Imagine There's No Calories: Simulation Underlies the Effects Of

ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802

Imagine There’S No Calories: Simulation Underlies the Effects of Hunger on Serving Size Estimates Aner Tal, Cornell University, USA Brian Wansink, Cornell University, USA

Across four studies we show that consumers’ simulation of a consumption experience before purchase may lead to systematic biases in judgment and evaluation. We specifically demonstrate that both deliberate and spontaneous simulations of food experience can influence and bias consumer judgments related to a product’s physical dimensions and energy intake.

[to cite]: Aner Tal and Brian Wansink (2014) ,"Imagine There’S No Calories: Simulation Underlies the Effects of Hunger on Serving Size Estimates", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 42, eds. June Cotte and Stacy Wood, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 696-698.

[url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1017934/volumes/v42/NA-42

[copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. Imagine there’s No Calories: Simulation Underlies the Effects of Hunger on Serving Size Estimates Aner Tal, Cornell University, USA Brian Wansink, Cornell University, USA

EXTENDED ABSTRACT on estimated weight, such that participants who simulated eating es- Consumers often simulate a consumption experience before pur- timated fewer hours of energy (3.46) than did participants who did chase (Elder and Krishna 2012, Shiv and Huber 2000). Simulation in- not simulate (4.88): F(1, 57)=4.7, p=.03. There was a similar effect volves prospective product experience, which can change subsequent for estimated weight: participants who simulated eating estimated evaluation. Across three studies, we demonstrate that deliberate and lower weight (21.2 ounces) than did participants who did not simu- spontaneous simulations of food experience influence consumer judg- late (30.28 ounces): F(1, 57)=6.65, p=.01. ments related to products’ physical dimensions and energy. Simulations occur spontaneously as well as deliberately (Barsa- Across three studies we show that consumers’ simulation of a lou 2003, 2009). If simulation is indeed the crucial mechanism be- consumption experience before purchase may lead to systematic bi- hind physical states’ influence on judgment, we should see the effects ases in judgment and evaluation. We specifically demonstrate that disappear under conditions that prevent spontaneous simulation. both deliberate and spontaneous simulations of food experience can Having brain circuits occupied with the enactment of particular ac- influence and bias consumer judgments related to a product’s physi- tions should block simulation of competing actions (Witt and Proffitt cal dimensions and energy intake. 2009). Specifically, chewing would prevent automatic simulation of In the past decade, the concept of mental simulation has received other actions with the mouth (Topolinski and Strack 2009). If simula- increasing attention in consumer research (Escales and Luce 2004, tion is indeed responsible for the reduced estimation of energy due to Eldar and Krishna 2011). MacInnis and Price (1987) presented a com- hunger shown earlier, such blocking given competing action would prehensive review of earlier imagery research, pointing out the over- eliminate reduced energy estimates due to hunger. Size, as well as all beneficial effects of imagery. Imagery in general, and imagination energy estimates, should seem subjectively smaller when one’s need of product interaction in particular, has been found to increase persua- (hunger) is greater (Tal and Wansink 2014b), but such effects should sion, product ratings and intentions to buy (Keller and McGill 1994, depend on the conditions for simulation (no chewing). Nowlis et al. 2004, Petrova and Cialdini 2005, Shiv and Huber 2000). Participants (N=52) were asked to rate six different food items Pertinent to the current work, simulation has also been shown to divided into two groups. Each participant chewed gum while rat- be involved in the process of functional perception. In Proffitt’s work ing one group of four items, and did not chew gum for the other on distance perception, simulation has been implicated as the mecha- group. The product group for which participants chewed gum was nism underlying distortions in distance perception due to reduced rotated between participants, such that some participants chewed physical capacities (Proffitt 2006, Witt and Proffitt 2008). Distances gum while rating item group 1 (Wheat thins, cookies, Tostitos), and seem further away to people when their capacity to traverse them is others chewed gum while rating item group 2 (cereal, donut, potato reduced. This is because in such situations distance feels subjectively chips). Participants were asked to evaluate the percentage of daily longer. This functional alteration in perception depends on simula- energy each food-item provides, as well as estimating food size by tion (Witt and Proffitt 2008). estimating how large a bowl would be required to serve the product. We argue for a similar dependency on simulation of the func- Participants then reported their hunger level on a scale of 1 (= not at tional effects of hunger and burden on size and calorie judgments all hungry) to 9 (= very hungry). (Tal and Wansink 2014a, Tal and Wansink 2014b). Simulation allows Analyses used a continuous measure of hunger, but reported the consumer to experience how their physical state alters product means employ a median split of reported hunger level. One extreme experience. This alteration in subjective experience is in turn reflect- outlying observation (over 10 SD beyond the mean) was eliminated. ed in subsequent judgment. Because one’s needs are greater when Hungry participants rated items as containing less of the daily calo- hungry or burdened, food is experienced as subjectively smaller, and rie requirement (12.52%), on average, than non-hungry participants consequently appears smaller. That is because the food is smaller (17.9%). However, these effects only occurred for items during the relative to one’s needs. Simulating eating when hungry makes this evaluation of which participants were not chewing gum. The inter- alteration in functionality apparent. In other words, simulating eat- action between chewing and hunger was significant at a .03 level: ing when hungry makes one see a food as being smaller. F(1,40) =4.77. Non-chewing participants also estimated size as Our first study was intended to support the role of simulation smaller when hungry (5.04) than when not hungry (5.53), but no in reducing estimated food quantity due to hunger (Tal and Wansink such effect occurred for items for which participants were chewing 2014a). Participants (N = 62) were asked to fast for five hours prior to gum. The interaction between chewing and hunger here was signifi- the study. They were then asked to estimate the weight of three baked cant at a .04 level: F(1,40)=.04. goods: muffin, bagel, and cookie. Half the participants were asked to The current study provides further support for the role of spon- vividly imagine eating each item before giving their evaluations. The taneous simulation in generating effects of physical state on product other half were not asked to simulate eating the items. We eliminated judgment. The effects of hunger on estimated energy in study 1 were observations over 3SD from the mean. Participants who simulated replicated, but only for items for which participants were not chewing eating estimated lower average weight per item (7.03 ounces) than gum. When participants chewed gum, hunger did not lead to reduced did participants who did not (9.39 ounces): F(1,56)=5.16, p=.03. evaluations of energy. Similar patterns were found for estimated The second study attempted a conceptual replication with both product size. This is ostensibly because chewing gum precluded the weight and energy as our dependent variable (Tal and Wansink spontaneous generation of simulation of eating. An additional study 2014b). Participants (N=59) estimated how many ounces each of demonstrated that lack of visibility, a further condition of simulation, three snack packages contained, as well as the number of hours of also eliminates the effects of hunger on energy estimation. Overall, energy they provided. There was a significant effect of simulation

