Marketing Letters

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 753–764 | Cite as

Tasting in 2D: implications of food shape, visual cues, and oral haptic sensory inputs



Marketers often vary the shape and dimensions of food products. But could changing the shape (e.g., molding food into cubes or rectangular prisms) or altering the dimensions (e.g., cutting food into thicker or thinner pieces) have unintended consequences in terms of influencing consumers’ size perceptions, calorie estimates, or desired consumption volume of the food? Research related to visual inputs and the elongation bias would suggest that thicker and cube-shaped foods would be perceived as larger and higher in calories; however, research related to oral haptic sensory inputs (i.e., the way the food feels in the mouth) would suggest that thinner and rectangular shaped foods would be perceived as larger and higher in calories. We test these competing predictions in a series of three experimental studies and find support for the oral haptic-based hypothesis. Conceptual and managerial implications are discussed.


Oral haptics Food Visual Sensory marketing Size perception 



This research benefitted from funding through an Association for Consumer ResearchTransformative Consumer Research grant. The authors thank Aradhna Krishna for the helpful comments and suggestions.


  1. Aydinoğlu, N., & Krishna, A. (2011). Guiltless gluttony: the asymmetric effect of size labels on size perceptions and consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1095–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(October), 310–314.Google Scholar
  4. de Wijk, R., Engelen, L., & Prinz, J. (2003). The role of intra-oral manipulation in the perception of sensory attributes. Appetite, 40, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elder, R., & Krishna, A. (2010). The effects of advertising copy on sensory thoughts and perceived taste. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(February), 748–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engelen, L., Prinz, J., & Bosman, F. (2002). The influence of density and material on oral perception of ball size with and without palatal coverage. Archives of Oral Biology, 47, 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glanz, K., et al. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hu, Y., & Goodale, M. (2000). Grasping after a delay shifts size-scaling from absolute to relative metrics. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 856–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kellogg’s (2011) Fruit flavored snacks. Accessed 10 March 2013.
  10. Kim, K., Reicks, M., & Sjoberg, S. (2003). Applying the theory of planned behavior to predict dairy product consumption. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 35(6), 294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klatzky, R., Lederman, S., & Matula, D. (1993). Haptic exploration in the presence of vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(4), 726–743.Google Scholar
  12. Krider, R., Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (2001). Pizzas: pi or square? Psychophysical biases in area comparisons. Marketing Science, 20(4), 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krishna, A. (2006). Interaction of the senses: the effect of vision versus touch on the elongation bias. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(March), 557–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lin, H., Lo, H., & Liao, Y. (2013). More than just a utensil: The influence of drinking straw size on perceived consumption. Marketing Letters, 24, 381–386.Google Scholar
  15. Madzharov, A., & Block, L. (2010). Effects of product unit image on consumption of snack foods. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 398–409.Google Scholar
  16. Okada, A., Honma, M., Nomura, S., & Yamada, Y. (2007). Oral behavior from food intake until terminal swallow. Physiology & Behavior, 90, 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ore Ida (2013), Products. Accessed 10 March 2013.
  18. Pelham, B. W., Sumarta, T. T., & Myaskovsky, L. (1994). The easy path from many to much: the numerosity heuristic. Cognitive Psychology, 26(2), 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Piaget, J. (1968). Quantification, conservation and nativitism. Science, 162(November), 976–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prinz, J., & Lucas, P. (2001). ‘The first bite of the cherry’ , intra-oral manipulation prior to the first bite in humans. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 28, 614–617.Google Scholar
  22. Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (1999). Vital dimensions in volume perception: can the eye fool the stomach? Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scourboutakos, M., & Labbé, M. (2012). Restaurant menus: calories, caloric density and serving size. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 43(3), 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sevilla, J., & Kahn, B. (2014). The completeness heuristic: product shape completeness influences size perceptions, preference and consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tepper, B., & Nurse, R. (1998). PROP taster status is related to fat perception and preference. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 30(November), 855–802.Google Scholar
  26. Topolinski, S., & Pereira, P. (2012). Mapping the tip of the tongue: deprivation, sensory sensitisation, and oral haptics. Perception, 41(1), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhao, X., Lynch, J., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(August), 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Portland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations