Article

Super bowls: Serving bowl size and food consumption

Cornell University, Итак, New York, United States
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 05/2005; 293(14):1727-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.14.1727
Source: PubMed
Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Brian Wansink, Jul 05, 2015
3 Followers
 · 
816 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: People often purchase food products on impulse and their visual impression of such products plays an important role in impulse buying. Consumers are also likely to buy food items based on the images as displayed on mobile devices like smartphones. Food-service and dining industries have therefore begun to pay closer attention to improving the visual impression of the foods they offer. This study focused on determining whether participants’ visual attention directed toward food-item images can vary depending on the background saliency. Differences in patterns of visual attention with respect to food-item images between North American and Chinese participants were also compared. During the time participants were looking at pictures of food items with varying backgrounds in the absence of a particular task, their eye movements were traced with an eye-tracker. As background contexts such as table setting and decoration became more salient, participants’ visual attention toward the food items decreased. Chines participants also looked at food items significantly later than American counterparts, implying that Chinese participants were relatively more influenced by background contexts. In conclusion, our findings provide empirical evidence that background context and culture can affect participants’ visual attention while they are freely looking at pictures of food items.
    Food Quality and Preference 04/2015; 41. DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.12.004 · 2.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to determine whether there is an interaction between “small” (i.e., table setting) and “large” (i.e., eating location) scales of the eating environments in affecting food acceptance and consumption. An identical roast chicken was presented at three table-setting conditions: plastic tray (PT), home-style table (HT), and gourmet table (GT) settings both in sensory testing booths and realistic contexts (e.g., classroom for PT, home-style dining room for HT, and restaurant for GT). Participants favored the appearance of food served at a gourmet table setting located in a restaurant setting significantly more than in a sensory testing booth. The participants were more willing to eat the food served using a gourmet table setting in the restaurant setting than in the sensory testing booth, leading to a significant increase in their food consumption. In addition, participants consumed food more slowly and perceived themselves to be less hungry when they ate in realistic contexts rather than in sensory testing booths. In conclusion, our findings demonstrated that food acceptance and intake can vary according to whether the small (table setting) and large (eating location) scales of the eating environments are well-matched or not.
    Food Quality and Preference 01/2015; 39:1–7. DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.06.004 · 2.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors review and extend the literature on emotional ability as it impacts nonverbal communication from the perspective of potential customers and depending on sales influence techniques. They discuss four dimensions of emotional ability and highlight emotional ability's impact on four aspects of face‐to‐face interactions—consumer characteristics, salesperson characteristics, the convergence of buyer/seller emotional abilities, and environmental characteristics. They suggest areas for future research to help consumers, marketers, and health care professionals better understand how emotional ability impacts nonverbal communication, and to enhance the quality of interactions.
    Psychology and Marketing 07/2014; 31(7). DOI:10.1002/mar.20714 · 1.13 Impact Factor