The Primacy of “What” over “How Much”: How Type and Quantity Shape Healthiness Perceptions of Food Portions

References

• Bettman JR (1979) Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
• Campbell MC, Warren C (2015) The progress bias in goal pursuit: When one step forward seems larger than one step back. J. Consumer Res. 41(5):1316–1331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter GS, Glazer R, Nakamoto K (1994) Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. J. Marketing Res. 31(3):339–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandon P, Ordabayeva N (2009) Supersize in one dimension, downsize in three dimensions: Effects of spatial dimensionality on size perceptions and preferences. J. Marketing Res. 46(6):739–753.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandon P, Wansink B (2006) How biased household inventory estimates distort shopping and storage decisions. J. Marketing 70(4):118–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandon P, Wansink B (2007a) The biasing health halos of fast‐food restaurant health claims: Lower calorie estimates and higher side‐dish consumption intentions. J. Consumer Res. 34(3):301–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandon P, Wansink B (2007b) Is obesity caused by calorie underestimation? A psychophysical model of meal size estimation. J. Marketing Res. 44(1):84–99.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandon P, Wansink B (2012) Does food marketing need to make us fat? A review and solutions. Nutrition Rev. 70(10):571–593.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheema A, Bagchi R (2011) The effect of goal visualization on goal pursuit: Implications for consumers and managers. J. Marketing 75(2):109–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernev A, Gal D (2010) Categorization effects in value judgments: Averaging bias in evaluating combinations of vices and virtues. J. Marketing Res. 47(4):738–747.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cochran W, Tesser A (1996) The “What the Hell” Effect: Some Effects of Goal Proximity and Goal Framing on Performance (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
• Cohen J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Routledge Academic, New York).Google Scholar
• Collins K (2006) New Survey on Portion Size: Americans Still Cleaning Plates (American Institute for Cancer Research, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Cornil Y, Chandon P (2016) Pleasure as a substitute for size: How multisensory imagery can make people happier with smaller food portions. J. Marketing Res. 53(5):847–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dallas SK, Liu PJ, Ubel PA (2015) Potential problems with increasing serving sizes on the nutrition facts label. Appetite 95(1):577–584.Crossref, Google Scholar
• David ME, Haws KL (2016) Saying “no” to cake or “yes” to kale: Approach and avoidance strategies in pursuit of health goals. Psych. Marketing 33(8):588–594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R, Simonson I (1999) Making complementary choices in consumption episodes: Highlighting vs. balancing. J. Marketing Res. 36(1):29–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dryer MS (2006) Descriptive Theories, Explanatory Theories, and Basic Linguistic Theory (Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin).Google Scholar
• Dubois D, Rucker DD, Galinsky AD (2012) Super size me: Product size as a signal of status. J. Consumer Res. 38(6):1047–1062.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duckworth AL, Peterson C, Matthews MD, Kelly DR (2007) Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 92(6):1087–1101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunlap WP, Cortina JM, Vaslow JB, Burke MJ (1996) Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psych. Methods 1(2):170–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epley N, Gilovich T (2006) The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psych. Sci. 17(4):311–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Etkin J, Ratner RK (2012) Goal pursuit, now and later: Temporal compatibility of different versus similar means. J. Consumer Res. 39(5):1085–1099.Google Scholar
• Fang X, Mishra S (2002) The Effect of Brand Alliance Portfolio on the Perceived Quality of an Unknown Brand (Association for Consumer Research, Valdosta, GA).Google Scholar
• Fox CR, Ratner RK, Lieb DS (2005) How subjective grouping of options influences choice and allocation: Diversification bias and the phenomenon of partition dependence. J. Experiment. Psych. Gen. 134(4):538–551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gal D, Liu W (2011) Grapes of wrath: The angry effects of self-control. J. Consumer Res. 38(3):445–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• González-Vallejo C, Moran E (2001) The evaluability hypothesis revisited: Joint and separate evaluation preference reversal as a function of attribute importance. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Process 86(2):216–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• <jrn>Guenther P, DeMaio T, Ingwersen L, Berlin M (1997) The multiple-pass approach for the 24-h recall in the continuing survey of food intakes by individuals, 1994-1996. Amer. J. Clin. Nutrition 65(4):S1316.Google Scholar
