Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 427–434 | Cite as

When less is more: like humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceive food amounts based on plate size

  • Audrey E. ParrishEmail author
  • Michael J. Beran
Original Paper

Abstract

We investigated whether chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceived food portion sizes depending upon the context in which they were presented, something that often affects how much humans serve themselves and subsequently consume. Chimpanzees judged same-sized and smaller food portions to be larger in amount when presented on a small plate compared to an equal or larger food portion presented on a large plate and did so despite clearly being able to tell the difference in portions when plate size was identical. These results are consistent with data from the human literature in which people misperceive food portion sizes as a function of plate size. This misperception is attributed to the Delboeuf illusion which occurs when the size of a central item is misperceived on the basis of its surrounding context. These results demonstrate a cross-species shared visual misperception of portion size that affects choice behavior, here in a nonhuman species for which there is little experience with tests that involve choosing between food amounts on dinnerware. The biases resulting in this form of misperception of food portions appear to have a deep-rooted evolutionary history which we share with, at minimum, our closest living nonhuman relative, the chimpanzee.

Keywords

Visual illusions Delboeuf illusion Misperception Chimpanzees Pan troglodytes Quantity discrimination 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (Grant HD-060563) and by a 2CI Primate Social Cognition, Evolution and Behavior Fellowship from Georgia State University. We thank Charles Menzel, Kenneth Sayers, and Theodore Evans for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

