserving (underserving) biases associated with serv-
serving size (141.5 grams 1 114.3 grams; t(16) p 2.05, p ing on larger (smaller) bowls and plates. Furthermore, while
! .05; 139.5 vs. 114.3; t(13) p 1.83, p ! .05). reducing the color contrast between the dinnerware and its
This important field study shows converging results with background may help reduce over- and underserving biases,
what was found in the lab studies. In combination, these increasing the color contrast between the food and the din-
findings underscore the behavioral consequences of percep- nerware actually may accomplish this as well. We conclude
tual biases. Over time and with repeated meals, the gradual that the Delboeuf illusion offers a key explanation as to why
impact on one’s weight gain would be significant. and when the size of dinnerware influences serving-size
perceptions, serving behavior, and consumption.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Despite the apocryphal contention that dinnerware size in- Theoretical Implications
fluences serving behavior and food consumption, until now
it was unclear why this might be. This lack of understanding Environmental cues—such as dinnerware size—signifi-
has hindered the systematic research of how this—and a cantly bias food intake. By extending the Delboeuf illusion
wider range of environmental cues—might influence serv- from the perceptual to the behavioral domain, we help refute
ing behavior, and it precluded the ability to reconcile con- the notion that there are separate visual pathways for per-
tradictory findings. ception versus action that prevent visual illusions from hav-
Importantly, findings reported here empirically demon- ing behavioral consequences (Franz et al. 2000). Research
strate that the Delboeuf illusion may explain why and how on the behavioral implications of visual illusions has been
dinnerware size influences serving behavior. For nearly 150 mixed. This lack of consistency has been used as supporting
years, the Delboeuf illusion has been regarded as robust, evidence that there may be separate visual pathways for
but “of little practical value” (Coren and Girgus 1978). In perception and action (Franz et al. 2000). However, a grow-
the context of serving behavior, however, it takes on an ing body of research refutes this idea, suggesting—but not
undiscovered dimension of everyday importance. By intro- showing—that visual illusions can have behavioral conse-
ducing the Delboeuf illusion as a possible explanation and quences (Watt, Bradshaw, and Rushton 2000). Finding a
extending it from the perceptual to the behavioral domain, context in which we empirically validate the behavioral con-
the studies have shown how the illusion biases serving size sequences of the Delboeuf illusion constitutes a significant
perceptions, serving behavior, and consumption. Whereas theoretical contribution to this literature. Importantly, these
contrast effects explain why consumers tend to overserve results not only corroborate the idea that the Delboeuf il-
when using larger bowls and plates, assimilation effects ex- lusion may explain why and how dinnerware size causes
226 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 1

MODERATORS OF OVERSERVING AND OVERCONSUMPTION

Moderating characteristics Impact on serving behavior Related references

Contrast-level between the stimuli Low color-contrast between the dinnerware and the table- Weintraub and Cooper 1972;
cloth reduces overserving on larger plates and under- Weintraub and Schenck 1986
serving on smaller plates
Low color-contrast between the food and the dinnerware in-
creases overserving on larger plates
Attention level of the server Attention reduces overserving on larger dinnerware and un- Coren and Girgus 1978
derserving on smaller dinnerware
Education level of the server Education reduces overserving on larger dinnerware and Coren and Girgus 1978
underserving on smaller dinnerware