• Haws KL, Liu PJ (2016a) Combining food type (s) and food quantity choice in a new food choice paradigm based on vice-virtue bundles. Appetite 103(1):441–449.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haws KL, Liu PJ (2016b) Half-size me? How calorie and price information influence ordering on restaurant menus with both half and full entrée portion sizes. Appetite 97(1):127–137.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haws KL, Winterich K (2013) When value trumps health in a supersized world. J. Marketing 77(3):48–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hayes AF, Montoya AK (2017) A tutorial on testing, visualizing, and probing an interaction involving a multicategorical variable in linear regression analysis. Commun. Methods Meas. 11(1):1–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helgeson JG, Beatty SE (1987) Price expectation and price recall error: An empirical study. J. Consumer Res. 14(3):379–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth RM (2001) Educating Intuition (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Hsee CK (1996) The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Process 67(3):247–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang S-c, Zhang Y, Broniarczyk SM (2012) So near and yet so far: The mental representation of goal progress. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 103(2):225–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huberts JCDW, Evers C, De Ridder DT (2014) “Because I am worth it”: A theoretical framework and empirical review of a justification-based account of self-regulation failure. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 18(2):119–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• International Food Information Council Foundation (2012) 2012 Food & Health Survey: Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Safety, Nutrition, & Health (International Food Information Council Foundation, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Irmak C, Vallen B, Robinson SR (2011) The impact of product name on dieters’ and nondieters’ food evaluations and consumption. J. Consumer Res. 38(2):390–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeffreys H (1998) Theory of Probability (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Frederick S (2002) Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment (Cambridge University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Kass RE, Raftery AE (1995) Bayes factors. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 90(430):773–795.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khan U, Dhar R (2006) Licensing effect in consumer choice. J. Marketing Res. 43(2):259–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Zheng Y (2006) Determinants of justification and self-control. J. Experiment. Psych: General 135(4):572–587.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krider RE, Raghubir P, Krishna A (2001) Pizzas: Π or square? Psychophysical biases in area comparisons. Marketing Sci. 20(4):405–425.Link, Google Scholar
• Kuo T, Jarosz CJ, Simon P, Fielding JE (2009) Menu labeling as a potential strategy for combating the obesity epidemic: A health impact assessment. Amer. J. Public Health 99(9):1680–1686.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lakens D (2013) Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers Psych. 4:1–12.Google Scholar
• Laran J (2010) Goal management in sequential choices: Consumer choices for others are more indulgent than personal choices. J. Consumer Res. 37(2):304–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu PJ, Haws KL, Lamberton C, Campbell TH, Fitzsimons GJ (2015) Vice-virtue bundles. Management Sci. 61(1):204–228.Link, Google Scholar
• Maxwell SE, Delaney HD (2004) Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective (Psychology Press, New York).Google Scholar
• McFarlane T, Polivy J, McCabe RE (1999) Help, not harm: Psychological foundation for a nondieting approach toward health. J. Soc. Issues 55(2):261–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller N, Reicks M, Redden JP, Mann T, Mykerezi E, Vickers Z (2015) Increasing portion sizes of fruits and vegetables in an elementary school lunch program can increase fruit and vegetable consumption. Appetite 91(1):426–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mukhopadhyay A, Johar GV (2009) Indulgence as self-reward for prior shopping restraint: A justification-based mechanism. J. Consumer Psych. 19(3):334–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nguyen SP (2007) An apple a day keeps the doctor away: Children’s evaluative categories of food. Appetite 48(1):114–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM (2003) Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977-1998. J. Amer. Medical Assoc. 289(4):450–453.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oakes ME (2004) Good foods gone bad: ‘Infamous’ nutrients diminish perceived vitamin and mineral content of foods. Appetite 42(3):273–278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oakes ME (2005) Stereotypical thinking about foods and perceived capacity to promote weight gain. Appetite 44(3):317–324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oakes ME, Slotterback CS (2005) Too good to be true: Dose insensitivity and stereotypical thinking of foods’ capacity to promote weight gain. Food Quality Prefer. 16(8):675–681.