Advances in Consumer Research 696 Volume 42, ©2014 Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 42) / 697 the studies demonstrate the role of simulation in generating the ef- Escales, Jennifer Edson, and Mary Frances Luce (2004). fects of physical states on judgments relating to serving size. “Understanding the Effects of Process-Focused In addition to its theoretical contributions, the research at hand Versus Outcome-Focused Thought in Response to has important practical implications. For one, prior research con- Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 274-85. cerning simulations has focused on their positive effect on judg- Fischer, Martin H., and Christoph D. Dahl (2007). “The Time ment: increases in involvement, persuasion, and positive attitudes. Course of Visuo-Motor Affordances,” Experimental Brain The current research shows that simulations may at times have, from Science, 176, 519-24. a marketer’s perspective, detrimental effects on judgment, such as Gerlach, Christian, Ian Law, and Olaf B. Paulson (2002). “When reductions in how much energy a product is thought to provide. Action Turns into Words. Activation of Motor-Based For consumers, too, simulations may have harmful consequenc- Knowledge During Categorization of Manipulable objects,” es. If one fantasizes about food when grocery shopping, they might Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(8), 1230-239. consequently lower their evaluation of how caloric a product is or Gibson, J.J. (1979), The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. how much of it there is, and so feel licensed to purchase more of Boston: Houghton Mifflin the product, particularly when hungry. The studies indicate that such Grafton, Scott T., Luciano Fadiga, Michael A. Arbib, and Giacomo alterations may occur even without deliberate simulation. Even mere Rizzolatti (1997). “Premotor Cortex Activation during visual exposure to products can trigger these changes in judgment. Observation and Naming of Familiar Tools,” Neuroimage, 6, Assuming that current physical state is not relevant for a consum- 231-36. er’s decision, judgment about product properties and, consequently, Grezes, J., M. Tucker, J. Armony, R. Ellis, and R. E. Passingham desirability, is better done in circumstances that do not support the (2003). “Objects Automatically Potentiate Action: An spontaneous generation of simulation. This might help prevent the fMRI Study of Implicit Processing,” European Journal of greater choice and consumption of higher calorie foods that occurs Neuroscience, 17, 2734-740. when consumers are hungry (Wansink, Tal and Shimizu 2012; Tal Handy, Tod C., Scott T. Grafton, Neha M. Shroff, Sarah Ketay, and Wansink 2013). On a policy level, given the prevalence of au- and Michael S. Gazzaniga (2003), “Graspable Objects Grab tomatic simulation and so its effects the studies emphasize the im- Attention When the Potential for Action is Recognized,” portance of judging products according to objectively posted values. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1-7. Holmes Emily A. and Andrew Mathews (2005). “Mental Imagery REFERENCES and Emotion: A Special Relationship?” Emotion, 5(4), 489-97. Anderson, Craig A (1983). “Imagination and Expectation: The Johnson, Scott H. (2000). “Thinking Ahead: the Case for Motor effect of Imagining Behavioral Scripts on Personal Intentions,” Imagery in Prospective Judgments of Prehension,” Cognition, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 293-305. 74, 33-70. Barsalou, L.W. (2003), “Situated Simulation in the Human Keller, Punam Anand, and Ann L. McGill (1994), “Differences in Conceptual System,” Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, the relative influence of product attributes under alternative 513-62 processing conditions: Attribute importance versus attribute (2009). “Grounded Cognition,” Annual Reviews of ease of imaginability,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3(1), Psychology, 59, 617-45. 29-49. Bensafi, Moustafa, Jessica Porter, Sandra Pouliot, Joel Mainland, Kosslyn, S. M. (1973), “Scanning Visual Images: Some Structural Bradley Johnson, Chrisina Zelano, Natasha Young, Elizabeth Implications,” Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, Bremmer, Danny Aframain, Rehan Khan, and Noam Sobel 14(1), 90-4. (2003). “Olfactomotor Activity During Imagery Mimics that Kosslyn, S. M. (1975). “Information Representation in Visual During Perception,” Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1142-144. Images,” Cognitive Psychology, 7, 341-70. Bonanno, George A. (2004). “Loss, Trauma, and Human Kosslyn, Stephen M. (1988). “Aspects of a Cognitive Neuroscience Resilience: Have we Underestimated the Human Capacity of Mental Imagery,” Science, 240, 1621-626. to Thrive After Extremely Aversive Events?” American Linkenauger, Sally A., Jessica K. Witt, Jeanine K. Stefanucci, Psychologist. 59 (1), 20-8. Jonathan Z. Bakdash and Dennis R. Proffitt (2009), “The Brendl, C. Miguel, Arthur B. Markman, Claude Messbner (2003). Effects of Handedness and Reachability on Perceived “The Devaluation Effect: Activating a Need Devalues Unrelated Distance,” JEP: Human Perception and Performance, 35 (6), Objects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 463-73. 1649-660. Cooper, Graham, Sharon Tindall-Ford, Paul Chandler, and Loewenstein, George (1996), “Out of control: Visceral Influences John Sweller (2001). “Learning by Imagining,” Journal of on Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(1), 68-82. Development Processes, 65(3), 272-92. Deighton John (1984), “The Interaction of Advertising and MacInnis, Deborah J. and Linda L. Price (1987), “The Role of Evidence,” Journal of Consumer Reserach, 11(3), 763-770 Imagery in Information Processing: Review and extensions,” Elder, Ryan, and Aradhna Krishna (2012), “The ‘Visual Depiction Consumer Behavior, 13(4), 473-91. Effect’ in Advertising: Mobini, Sirous, Chambers Lucy C., and Martin R. Yeoman (2007), Facilitating Embodied Mental Simulation Through Product “Effects of Hunger State on Flavour Pleasantness Conditioning Orientation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 988-1003. at Home: Flavour-Nutrient Learning vs. Flavour-Flavour Escales, Jennifer Edson (2004), “Imagine Yourself in the Product: Learning,” Appetite, 48, 20-8. Mental Simulation, Narrative Transportation, and Persuasion.” Niedenthal, P.M., Barsalou, L.W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37-48. S., & Ric, F. (2005). “Embodiment in Attitudes, Social Perception, and Emotion,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 184-211. 698 / Imagine there’s No Calories: Simulation Underlies the Effects of Hunger on Serving Size Estimates