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

serving biases; they also offer opportunities for consumers bias perceptions?
and companies to cope with dinnerware-size-induced biases. 3. Which designs or colors of a plate or bowl’s ridge
Understanding this mechanism can enable researchers to influence size estimations?
identify and examine possible moderating variables that may
explain inconsistencies reported in the literature. For in-
stance, referring back to table 1, people who are paying little Limitations and Future Research
attention to how much they serve might be particularly sus-
ceptible to being biased by the size of their dinnerware. For These results demonstrate how the size of dinnerware
instance, this would be more likely to occur when people people use to serve themselves may significantly influence
at a celebratory ice cream social serve themselves vanilla how much food they consume on a day-to-day basis. They
ice cream into a white bowl than when they serve themselves also importantly document the vulnerability of children.
oatmeal every morning in a distraction-free kitchen. As an What makes this especially troublesome is that consumption
example, when comparing the results of Wansink et al. norms that develop early in life may continue to influence
(2006) and Rolls et al. (2007), the former studied serving consumers throughout their lives.
biases during a distracting afternoon ice cream social, while One issue with perceptual biases is that they appear hard-
the latter research was conducted with adults repeatedly eat- wired to the point of generally being nonconscious (Folkes
ing lunch in an isolated cubicle with no distractions. Indeed, and Matta 2004). Because of this, it is difficult to pinpoint
the distractions found in natural environments should also the underlying process that causes dinnerware size to bias
lead a person to spend more time focused on cues (such as serving-size perceptions, serving behavior, and consump-
dinnerware size) and less focused on the absolute amount tion. During debriefings, participants described that they first
served (Wansink and Van Ittersum 2007). Indeed, the field approximated how much they needed to serve to reach the
studies of teenage dieters and jazz musicians showed that target serving size onto their plate. Focusing on the serving
both groups served an average of 30% more breakfast cereal diameter as opposed to the serving height of the food (Kri-
when the size of their bowls was doubled (15.2 to 21.4 der, Raghubir, and Krishna 2001), they then noted that they
centimeters in diameter). Finally, even the color contrast served themselves until they served their target serving size.
between the dinnerware and the table or the food and the Future lab research can continue to develop and experiment
dinnerware has an important bias that can lead to inconsis- with relevant process measures and boundary conditions.
tencies. It would be valuable if future work in this area However, this must be balanced with the risk of obtrusive-
noted the color of food, plates, and the background of the ness and artificiality, which may have biased some previous
service area where a person served themselves. studies in clinical settings or in lab experiments.
Over 150 years ago, the Delboeuf illusion was thought To expand our understanding of the effects of the Del-
to be of little practical use. The findings here suggest that boeuf illusion in real life, future research could examine
it could be highly relevant in considering new ways to op- whether and how the perceptual and serving biases affect
erationalize variations in dinnerware design. Whereas these postconsumption satisfaction with food products. The effect
studies only varied the size and color of the dinnerware, of the Delboeuf illusion in social settings, where serving
there are a wide range of design elements that provide op- norms may influence serving behavior, may provide addi-
portunity for more extensive theory development as well as tional insights into factors that may reduce plate-size sus-
have promising applications. These include: ceptibility. Finally, a closer examination of some of the
boundary conditions may be warranted. While research has
1. How does the diameter of the verge ring (the point shown that the Delboeuf illusion is robust in labs and in the
where a plate or bowl’s interior surface goes from field studies, it is important to note that none of these in-
flat to sloped) influence perceptions and serving be- dividuals have gone through extended periods of food dep-
havior? rivation. When a person has experienced food shortages or
2. Does the diameter band on the lip of a bowl or plate food insecurity—due to poverty, famine, imprisonment, or
PLATE SIZE AND COLOR SUGGESTIBILITY 227

natural disaster—the influence of these illusions may be less While replacing larger dinnerware with smaller dinner-
robust. ware reduces how much all consumers eat, it may have a
It has frequently been asked whether the color of din- disproportionate influence on certain segments of consum-
nerware influences serving. This question presupposes that ers. Consider children. When children serve themselves,
there is one best color dinnerware to reduce overeating. they underserve themselves the most when serving onto
Importantly, our findings show that it is not the color of smaller plates (Van Ittersum and Wansink 2007). In addition,
dinnerware that makes the difference; it is the color contrast the smaller norms suggested by smaller dinnerware could
between the color of the food and the color of the plate, or lead to healthier consumption benchmarks for children as
the color of the plate and the color of the table. This twist they grow. Replacing larger dinnerware with smaller din-
helps explain why past investigations of color have not been nerware will reduce plate size and personal consumption
successful. If the contrast of the food and the size of the norms, something that might benefit children for the re-
plate were not taken into account, results would be incon- mainder of their lives (Wansink and Van Ittersum 2007).