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olejnik S, Algina J (2003) Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psych. Methods 8(4):434–447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ordabayeva N, Chandon P (2016) In the eye of the beholder: Visual biases in package and portion size perceptions. Appetite 103(1):450–457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peeters G (2002) From good and bad to can and must: Subjective necessity of acts associated with positively and negatively valued stimuli. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 32(1):125–136.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Puhl RM, Heuer CA (2010) Obesity stigma: Important considerations for public health. Amer. J. Public Health 100(6):1019–1028.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raghubir P, Krishna A (1999) Vital dimensions in volume perception: Can the eye fool the stomach? J. Marketing Res. 36(3):313–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raynor H (2014) What to do about portion sizes? Roundtable discussion at the forefronts in portion size conference. Internat. J. Obesity 38(1):S34–S36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberto CA, Larsen PD, Agnew H, Baik J, Brownell KD (2010) Evaluating the impact of menu labeling on food choices and intake. Amer. J. Public Health 100(2):312–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rolls BJ, Morris EL, Roe LS (2002) Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. Amer. J. Clin. Nutrition 76(6):1207–1213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross J, Harradine R (2004) I’m not wearing that! Branding and young children. J. Fashion Marketing Management 8(1):11–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rouder JN, Speckman PL, Sun D, Morey RD, Iverson G (2009) Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psych. Bull. Rev. 16(2):225–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rozin P, Ashmore M, Markwith M (1996) Lay American conceptions of nutrition: Dose insensitivity, categorical thinking, contagion, and the monotonic mind. Health Psych. 15(6):438–447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schwartz J, Riis J, Elbel B, Ariely D (2012) Inviting consumers to downsize fast-food portions significantly reduces calorie consumption. Health Affairs 31(2):399–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott AR, Reed DB, Kubena KS, McIntosh WA (2007) Evaluation of a group administered 24-hour recall method for dietary assessment. J. Extension 45(1):1RIB3.Google Scholar
• Sharpe KM, Staelin R, Huber J (2008) Using extremeness aversion to fight obesity: Policy implications of context dependent demand. J. Consumer Res. 35(3):406–422.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shiv B, Fedorikhin A (1999) Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. J. Consumer Res. 26(3):278–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2011) False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psych. Sci. 22(11):1359–1366.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thoma V, Williams A (2013) The devil you know: The effect of brand recognition and product ratings on consumer choice. Judgment Decision Making 8(1):34–44.Google Scholar
• Urbszat D, Herman CP, Polivy J (2002) Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we diet: Effects of anticipated deprivation on food intake in restrained and unrestrained eaters. J. Abnorm. Psych. 111(2):396–401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Ittersum K, Wansink B (2012) Plate size and color suggestibility: The Delboeuf illusion’s bias on serving and eating behavior. J. Consumer Res. 39(2):215–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers E-J, Love J, Marsman M, Jamil T, Ly A, Verhagen J, Selker R, et al.. (2018) Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psych. Bull. Rev. 25(1):58–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wansink B (1996) Can package size accelerate usage volume? J. Marketing 60(3):1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wansink B (2004) Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annu. Rev. Nutrition 24(1):455–479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wansink B (2012) Package size, portion size, serving size … Market size: The unconventional case for half-size servings. Marketing Sci. 31(1):54–57.Google Scholar
• Wansink B, Chandon P (2014) Slim by design: Redirecting the accidental drivers of mindless overeating. J. Consumer Psych. 24(3):413–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wansink B, Park S (2001) At the movies: How external cues and perceived taste impact consumption volume. Food Quality Prefer. 12(1):69–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wansink B, Van Ittersum K (2003) Bottoms up! The influence of elongation on pouring and consumption volume. J. Consumer Res. 30(3):455–463.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wansink B, Painter JE, North J (2005) Bottomless bowls: Why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obesity Res. 13(1):93–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilcox K, Vallen B, Block L, Fitzsimons GJ (2009) Vicarious goal fulfillment: When the mere presence of a healthy option leads to an ironically indulgent decision. J. Consumer Res. 36(3):380–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woolley K, Fishbach A (2016) For the fun of it: Harnessing immediate rewards to increase persistence in long-term goals. J. Consumer Res. 42(6):952–966.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Young LR, Nestle M (2002) The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. Amer. J. Public Health 92(2):246–249.Crossref, Google Scholar