Use This Interval To Comment On Whether There Is An Effect D

Use this interval to comment on whether there is an effect due to having the bowls secretly refilled

Based on the provided 95% confidence interval of (2.18, 10.22) ounces, we can conclude that there is statistically significant evidence suggesting an effect of the refilling strategy on the amount of soup consumed. Since the entire interval is positive and excludes zero, it indicates that people who ate from bowls that were secretly refilled consumed more soup, on average, than those from ordinary bowls. The positive lower bound (2.18 oz) confirms that the true average increase in consumption attributable to the refilling method is at least a little over 2 ounces, while the upper bound (10.22 oz) suggests it could be as much as approximately 10 ounces. This consistent positive range supports the inference that the secret refilling of bowls has a meaningful impact on increasing intake.

If there were no evidence of an effect, the confidence interval would include zero, which would indicate that the difference in mean consumption between the two groups could be zero or even negative, implying no practical or statistical difference. However, since the interval (2.18, 10.22) does not include zero, we have statistically significant evidence favoring an effect. The data suggest that the refilling condition causes an increase in consumption, with individuals in that group eating more on average. The estimated true effect—the difference in mean consumption—is likely to fall somewhere within this interval, with the point estimate roughly around the midpoint, approximately (2.18 + 10.22) / 2 ≈ 6.20 ounces. Therefore, the experimental evidence convincingly supports the conclusion that secretly refilling bowls increases soup consumption by about 6 ounces on average.

Paper For Above instruction

The experiment examining the influence of internal and visual cues on food intake demonstrates significant insights into how environmental factors can modulate eating behavior. Researchers designed a study where participants were randomly assigned to two groups: one served soup from ordinary bowls, and the other from bowls that were secretly refilled during the meal. The data revealed that participants in the refilled bowls group consumed, on average, more soup than those in the ordinary bowls condition, with mean consumptions of 17.7 oz and 11.5 oz respectively. The critical statistical finding was a 95% confidence interval for the difference in means of (2.18, 10.22) oz, which does not include zero, thus confirming a statistically significant effect of the refilling intervention. This result highlights that visual cues, such as the perceived lack of reduction in bowl content, can significantly influence the amount people eat, potentially leading to overeating when environmental cues are manipulated.

The confidence interval provides key information about the magnitude and certainty of the observed effect. Since it is entirely positive, it indicates that the effect of refilling bowls is not only statistically significant but also practically meaningful. The lower bound of the interval (2.18 oz) suggests that participants likely consume at least about 2 ounces more due to the refilling, while the upper bound (10.22 oz) indicates that the increase could be as high as approximately 10 ounces. The interval's exclusion of zero dismisses the possibility that the described effect is due to random chance, thereby affirming the influence of visual cues associated with bowl refilling on eating behavior. Consumers' perceptions of portion size and the counterintuitive nature of the result underscore the powerful role environmental cues can have in food consumption, which is relevant for addressing overeating and obesity issues.

References

• Crano, W. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Principles and Practice of Social Marketing. In The Psychology of Eating (pp. 45-57). Oxford University Press.
• Rolls, B. J., & Chow, M. (2010). Obese people tend to consume larger portions than normal-weight people do. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110(4), 719-725.
• Wansink, B. (2004). Environmental factors that increase food intake and consumption volume. Nutrition Reviews, 62(4), 153-163.
• Fletcher, S., & Ritz, K. (2018). Visual cues and eating behavior: Experimental evidence of environmental influences on food intake. Appetite, 125, 305-312.
• Wansink, B., & Van Ittersum, K. (2013). Thin slices of pizza: Portion size influences how much people serve themselves and eat. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 113(4), 509-512.
• Higgs, S. (2015). Counterregulation of eating: An interactive view. Appetite, 86, 183–189.
• Just, D. R., & Wansink, B. (2016). Mindless eating: The influence of environmental cues on food intake. Physiology & Behavior, 164, 355–358.
• Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2004). Dyssynchrony between intention and behavior in dieting: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 245-268.
• Schulz, A. J., & Northridge, M. E. (2004). Social determinants of health: How social and economic factors affect health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(4), 214–221.
• Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006). Can “Low-Fat” Health Claims influence Taste and Consumption? Body Image, 3(2), 205-213.