Table 3.
Portion size selection and portion size evaluations per condition on day 2 (n = 329).
| Smaller Portion Size Condition (n = 107) | Larger Portion Size Condition (n = 117) | Control Condition (n = 105) | Test Statistic | p-Value | ηp2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |||||
| Effect of condition on portion size selection | |||||||
| Portion size selection a | Lasagna | 3.92 (2.36) | 4.07 (2.29) | 3.85 (2.10) | F(2, 326) = 0.08 | 0.92 | 0.001 |
| Spaghetti | 3.74 (1.92) | 3.79 (1.74) | 3.69 (1.73) | F(2, 326) = 0.11 | 0.90 | 0.001 | |
| Effect of condition on perceptions of portion size normality | |||||||
| Perceptions of portion size normality a | Lasagna | 3.57 (1.68) | 3.84 (1.63) | 3.70 (1.55) | F(2, 326) = 0.77 | 0.46 | 0.01 |
| Spaghetti | 3.41 (1.34) | 3.61 (1.35) | 3.50 (1.36) | F(2, 326) = 0.68 | 0.51 | 0.004 | |
| Effect of condition on perceptions of descriptive norms, injunctive norms, personal norms and expected satiety | |||||||
| Perceptions of descriptive norms a | Lasagna | 3.74 (1.88) | 4.23 (1.91) | 3.95 (1.94) | F(2, 326) = 1.59 | 0.21 | 0.01 |
| Spaghetti | 3.58 (1.60) | 3.85 (1.66) | 3.91 (1.64) | F(2, 326) = 1.14 | 0.32 | 0.01 | |
| Perceptions of injunctive norms a | Lasagna | 3.29 (1.63) | 3.65 (1.68) | 3.56 (1.75) | F(2, 326) = 0.97 | 0.38 | 0.01 |
| Spaghetti | 3.14 (1.41) | 3.50 (1.52) | 3.57 (1.50) | F(2, 326) = 2.41 | 0.09 | 0.02 | |
| Personal norms a | Lasagna | 3.49 (1.85) | 3.85 (1.77) | 3.44 (1.71) | F(2, 326) = 2.00 | 0.14 | 0.01 |
| Spaghetti | 3.36 (1.53) | 3.57 (1.46) | 3.40 (1.49) | F(2, 326) = 0.80 | 0.45 | 0.01 | |
| Expected satiety a | Lasagna | 4.12 (1.91) | 4.35 (1.92) | 4.07 (1.91) | F(2, 326) = 0.47 | 0.62 | 0.003 |
| Spaghetti | 3.84 (1.69) | 3.94 (1.56) | 3.82 (1.68) | F(2, 326) = 0.44 | 0.65 | 0.003 | |
a Measured on a 9-point scale (range 1–9). Note: All reported means and standard deviations are untransformed scores for ease of interpretation.