TY - JOUR
T1 - Small, regular or large? The effect of size options on online food choices
AU - Mckay, Eilish
AU - Kemps, Eva
AU - Prichard, Ivanka
AU - Tiggemann, Marika
PY - 2023/1
Y1 - 2023/1
N2 - The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of verbal size descriptors on portion size selections. Specifically, we investigated a range of size options within an online ordering setting. A sample of 216 female Flinders University students were asked to select a side dish, drink, and dessert from one of three online menus with varying portion size options: (1) small, regular, and large (SRL), (2) regular, large, and extra-large (RLXL), or (3) small, regular, large, and extra-large (SRLXL). Participants also completed a measure of dietary restraint. Across conditions, participants most frequently selected the ‘regular’ size for sides and drinks; however, for desserts a small size was equally preferred. In contrast to the concept of extremeness aversion, incorporating a small (S) or extra-large (XL) option into the choice-set did not significantly increase or decrease large size choices, respectively. However, dietary restraint moderated the effect of size option condition on portion selection for side-dish selections (but not for drinks and desserts), such that when an XL size was available, unrestrained eaters were relatively more likely than restrained eaters to pick a large or XL side dish. The findings support an overall preference for a normative sounding portion size. Accordingly, one useful strategy would be to reduce the size of regular serving portions to reflect an amount closer to current health guidelines.
AB - The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of verbal size descriptors on portion size selections. Specifically, we investigated a range of size options within an online ordering setting. A sample of 216 female Flinders University students were asked to select a side dish, drink, and dessert from one of three online menus with varying portion size options: (1) small, regular, and large (SRL), (2) regular, large, and extra-large (RLXL), or (3) small, regular, large, and extra-large (SRLXL). Participants also completed a measure of dietary restraint. Across conditions, participants most frequently selected the ‘regular’ size for sides and drinks; however, for desserts a small size was equally preferred. In contrast to the concept of extremeness aversion, incorporating a small (S) or extra-large (XL) option into the choice-set did not significantly increase or decrease large size choices, respectively. However, dietary restraint moderated the effect of size option condition on portion selection for side-dish selections (but not for drinks and desserts), such that when an XL size was available, unrestrained eaters were relatively more likely than restrained eaters to pick a large or XL side dish. The findings support an overall preference for a normative sounding portion size. Accordingly, one useful strategy would be to reduce the size of regular serving portions to reflect an amount closer to current health guidelines.
KW - Dietary restraint
KW - Food choice
KW - Portion size
KW - Size options
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85142868445&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104768
DO - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104768
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85142868445
VL - 105
JO - FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
JF - FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
SN - 0950-3293
M1 - 104768
ER -