↓ Skip to main content

Does Glass Size and Shape Influence Judgements of the Volume of Wine?

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, December 2015
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
28 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Does Glass Size and Shape Influence Judgements of the Volume of Wine?
Published in
PLoS ONE, December 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144536
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Pechey, Angela S. Attwood, Dominique-Laurent Couturier, Marcus R. Munafò, Nicholas E. Scott-Samuel, Andy Woods, Theresa M. Marteau

Abstract

Judgements of volume may influence the rate of consumption of alcohol and, in turn, the amount consumed. The aim of the current study was to examine the impact of the size and shape of wine glasses on perceptions of wine volume. Online experiment: Participants (n = 360; recruited via Mechanical Turk) were asked to match the volume of wine in two wine glasses, specifically: 1. the Reference glass holding a fixed reference volume, and 2. the Comparison glass, for which the volume could be altered until participants perceived it matched the reference volume. One of three comparison glasses was shown in each trial: 'wider' (20% wider but same capacity); 'larger' (same width but 25% greater capacity); or 'wider-and-larger' (20% wider and 25% greater capacity). Reference volumes were 125ml, 175ml and 250ml, in a fully factorial within-subjects design: 3 (comparison glass) x 3 (reference volume). Non-zero differences between the volumes with which participants filled comparison glasses and the corresponding reference volumes were identified using sign-rank tests. Participants under-filled the wider glass relative to the reference glass for larger reference volumes, and over-filled the larger glass relative to the reference glass for all reference volumes. Results for the wider-and-larger glass showed a mixed pattern across reference volume. For all comparison glasses, in trials with larger reference volumes participants tended to fill the comparison glass less, relative to trials with smaller reference volumes for the same comparison glass. These results are broadly consistent with people using the relative fullness of glasses to judge volume, and suggest both the shape and capacity of wine glasses may influence perceived volume. Perceptions that smaller glasses contain more than larger ones (despite containing the same volume), could slow drinking speed and overall consumption by serving standard portions in smaller glasses. This hypothesis awaits testing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Luxembourg 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 23%
Student > Master 4 15%
Other 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Other 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 42%
Unspecified 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Design 2 8%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Other 6 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 24 December 2018.
All research outputs
#488,709
of 13,494,665 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#8,792
of 143,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,605
of 360,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#298
of 4,831 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,494,665 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 143,368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 360,146 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,831 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.