Original Article

Visual illusions and plate design: the effects of plate rim widths and rim coloring on perceived food portion size

  • International Journal of Obesity (2014) 38, 657662 (2014)
  • doi:10.1038/ijo.2013.169
  • Download Citation
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Objective:

The Delboeuf Illusion affects perceptions of the relative sizes of concentric shapes. This study was designed to extend research on the application of the Delboeuf illusion to food on a plate by testing whether a plate’s rim width and coloring influence perceptual bias to affect perceived food portion size.

Design and methods:

Within-subjects experimental design. Experiment 1 tested the effect of rim width on perceived food portion size. Experiment 2 tested the effect of rim coloring on perceived food portion size. In both experiments, participants observed a series of photographic images of paired, side-by-side plates varying in designs and amounts of food. From each pair, participants were asked to select the plate that contained more food. Multilevel logistic regression examined the effects of rim width and coloring on perceived food portion size.

Results:

Experiment 1: participants overestimated the diameter of food portions by 5% and the visual area of food portions by 10% on plates with wider rims compared with plates with very thin rims (P<0.0001). The effect of rim width was greater with larger food portion sizes. Experiment 2: participants overestimated the diameter of food portions by 1.5% and the visual area of food portions by 3% on plates with rim coloring compared with plates with no coloring (P=0.01). The effect of rim coloring was greater with smaller food portion sizes.

Conclusion:

The Delboeuf illusion applies to food on a plate. Participants overestimated food portion size on plates with wider and colored rims. These findings may help design plates to influence perceptions of food portion sizes.

  • Subscribe to International Journal of Obesity for full access:

    $652

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    . Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annu Rev Nutr 2004; 24: 455–479.

  2. 2.

    , . Super-size me: portion size effects on young children's eating. Physiol Behav 2008; 94: 39–47.

  3. 3.

    . The supersizing of America: portion size and the obesity epidemic. Nutr Today 2003; 38: 42–53.

  4. 4.

    , , . Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 2002; 76: 1207–1213.

  5. 5.

    , , . The influence of food portion size and energy density on energy intake: implications for weight management. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 82: 236S–241S.

  6. 6.

    , , , , . Increased portion size leads to increased energy intake in a restaurant meal. Obes Res 2004; 12: 562–568.

  7. 7.

    , . Super bowls: serving bowl size and food consumption. JAMA 2005; 293: 1727–1728.

  8. 8.

    , , . Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obes Res 2005; 13: 93–100.

  9. 9.

    , . The effect of package shape on consumers’ judgments of product volume: attention as a mental contaminant. J Cons Res 2004; 31: 390–401.

  10. 10.

    . Can package size accelerate usage volume? J Marketing 1996; 60: 1–13.

  11. 11.

    , . Bad popcorn in big buckets: portion size can influence intake as much as taste. J Nutr Educ Behav 2005; 37: 242–245.

  12. 12.

    , , , , , et al. Dietary variety within food groups: association with energy intake and body fatness in men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 1999; 69: 440–447.

  13. 13.

    , , , , , . Variety in a meal enhances food intake in man. Physiol Behav 1981; 26: 215–221.

  14. 14.

    . Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think. Bantam Dell: New York, NY, USA, 2006.

  15. 15.

    , . The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. Am J Public Health 2002; 92: 246–249.

  16. 16.

    , , . The mathematical relationship between dishware size and portion size. Appetite 2012; 58: 299–302.

  17. 17.

    , . Plate size and color suggestibility: the Delboeuf Illusion’s bias on serving and eating behavior. J Consumer Res 2012; 39: 215–228.

  18. 18.

    , , , . Using a smaller plate did not reduce energy intake at meals. Appetite 2007; 49: 652–660.

  19. 19.

    . “Note Sur Certaines Illusions d’Optique: Essai d’une Théorie Psychophysique de la Manière don’t l’Oeil Apprécie les Distances et les Angles [Note on Certain Optical illusions: Essay on a Phychophysical Theory Concerning the Way in Which the Eye Evaluates Distances and Angles]”. Bulletins de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, Lettres et Beaux-arts de Belgique 1865; 19: 195–216.

  20. 20.

    , . Effects of contour proximity and lightness on Delboeuf illusions created by circumscribed letters. Percept Mot Skills 2007; 105: 253–260.

  21. 21.

    , , . Delboeuf illusion study. Medicina (Kaunas) 2006; 42: 673–681.

  22. 22.

    , . Coming of age with the Delboeuf illusion: brightness contrast, cognition, and perceptual development. Develop Psychol 1972; 6: 187–197.

  23. 23.

    , , , . Delboeuf illusion: displacement versus diameter, arc deletions, and brightness contrast. J Exp Psychol 1969; 80: 505–511.

  24. 24.

    . Conditions of the size-assimilation and size-contrast. In Hirose K (ed.) Masuda Hakushi Shaon Saikin Shinrigaku Ronbunsyuu. Tokoy: Iwanami,, 1935. pp 28–48.

  25. 25.

    , . Assimilation and contrast illusions: differences in plasticity. Percep Psychophys 1982; 32: 555–561.

  26. 26.

    . The effects of fixation upon the apparent magnitude of bounded horizontal extent. Am J Psychol 1964; 77: 177–192.

  27. 27.

    . The effect of hue and brightness on the size-illusion of concentric circles. Am J Psychol 1962; 75: 45–55.

  28. 28.

    , . Delboeuf illusions: contour or size detector interactions? Percept Mot Skills 1980; 50: 376–378.

  29. 29.

    . The promise of mechanical turk: how online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. J Theor Biol 2011; 299: 172–179.

  30. 30.

    , , . Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judg Decis Making 2010; 5: 411–419.

  31. 31.

    . Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1975.

  32. 32.

    , . Aptitudes and Instructional Methods: a Handbook for Research on Interactions. Ardent Media: New York, NY, USA, 1981.

  33. 33.

    , , , . Methodological issues in estimating main and interactive effects: examples from coping/social support and stress field. J Health Soc Behav 1984; 25: 85–98.

  34. 34.

    . Comparing nonparallel regression lines. Psychol Bull 1980; 88: 307.

  35. 35.

    , , . Comparison of two strategies for analysis of variance in nonorthogonal designs. Psychol Bull 1981; 90: 367.

  36. 36.

    , . Centring in regression analyses: a strategy to prevent errors in statistical inference. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2004; 13: 141–151.

  37. 37.

    , , , . Obesity and the environment: where do we go from here? Science 2003; 299: 853–855.

  38. 38.

    , , , , , et al. Quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight. Lancet 2011; 378: 826–837.

  39. 39.

    , , . Ice cream illusions bowls, spoons, and self-served portion sizes. Am J Prev Med 2006; 31: 240–243.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported, in part, by Award Numbers R01HL096015 and U01HL103629 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Children’s Health Research Institute at the Stanford University. Dr McClain was supported by Public Health Service Training Grant 5 T32 HL 007034 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

DISCLAIMER

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, or Stanford University.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics and Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Solutions Science Lab, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    • A D McClain
    • , D Matheson
    •  & T N Robinson
  2. Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    • W van den Bos
    •  & S M McClure
  3. Quantitative Science Unit, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    • M Desai
  4. Center for Healthy Weight, Stanford University and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, Stanford, CA, USA

    • T N Robinson

Authors

  1. Search for A D McClain in:

  2. Search for W van den Bos in:

  3. Search for D Matheson in:

  4. Search for M Desai in:

  5. Search for S M McClure in:

  6. Search for T N Robinson in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A D McClain.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Study design (AM, WV, DM, SM and TR), data collection (AM and WV), data interpretation (AM, WV, DM, MD, SM and TR), literature search (AM and TR), generation of figures (AM, WV, MD and SM), writing of the manuscript (AM, WV, DM, MD, SM and TR).