CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 301Nutrition, Health and Food BehaviorDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsEating Disorders and Behaviors

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ice Cream Illusions

Wansink, Brian, van Ittersum, Koert, Painter, James E.·2006·American Journal of Preventive Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.04.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Because people eat most of what they serve themselves, any contextual cues that lead them to over-serve should lead them to over-eat. In building on the size-contrast illusion, this research examines whether the size of a bowl or serving spoon unknowingly biases how much a person serves and eats.Methods The 2 x 2 between-subjects design involved 85 nutrition experts who were attending an ice cream social to celebrate the success of a colleague in 2002. They were randomly given either a smaller (17 oz) or a larger (34 oz) bowl and either a smaller (2 oz) or larger (3 oz) ice cream scoop. After serving themselves, they completed a brief survey as their ice cream was weighed. The analysis was conducted in 2003.Results Even when nutrition experts were given a larger bowl, they served themselves 31.0% more (6.25 vs 4.77 oz, F(1, 80) = 8.05, p < 0.01) without being aware of it. Their servings increased by 14.5% when they were given a larger serving spoon (5.77 vs 5.04 oz, F(1, 80)=2.70, p = 0.10).Conclusions People could try using the size of their bowls and possibly serving spoons to help them better control how much they consume. Those interested in losing weight should use smaller bowls and spoons, while those needing to gain weight--such as the undernourished or aged--could be encouraged to use larger ones. Epidemiologic implications are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.04.003

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 301

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wansink, B., van Ittersum, K., & Painter, J. E.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Eastern Illinois University (US)
ORCID
Wansink, Brian
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-09
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
240-243
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.amepre.2006.04.003
OpenAlex
W2134869599
Cited by
301
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 24
FWCI
8.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
Keywords
serving size, portion size, overeating, dietary intake, weight management, nutritionists
MeSH terms
Eating, Female, Humans, Ice Cream, Illusions, Male, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review