How Size-related Food Labels Impact How Much We Eat
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.
Just what size is a “small” drink—8 ounces, 12 ounces, 16 ounces? The truth is, those are all “small” sizes depending on what restaurants and fast food joints you go to. As customers, we are used to ordering food based on relative size, but according to a new study from Cornell University, these seemingly standard labels impact our entire eating experience.
Dr. David R. Just and Dr. Brian Wansink of the Cornell Food & Brand Lab designed a study to understand how portion labels impact what you’re willing to pay for your food as well as how much you actually eat. The researchers served two different portion sizes of lunch items, including spaghetti: either 1 cup (small) or 2 cups (large). The twist was in the labeling: for some participants, the small and large portions were labeled “Half-Size” and “Regular” respectively, giving the impression that the large 2-cup portion was the norm. For the others, however, the same portions were labeled “Regular” and “Double-Size”—indicating that the smaller 1-cup portion was the norm. These varying concepts of “Regular” portions made all the difference in how much people would spend and subsequently eat.
The researchers examined how people’s eating habits differed depending on these food labels. When served identical large portions of spaghetti, individuals ate much more when it was labeled “Regular” than when it was labeled “Double-Size;” in fact, those who thought it was “Double-size” left 10 times as much food on their plates!
To explore how portion labels impact how much patrons will pay, the researchers had people bid on each portion in an auction-like set up. When the portion was labeled “Half-Size,” participants were only willing to pay half as much as when the same portion had was labeled “Regular.” The labels themselves, rather than the visual appearance of each serving, acted as indicators of the amount of food on each plate compared to a hypothetical normal serving.
The study indicated that people primarily use labels alone to dictate how much food is a ‘normal’ portion and that they adjust their intake accordingly. These studies together show that people are not only willing to pay more for a portion that sounds larger but also that they will eat more of an enormous portion if they believe it is “Regular” to do so.
The huge impact of size labels suggests that both consumers and producers could benefit from standardization of food size-labeling; clearly defining the actual amount of food in a “small” or a “large” would inform customers of just how much food they are ordering every time they ask for a certain size. Until then, take the time to think about what portion you’re really getting when you order your standard “Medium” meal!
Summary by Kelsey Gatto
• Download paper from the SSRN (the Social Science Research Network)
Just, David R. and Brian Wansink (2013). One Man’s Tall is Another Man’s Small: How the Framing of Portion Size Influences Food Choice. Health Economics, 23 (7), 776-791. doi: 10.1002/hec.2949.
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 . . .