Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption

JBR-09324; No of Pages 9 Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption Courtney Szocs b,⁎, Sarah Lefebvre a a b

University of Central Florida, USA Portland State University, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 1 September 2015 Received in revised form 1 June 2016 Accepted 1 July 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Food presentation Horizontal Vertical Plating Visual effects Portion size

a b s t r a c t This research investigates the unexplored consequences of food presentation on consumers' portion size perceptions and consumption. The findings show that consumers perceive portions as smaller and eat more when foods are presented vertically (i.e., stacked on the plate) versus horizontally (i.e., spread across the plate). The effect of presentation on portion size perceptions occurs because consumers use the surface area of the portion as a heuristic for overall portion size and, for equal volumes of food, portions presented vertically have a smaller surface area. Surface area is used as a heuristic for overall portion size presumably because (1) when looking down at a plate of food on a dining table, the surface area of the portion is more salient than the height and (2) through experience consumers learn that the surface area of the portion is often positively correlated with overall portion size. The results of this research underscore the importance of food presentation and identify viewing angle as a factor to consider when evaluating portion size. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.

1. Introduction Marketers invest a significant amount of time and money in perfecting the way food is presented (i.e., arranged) on plates (Deroy, Michel, Piqueras-Fiszman, & Spence, 2014; Spence, Piqueras-Fiszman, Michel, & Deroy, 2014). Some restaurants even use food presentation as a strategic tool. For instance, in an effort to increase sales, Red Lobster is moving away from horizontal food presentation (i.e., spreading food across the plate), which they have traditionally used and is instead emphasizing vertical food presentation (i.e., stacking food on the plate) (Choi, 2014; Quirk, 2014). Food presentation is important because the way that food is presented on a plate not only influences consumers' aesthetic evaluations of the dish, it can also influence their taste evaluations (Michel, Velasco, Gatti, & Spence, 2014), preferences (Zampollo, Kniffin, Wansink, & Shimizu, 2012) and even the price they are willing to pay for the dish (Michel et al., 2014). This research examines the previously unexplored consequences of food presentation on consumers' subjective portion size perceptions (i.e., the largeness/smallness and sufficiency/insufficiency of the portion) and overall consumption. This paper addresses the following research question: Holding the volume of food constant, would presenting food vertically (vs. horizontally)

⁎ Corresponding author at: Portland State University, 1825 SW Broadway, Portland, OR, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Szocs).

influence how large/small or sufficient/insufficient a consumer perceives the portion to be or how much s/he eats? This research focuses on vertical and horizontal presentation because these two types of food presentation are commonly used in restaurants. For instance, Red Robin and Quaker Steak and Lube serve onion rings stacked in a tower (i.e., vertically) and salads spread out on a plate (i.e., horizontally), whereas Season's 52 serves salads stacked in a clear cylinder (i.e., presented vertically), but other menu items spread across the plate (i.e., presented horizontally). Red Robin serves donuts stacked up (i.e., presented vertically), while Bonefish Grill serves them spread across a plate (i.e., presented horizontally). Finally, Denny's serves pancakes in a stack (i.e., presented vertically), while Perkin's Restaurant and Bakery serves them spread across the plate (i.e., presented horizontally). The menus at each of the top four casual dining restaurant chains in the United States (i.e., Olive Garden, Chili's, Red Lobster and Applebee's) (Restaurant News, 2016) contain both vertically and horizontally presented items. For equal volumes of food, a critical difference between vertical and horizontal presentation is the relative size of the dimensions (i.e., length, width, height) of the portion. Specifically, if a portion of food was presented vertically the height (i.e., the dimension that is perpendicular to the plate) of the portion would be relatively greater than if the portion was presented horizontally, in which case the surface area (i.e., the dimensions that are parallel to the plate) would be greater. Thus, from a conceptual perspective, by investigating the effects of food presentation (horizontal vs. vertical), this research investigates

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.022 0148-2963/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Please cite this article as: Szocs, C., & Lefebvre, S., Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.022

2

C. Szocs, S. Lefebvre / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

how altering the dimensions of a portion of food (i.e., increasing the height when the food is presented vertically versus increasing the surface area when the food is presented horizontally) influences consumers' subjective portion size perceptions and overall consumption. This research focuses on subjective portion size perceptions (i.e., whether a portion of food is large enough or sufficient enough for the consumer) rather than volume estimates (i.e., whether a consumer can guess the exact volume of the portion) because casual observation suggests that consumers think about portion sizes in subjective terms (i.e., small, medium, large) rather than in objective units (i.e., 12 oz). For instance, at restaurants consumers typically order based on what they perceive as sufficient to satisfy hunger (i.e., a medium order of onion rings) rather than the exact number of ounces (i.e., four oz of onion rings). Furthermore, consumption decisions are often driven by subjective portion size perceptions (i.e., “I've eaten a sufficient amount”) rather than estimates of the number of units consumed (i.e., “I've eaten 16 oz”) (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011; Van Ittersum & Wansink, 2012). In fact, even when size information is available consumers pay little attention to it (Brown, 2013; Yang & Raghubir, 2005). It should be noted however, that subjective portion size perceptions are often consistent with volume estimates (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011; Madzharov & Block, 2010). So, how would presenting food vertically (vs. horizontally) influence consumers' subjective portion size perceptions, henceforth just “portion size perceptions”, and consumption decisions? Prior studies related to plating have investigated how the color (Piqueras-Fiszman, Alcaide, Roura, & Spence, 2012; Van Ittersum & Wansink, 2012), size (Van Ittersum & Wansink, 2012), and shape of plates (Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2012) influence consumers' judgments and decisions; however, little is known about how the presentation of food on a plate might influence consumers. The few studies that have examined the effects of food presentation have focused on how balance and color (Zellner, Lankford, Abrose, & Locher, 2010), as well as neat (vs. messy) presentation (Zellner et al., 2011) influence consumers' evaluations of the food. The effects of presenting food vertically (vs. horizontally) have not been examined. This research fills this gap in the literature. By investigating the effects of food presentation this research also contributes to the literature on heuristics used to evaluate food/beverage size. Research in this stream shows that consumers rely on heuristics related to the elongation of a container (Krishna, 2006; Raghubir & Krishna, 1999), the size label (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011), and the number of units on a package (Madzharov & Block, 2010) when evaluating size. This research contributes by identifying the surface area of the portion of food on a plate as another heuristic consumers use when evaluating portion size. This research also adds to the literature on visual biases in size perception which shows that increasing (vs. decreasing) the height of a cup (Krishna, 2006; Raghubir & Krishna, 1999; Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2003) or package (Raghubir & Krishna, 1999 – Study 1) influences consumers' food and beverage volume estimates leading to an elongation bias (i.e., taller cups are perceived as containing a greater volume of liquid than shorter/wider cups) (Krishna, 2006; Raghubir & Krishna, 1999; Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2003). This research identifies a boundary condition to the elongation bias by showing that when evaluating portions of plated food (vs. packages or beverages in cups/glasses) at a 42° angle portion size perceptions are inversely related to the height of the portion. This research argues that the elongation bias doesn't hold for portions of plated food because the height of the portion (vs. the height of a package or a food/beverage in a glass) is not the easiest to encode or the most diagnostic dimension when consumers view food at a downward angle. Finally, this research adds to the literature by highlighting the importance of viewing angle in driving portion size evaluations.