  1. Allison DB, Fontaine KR, Manson JE, Stevens J, VanItallie TB (1999) Annual deaths attributable to obesity in the United States. J Amer Med Assoc 282:1530–1538. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.16.1530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbet I, Fagot J (2007) Control of the corridor illusion in baboons (Papio papio) by gradient and linear-perspective depth cues. Perception 36:391–402. doi: 10.1068/p5108 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayne K, Davis R (1993) Susceptibility of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to the Ponzo illusion. B Psychonom Soc 21:476–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benhar E, Samuel D (1982) Visual illusions in the baboon (Papio anubis). Anim Learn Behav 10:115–118. doi: 10.3758/BF03212056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beran MJ (2001) Summation and numerousness judgments of sequentially presented sets of items by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 115:181–191. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.115.2.181 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beran MJ (2004) Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) respond to nonvisible sets after one-by-one addition and removal of items. J Comp Psychol 118:25–36. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.118.1.25 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beran MJ (2012) Quantity judgments of auditory and visual stimuli by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 38:23–29. doi: 10.1037/a0024965 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beran MJ, Beran MM (2004) Chimpanzees remember the results of one-by-one addition of food items to sets over extended time periods. Psychol Sci 15:94–99. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502004.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beran MJ, Evans TA, Harris EH (2008) Perception of food amounts by chimpanzees based on the number, size, contour length and visibility of items. Anim Behav 75:1793–1802. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.035 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beran MJ, McIntyre JM, Garland A, Evans TA (2013) What counts for “counting”? Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) respond appropriately to relevant and irrelevant information in a quantity judgment task. Anim Behav 85:987–993. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.02.022 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boysen ST, Berntson GG (1995) Responses to quantity: perceptual versus cognitive mechanisms in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 21:82–86. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.21.1.82 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boysen ST, Berntson GG, Mukobi KL (2001) Size matters: impact of item size and quantity on array choice by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 115:106–110. doi: 10.1037//0735-7036.115.1.106 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Call J, Rochat P (1996) Liquid conservation in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) and humans (Homo sapiens): individual differences and perceptual strategies. J Comp Psychol 110:219–232. doi: 10.1037//0735-7036.110.3.219 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chandon P, Wansink B (2006) How biased household inventory estimates distort shopping and storage decisions. J Mark 70:118–135. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chandon P, Wansink B (2007) The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. J Consum Res 34:301–314. doi: 10.1086/519499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coren S, Girgus JS (1978) Seeing is deceiving: the psychology of visual illusions. Lawrence Erlbaum, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Cutler D, Glaeser E, Shapiro J (2003) Why have Americans become more obese? (No. w9446). Natl Bur Econ Res. doi: 10.1257/089533003769204371 Google Scholar
  18. Delboeuf FJ (1865) Note on certain optical illusions: essay on a psychophysical theory concerning the way in which the eye evaluates distances and angles. Bulletins de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, Lettres et Beaux-arts de Belgique 19:195–216Google Scholar
  19. Dooley GB, Gill T (1977) Acquisition and use of mathematical skills by a linguistic chimpanzee. In: Rumbaugh DM (ed) Language learning by a chimpanzee. Academic Press, New York, pp 247–260Google Scholar
  20. Fisher JO, Rolls BJ, Birch LL (2003) Children’s bite size and intake of an entrée are greater with large portions than with age-appropriate or self-selected portions. Am J Clin Nutr 77:1164–1170PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Fujita K (1996) Linear perspective and the Ponzo illusion: a comparison between rhesus monkeys and humans. Jpn Psychol Res 38:136–145. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5884.1996.tb00018.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fujita K (1997) Perception of the Ponzo illusion by rhesus monkeys, chimpanzees, and humans: similarity and difference in the three primate species. Percept Psychophys 59:284–292. doi: 10.3758/BF03211896 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Girgus JS, Coren S (1982) Assimilation and contrast illusions: differences in plasticity. Percep Psychophys 32:555–561. doi: 10.3758/BF03204210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanus D, Call J (2007) Discrete quantity judgments in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus): the effect of presenting whole sets versus item-by-item. J Comp Psychol 121:241–249. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.121.3.241 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill JO, Peters JC (1998) Environmental contributions to the obesity epidemic. Science 280:1371–1374. doi: 10.1126/science.280.5368.1371 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hsee CK (1998) Less is better: when low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. J Behav Decis Making 11:107–121. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771.199806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaeger T, Lorden R (1980) Delboeuf illusions: contour or size detector interactions? Percept Motor Skill 50:376–378. doi: 10.2466/pms.1980.50.2.376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McConahy KL, Smiciklas-Wright H, Mitchell DC, Picciano MF (2004) Portion size of common foods predicts energy intake among preschool-aged children. J Am Diet Assoc 104:975–979. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2004.03.027 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Menzel EW Jr (1960) Selection of food by size in the chimpanzee and comparison with human judgments. Science 131:1527–1528. doi: 10.1126/science.131.3412.1527 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Menzel EW Jr (1961) Perception of food size in the chimpanzee. J Comp Physiol Psych 54:588. doi: 10.1037/h0044421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Menzel EW Jr, Davenport RK Jr (1962) The effects of stimulus presentation variable upon chimpanzee’s selection of food by size. J Comp Physiol Psych 55:235. doi: 10.1037/h0040434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muncer SJ (1983) “Conservations” with a chimpanzee. Dev Psychobiol 16:1–11. doi: 10.1002/dev.420160102 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy M, Lusby AL, Bartges JW, Kirk CA (2012) Size of food bowl and scoop affects amount of food owners feed their dogs. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr 96:237–241. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0396.2011.01144.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Must A, Spadano J, Coakley EH, Field AE, Colditz G, Dietz WH (1999) The disease burden associated with overweight and obesity. J Amer Med Assoc 282:1523–1529. doi: 10.1001/jama.282.16.1523 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nakamura N, Watanabe S, Fujita K (2008) Pigeons perceive the Ebbinghaus-Titchener circles as an assimilation illusion. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 34:375–387. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.34.3.375 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parron C, Fagot J (2007) Comparison of grouping abilities in humans (Homo sapiens) and baboons (Papio papio) with Ebbinghaus illusion. J Comp Psychol 121:405–411. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.121.4.405 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roberts B, Harris MG, Yates TA (2005) The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles). Perception 43:847–856. doi: 10.1068/p5273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rolls BJ (2003) The supersizing of America: portion size and the obesity epidemic. Nutr Today 38:42–53. doi: 10.1097/00017285-200303000-00004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Halverson KH, Meengs JS (2007) Using a smaller plate did not reduce energy intake at meals. Appetite 49:652–660. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2007.04.005 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rumbaugh DM, Washburn DA (2003) Intelligence of apes and other rational beings. Yale University Press, New HavenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rumbaugh DM, Savage-Rumbaugh S, Hegel MT (1987) Summation in the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). J Exp Psychol Anim 13:107. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.13.2.107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salva OR, Rugani R, Cavazzana A, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2013) Perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion in four-day-old domestic chicks (Gallus gallus). Anim Cogn 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s10071-013-0622-2
  43. Sayers K, Menzel CR (2012) Memory and foraging theory: chimpanzee utilization of optimality heuristics in the rank-order recovery of hidden foods. Anim Behav 84:795–803. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.06.034 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1987) Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  45. Suda C, Call J (2004) Piagetian liquid conservation in the great apes (Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, and Pongo pygmaeus). J Comp Psychol 118:265–279. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.118.3.265 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Suda C, Call J (2005) Piagetian conservation of discrete quantities in bonobos (Pan paniscus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Anim Cogn 8:220–235. doi: 10.1007/s10071-004-0247-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Timney B, Keil K (1996) Horses are sensitive to pictorial depth cues. Perception 25:1121–1128. doi: 10.1068/p251121 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Ittersum K, Wansink B (2007) Do children really prefer large portions? visual illusions bias their estimates and intake. J Am Diet Assoc 107:1107–1110. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2007.05.020 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Ittersum K, Wansink B (2011) Plate size and color suggestibility: the Delboeuf Illusion’s bias on serving and eating behavior. J Consumer Res 39:215–228. doi: 10.1086/662615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wansink B (2004) Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annu Rev Nutr 24:455–479. doi: 10.1146/annurev.nutr.24.012003.132140 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wansink B (2006) Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think. Bantam Books Dell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Wansink B, Cheney MM (2005) Super bowls: serving bowl size and food consumption. J Amer Med Assoc 293:1727–1728. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.14.1727 Google Scholar
  53. Wansink B, Sobal J (2007) Mindless eating: the 200 daily food decisions we overlook. Environ Behav 39:106–123. doi: 10.1177/0013916506295573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wansink B, van Ittersum K (2007) Portion size me: downsizing our consumption norms. Norms J Am Diet Assoc 107:1103–1106. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2007.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wansink B, Painter JE, North J (2005) Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obes Res 13:93–100. doi: 10.1038/oby.2005.12 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wansink B, Van Ittersum K, Painter JE (2006) Ice cream illusions: bowls, spoons, and self-served portion sizes. Am J Prev Med 31:240–243. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.14.1727 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Watanabe S, Nakamura N, Fujita K (2013) Bantams (Gallus gallus domesticus) also perceive a reversed Zöllner illusion. Anim Cogn 16:109–115. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0556-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wolf AM, Colditz GA (1998) Current estimates of the economic cost of obesity in the United States. Obes Res 6:97–106. doi: 10.1002/j.1550-8528.1998.tb00322.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woodruff G, Premack D, Kennel K (1978) Conservation of liquid and solid quantity by the chimpanzee. Science 202:991–994. doi: 10.1126/science.202.4371.991 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Young LR, Nestle M (2002) The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. Am J Public Health 92:246–249. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.92.2.246 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Young LR, Nestle M (2003) Expanding portion sizes in the US marketplace: implications for nutrition counseling. J Am Diet Assoc 103:231–234. doi: 10.1053/jada.2003.50027 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Language Research CenterGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations