Friday, June 5, 2020
US flag

We can spot downsizing but not supersizing

Consumers drastically underestimate portion supersizing but are incredibly accurate at spotting downsizing, making it difficult for food marketers to cut giant portions.

There’s a way, though, to make customers more receptive to smaller portions, say authors of a new report.

Whenever a brand tries to shave a few percentages off the size of their product, consumers immediately notice and complain. The latest revolt occurred earlier when Mondelez reduced the size of its Toblerone chocolate bars in the UK by increasing the gap between its triangular chunks.

Why are people so mad at downsizing? Certainly, downsizing is a loss, but so is a price increase. And consumers are generally indifferent to all the supersizing that has been happening over the past three decades. The same 16 ounce Coke, which now seems so normal were, not so long ago, advertised as a “big size, serving 3.” In fact, for its first 50 years, the standard measure Coca-Cola bottle was 6.5 fluid ounces. Now single servings of Coke at American fast food restaurants regularly reach up to 32 ounces.

In an article published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, titled “The Accuracy of Less: Natural Bounds Explain Why Quantity Decreases Are Estimated More Accurately Than Quantity Increases,” INSEAD Professor of Marketing, Pierre Chandon and Nailya Ordabayeva, Assistant Professor of Marketing at Boston College, find that people are much better at accurately judging decreasing portions than increasing ones, which is why there are such public outcries when companies try to shrink portions.

Across five studies involving 4,842 size judgments, they show that people, including experts such as professional chefs from the Paul Bocuse Institute, estimate quantity decreases more accurately than quantity increases. On average, they found that a portion that is doubled in size is judged to be only 72% larger than the original size, a strong underestimation, whereas one that is halved appears to be 53% of the original size, which is a very good approximation.

“Our brain is very bad at judging quantity increases, but surprisingly accurate at judging quantity decreases,” said Chandon. “Supersizing food portions is a lose-lose proposition: Consumers don’t realize how much food is available, they refuse to pay a fair price for it, and end up eating more than they realize. Companies should consider downsizing back to what used to be a regular portion size not so long ago. But they need to downsize smartly, leveraging what we know about size perceptions; otherwise consumers will reject it.”

In one experiment, they asked 510 participants to take a look at five different portions of chocolate candies in plastic cups. The cups had 37, 74, 148, 296, and 592 candies respectively. In the “supersizing” condition, participants were told the count of the smallest portion (37) and were then asked to estimate the number of chocolate candies in the other four portions. The average estimates were 57, 102, 184, and 296.

In other words, people missed exactly half the candies in the largest cup. People in the downsizing group were told the count of the largest portion (592) and were asked to estimate the number of candies in the other cups. Their average estimate was 346, 163, 74, and 36. They only missed the size of the smallest cup by one candy.

Chandon and Ordabayeva hypothesized that this asymmetry exists because there is a natural lower bound or a zero point when portion sizes decrease. In other words, a decreasing portion cannot go below zero. When portions increase, however, they can theoretically grow to infinity. Without an upper bound, it is hard for people to estimate how big something has become.

To test their hypothesis, they provided an upper bound to some of the participants, telling them that the plastic container could hold a maximum of 629 chocolate candies. In this case, participants in the supersizing condition judged the largest container to hold 528 M&Ms, much closer to the actual numbers. When an upper bound was available, judgments of size increases were no longer less accurate than judgments of size decreases.

As another test, Chandon and Ordabayeva asked people to estimate the change in size between portions rather than the size of the portions themselves. They did this because size ratios—for example, how many times larger or how many times smaller one portion is compared to another—do not have an upper bound, regardless of whether size increases or decreases. They found that estimating size ratios reduced the asymmetry between increases and decreases and made consumers less averse to size decreases.

“Our study suggests a number of strategies that can improve consumer decisions in the face of quantity increases vs. decreases,” said Ordabayeva. “This improved visual accuracy, in effect, makes people less averse to, and more receptive towards, healthier downsized portions and packages,” she added.

Paul Katula is the executive editor of the Voxitatis Research Foundation, which publishes this blog. For more information, see the About page.

Recent posts

Voxitatis congratulates the COVID Class of 2020

2020 is unique and, for high school graduates, different from anything they've seen. Proms, spring sports, & many graduation ceremonies are cancelled. Time for something new.

Vertical addition (m3.nbt.2) math practice

3rd grade, numbers and operations in base 10, 2, 3-digit vertical addition practice problem

Rubber ducks (m3.oa.1) math practice

3rd grade, operational and algebraic thinking, 1, rubber ducky modeling practice problem

Distance learning begins as Covid-19 thrives

What we learn during & from coronavirus, a challenging & imminent crisis, will provide insights into so many aspects of our lives.

Calif. h.s. choir sings with social distancing

Performances with the assistance of technology can spread inspiration across the globe even as the coronavirus spreads illness and disease.

Families plan to stay healthy during closures

Although schools are doing what they can to keep students learning and healthy during the coronavirus outbreak, that duty now shifts to parents.

Illinois temporarily closes all schools

IL schools will be closed on Tuesday, March 17, through at least March 30. Schools in 18 states are now closed due to coronavirus.

Coronavirus closures & cancellations

Many schools are closed and sports tournaments cancelled across America during what the president called a national emergency: coronavirus.

Coronavirus closes schools in Seattle

The coronavirus pandemic has caused colleges to cancel classes, and now Seattle Public Schools became the nation's first large district to cancel classes due to the virus.

Most detailed images ever of the sun

A new telescope at the National Solar Observatory snapped the most detailed pictures of the sun's surface we have ever seen.

Feds boost Bay funding

Restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed received a boost in federal funding in the budget Congress passed last month.