Specifically, the findings show that effects of food presentation on perceived portion size hold when individuals view food at a downward (~ 42°) angle as they normally do when seated at a table, but that the effects are attenuated when they view food straight on (at a ~ 0° angle) as they might when the food is at eye level in a display case. In addition to these conceptual implications, this research also has important practical implications. First, marketers use plate presentation strategically (e.g., Red Lobster). Thus, it is important that they understand the consequences of presenting food vertically (vs. horizontally). Additionally, due to rising food costs and increasing obesity rates, marketers and health professionals are often looking for creative ways to reduce portion sizes (Segal, 2008). Given that changing the way food is presented on a plate might simply involve the chef spreading food out on plates instead of stacking foods, the findings of this research suggest that horizontal presentation might be one option for marketers to consider. Next, is a discussion of the theoretical framework for the research hypotheses. Then, the hypotheses are tested in a series of four experimental studies. The manuscript concludes with a discussion of the implications and directions for future research. 2. Theoretical background 2.1. Heuristics for size Consumers have limited cognitive resources and tend not to expend these valuable resources on routine judgments and decisions (Dickson & Sawyer, 1990) like evaluating the size of a portion of food (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011). Instead, for these types of judgments and decisions consumers rely on heuristics (Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1988) that are easy to use and diagnostic (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011). Heuristics are easy to use since they are employed to save time and preserve cognitive resources, and are also diagnostic or accurate (Hsee, 1996). A consumer learns whether or not a heuristic is diagnostic through experience observing the relationship between the heuristic and the focal judgment (Hsee, 1996). In the context of evaluating the size of containers or packages, heuristics tend to be related to the length of one salient (i.e., easy to use or encode) dimension of the object that experience has shown is correlated with product size (i.e., is diagnostic). For instance, when evaluating the volume of cups, glasses or other cylindrical containers by looking at, or looking at and touching the container, the height is not only easy to encode but also tends to be highly correlated with the volume of the container which leads consumers to use height as a heuristic for volume (i.e., the elongation bias) (Raghubir & Krishna, 1999). Similarly, when comparing the size of different shaped products/packages consumers tend to use the length of the most salient dimension (e.g., the base of longest side of square packages and the diameter of circular packages) as a heuristic (Krider, Raghubir, & Krishna, 2001). When consumers evaluate the size of a portion of plated food what dimension(s) would be easy to encode (i.e., most salient) and diagnostic? That is, what dimension(s) will consumers use as a heuristic for portion size? This research argues that in a typical dining context (i.e., when looking down at a plate of food on a table) the surface area of the portion (i.e., the area of the portion covering the plate) would be easier to encode and also more diagnostic than the height, leading surface area to be used as a heuristic for portion size. The surface area would be easier to encode than the height because when seated at a dining table consumers typically view a plate of food at 42° (i.e., downward) angle (Nelson, Atkinson, & Darbyshire, 1994). The surface area should also be more diagnostic than the height. To elaborate, diagnosticity relates to how good of a predictor an attribute is and increases as the consumer becomes more experienced with observing the relationship between the attribute and the judgment of

Please cite this article as: Szocs, C., & Lefebvre, S., Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.022

C. Szocs, S. Lefebvre / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

interest. Given the large variation in dinnerware size (Van Ittersum & Wansink, 2012; Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2013) and the fact that horizontal presentation has long been the norm (Sheehan, 2010) consumers likely encounter more variation in the surface area (vs. the height) of portions of plated food and therefore learn to associate the surface area of the portion with overall portion size. It should be noted that in many cases, such as when seated at a dining table, individuals also view cups and beverage containers at a downward, albeit slightly greater, angle. (The angle is greater due to the height of the cup/container). However, the surface area of the top of a cup or container might not be a diagnostic indicator of volume since, due to shelf space constraints, there is likely less variation in the surface area of the tops of containers/packages. Overall, these insights suggest that while the surface area of the top of containers is not a diagnostic indicator of portion size, the surface area of a portion of food presented on a plate might be more diagnostic and therefore used as a heuristic in portion size judgments. If as this research predicts consumers use surface area as a heuristic for overall size what would the implications be for portion size perceptions of horizontally (vs. vertically) presented foods? For a fixed volume of food, a vertically presented portion has a greater height dimension and a smaller surface area whereas a horizontally presented portion has a greater surface area and a smaller height dimension. Thus, consumers will perceive a given volume of food as larger and more sufficient if it is presented horizontally (vs. vertically) since a horizontally presented portion has a larger surface area. H1. Consumers perceive equal volumes of food as larger when the food is presented horizontally versus vertically on a plate.

2.2. Horizontal (vs. vertical) presentation and consumption If horizontally (vs. vertically) presented portions of food are perceived as larger, will presenting a portion horizontally (vs. vertically) lead consumers to eat more or less? When faced with the decision of how much to consume individuals must balance hedonic goals associated with the pleasure of eating a tasty food and utilitarian goals related to maintaining good health (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011; Chandon & Wansink, 2007a; Dhar & Simonson, 1999). In order to minimize negative feelings of guilt and still experience pleasure associated with consumption, consumers automatically engage in strategies to maximize pleasure and minimize negative feelings (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011). For instance, consumers are more likely to believe size labels when a large portion is mislabeled as small than when a small portion is mislabeled as large because the small size label reduces negative feelings and allows the consumer to eat with less guilt (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011). In a similar vein, consumers desire to eat a larger quantity of a food when they perceive the individual pieces as smaller (Szocs & Biswas, 2015), presumably because they can do so without experiencing negative feelings. In the context of the present research, if a consumer subconsciously perceives a portion of food as smaller when it is presented vertically (vs. horizontally), this should allow him/her to consume a greater volume of the portion without experiencing negative feelings. Thus, building on the idea that consumers try to manage conflicting goals of maximizing pleasure while minimizing guilt, this research proposes that consumers will eat more of a portion that is presented vertically (vs. horizontally). H2a. Individuals consume a greater volume of foods presented vertically (vs. horizontally). The above prediction is contingent on the fact that consumers will allow themselves to consume a greater quantity of the food without experiencing guilt because they subconsciously perceive

3

the portion as smaller when it is presented vertically. However, this research proposes that when an individual's attention is drawn to the size of the portion before consumption there will be no difference in consumption based on food presentation. This is because individuals will no longer be able to engage in “guiltless gluttony” (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011), instead they will feel guilty about consumption. This prediction also is in line with prior work that shows that individuals tend to correct behavior driven by unconscious factors when they are mindfully aware of these factors (Biswas, Szocs, Krishna, & Lehmann, 2014). H2b. H2a holds when an individual's attention is not drawn to the size of the portion prior to consumption; however, when an individual's attention is drawn to the size of the portion prior to consumption, no difference occurs in consumption based on food presentation. Next, Study 1 tests the effects of food presentation on consumption (hypotheses 2a and 2b). Then Studies 2, 3 and 4 examine the process driving these effects by investigating the relationship between food presentation and portion size perceptions (hypothesis 1). 3. Study 1: food presentation and consumption The objective of Study 1 was to examine the effects of vertical (vs. horizontal) presentation on consumption and whether drawing individuals' attention to the size of the portion prior to consumption eliminates differences in consumption based on presentation. A secondary objective was to rule out a possible alternative explanation related to vertical (vs. horizontal) presentation leading to differences in perceived quality of the food. Specifically, vertical food presentation is associated with high-end restaurants (Choi, 2014), and everyday experience suggests that portions tend to be smaller at high-end restaurants. Thus, it is possible that consumers will perceive vertically (vs. horizontally) presented foods as higher quality and this will lead to smaller portion size perceptions and greater consumption. 3.1. Design, participants, procedure Study 1 had a 2 (food presentation: horizontal vs. vertical) × 2 (focus of attention: to portion size vs. control/no attention to portion size) between subjects design. Following Biswas et al. (2014), participants were invited to the lab to participate in a study on evaluations of advertisements. They were informed that the agency sponsoring the study had provided some snacks for participants to enjoy as they watched the ads. Participants were told that the snack that day was potato chips. Each participant went to a computer and was given ten Lay's Stacks potato chips that were stacked (vertical presentation) or spread out (horizontal presentation) on a white paper plate. In the “attention to portion size” conditions, participants were told that the company that provided the snacks wanted some feedback. They were then asked to rate the portion size of the snack they received. In the “control/no attention to portion size” conditions participants answered the size evaluation question at the very end of the study session so as to not draw attention to the portion size. The ads were for various companies (e.g., Samsung, Air India), but were not related to food. After participants viewed the ads they were asked to rate the taste of the potato chips (1 = not at all delicious; 7 = very delicious), as well as the quality (1 = very poor, 7 = very good). The quality measure was included to examine whether horizontal (vs. vertical) presentation might lead to differences in perceived quality. Participants were also asked to report the number of hours since their last meal as an indicator of hunger (Briers, Pandelaere, Dewitte, & Warlop, 2006; Laeng, Berridge, & Butter, 1993) and report their height (in inches) and weight (in pounds). These measures were included because prior research shows that hunger (Dunning & Balcetis, 2013) and BMI (Brunstrom, Shakeshaft, &

Please cite this article as: Szocs, C., & Lefebvre, S., Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.022

4

C. Szocs, S. Lefebvre / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Alexander, 2010) can significantly influence portion size perceptions and consumption. Hence, it was important to examine whether hunger level and BMI were significant covariates. Finally, at the end of the session participants were asked to bring their plates to the research assistant. The research assistant recorded the number of chips consumed after the participant left the lab. Only chips that were completely consumed were counted. If a participant left a piece of a chip that chip was counted as not consumed (e.g., if a participant returned a plate with 8.5 chips it was coded as 1 chip consumed). The number of chips consumed was the key dependent variable. Eighty-nine undergraduate students at a major Southeastern University participated in this study. Ten participants did not sample the potato chips, and one participant threw away his plate at the end of the study (so the number of chips consumed could not be recorded). These participants were excluded from analysis. Four participants did not report the number of hours since their last meal. The data for these participants were retained in the sample. The final sample size was seventy-eight (Mage = 23.54; 48.1% female). 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Perceived quality A 2 (presentation) × 2 (focus of attention) ANOVA on perceived quality of the chips revealed no significant main effects (presentation: F(1, 74) = 0.09, p = 0.76; focus of attention: F(1, 74) = 1.73, p = 0.19) and no significant interaction effect (F(1, 74) = 0.087, p = 0.77). This pattern of results suggests that differences in perceived quality are not driving the effects of food presentation. 3.2.2. Consumption An ANCOVA with presentation and focus of attention as the independent variables, number of chips consumed as the dependent variable and taste as a covariate was run. Taste was included as a covariate because prior research shows that perceived taste plays a fundamental role in driving consumption (Glanz, Basil, Maibach, Goldberg, & Snyder, 1998). The results of the ANCOVA revealed that taste was a significant covariate (F(1, 73) = 10.26, p b 0.01). More importantly, there was a marginally significant main effect of presentation (M horizontal = 7.66 vs. Mvertical = 8.46; F(1, 73) = 2.96, p b 0.09) and a significant main effect of focus of attention (M to portion size = 9.33 vs. M control = 6.81; F(1, 73) = 15.85, p b 0.01). However, these main effects were qualified by a marginally significant interaction (F(1, 73) = 3.90, p b 0.06). Follow up tests showed that when participants' attention was not directed toward the size of the portion, participants consumed more chips when the chips were presented vertically (Mvertical = 7.67 vs. M horizontal = 5.63; F(1, 74) = 4.46, p b 0.05). However, when participants' attention was directed to the size of the portion, there was no difference in the number of chips consumed based on the way the chips were presented (Mvertical = 9.29 vs. Mhorizontal = 9.37; F(1, 74) = 0.008, p = 0.93). Thus, H2a and H2b receive support. A series of ANCOVA's were run to examine whether gender, hunger or BMI were significant covariates. Each ANCOVA was run separately with food presentation and focus of attention as the independent variables and consumption as the dependent variable. The ANCOVA's revealed that gender (F(1, 73) = 2.77, p = 0.101), hunger (F(1, 69) = 0.105, p = 0.75) and BMI were not significant covariates (F(1, 73) = 1.00, p = 0.32). 3.3. Discussion The results of Study 1 show that food presentation has important consequences in terms of influencing consumption. Specifically, the results showed that, in a typical consumption context, when participants' attention was not directed to the size of the portion, they consumed more of a food when it was presented vertically (vs.

horizontally). Interestingly, the findings show that drawing participants' attention to the size of the portion attenuated the difference in consumption based on presentation, but increased consumption overall. This research did not predict that directing participants' attention to the size of the portion would lead to increased consumption; however, one reason for this effect could be that drawing participants' attention to the food made them hungrier. This prediction is in line with prior work that shows that food salience enhances hunger (Bossert-Zaudig, Laessle, Meiller, & Ellring, 1991; Volcow et al., 2002), as well as consumption (Johnson, 1974). In support of this explanation, a 2 (presentation) × 2 (focus of attention) ANOVA on perceived hunger at the beginning of the study revealed a main effect of focus of attention (F(1, 72) = 23.00, p b 0.01), which showed that participants were hungrier when their attention was directed toward the size of the portion (M to portion size = 5.53 vs. Mcontrol = 3.53). There was also a marginally significant main effect of presentation (Mvertical = 4.83 vs. M horizontal = 4.15; F(1, 72) = 3.38, p b 0.08). The interaction was not significant (F(1, 72) = 0.99, p = 0.32). Overall, while having participants evaluate the size of the portion prior to consumption can attenuate the difference in consumption based on food presentation, merely having participants evaluate the size prior to consumption can actually increase consumption. One limitation of Study 1 is that this study did not examine the effect of food presentation on portion size perceptions. This is because in the attention to portion size conditions participants evaluated the size of the portion of chips before they consumed any chips whereas in the control/no attention to size conditions participants evaluated the size after they had consumed the chips. Next, Study 2 addresses this limitation and examines how food presentation influences portion size perceptions. 4. Study 2: food presentation and portion size perceptions 4.1. Design, procedure, participants Study 2 tested the effects of food presentation on portion size perceptions (i.e., hypothesis 1) using a one factor between subjects design with two experimental conditions (food presentation: horizontal vs. vertical). Individuals were invited to the lab to participate in a study on food product evaluations. Participants entered the lab in groups of about six and were seated around a table. In the center of the table, equidistant from all participants, was a caprese salad that was either presented horizontally (i.e., spread out on the plate) or vertically (i.e., stacked up on the plate) depending on the experimental condition. In both conditions the caprese salad weighed 186 g and contained three slices of mozzarella cheese, three slices of tomato, spinach leaves and a drizzle of balsamic vinegar. Please refer to Appendix A for images of the stimuli. Participants were asked to look at the salad and then complete a paper survey. The key dependent variable (i.e., perceived portion size) was measured by asking participants to rate the size of the portion (1 = tiny; 7 = huge) (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011). Participants were also asked to complete the same measures for hunger, height and weight as in Study 1. Seventy-three undergraduate students participated in this study (Mage = 23.94; 45.2% female). One individual did not respond to the hunger question, three did not report their height and one individual did not report his weight. The data for these participants were retained in the sample. 4.2. Results A one-way ANOVA with food presentation as the independent variable and perceived portion size as the dependent variable showed that, consistent with hypothesis 1, participants perceived the caprese salad

Please cite this article as: Szocs, C., & Lefebvre, S., Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.022

C. Szocs, S. Lefebvre / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

as larger when it was presented horizontally (vs. vertically) on the plate (Mhorizontal = 4.29 vs. Mvertical = 3.71; F(1, 71) = 4.077, p b 0.05). A series of ANCOVA's showed that gender (F(1, 70) = 1. 71, p = 0.20), hunger (F(1, 69) = 0.017, p = 0.90) and BMI (F(1, 67) = 1.35, p = 0.25) were not significant covariates. 4.3. Discussion The results of Study 2 show that food presentation influences portion size perceptions whereby consumers perceive portions as larger when they are presented horizontally (vs. vertically). This is consistent with the theorization that consumers ate more of the vertically (vs. horizontally) presented food because they subconsciously perceived it as smaller. Next, Study 3 examines the process driving the effects of presentation on portion size perceptions and tests the prediction that this effect is due to the surface area of the portion being easier to encode than the height when food is presented horizontally. 5. Study 3: assessing ease of encoding As noted previously, attributes selected as heuristics tend to be easy to use/encode and diagnostic (Hsee, 1996). Research in the domain of experimental psychology has demonstrated ease of use/encoding through the time it takes to complete sorting tasks (Klatzky, Lederman, & Reed, 1987). Specifically, Klatzky et al. (1987) show that individuals complete sorting tasks faster when they sort a series of objects by an attribute that is easier to encode than when they sort by an attribute that is more difficult to encode. Extending this logic to the current research, it stands to reason that if the proposed theorization is correct and the surface area of a portion is easier to encode than the height then individuals will sort a series of plates containing different sized portions of food more quickly when the portions are presented horizontally (vs. vertically). Study 3 tests this prediction. 5.1. Design, participants, procedure Study 3 had a one factor between subjects design with two conditions (food presentation: vertical vs. horizontal). Undergraduate students were invited to participate in a study on food product evaluations. They entered the lab in groups of two and were seated at a table that contained two laptops and five plates containing different size portions of mashed potatoes. The mashed potatoes were either presented vertically or horizontally depending on the experimental condition. Specifically, the plates contained 94 g, 104 g, 114 g, 124 g and 134 g of Simply Potatoes traditional mashed potatoes. To the right of each plate was a card with a letter on it to identify the plate. Participants completed the experimental task on a laptop. They were instructed to look at the plates and then complete a drag and drop task where they were given a list of the five plates (i.e., Plate A, Plate B) and were instructed to order them by size (1 = largest to 5 = smallest) as quickly as they could while also being accurate. Specifically, participants were told, “Your first task will be to sort the plates by the quantity of food they contain. You will want to order them from largest (1) to smallest (5). Please order the plates as quickly as you can, but make sure you sort them correctly.” After participants moved to the next screen they were given a drag and drop task where “Plate A”–“Plate E” were listed on the left and the numbers “one” through “five” were listed on the right. They were to drag and drop the plates into order from largest to smallest. Participants were not allowed to touch the plates. The key dependent variable was the time it took for participants to complete the sorting task. Time was measured and rounded to the nearest millisecond by the Qualtrics survey software system. While not the main purpose of the study, the survey also measured how accurate participants were in ordering the plates by counting the number of plates that were correctly ordered (0 = no plates correctly ordered; 5 = all plates correctly ordered). Hunger was measured

5

as in Study 1. The hunger measure was included because prior research (e.g., Piech, Pastorino, & Zald, 2010) suggests that hunger can influence task performance. Eighty-three undergraduate students participated in this study in exchange for extra credit; however, four individuals did not follow directions and completed the sorting task in the opposite order (i.e., from smallest to largest). These participants were excluded from the analysis leaving a final sample of seventy-nine (Mage = 23.82; 49.4% female). 5.2. Results 5.2.1. Reaction time An ANCOVA with presentation as the independent factor, time to complete the sorting task as the dependent factor and hunger as the covariate showed that individuals took more time to complete the task when the mashed potatoes were presented vertically (Mvertical = 56.54 vs. Mhorizontal = 48.97; F(1, 76) = 3.16, p b 0.08). Hunger was a significant covariate (F(1, 76) = 5.79, p b 0.05). 5.2.2. Accuracy An ANCOVA with food presentation as the independent factor, accuracy as the dependent factor and hunger as a covariate revealed that participants were more accurate when the mashed potatoes were presented vertically (Mvertical = 2.28 vs. Mhorizontal = 1.77; F(1, 76) = 4.23, p b 0.05). Hunger was not a significant covariate (F(1, 76) = 0.01, p = 0.93) 5.3. Discussion The results of Study 3 provide empirical support for the claim that the surface area of a portion of food presented on a plate is more salient than the height dimension by showing that individuals are able to sort a series of five plates containing different portions of food more quickly when the portions were presented horizontally. Interestingly, the results of Study 3 show that individuals are more accurate in sorting when the portions are presented vertically. This finding is not altogether surprising given that differences in portion size are easier to detect when the differences are reflected in a single dimension (vs. when they are spread over multiple dimensions) (Chandon & Ordabayeva, 2009) and that consumers are often inaccurate when evaluating size (Chandon & Ordabayeva, 2009; Chandon & Wansink, 2007b). It should also be noted that it may have been more difficult to compare the portions when they were presented horizontally since individuals would have to superimpose one portion on top of another whereas vertically presented portions lend themselves to pairwise comparisons. This finding is discussed further in the General Discussion section. In Studies 1–3, individuals viewed portions of food at a downward (~42°) angle. Next, Study 4 shows that when individuals view a plate of food straight on, instead of at a downward angle, the surface area of the portion is no longer easier to encode than the height leading to an attenuation of the effects of food presentation on portion size perceptions. 6. Study 4: the moderating effect of viewing angle This research predicts that the effect of food presentation on portion size perceptions is driven by the surface area of the portion being more salient than the height when individuals look down at a plate of food, as they typically do when seated at a table. If this theorization is correct then the effect of food presentation on portion size perceptions will hold when individuals view the plate at a downward angle (i.e., ~42°), however when individuals view the plate straight on (i.e., ~0° angle), as they might if the plate was displayed in an eye level display case, the surface area will no longer be easier to encode than the height. Now, when viewing a plate of food straight on the height (vs. surface

Please cite this article as: Szocs, C., & Lefebvre, S., Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.022

6

C. Szocs, S. Lefebvre / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

area) might be easier to encode; however, due to experience in observing the relationship between the surface area and overall portion size, the surface area of the portion should still be more diagnostic than the height. Building on these insights, this research predicts that when individuals view a plate of food straight on there will be no difference in portion size perceptions based on food presentation. Formally stated: H3. When individuals view a plate of food at a downward angle (i.e., ~ 42°) they will perceive the food is larger when it is presented horizontally (vs. vertically); however, there will be no difference in portion size perceptions based on food presentation when individuals view a plate of food straight on (i.e., ~0° angle).

6.1. Pretest Prior research shows that when seated at a dining table the typical angle for viewing a plate of food is 42° (Nelson et al., 1994). To confirm this before manipulating viewing angle in Study 4 a pretest was conducted. Members of an online panel were asked to imagine that they were sitting at a restaurant or dining room table about to eat a meal. Then, they were shown three images of a plate of food and asked to select the image that best represented how they would see the plate of food in front of them. (Please see Appendix B for images of the stimuli.) The three images were of the same food item but were taken from different viewing angles by a professional photographer (i.e., straight on at a ~0°, at a downward ~42°, and directly above the plate at ~90°). Consistent with prior research the results showed that 76.4% of respondents indicated that they would view the food at a ~42° angle. A chi-square goodness of fit test showed this was significantly greater than chance (Χ2(2) = 47.16, p b 0.01). 6.2. Design, procedure, participants Study 4 had a 2 (presentation: horizontal vs. vertical) × 2 (viewing angle: downward angle/top view vs. straight on/side view) between subjects design. The stimulus was a plate of pineapple pieces that were presented vertically or horizontally depending on the experimental condition. The plate was placed inside of a cube shaped display case. To manipulate viewing angle, different parts of the display case were blacked out. Specifically, in the downward angle/top view conditions all sides of the display case were blacked out except for the top. In the straight on/side view conditions only the top of the display case was blacked out. Please see Appendix C for an image of the display case. Participants viewed the food item in the display case and then rated the perceived portion size (1 = extremely insufficient; 7 = extremely sufficient) (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011). Ninety-eight undergraduate students (Mage = 22.00; 37.8% female) participated in this study in exchange for extra credit. 6.3. Results The results of a 2 (food presentation) × 2 (viewing angle) ANOVA on perceived portion size revealed a significant interaction effect (F(1, 94) = 4.17, p b 0.05). Neither the main effect of food presentation (F(1, 94) = 1.13, p = 0.29), nor the main effect of viewing angle were significant (F(1, 94) = 0.73, p = 0.40). Follow up tests showed that when participants had a downward viewing angle they perceived the portion as larger when it was presented horizontally (Mhorizontal = 5.17 vs. Mvertical = 4.19; F(1, 94) = 4.0, p b 0.05). However, when participants viewed the food straight on, there was no difference in portion size perceptions based on food presentation (Mhorizontal = 4.79 vs. Mvertical = 5.10; F(1, 94) = 0.60, p = 0.44). A series of ANCOVA's showed that gender (F(1, 93) = 2.22, p = 0.14), hunger (F(1, 93) = 0.00, p = 0.99) and BMI (F(1, 93) = 0.007, p = 0.94) were not significant covariates.

