↓ Skip to main content

Impact of glass shape on time taken to drink a soft drink: A laboratory-based experiment

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of glass shape on time taken to drink a soft drink: A laboratory-based experiment
Published in
PLoS ONE, August 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0202793
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tess Langfield, Rachel Pechey, Mark Pilling, Theresa M. Marteau

Abstract

Glassware design may affect drinking behaviour for alcoholic beverages, with glass shape and size influencing drinking speed and amount consumed. Uncertainty remains both about the extent to which these effects are restricted to alcohol and the underlying mechanisms. The primary aim of the current study was to examine the effect of differently shaped glasses on time taken to drink a soft drink. The secondary aim was to develop hypotheses about mechanisms concerning micro-drinking behaviours and perceptual effects. In a single-session experiment, 162 participants were randomised to receive 330ml of carbonated apple juice in a glass that was either inward-sloped, straight-sided, or outward-sloped. The primary outcome measure was total drinking time. Secondary outcome measures included micro-drinking behaviours (sip size, sip duration, interval duration), and perceptual measures (midpoint bias, drink enjoyment). Participants drank 21.4% faster from the outward-sloped glass than from the straight-sided glass [95%CI: 0.2%,38.0%] in adjusted models. They were also 18.2% faster from the inward-sloped glass than the straight-sided glass, but this did not reach statistical significance with wide confidence intervals also consistent with slower drinking [95%CI: -3.8%,35.6%]. Larger sips were associated with faster drinking times (Pearson's r(162) = -.45, p < .001). The direction of effects suggested sips were larger from the outward-sloped and inward-sloped glasses, compared to the straight-sided glass (15.1%, 95%CI: -4.3%,38.0%; 19.4%, 95%CI: -0.5%,43.6%, respectively). There were no significant differences between glasses in mean sip or interval duration. Bias in midpoint estimation was greater for the outward-sloped glass (12.9ml, 95%CI: 6.6ml,19.2ml) than for the straight-sided glass, although the degree of bias was not associated with total drinking time (Pearson's r(162) = 0.01, p = .87). Individuals drank a soft drink more quickly from an outward-sloped glass, relative to a straight-sided glass. Micro-drinking behaviours, such as sip size, are promising candidates for underlying mechanisms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 30%
Student > Master 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 70%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Social Sciences 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2019.
All research outputs
#664,425
of 13,612,359 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#11,469
of 144,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,751
of 265,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#208
of 1,652 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,612,359 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 144,339 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,652 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.