Date Published: August 27, 2018
Publisher: Public Library of Science
Author(s): Tess Langfield, Rachel Pechey, Mark Pilling, Theresa M. Marteau, George Van Doorn.
Glassware design may affect drinking behaviour for alcoholic beverages, with glass shape and size influencing drinking speed and amount consumed. Uncertainty remains both about the extent to which these effects are restricted to alcohol and the underlying mechanisms. The primary aim of the current study was to examine the effect of differently shaped glasses on time taken to drink a soft drink. The secondary aim was to develop hypotheses about mechanisms concerning micro-drinking behaviours and perceptual effects.
In a single-session experiment, 162 participants were randomised to receive 330ml of carbonated apple juice in a glass that was either inward-sloped, straight-sided, or outward-sloped. The primary outcome measure was total drinking time. Secondary outcome measures included micro-drinking behaviours (sip size, sip duration, interval duration), and perceptual measures (midpoint bias, drink enjoyment).
Participants drank 21.4% faster from the outward-sloped glass than from the straight-sided glass [95%CI: 0.2%,38.0%] in adjusted models. They were also 18.2% faster from the inward-sloped glass than the straight-sided glass, but this did not reach statistical significance with wide confidence intervals also consistent with slower drinking [95%CI: -3.8%,35.6%]. Larger sips were associated with faster drinking times (Pearson’s r(162) = -.45, p < .001). The direction of effects suggested sips were larger from the outward-sloped and inward-sloped glasses, compared to the straight-sided glass (15.1%, 95%CI: -4.3%,38.0%; 19.4%, 95%CI: -0.5%,43.6%, respectively). There were no significant differences between glasses in mean sip or interval duration. Bias in midpoint estimation was greater for the outward-sloped glass (12.9ml, 95%CI: 6.6ml,19.2ml) than for the straight-sided glass, although the degree of bias was not associated with total drinking time (Pearson’s r(162) = 0.01, p = .87). Individuals drank a soft drink more quickly from an outward-sloped glass, relative to a straight-sided glass. Micro-drinking behaviours, such as sip size, are promising candidates for underlying mechanisms.
Overconsumption of sugary drinks and alcohol is a major public health concern, contributing to rising levels of obesity and premature preventable mortality and ill health [1–3]. Interventions that inform people of the health risks associated with their behaviour are generally ineffective at changing their behaviour . When delivered as part of more intensive behaviour change programmes, they lack the reach required to change health at a population level, potentially widening health inequalities through drawing on cognitive resources that tend to be more readily available in those who are less rather than more deprived [5,6]. There is thus increasing policy interest in ‘choice architecture’ interventions , which, through changing cues in the environments in which choices are made, are hypothesised to change behaviour without drawing upon our limited cognitive resources . These interventions are thought to work through automatic processes, without relying much on conscious engagement or individual agency [4,5].
The present study found an effect of glass shape on drinking rate for a soft drink: faster drinking was observed from outward-sloped glasses than from straight-sided glasses. Findings for inward-sloped glasses were inconclusive, although suggestive of faster drinking when compared with straight-sided glasses. To our knowledge, this study is the first to show an effect of glass shape on total drinking time for a non-alcoholic drink, with a previous study suggesting the effect might have been limited to alcohol . The findings are in line with a growing evidence base suggesting that altering cues in the environment (including glassware, tableware, and packaging) can influence associated behaviours (speed of consumption and amount consumed) [17–21], and thus provide evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions in ‘proximal physical micro-environments’, also known as ‘choice architecture’ interventions or nudging [12,13].