6.4. Discussion The results of Study 4 provide additional evidence to support the prediction that when individuals view a plate of food at a downward angle (e.g., when seated at a dining table) the surface area is easier to encode than the height dimension and therefore is used as a heuristic for size. 7. General discussion The results of four studies show that food presentation has a systematic influence on consumers' portion size perceptions and consumption decisions. Specifically, the findings show that when consumers' attention is not drawn to the size of the portion of food (e.g., in a typical consumption situation) consumers eat a greater volume of food when it is presented vertically (vs. horizontally). The effects of food presentation on consumption appear to be driven by the fact that consumers perceive portions of food as smaller when they are presented vertically, which allows them to guiltlessly consume a greater volume of food. Studies 2–4 examined the effect of presentation on portion size perceptions and showed that holding actual portion size constant, displaying food horizontally (vs. vertically) leads to larger portion size perceptions. This effect appears to be driven by consumers using the surface area of the portion as a heuristic for overall portion size when they view a portion of food on a plate at a downward angle. Surface area (vs. height) of the portion is used as a heuristic because it is more salient (i.e., easier to encode) and also more diagnostic than the height when consumers look down at a plate of food as they do when it's placed in front of them on a table. When consumers view a food straight on (at a 0° angle), the surface area is no longer the most salient dimension and the effects of food presentation on portion size perceptions are attenuated. These findings contribute to both theory and practice. 7.1. Theoretical implications In demonstrating the effects of food presentation this research contributes to the literature in four key ways. First, the findings of this research add to the literature related to heuristics used in size evaluations. Research in this stream shows that consumers tend to avoid expending valuable cognitive resources on routine judgments and decisions such as portion size evaluations (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011; Dickson & Sawyer, 1990). Consequently, consumers trade off accuracy for time and rely on heuristics (Payne et al., 1988), such as the elongation of a container or package a product is served in (Krishna, 2006; Raghubir & Krishna, 1999), the shape of a package (Krider et al., 2001), and the size label attached to the product (Aydinğlu & Krishna, 2011). This research adds to this stream by identifying the surface area of a portion of plated food as another heuristic consumers rely on when evaluating portion size. Second, this research contributes to research related to visual biases in size perception. Prior research in this stream shows that the most salient dimension of a cup/container/package tends to drive size evaluations leading to an elongation bias where taller cups/containers/ packages seem larger (Krishna, 2006; Raghubir & Krishna, 1999; Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2003). The present research builds on this prior work and shows that when the item being evaluated is a portion of food on a plate (with the dimensions of the portion not determined by the vessel/container) instead of a package (with fixed dimensions) or a food/beverage served in a vessel that determines the dimensions, and the evaluator is seated at a table with a downward viewing angle, the length and width (i.e., the surface area) would be easier to encode and more diagnostic than the height, leading portions of food presented horizontally (vs. vertically) to seem larger. At a broader level, this research identifies a boundary condition to the elongation bias.

Please cite this article as: Szocs, C., & Lefebvre, S., Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.022

C. Szocs, S. Lefebvre / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Third, the findings of this research add to the literature related to consumers' size evaluations by showing that the angle one views a focal object from can influence his or her size evaluation. While prior research has examined the role of camera angle in product evaluations and shown that photographing products from a lower angle leads to more favorable evaluations (Meyers-Levy & Peracchio, 1992), this is possibly the first research to show that the angle a portion of food is viewed from can influence size evaluations. Additionally, from a methodological standpoint this work contributes to the literature by suggesting that future food studies should take care to control for participants' viewing angle across experimental conditions. Finally, the findings of the studies reported herein add to the growing body of literature related to factors in the eating environment that can subconsciously influence consumers' food perceptions and consumption decisions (Wansink, 2004). Research in this stream shows that package/container size (Wansink, 1996) and portion size can influence consumption (Scheibehenne, Todd, & Wansink, 2010). The findings of this research contribute to this stream by holding the quantity of food and the size of the plate constant and showing that presenting food horizontally (vs. vertically) can influence portion size perceptions and overall consumption. 7.2. Practical implications As noted in the introduction, in an effort to increase sales Red Lobster has moved away from horizontal presentation and started emphasizing vertical presentation of menu items. When they implemented this change did they know that consumers would subconsciously perceive food portions as smaller and eat more? There is no evidence to suggest they did. However, it is important that Red Lobster and other restaurants recognize the influence food presentation can have on consumers' portion size perceptions and consumption decisions. Managers at restaurants and cafeterias who want to encourage more healthful levels of consumption might consider taking the opposite approach of Red Lobster and spreading foods out on plates (i.e., using horizontal presentation). Finally, consumers should be aware of the effects of food presentation and make strategic use of these effects when preparing meals. In that regard, a mother wanting to encourage her children to eat more vegetables might serve the vegetables stacked up (i.e., vertically) on a plate. The findings of Study 1 show that directing participants' attention to the size of the food increased consumption. This finding is interesting in light of the fact that some restaurants (e.g., Brio, Season's 52) present a tray of mini deserts to diners at the end of the meal. Would presenting these tiny indulgences increase consumption by calling diners' attention to the size of desserts? The results of Study 1 suggest they might. Prior research suggests that marketers can influence consumers' size perceptions through changing the shape of containers or packages (Krider et al., 2001; Krishna, 2006; Raghubir & Krishna, 1999). However, changing the shape of containers and packages can be expensive (Reuters, 2015). Moreover, containers and packages are often associated with the brand (i.e., Coca-Cola, Mrs. Butterworth's) (Black, 2011) and can therefore be difficult to change. The findings of this research suggest an alternative means of influencing size perceptions that may be more cost effective. Finally, the results of this research suggest that the angle one views a plate of food from can have a fundamental influence on portion size perceptions. This insight is important since restaurant managers have flexibility in determining the angle consumers have when viewing foods. Managers wanting to encourage a downward angle for viewing food might consider using shorter tables or taller chairs or placing display cases below eye level. 7.3. Limitations and directions for future research This research proposed that the effect of food presentation on portion size perceptions was driven by consumers' tendency to use the

7

surface area (vs. the height) of the portion as a heuristic for portion size when they look down at a plate of food. Additionally, this research proposed differences in perceived portion size led individuals to consume a greater volume of food when it was presented vertically (vs. horizontally). Following studies that have examined how varying the dimensions of a container or package influences size perceptions and consumption (e.g., Krider et al., 2001; Krishna, 2006; Raghubir & Krishna, 1999), this research aimed to demonstrate the process through relevant moderators. Similar to these other studies this research does not provide meditational evidence for the proposed processes driving the effects of food presentation on portion size perception or consumption. Thus, it is possible that processes other than those proposed are involved in driving the effects of food presentation. For instance, it is possible that participants perceive food presented vertically as more novel/interesting than food presented horizontally, and this leads them to eat more of the vertically presented food in Study 1. However, it is not clear why greater attention to the food would lead to smaller portion size perceptions. Future research should examine perceived novelty as well as other processes that might be involved in driving the effects of food presentation. Study 1 directed participants' attention to the size of the portion by having them evaluate the size before consumption. This may have led participants to pay more attention to the food overall rather than just the size. In support of this idea, the findings showed that directing participants' attention to portion size lead to increased hunger and increased consumption. Future research might examine how directing the focus of attention to other, more specific aspects of the food might moderate the effects of food presentation on consumption. For instance, directing consumers' attention to the calorie content of a food can decrease consumption (Biswas et al., 2014), while directing consumers' attention to the sensations of food in the mouth can increase enjoyment of food and lead to increased consumption. (Szocs & Biswas, 2015). In the studies reported here different aspects of the dining environment (e.g., plate color, plate size, tablecloth color) were held constant across conditions to isolate the effects of food presentation on portion size perceptions and consumption. However, as noted in prior work these environmental factors play an important role in influencing consumers' judgments and decisions (Piqueras-Fiszman et al., 2012; Van Ittersum & Wansink, 2012). Moreover, these different factors might interact with food presentation to influence consumers. For instance, it is possible that a portion of food presented vertically would appear even smaller if it were presented on a large plate. Future research could examine the interaction between food presentation and other environmental factors. In the studies reported here, individuals assessed the size of a portion of food when there was only one item on the plate. However, there are many times when multiple food items are served together on a plate (e.g., a protein/meat, a vegetable and a starch). Future research might examine whether the effects of horizontal (vs. vertical) food presentation hold when there are multiple items with different heights presented on the plate. The results of Study 3 show that participants order the plates more quickly when foods appear horizontally, but are more accurate when the foods appear vertically. This research predicted that consumers are more accurate when ordering foods presented vertically because the change in size is easier to detect since it is reflected in a single dimension (vs. spread over multiple dimensions) (Chandon & Ordabayeva, 2009). Future research could explore this potential judgment bias. Lastly, horizontal (vs. vertical) presentation may be useful for displaying non-food products (e.g., apparel, towels). Would consumers be more likely to perceive a product as larger and subsequently purchase it if it was spread out (i.e., presented horizontally) versus stacked up (i.e., presented vertically) on a table? The answer to this question awaits future research.

Please cite this article as: Szocs, C., & Lefebvre, S., Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.022

8

C. Szocs, S. Lefebvre / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Appendix A. Images of stimuli used in Study 2

42° Viewing angle

Vertical presentation

90° Viewing angle

Horizontal presentation

Appendix C. Images of viewing angle manipulation in Study 4 Spread, top view

Appendix B. Images of stimuli used in Study 4 pretest 0° Viewing angle

Please cite this article as: Szocs, C., & Lefebvre, S., Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.022

C. Szocs, S. Lefebvre / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Spread, side view

References Aydinğlu, N., & Krishna, A. (2011). Guiltless gluttony: The asymmetric effect of size labels on size perceptions and consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(April), 1095–1112. Biswas, D., Szocs, C., Krishna, A., & Lehmann, D. (2014). Something to chew on: The effects of oral haptics on mastication, orosensory perception, and calorie estimation. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(August), 261–273. Black, J. (2011). What is your product saying to consumers? Rethinking the role of packaging in communications. ((accessed July 1, 2015), Available at: http://adage.com/article/ guest-columnists/shopper-marketing-packaging-conveys-a-brand-s-message/148283/) Bossert-Zaudig, S., Laessle, R., Meiller, C., & Ellring, H. (1991). Hunger and appetite during visual perception of food in eating disorders. European Psychiatry, 6(5), 237–242. Briers, B., Pandelaere, M., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L. (2006). Hungry for money the desire for caloric resources increases the desire for financial resources and vice versa. Psychological Science, 17(11), 939–943. Brown, A. (2013). In U.S., less than half look at restaurant nutrition facts. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163904/less-half-look-restaurant-nutrition-facts.aspx Brunstrom, J. M., Shakeshaft, N. G., & Alexander, E. (2010). Familiarity changes expectations about fullness. Appetite, 54, 587–590. Chandon, P., & Ordabayeva, N. (2009). Supersize in one dimension, downsize in three dimensions: Effects of spatial dimensionality on size perceptions and preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6), 739–753. Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007a). The biasing health halos of fast food restaurant health claims: Lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1095–1112. Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007b). Is obesity caused by calorie underestimation? A psychophysical model of meal size estimation. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(February), 84–99. Choi, C. (2014). Red Lobster will try fancier plate presentations, focuses on seafood quality. (accessed December 7, 2014), Available at: http://www.dallasnews.com/ entertainment/restaurants/headlines/20140729-red-lobster-will-try-fancier-platepresentations-in-attempt-to-change-its-image.ece Deroy, O., Michel, C., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2014). The plating manifesto (i): From decoration to creation. Flavour, 3(6), 6–16. Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (1999). Making complementary choices in consumption episodes: Highlighting versus balancing. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 29–44. Dickson, P. R., & Sawyer, A. G. (1990). The price knowledge and search of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 54(July), 42–53. Dunning, D., & Balcetis, E. (2013). Wishful seeing: How preferences shape visual perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 33–37. Glanz, K., Basil, M., Maibach, E., Goldberg, J., & Snyder, D. (1998). Why Americans eat what they do: Taste, nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 8(10), 1118–1126. Hsee, C. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 247–257. Johnson, W. G. (1974). The effects of cue prominence and obesity on effort to obtain food. In S. Schachter, & J. Rodin (Eds.), Obese humans and rats (pp. 53–61). Potomac, MD: Erlbaum. Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Reed, C. (1987). There's more to touch than meets the eye: The salience of object attributes for haptics with and without vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116(4), 356–369.

