REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE #1: Perceptual Differences in Consumption - Tableware

As directed the following simple experiment was conducted:

Two glasses were chosen, of approximately the same volume, 12 ounces, one short and
wide, one tall and long.
Using a measuring cup, 8 ounces of water was poured in each cup
The glass was then observed by myself, my wife, and my son (who happens to be a
Pastor in Las Cruces)

At first glance, it did appear (to me) that the taller glass held more liquid. When my wife and
son were queried, they agreed that while it looked that way, they both believed that each glass
held the same amount of liquid. In asking them why, my wife responded that since she cooks
and bakes often, she could just tell they were the same volume. I did ask my son "Which glass
would fill him up more" and he said it would make no difference, he just 'knew' they were the
same volume. So visually there wasnt much effect noted by either my wife or my son. Still
they both confirmed the taller glass did appear to hold more water.

The quote "Perception is Reality" has been attributed to Lee Atwater who was George H.W.
Bush's (the first) campaign manager during the Presidential Election of 1988. This was the
election that gave us Willie Horton and Michael Dukakis riding in an Army tank looking like
Alfred E. Neuman (from the cover of Mad Magazine). Perception can sway a presidential
election as well as the perception of volume in a glass. The question is why? What is it about
the visual context of an event that allows us to intuit correctly about some measures and
incorrectly about others?

In the article "Bottoms Up: The Influence of Elongation on Pouring and Consumption of
Volume" the end consumers were generally never asked to compare the two types of glasses
with juice or alcohol instead they were asked to estimate the volume consumed which varied
with the type of glass. There was a consistent correlation between larger volume estimation
and the height of the glass. This suggests that the consumption tableware (in this case, the type
of glass) affects the end users perceptions. The fact that the bias extends to professional
bartenders who 'pour' for a living reinforces the argument that vertical dimension influences
the amount of liquid poured into a tall glass vs. a short, wide glass.

The implications for marketing are obvious, the mass marketers of soft drinks and beer could
consider selling their products in taller containers while reducing the volume of fluid by as
little as a quarter ounce. That doesn't sound like much, but if the end user is satisfied and
willing to pay the same price for a six pack of Coke or Budweiser while saving the
manufacturer 1.5 ounces, that can add up. Here is a simple analysis:

Budweiser produces over 100 million barrels of beer a year. Each barrel holds 43 gallon, this
about 550,400,000,000 (that's over 550 billion) ounces of beer made every year.

If by subtly changing the packaging (bottle or can length), Budweiser could reduce the volume
of beer in each six pack from 72 ounces to 70.5 ounces this would increase the amount of beer
they could sell by almost 30,000 barrels. As a percentage of beer manufactured its not that
much, (0.03%) but its still more than they sell now. If they could reduce the amount of beer
by 6 ounces per six-pack (from 72 to 66 ounces), the amount of extra beer Budweiser could sell
increases to almost 120,000 barrels (0.12%). This extra revenue would be available based
on the consumer not perceiving any significant difference in volume of beer consumed.

The soft drink industry averages over 40 Gallons per year for every American consumer.
With 300 million Americans this is about 1500 billion ounces of soft drinks per year (three
times the volume of beer) just in the USA. At this scale finding a way to increase sales a tenth
of a percent with minimal increases in cost would significantly increase revenue. Considering
all the liquid products sold in containers (milk, juice, medicines) I'm sure this perception issue
has been exploited in some manner. Maybe it would be a good thing if the producers actually
made fewer products to sell, but the temptation to increase revenues would be hard to
resist...

Could there be some sort of correlation between this vertical phenomena and the perception
that taller people are smarter, earn more money, and are considered more attractive? There
seems to be some evidence to support these assertions. What is it about the vertical dimension
that affects our perceptions? Is it biological in origin?

One final observation is that many Americans are quite fond of the philosophy that bigger is
better (HDTVs, football players, professional wrestlers, the amount of money in your bank
account, etc.). It would be interesting to see if this vertical bias was as pronounced in Europe
or Asia where the philosophy that smaller is better seems more prevalent. It shouldnt be that
hard to find out.