Original Article | Published:

Behavior and Psychology

Personal and social norms for food portion sizes in lean and obese adults

International Journal of Obesity volume 39, pages 13191324 (2015) | Download Citation

Abstract

Background:

Portion size is an important component of dietary advice for weight control, but little is known about what portion sizes people consider ‘normal’. This study determined the effect of body mass index (BMI), gender, dietary restraint and liking of the food on personal and social portion size norms for a range of foods and the degree of certainty over the norms.

Methods:

Thirty lean (BMI 20–25 kg m2) and 30 obese (BMI 30–35 kg m2) men and women (aged 18–60 years) viewed 17 different portion sizes of 12 foods on a computer screen on two occasions a week apart. Participants responded ‘more’ or ‘less’ to each photograph reflecting personal portion size preference or perceived portion sizes of others. Personal and social norms for portion sizes of each food were determined using the method of constant stimuli giving a sigmoidal curve of the probability of answering ‘less’ over a range of portion sizes. The slope of the sigmoid at the norm gave a measure of certainty about the norm. Regression models were used to examine the effect of BMI, gender, dietary restraint and liking of the food on personal norms, social norms, the relationship between norms, and the slopes.

Results:

Personal norms were significantly larger in the obese (P=0.026), men (P<0.001), those with lower dietary restraint (P<0.001), and those with higher liking for the food (P<0.001). Social norms were larger for women (P=0.012). The slopes at the norms were 30% shallower in the obese and in men (P<0.001).

Conclusion:

Larger personal norms for portion size among the obese, men, those with lower dietary restraint and those with higher liking for a food imply greater consumption, which may undermine weight control. Shallower slopes for norms in the obese and in men may imply less clearly defined habitual portion sizes.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , , . How much should I eat? A comparison of suggested portion sizes in the UK. Public Health Nutr 2012; 15: 2110–2117.

  2. 2.

    . Oxford Dictionary of Psychology, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009.

  3. 3.

    , . Normative influences on food intake. Physiol Behav 2005; 86: 762–772.

  4. 4.

    , , . The influence of social norms on hunger ratings and eating. Appetite 2003; 41: 15–20.

  5. 5.

    , , , . Self-presentational conflict in social eating situations: a normative perspective. Appetite 2001; 36: 165–171.

  6. 6.

    , , . Influence of clear versus ambiguous normative information on food intake. Appetite 2007; 49: 58–65.

  7. 7.

    , , , . Do social norms affect intended food choice? Prevent Med 2009; 49: 190–193.

  8. 8.

    , , . Food intake norms increase and decrease snack food intake in a remote confederate study. Appetite 2013; 65: 20–24.

  9. 9.

    , , . Characteristics of self-selected portion size in young adults. J Am Diet Assoc 2007; 107: 611–618.

  10. 10.

    , , , , , . Computer-based assessments of expected satiety predict behavioural measures of portion-size selection and food intake. Appetite 2012; 59: 933–938.

  11. 11.

    , , . Perceived volume, expected satiation, and the energy content of self-selected meals. Appetite 2010; 55: 25–29.

  12. 12.

    , . How many calories are on our plate? expected fullness, not liking, determines meal-size selection. Obesity 2009; 17: 1884–1890.

  13. 13.

    , , , , . Estimating everyday portion size using a 'method of constant stimuli': in a student sample, portion size is predicted by gender, dietary behaviour, and hunger, but not BMI. Appetite 2008; 51: 296–301.

  14. 14.

    , . Measuring affective (liking) and non-affective (expected satiety) determinants of portion size and food reward. Appetite 2009; 52: 108–114.

  15. 15.

    , , . Effects of the presence of others on food intake: a normative interpretation. Psychol Bull 2003; 129: 873–886.

  16. 16.

    , . Portion distortion: typical portion sizes selected by young adults. J Am Diet Assoc 2006; 106: 1412–1418.

  17. 17.

    Food Standards AgencyFood Portion Sizes, 3rd edn, The Stationary Office: London, UK, 2002.

  18. 18.

    , , . Food Portion Sizes: A User's Guide to the Photographic Atlas. MAFF Publications: London, UK, 1997.

  19. 19.

    , . The three-factor eating questionnaire to measure dietary restraint, disinhibition and hunger. J Psychosom Res 1985; 29: 71–83.

  20. 20.

    , , , . Assessment of typical food portion sizes consumed among Australian adults. Nutr Diet 2009; 66: 227–233.

  21. 21.

    , , , , , et al. Associations between the portion sizes of food groups consumed and measures of adiposity in the British National Diet and Nutrition Survey. Br J Nutr 2009; 101: 1413–1420.

  22. 22.

    , , , , , et al. High levels of energy expenditure in obese women. Br Med J 1986; 292: 983–987.

  23. 23.

    , , . Are dietary restraint scales valid measures of acute dietary restriction? Unobtrusive observational data suggest not. Psychol Assess 2004; 16: 51–59.

  24. 24.

    , , , , . Are dietary restraint scales valid measures of moderate- to long-term dietary restriction? Objective biological and behavioral data suggest not. Psychol Assess 2007; 19: 449–458.

  25. 25.

    , , , . What everyone else is eating: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of informational eating norms on eating behavior. J Acad Nutr Diet 2014; 114: 414–429.

Download references

Acknowledgements

SEF, HBL, ALA and SAJ designed and set up the study. HBL, KV, ER and SH conducted the research. HBL analysed data, interpreted results and drafted the manuscript. SEF, ALA, KV, ER, SH and SAJ interpreted results and critically revised the manuscript. We thank all of the volunteers who took part in the study. This study was supported by a program grant from the UK Medical Research Council (U105960389). This study was supported by a programme grant from the UK Medical Research Council (U105960389). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Medical Research Council Human Nutrition Research, Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, UK

    • H B Lewis
    • , A L Ahern
    •  & S A Jebb
  2. Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    • S E Forwood
  3. School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    • K Verlaers
    •  & S Higgs
  4. Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    • E Robinson

Authors

  1. Search for H B Lewis in:

  2. Search for S E Forwood in:

  3. Search for A L Ahern in:

  4. Search for K Verlaers in:

  5. Search for E Robinson in:

  6. Search for S Higgs in:

  7. Search for S A Jebb in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H B Lewis.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Revised

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2015.47

Further reading