Comments on: Portioning blame http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2007/06/27/portioning-blame/ Using design to influence behaviour Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:13:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v= hourly 1 By: Obama http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2007/06/27/portioning-blame/comment-page-1/#comment-77759 Obama Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:16:28 +0000 http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2007/06/27/portioning-blame/#comment-77759 "None of2" has a really good point. It's very easy to look like an idiot or a pig when trying to carry way more food/drinks than one can carry without using their arms while desperately not trying to drop anything. I've run across this idea in a few business books as well. On another note... I wouldn't be able to handle a 64 ounce soda... not for the huge volume, but the 5+ cans worth of caffiene. A big mac and fries does sound really good right now though. “None of2″ has a really good point. It’s very easy to look like an idiot or a pig when trying to carry way more food/drinks than one can carry without using their arms while desperately not trying to drop anything. I’ve run across this idea in a few business books as well.

On another note… I wouldn’t be able to handle a 64 ounce soda… not for the huge volume, but the 5+ cans worth of caffiene. A big mac and fries does sound really good right now though.

]]> By: Unit Bias | Science That Matters http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2007/06/27/portioning-blame/comment-page-1/#comment-76082 Unit Bias | Science That Matters Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:12:04 +0000 http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2007/06/27/portioning-blame/#comment-76082 [...] Dan Lockton of the Architectures of Control blog has ruminated on the implications of this research and described the way that it played into more expensive foods with larger portion sizes (versus two-for-one deals) at fast food changes like McDonald’s. [...] [...] Dan Lockton of the Architectures of Control blog has ruminated on the implications of this research and described the way that it played into more expensive foods with larger portion sizes (versus two-for-one deals) at fast food changes like McDonald’s. [...]

]]> By: None of 2 http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2007/06/27/portioning-blame/comment-page-1/#comment-75080 None of 2 Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:51:45 +0000 http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2007/06/27/portioning-blame/#comment-75080 In the specific case of movie theatre food and drink, there's another obvious factor at work in making people reluctant to get multiple servings, without affecting their willingness to get a single very large serving. The fact that the patron has two hands, and inside the theatre proper, one armrest to call their own and no table. Managing more than two items (e.g. one drink and one popcorn) at the same time under those circumstances is asking for spills, wastage, and probably the wrath of other patrons. And getting additional portions sequentially means missing parts of the movie. In the specific case of movie theatre food and drink, there’s another obvious factor at work in making people reluctant to get multiple servings, without affecting their willingness to get a single very large serving.

The fact that the patron has two hands, and inside the theatre proper, one armrest to call their own and no table.

Managing more than two items (e.g. one drink and one popcorn) at the same time under those circumstances is asking for spills, wastage, and probably the wrath of other patrons. And getting additional portions sequentially means missing parts of the movie.

]]> By: Crosbie Fitch http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2007/06/27/portioning-blame/comment-page-1/#comment-75063 Crosbie Fitch Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:17:24 +0000 http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2007/06/27/portioning-blame/#comment-75063 The converse of supersizing is the "As many visits as you want" Carvery (not to be confused with the far inferior single-serving carvery). The carvery is supposed to play upon people's reluctance to look like gluttons, by persuading them that because the amount they can eat is unlimited they should take smaller servings. This achieves less waste, customers feeling they have had access to a feast even if they didn't gorge themselves, and the truly gluttinous still being satisfied. The converse of supersizing is the “As many visits as you want” Carvery (not to be confused with the far inferior single-serving carvery).

The carvery is supposed to play upon people’s reluctance to look like gluttons, by persuading them that because the amount they can eat is unlimited they should take smaller servings. This achieves less waste, customers feeling they have had access to a feast even if they didn’t gorge themselves, and the truly gluttinous still being satisfied.

]]>