Reward Substitution: Incentivizing Consumers to Choose Smaller Portion Sizes

In many societies, food has become abundant and calorie-rich. A pandemic of obesity has ensued, with high costs to governments, businesses, and consumers. The medical sciences’ remedy to this is sue seems deceptively simple: Consumers should eat less (Lamberg, 2006). However, this advice is easier to give than to follow or enforce in societies that value having freedom and a variety of avail able options. One stream of research shows that—without altering satiation—smaller portion sizes can drastically decrease the overall quantity of food consumed (e.g., Geier, Rozin, & Doros, 2006; Rolls, Roe, & Meengs, 2006; Rozin, Kabnick, Pete, Fischler, & Shields, 2003). This notion of decreasing food intake by altering portion sizes has been investigated in several different yet related variants such as smaller assortment sizes (Kahn & Wansink, 2004; Redden & Hoch, 2009; Rolls et al., 1981), smaller package sizes (Scott, Nowlis, Mandel, & Morales, 2008; Wansink, 1996; Wansink & Kim, 2005; Wan sink & Park, 2001), taller and more slender food containers (Wansink & Van Ittersum, 2003), and smaller bowls and plates (Van Ittersum & Wansink, 2012; Wansink & Cheney, 2005; Wansink, Van Ittersum, & Painter, 2006).