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

sistent across different foods, plate colors, and backgrounds. Food costs and food waste can have a nontrivial impact
on household budgeting. In addition to helping control food
Consumer-Related Implications consumption, smaller dinnerware also may reduce house-
hold food waste. It could even occasionally help a parent
It is often assumed that education and vigilance are ef- stretch leftovers or manage the perception that there is plenty
fective tools to reduce one’s consumption and combat obe- to eat when an unexpected guest arrives for dinner.
sity. With dinnerware-size-induced biases, our results are In contrast to most of the prior discussion, there may be
less sanguine. Attention and education reduced but did not instances when it is beneficial to replace smaller with larger
eliminate these biases. Educating people and stimulating dinnerware. For instance, a parent may want his or her child
them to be vigilant may temporarily reduce their biases, but to eat more hot oatmeal, and a dietician may want nursing
in similar illusory contexts, even practice trials and im- home patients to consume more stew or applesauce in the
mediate reminders were unable to erase them. cafeteria. In these cases, larger bowls and plates are likely
Given the robustness of dinnerware-size-induced biases, to encourage more consumption than the smaller ones that
it may be best to simply encourage people to replace larger might be currently used. Under these circumstances, the
bowls and plates with smaller ones. This research demon- added capacity of the larger dinnerware is immaterial. The
strates that replacing larger dinnerware with smaller din- increased size, however, does help induce a serving bias that
nerware reduces the likelihood of overserving (and actually unknowingly stimulates people to serve more than they
increases the likelihood of underserving) relative to a per- otherwise would have. Just as nutrition gatekeepers (Wan-
sonal consumption norm. Importantly, based on what has sink 2003) can use the size of dinnerware to help manage
been suggested elsewhere, this decrease in intake may not how much those in their care eat, dieters can use a similar
lead to decreased satisfaction. It could simply lead consum- strategy on themselves. As a general rule of thumb, the size
ers to satisfy their hunger while unknowingly eating less of dinnerware should vary proportionally with the health-
food. fulness of what is being consumed—small plates for entrees
In cases where replacing larger dinnerware is difficult, and large plates for salads.
the color of the dinnerware may offer opportunities to reduce Consumers eat from plates and out of bowls without
consumption. Someone who owns larger dinnerware in dif- thinking how their size proportionally influences how much
ferent colors may want to choose the color that highly con- they serve and eat. The solution to our tendency to overeat
trasts with the food he is serving to minimize overserving from larger plates and bowls is not simply education. In the
biases. Furthermore, consumers could still help control their midst of hardwired perceptual biases, a more straightforward
serving behavior by selecting tablecloths that minimize the action would be to simply eliminate large dinnerware—
contrast with the dinnerware. By minimizing the color con- replace our larger bowls and plates with smaller ones. Al-
trast between the dinnerware and the tablecloth, overserving ternatively, use bowls and plates that contrast with the color
biases may reduce. of the food being served. For emphasis, it may be easier to
An important danger to note is with individuals who have change our personal environments than to change our minds.
eating disorders or who otherwise need to eat more to main- For some people, however, this is critical.
tain their health (such as the elderly). The tendency of these
people would be to take smaller dinnerware. Yet just as
larger dinnerware leads to overserving (compared to what
would be typical), smaller dinnerware leads to underserving. REFERENCES
The result is that smaller dinnerware would lead these vul-
Chandon, Pierre, and Nailya Ordabayeva (2009), “Supersize in One
nerable populations to serve and consume even less than Dimension, Downsize in Three Dimensions: Effects of Spatial
they otherwise would. One possible solution is to provide Dimensionality on Size Perceptions and Preferences,” Journal
these people with larger dinnerware. Alternatively, provide of Marketing Research, 46 (6), 739–53.
them with dinnerware that contrasts with the food, or replace Coren, Stanley, and Joan S. Girgus (1972), “A Comparison of Five
the tablecloth with one that minimizes the color contrast Methods of Illusion Measurement,” Behavior Research and
with the dinnerware. Instrumentation, 4 (5), 240–44.
228 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