Nowlis, S., Mandel, N. Mccabe, D.B. (2004). “The effect of a delay Symes, Ed, Rob Ellis, and Mike Turner (2007) “Visual Object between choice and consumption on consumption enjoyment,” Affordances: Object Orientation,” Acta Psychologica, 124, Journal of Consumer Research, 31(December), 502-510. 238-55. Parsons, Lawrence M. (1994). “Temporal and Kinematic Properties Tal, A., & Wansink, B. (2013). Fattening fasting: Hungry grocery of Motor Behavior Reflected in Mentally Simulated Action,” shoppers buy more calories, not more food. JAMA Internal Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Medicine, 173(12), 1146-1148. Chicago Performance, 20(4), 709-30. Tal, Aner, and Brian Wansink (2014a), “When Hungry People Petrova, P. K., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). “Fluency of consumption See Leaner Meals: Hunger Reduces Calorie Evaluations,” imagery and the backfire effects of imagery appeals.” Journal manuscript under review. of Consumer Research, 32 (December), 442–452. Tal, Aner, and Brian Wansink (2014b), “In the Eye of the Beholder: Philips, Diane (1996), “Anticipating The Future: The Role of Physical Needs Make Food Look Smaller,” working paper. Consumption Visions in Consumer Behavior,” Advances in Taylor, Shelley E., Lien B. Pham, Inna D. Rivkin, and David Consumer Research, 23, 70-5. A. Armor (1998). “Harnessing the imagination: Mental Phillips, Dianne, Jerry C. Olson, Hans Baumgartner (1995), Simulation, Self-regulation, and Coping,” American “Consumption Visions in Consumer Decision Making”, in Psychologist, 53(4), 429-39. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, eds. Frank R. Kardes and Taylor, Shelley E., and Sherry K. Schneider (1989). “Coping and Mita Sujan, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, the Simulation of Events,” Social Cognition, 7(2), 174-94. Pages: 280-84. Tettamanti, Marco, Giovanni Buccino, Maria Cristina Saccuman, Preissel, Hubert, Friedmann Pulvermuller, Werner Lutzenberger, Vittorio Gallese, Massimo Danna, Paolo Scifo, Ferruccio and Niels Birmbaumer (1995). “Evoked Potentials Distinguish Fazio, Giacomo Rizzolatti, Stefano F. Cappa, and Daniela Between Nouns and Verbs,” Neuroscience Letters, 197,81-3. Perani (2005). “Listening to Action-Related Sentences Proffitt, D. R. (2006). Distance Perception. Current Directions in Activates Fronto-Parietal Motor Circuits,” Journal of Psychological Science, 15(3), 131–135. doi:10.1111/j.0963- Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(2), 273-81. 7214.2006.00422.x Tucker, Mike, and Rob Ellis (2004). “Action Priming by Briefly Ragunathan, Rajagopal, Rebecca Walker Naylor, and Wayne Presented Objects,” Acta Psychologica, 116, 185-203. D. Hoyer (2006), “The Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition and its Tuorila Hely, Cardello Armand V., and Larry L. Lesher (1994), Effects on Taste Inferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food “Antecedents and Consequences of Expectations Related to Products,” Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 170-84. Fat-Free and Regular-Fat Foods,” Appetite, 23(3), 247-63. Segal, Sydney J., and Vincent Fusella (1970). “Influence of Veiling, Harm, and Henk Aarts (2009), “Putting Behavior on Imagined Pictures and Sounds on Detection of Visual and Hold Decreases Reward Value of Need-Instrumental Objects Auditory Signals,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, Outside of Awareness,” Journal of Experimental Social 83(3), 458-64. Psychology, 45, 1020-23. Shepard, Roger N., and Christine Feng (1972), “A chronometric Veltkamp, M., Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2011), “Motivating study of mental paper folding,” Cognitive Psychology, 3, 228- Consumer Behavior by Subliminal Conditioning in the 43. Absence of Basic Needs: Striking Even While The Iron is Shiv, Baba and Joel Huber (2000). “The Impact of Anticipating Cold,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21, 49-56. Satisfaction on Consumer choice,” Journal of Consumer Wansink, B., Tal, A., & Shimizu, M. (2012). First foods most: after Research, 27(2), 202-16. 18-hour fast, people drawn to starches first and vegetables last. Shiv, Baba, Ziv Carmon, and Dan Ariely (2005), “Placebo Effects Archives of Internal Medicine, 172(12), 961-963. of Marketing Actions: Consumers May Get What They Pay Wexler, Mark, Stephen M. Kosslyn, and Alain Berthoz (1998). for,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 383-93. “Motor Processes in Mental Rotation,” Cognition, 68, 77-94. Simmons, W. Kyle, Alex Martin, and Lawrence W. Barsalou Witt, Jessica K., and Dennis R. Proffitt (2008), “Action-Specific (2005), “Pictures of Appetizing Foods Activate Gustatory Influences on Distance Perception: A Role for Motor Cortices for Taste and Reward,” Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1602- Simulation,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human 608. Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1479-492 Sirigu, Angela, and Jean-René Duhamel (2001). “Motor and Visual Imagery as Two Complementary but Neurally Dissociable Mental Processes,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(7), 910-19.