Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

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

International Journal of Obesity volume 38, pages 657–662 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

References

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ello-Martin JA, Ledikwe JH, Rolls BJ . The influence of food portion size and energy density on energy intake: implications for weight management. Am J Clin Nutr 2005; 82: 236S–241S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Diliberti N, Bordi PL, Conklin MT, Roe LS, Rolls BJ . Increased portion size leads to increased energy intake in a restaurant meal. Obes Res 2004; 12: 562–568.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wansink B, Cheney MM . Super bowls: serving bowl size and food consumption. JAMA 2005; 293: 1727–1728.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wansink B, Painter JE, North J . Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obes Res 2005; 13: 93–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McCrory MA, Fuss PJ, McCallum JE, Yao M, Vinken AG, Hays NP 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rolls BJ, Rowe EA, Rolls ET, Kingston B, Megson A, Gunary R . Variety in a meal enhances food intake in man. Physiol Behav 1981; 26: 215–221.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Pratt IS, Croager EJ, Rosenberg M . The mathematical relationship between dishware size and portion size. Appetite 2012; 58: 299–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Halverson KH, Meengs JS . Using a smaller plate did not reduce energy intake at meals. Appetite 2007; 49: 652–660.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Delboeuf FJ . “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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Surkys T, Bertulis A, Bulatov A . Delboeuf illusion study. Medicina (Kaunas) 2006; 42: 673–681.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Weintraub DJ, Wilson BA, Greene RD, Palmquist MJ . Delboeuf illusion: displacement versus diameter, arc deletions, and brightness contrast. J Exp Psychol 1969; 80: 505–511.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  25. Girgus JS, Coren S . Assimilation and contrast illusions: differences in plasticity. Percep Psychophys 1982; 32: 555–561.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG . Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judg Decis Making 2010; 5: 411–419.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  33. Finney JW, Mitchell RE, Cronkite RC, Moos RH . Methodological issues in estimating main and interactive effects: examples from coping/social support and stress field. J Health Soc Behav 1984; 25: 85–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Overall JE, Lee DM, Hornick CW . Comparison of two strategies for analysis of variance in nonorthogonal designs. Psychol Bull 1981; 90: 367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hill JO, Wyatt HR, Reed GW, Peters JC . Obesity and the environment: where do we go from here? Science 2003; 299: 853–855.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hall KD, Sacks G, Chandramohan D, Chow CC, Wang YC, Gortmaker SL et al. Quantification of the effect of energy imbalance on bodyweight. Lancet 2011; 378: 826–837.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wansink B, van Ittersum K, Painter JE . Ice cream illusions bowls, spoons, and self-served portion sizes. Am J Prev Med 2006; 31: 240–243.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

Authors and 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. Department of Medicine, Quantitative Science Unit, 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. A D McClain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W van den Bos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D Matheson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M Desai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S M McClure
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. T N Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A D McClain.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

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).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McClain, A., van den Bos, W., Matheson, D. et al. Visual illusions and plate design: the effects of plate rim widths and rim coloring on perceived food portion size. Int J Obes 38, 657–662 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2013.169

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2013.169

Keywords

  • portion size
  • visual illusions
  • mindless eating
  • perceptual bias
  • dishware
  • plate

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links