Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 May;28(5):620-629.
doi: 10.1177/0956797617692041. Epub 2017 Mar 31.

Psychologically Informed Implementations of Sugary-Drink Portion Limits

Leslie K John  1 , Grant E Donnelly  2 , Christina A Roberto  3
Affiliations

Psychologically Informed Implementations of Sugary-Drink Portion Limits

Leslie K John et al. Psychol Sci. 2017 May.

Abstract

In 2012, the New York City Board of Health prohibited restaurants from selling sugary drinks in containers that would hold more than 16 oz. Although a state court ruled that the Board of Health did not have the authority to implement such a policy, it remains a legally viable option for governments and a voluntary option for restaurants. However, there is very limited empirical data on how such a policy might affect the purchasing and consumption of sugary drinks. We report four well-powered, incentive-compatible experiments in which we evaluated two possible ways that restaurants might comply with such a policy: bundling (i.e., dividing the contents of oversized cups into two regulation-size cups) and providing free refills (i.e., offering a regulation-size cup with unlimited refills). Bundling caused people to buy less soda. Free refills increased consumption, especially when a waiter served the refills. This perverse effect was reduced in self-service contexts that required walking just a few steps to get a refill.

Keywords: consumption; health; open data; open materials; purchasing; sugar-sweetened beverage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Results from Experiment 1: the proportion of participants who bought a large drink as a function of service style, separately for the typical-portion and bundled conditions. The error bars indicate ±1 SEM.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Results from Experiment 2: calories consumed as a function of the size of the drink bought, separately for the typical-portion condition and the refill condition. The error bars indicate ±1 SEM. The caloric-content lines reflect the average number of calories contained in the portion served (i.e., a 16-oz cup or a 24-oz cup), calculated from the calorie content of the two flavors—lemonade: 6.00 kcal per ounce; iced tea: 9.375 kcal per ounce.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Results from Experiment 3a: calories consumed as a function of the size of the drink bought, separately for the typical-portion, waiter-service, and self-service conditions. The error bars indicate ±1 SEM. The caloric-content lines reflect the average number of calories contained in the portion served (i.e., a 16-oz cup or a 20-oz cup), calculated from the calorie content of the two flavors—lemonade: 6.00 kcal per ounce; iced tea: 9.375 kcal per ounce.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Results from Experiment 3b: calories consumed as a function of condition. The error bars indicate ±1 SEM. The caloric-content lines reflect the average number of calories contained in the portion served (i.e., an 8-oz cup or a 10-oz cup), calculated from the calorie content of the two flavors—lemonade: 6.00 kcal per ounce; iced tea: 9.375 kcal per ounce.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Number of calories of Coca-Cola consumed as a function of cup size. In the waiter-service and self-service conditions, which had free refills, cup size was limited to 16 oz; the results shown here are based on actual consumption in Experiments 2, 3a, and 3b. In the typical-portion condition, which had no refill opportunity, cup size could vary, and the number of calories consumed was estimated for a range of cup sizes according to the proportion of a cup’s contents that was consumed in Experiments 2, 3a, and 3b.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Arkes H. R., Blumer C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140.
    1. Camerer C., Issacharoff S., Loewenstein G., O’Donoghue T., Rabin M. (2003). Regulation for conservatives: Behavioral economics and the case for “asymmetric paternalism.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151, 1211–1254.
    1. 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, 739–753.
    1. Cheema A., Soman D. (2008). The effect of partitions on controlling consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 665–675.
    1. Dahl D. W., Manchanda R. V., Argo J. J. (2001). Embarrassment in consumer purchase: The roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 473–481.

LinkOut - more resources