↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Social Norms in the Portion Size Effect: Reducing Normative Relevance Reduces the Effect of Portion Size on Consumption Decisions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
The Role of Social Norms in the Portion Size Effect: Reducing Normative Relevance Reduces the Effect of Portion Size on Consumption Decisions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00756
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iris Versluis, Esther K. Papies

Abstract

People typically eat more from large portions of food than from small portions. An explanation that has often been given for this so-called portion size effect is that the portion size acts as a social norm and as such communicates how much is appropriate to eat. In this paper, we tested this explanation by examining whether manipulating the relevance of the portion size as a social norm changes the portion size effect, as assessed by prospective consumption decisions. We conducted one pilot experiment and one full experiment in which participants respectively indicated how much they would eat or serve themselves from a given amount of different foods. In the pilot (N = 63), we manipulated normative relevance by allegedly basing the portion size on the behavior of either students of the own university (in-group) or of another university (out-group). In the main experiment (N = 321), we told participants that either a minority or majority of people similar to them approved of the portion size. Results show that in both experiments, participants expected to serve themselves and to eat more from larger than from smaller portions. As expected, however, the portion size effect was less pronounced when the reference portions were allegedly based on the behavior of an out-group (pilot) or approved only by a minority (main experiment). These findings suggest that the portion size indeed provides normative information, because participants were less influenced by it if it communicated the behaviors or values of a less relevant social group. In addition, in the main experiment, the relation between portion size and the expected amount served was partially mediated by the amount that was considered appropriate, suggesting that concerns about eating an appropriate amount indeed play a role in the portion size effect. However, since the portion size effect was weakened but not eliminated by the normative relevance manipulations and since mediation was only partial, other mechanisms may also play a role.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 27%
Social Sciences 14 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Decision Sciences 6 5%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 24 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 26 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,746,898
of 25,552,205 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,423
of 34,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,806
of 354,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#91
of 435 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,552,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 354,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 435 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.