——— (1978), Seeing Is Deceiving: The Psychology of Visual Raghubir, Priya (2008), “Are Visual Perception Biases Hard-
Illusions, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. wired?” in Visual Marketing, ed. Michel Wedel and Rik Pie-
Coren, Stanley, and Paul Hoenig (1972), “Effect of Non-target ters, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 143–66.
Stimuli on Length of Voluntary Saccades,” Perceptual and Raghubir, Priya, and Aradna Krishna (1999), “Vital Dimensions
Motor Skills, 34 (2), 499–508. in Volume Perception: Can the Eye Fool the Stomach?” Jour-
Delboeuf, Franz Joseph (1865), “Note sur certaines illusions nal of Marketing Research, 36 (August), 313–26.
d’optique: Essai d’une théorie psychophysique de la manière Roberts, Brian, Mike G. Harris, and Tim A. Yates (2005), “The
dont l’oeil apprécie les distances et les angles” [Note on cer- Role of Inducer Size and Distance in the Ebbinghaus Illusion,”
tain optical illusions: Essay on a psychophysical theory con- Perception, 34 (7), 847–56.
cerning the way in which the eye evaluates distances and Rolls, Barbara J., Liane S. Roe, Kitti H. Halverson, and Jennifer
angles], Bulletins de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, Lettres S. Meengs (2007), “Using a Smaller Plate Did Not Reduce
et Beaux-arts de Belgique, 19, 2nd ser., 195–216. Energy Intake at Meals,” Appetite, 49 (3), 652–60.
Folkes, Valerie, and Shashi Matta (2004), “The Effect of Package Rozin, Paul, Kimberly Kabnick, Erin Pete, Claude Fischler, and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/39/2/215/1795747 by guest on 30 November 2022

