The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake**
Open accessAbstract
Objective: Using self‐refilling soup bowls, this study examined whether visual cues related to portion size can influence intake volume without altering either estimated intake or satiation. Research Methods and Procedures: Fifty‐four participants (BMI, 17.3 to 36.0 kg/m 2; 18 to 46 years of age) were recruited to participate in a study involving soup. The experiment was a between‐subject design with two visibility levels: 1) an accurate visual cue of a food portion (normal bowl) vs. 2) a biased visual cue (self‐refilling bowl). The soup apparatus was housed in a modified restaurant‐style table in which two of four bowls slowly and imperceptibly refilled as their contents were consumed. Outcomes included intake volume, intake estimation, consumption monitoring, and satiety. Results: Participants who were unknowingly eating from self‐refilling bowls ate more soup [14.7 ± 8.4 vs. 8.5 ± 6.1 oz; F(1,52) = 8.99; p < 0.01] than those eating from normal soup bowls. However, despite consuming 73% more, they did not believe they had consumed more, nor did they perceive themselves as more sated than those eating from normal bowls. This was unaffected by BMI. Discussion: These findings are consistent with the notion that the amount of food on a plate or bowl increases intake because it influences consumption norms and expectations and it lessens one's reliance on self‐monitoring. It seems that people use their eyes to count calories and not their stomachs. The importance of having salient, accurate visual cues can play an important role in the prevention of unintentional overeating.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women
Rolls, B. J., Morris, E. L., & Roe, L. S. (2002) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/76.6.1207 · Cited by 793
Cited by
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT INCREASE THE FOOD INTAKE AND CONSUMPTION VOLUME OF UNKNOWING CONSUMERS
Wansink, B. (2004) · Annual Review of Nutrition · doi:10.1146/annurev.nutr.24.012003.132140 · Cited by 1,036
Self-citationLudwig, D. S. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.300.11.1350 · Cited by 957
Changing climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools
Paluck, E. L., Shepherd, H., & Aronow, P. M. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1514483113 · Cited by 610
Development and Validation of the Mindful Eating Questionnaire
Framson, C., Kristal, A. R., Schenk, J. M., Littman, A. J., Zeliadt, S., & Benitez, D. (2009) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.05.006 · Cited by 574
Bad Popcorn in Big Buckets: Portion Size Can Influence Intake as Much as Taste
Wansink, B., & Kim, J. (2005) · Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · doi:10.1016/s1499-4046(06)60278-9 · Cited by 322
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wansink, B., Painter, J. E., & North, J.
- Venue
- Obesity Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 93-100
- ISSN
- 1071-7323 (ISSN-L)
- 1550-8528
- OpenAlex
- W2140614509
- Cited by
- 501
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake**. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/oby.2005.12
- The paper
- Wansink, B., Painter, J. E., & North, J. (2005). Bottomless Bowls: Why Visual Cues of Portion Size May Influence Intake**. Obesity Research. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2005.12
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.