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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

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

    CAS  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bayne K, Davis R (1993) Susceptibility of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to the Ponzo illusion. B Psychonom Soc 21:476–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Benhar E, Samuel D (1982) Visual illusions in the baboon (Papio anubis). Anim Learn Behav 10:115–118. doi:10.3758/BF03212056

    Article  Google 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

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Coren S, Girgus JS (1978) Seeing is deceiving: the psychology of visual illusions. Lawrence Erlbaum, Oxford

    Google 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 19:195–216

  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 247–260

    Google 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 77:1164–1170

    CAS  PubMed Central  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Girgus JS, Coren S (1982) Assimilation and contrast illusions: differences in plasticity. Percep Psychophys 32:555–561. doi:10.3758/BF03204210

    CAS  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hill JO, Peters JC (1998) Environmental contributions to the obesity epidemic. Science 280:1371–1374. doi:10.1126/science.280.5368.1371

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    CAS  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Menzel EW Jr (1961) Perception of food size in the chimpanzee. J Comp Physiol Psych 54:588. doi:10.1037/h0044421

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Muncer SJ (1983) “Conservations” with a chimpanzee. Dev Psychobiol 16:1–11. doi:10.1002/dev.420160102

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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

    CAS  Article  Google 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

    CAS  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Rumbaugh DM, Washburn DA (2003) Intelligence of apes and other rational beings. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Book  Google 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

    CAS  Article  Google 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

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1987) Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Timney B, Keil K (1996) Horses are sensitive to pictorial depth cues. Perception 25:1121–1128. doi:10.1068/p251121

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Wansink B (2006) Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think. Bantam Books Dell, New York

    Google 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

    CAS  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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google 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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Audrey E. Parrish.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parrish, A.E., Beran, M.J. When less is more: like humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceive food amounts based on plate size. Anim Cogn 17, 427–434 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0674-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Visual illusions
  • Delboeuf illusion
  • Misperception
  • Chimpanzees
  • Pan troglodytes
  • Quantity discrimination