Tools & Resources
Feel free to download and use any of the graphics, illustrations, videos, and resources on this page for educational purposes. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
If you ask someone how many drinks they have had, they are likely to give you a confident answer especially when they poured their own drinks. Despite this perceived awareness, people may not be as aware of how much they are pouring, largely because of the shape of their glass. Research by Dr. Brian Wansink of Cornell University and Dr. Koert van Ittersum of University of Groningen, The Netherlands revealed that when people pour into short-wide glasses, they generally pour about 30% more than in tall-slender glasses. They also found that, on average, people consume 92% of what they serve themselves.
To examine how the shape of glass affects pouring behaviors, researchers asked 198 students of legal drinking age to practice pouring wine into two types of glasses—one tall and thin and one short and wide.
Although the tall-slender and short-wide glasses had the same volume (355ml), people perceived that the tall-slender glass contained more liquid than short-wide glass. They also believed that they actually poured more into the tall-slender glasses. However, the measurements indicated that participants poured an average of 29.75% more alcohol into the short-wide glass than the tall-slender glass. The more times the participants practiced pouring into slim-tall glasses, the more accurate they became, but accuracy did not improve with practice when pouring into the short-wide glass.
Afterwards, 86 professional bartenders participated in the same experiment. Despite their average 6.3 years of bartending experience, they also showed inconsistencies when pouring into different shaped glasses. Although bartenders were highly confident about their estimation, they still on average poured 20.5% more in short-wide glasses.
Based on their findings, the researchers concluded that people generally make pouring decisions based on the height of the liquid in the glass. Short wide glasses give the illusion of containing less liquid causing servers to over-pour despite serving experience. So, in order to be more accurate when pouring for yourself or others, try using taller slimmer glasses or glasses that are marked to show the level of one serving.
Summary by Vince Wen
• Download paper from the SSRN (the Social Science Research Network)
Wansink, Brian, and Koert van Ittersum (2005). Amount of Alcohol Poured: Comparative Study of Effect of Practice and Concentration. British Medical Journal, 331(7531),1512–1514. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7531.1512
Other Interesting Articles on Compensation
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think Different: The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Preference Development and Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 586-598.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & Van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect. Science, 311, 1005-1007.
Fillingim, R. B., Roth, D. L., & Haley, W. E. (1989). The effects of distraction on the perception of exercise-induced symptoms. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 33, 241-248.
Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as Excuses or Guides: The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370-377.
Karageorghis, C. I., & Terry, P. C. (1997). The psychophysical effects of music in sport and exercise: A review. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 54.
Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 259-266.
King, N. A. (1999). What processes are involved in the appetite response to moderate increases in exercise-induced energy expenditure? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 58, 107-113.
King, N. A., Snell, L., Smith, R. D., & Blundell, J. E. (1996). Effects of short-term exercise on appetite responses in unrestrained females. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50, 663-667.
Kivetz, R., & Zheng, Y. (2006). Determinants of justification and self-control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 572-587.
Lerouge, D. (2009). Evaluating the Benefits of Distraction on Product Evaluations: The Mind-Set Effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 367-379.
Lichtman, S.W., Pisarska, K., Berman, E.R., Pestone, M., Dowling, H., Offenbacher, E., Weisel, H., Heshka, S., Matthews, D.E., & Heymsfield, S.B. (1992). Discreptency between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. New England Journal of Medicine, 327 (27), 1893-1898.
Martins, C., Morgan, L. M., Bloom, S. R., & Robertson, M. D. (2007). Effects of exercise on gut peptides, energy intake and appetite. Journal of Endocrinology, 193, 251-258.
Nowlis, S. M., & Shiv, B. (2005). The Influence of Consumer Distractions on the Effectiveness of Food-Sampling Programs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 42 (2), 157-168.
Okada, E.M. (2005). Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 42, 43-53.
Learn more . . .