9

Krider, R. E., Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (2001). Pizzas: Pi or square? Psychophysical biases in area comparisons. Marketing Science, 20(4), 405–425. Krishna, A. (2006). Interaction of the senses: The effect of vision versus touch on the elongation bias. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 557–566. Laeng, B., Berridge, K. C., & Butter, C. M. (1993). Pleasantness of a sweet taste during hunger and satiety: Effects of gender and “sweet tooth”. Appetite, 21(3), 247–254. Madzharov, A., & Block, L. (2010). Effects of product unit image on consumption of snack foods. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 398–409. Meyers-Levy, J., & Peracchio, L. A. (1992). Getting an angle in advertising: The effect of camera angle on product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(November), 454–461. Michel, C., Velasco, C., Gatti, E., & Spence, C. (2014). A taste of Kandinsky: Assessing the influence of the artistic visual presentation of food on the dining experience. Flavour, 3, 7–16. Nelson, M., Atkinson, M., & Darbyshire, S. (1994). Food photography 1: The perception of food portion size from photographs. British Journal of Nutrition, 7(5), 649–663. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534–552. Piech, R. M., Pastorino, M. T., & Zald, D. H. (2010). All I saw was the cake. Hunger effects on attentional capture by visual food cues. Appetite, 54(3), 579–582. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Alcaide, J., Roura, E., & Spence, C. (2012). Is it the plate or is it the food? The influence of color and shape of the plate on the perception of the food placed on it. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 205–208. Quirk, M. (2014). Red Lobster ditching low-priced specials, introducing fancier plating because it wants to be classy. The Consumerist ((accessed January 5, 2015), Available at: http://consumerist.com/2014/07/28/red-lobster-ditching-low-priced-specialsintroducing-fancier-plating-because-it-wants-to-be-classy/). Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (1999). Vital dimensions in volume perception: Can the eye fool the stomach? Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 313–326. Restaurant News (2016). Top 100 chains: U.S. sales. (accessed March 12, 2016), Available at: http://nrn.com/us-top-100/top-100-chains-us-sales Reuters (2015). Campbell Soup revamps to counter slow sales. The New York Times (accessed April 10, 2015), Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/ business/campbell-soup-revamps-to-counter-slow-sales.html. Scheibehenne, B., Todd, P. M., & Wansink, B. (2010). Dining in the dark. The importance of visual cues for consumption and satiety. Appetite, 55(3), 710–713. Segal, D. (2008). Objects on your plate may be smaller than they appear. The Washington Post ((accessed December 7, 2014), Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041201225.html). Sheehan, J. (2010). Don't call it a comeback: ‘80’s food trends and what they say about you as a chef. Seattle News Weekly (http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/913432129/fromthegut). Spence, C., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Michel, C., & Deroy, O. (2014). Plating manifesto (II): The art and science of plating. Flavour, 3, 4–16. Szocs, C., & Biswas, D. (2015). Tasting in 2D: Implications of food shape, visual cues, and oral haptic sensory inputs. Marketing Letters, 1–12. Van Ittersum, K., & Wansink, B. (2012). Plate size and color suggestibility: The Delboeuf illusion's bias on serving and eating behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(August), 215–228. Volcow, N. D., Wang, G. J., Fowler, J. S., Logan, J., Jayne, M., Franceschi, D., ... Pappas, N. (2002). “Nonhedonic” food motivation in humans involves dopamine in the dorsal striatum and methylphenidate amplifies this effect. Synapse, 44, 175–180. Wansink, B. (1996). Can package size accelerate usage volume? Journal of Marketing, 60(July), 1–14. Wansink, B. (2004). Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annual Review of Nutrition, 24, 455–479. Wansink, B., & Van Ittersum, K. (2003). Bottoms up! The influence of elongation on pouring and consumption volume. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(December), 455–463. Wansink, B., & Van Ittersum, K. (2013). Portion size me: Plate-size induced consumption norms and win-win solutions for reducing food intake and waste. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(4), 320–332. Yang, S., & Raghubir, P. (2005). Can bottles speak volumes? The effect of package shape on how much to buy. Journal of Retailing, 81(4), 269–281. Zampollo, F., Kniffin, K. M., Wansink, B., & Shimizu, M. (2012). Food plating preferences of children: The importance of presentation on desire for diversity. Acta Paediatrica, 101(1), 61–66. Zellner, D. A., Lankford, M., Abrose, L., & Locher, P. (2010). Art on the plate: Effect of balance and color on attractiveness of, willingness to try and liking for food. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 575–578. Zellner, D. A., Siemers, E., Teran, V., Conroy, R., Lankford, M., Agrafiotis, A., ... Locher, P. (2011). Neatness counts. How plating affects liking for the taste of food. Appetite, 57, 642–648.

Please cite this article as: Szocs, C., & Lefebvre, S., Spread or stacked? Vertical versus horizontal food presentation, portion size perceptions, and consumption, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.022