Shape on Consumers’ Judgments of Product Volume: Atten- Christy Shields (2003), “The Ecology of Eating: Smaller Por-
tion as a Mental Contaminant,” Journal of Consumer Re- tion Sizes in France than in the United States Help Explain
search, 31 (2), 390–401. the French Paradox,” Psychological Science, 14 (5), 450–54.
Franz, Volker H., Karl R. Gegenfurtner, Heinrich H. Bulthoff, and Shanteau, James (1992), “How Much Information Does an Expert
Manfred Fahle (2000), “Grasping Visual Illusions: No Evi- Use? Is It Relevant?” Acta Psychologica, 81 (1), 75–86.
dence for a Dissociation between Perception and Action,” Shanteau, James, and Thomas R. Stewart (1992), “Why Study
Psychological Science, 11 (1), 20–25. Expert Decision Making? Some Historical Perspectives and
Gentaz, Edouard, and Yvette Hatwell (2004), “Geometrical Haptic Comments,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Illusions: The Role of Exploration in the Muller-Lyer, Ver- Processes, 53 (2), 95–106.
tical-Horizontal, and Delboeuf Illusions,” Psychonomic Bul- Van Ittersum, Koert, and Brian Wansink (2007), “Do Children
letin and Review, 11 (1), 31–40. Really Prefer Large Portions? Visual Illusions Bias Their Es-
Girgus, Joan S., and Stanley Coren (1982), “Assimilation and Con- timates and Intake,” Journal of the American Dietetic Asso-
trast Illusions: Differences in Plasticity,” Perception and Psy- ciation, 107 (7), 1107–10.
chophysics, 32 (6), 555–61. Wansink, Brian (2003), “Profiling Nutritional Gatekeepers: Three
Goto, Takuo, Ichiro Uchiyama, Akira Imai, Shin’ya Takahashi, Methods for Differentiating Influential Cooks,” Food Quality
Takashi Hanari, Shinji Nakamura, and Hiroyuki Kobari and Preference, 14 (4), 289–97.
(2007), “Assimilation and Contrast in Optical Illusions,” Jap- ——— (2006), Mindless Eating—Why We Eat More than We
anese Psychological Research, 49 (1), 33–44. Think, New York: Bantam-Dell.
Jaeger, Ted, and Rosanne Lorden (1980), “Delboeuf Illusions: Con- Wansink, Brian, and Koert Van Ittersum (2003), “Bottom’s Up!
tour or Size Detector Interactions,” Perceptual and Motor The Influence of Elongation on Pouring and Consumption
Skills, 50 (2), 376–78. Volume,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (3), 455–63.
Krider, Robert E., Priya Raghubir, and Aradhna Krishna (2001), ——— (2005), “Shape of Glass and Amount of Alcohol Poured:
“Pizzas: p or Square? Psychophysical Biases in Area Com- Comparative Study of Effect of Practice and Concentration,”
parisons,” Marketing Science, 20 (4), 405–25. British Medical Journal, 331 (24), 1512–14.
Li, Chao-Yi, and Kun Guo (1995), “Measurement of Geometric ——— (2007), “Portion Size Me: Downsizing Our Consumption
Illusions, Illusory Contours and Stereo-Depth at Luminance Norms,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107
and Colour Contrast,” Vision Research, 35 (12), 1713–20. (7), 1103–6.
Martin, Leonard L., John J. Seta, and Rick A. Crelia (1990), “As- Wansink, Brian, Koert Van Ittersum, and James E. Painter (2006), “Ice
similation and Contrast as a Function of People’s Willingness Cream Illusions: Bowl Size, Spoon Size, and Serving Size,”
and Ability to Expend Effort in Forming an Impression,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 145 (5), 240–43.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (1), 27–37. Ward, Lawrence M., and G. R. Lockhead (1970), “Sequential Ef-
Morinaga, Shiro (1935), “Conditions of the Size-Assimilation and fects and Memory in Category Judgment,” Journal of Ex-
Size-Contrast,” in Masuda Hakushi Shaon Saikin Shinrigaku perimental Psychology, 84 (1), 27–34.
Ronbunsyuu, ed. K. Hirose, Tokoy: Iwanami, 28–48. ——— (1971), “Response System Processes in Absolute Judg-
Nicolas, Serge (1995), “Joseph Delboeuf on Visual Illusions: A ment,” Perception and Psychophysics, 9 (1), 73–78.
Historical Sketch,” American Journal of Psychology, 104 (Win- Watt, Simon J., Mark F. Bradshaw, and Simon K. Rushton (2000),
ter), 563–74. “Field of View Affects Reaching, Not Grasping,” Experi-
Ogasawara, Jun-ichi (1952), “Displacement-Effect of Concentric mental Brain Research, 135 (3), 411–16.
Circles: A Review of Experimental Works,” Japanese Journal Weintraub, Daniel J., and Lynn A. Cooper (1972), “Coming of
of Psychology, 22 (4), 224–34. Age with the Delboeuf Illusion: Brightness Contrast, Cog-
Oyama, Tadasu (1960), “Japanese Studies on the So-Called Geo- nition, and Perceptual Development,” Developmental Psy-
metrical-Optical Illusions,” Psychologia, 3, 7–20. chology, 6 (2), 187–97.
Piaget, Jean, Marc Lambercier, Ernest Boesch, and Barbara von Weintraub, Daniel J., and Michael K. Schneck (1986), “Fragments
Albertini (1942), “Introduction à l’étude des perceptions chez of Delboeuf and Ebbinghaus Illusions: Contour/Context Ex-
l’enfant et analyse d’une illusion relative à la perception vi- plorations of Misjudged Circle Size,” Perception and Psy-
suelle de cercles concentriques (Delboeuf),” Archives de Psy- chophysics, 40 (3), 147–58.
chologie, 29 (113), 11–34. Weintraub, Daniel J., Barbara A. Wilson, and Richard D. Greene
Pollack, Robert H. (1964), “The Effects of Fixation upon the Ap- (1969), “Displacement versus Diameter, Arc Deletions and
parent Magnitude of Bounded Horizontal Extent,” American Brightness Contrast,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80
Journal of Psychology, 77 (2), 177–92. (3), 505–11.