ArticlePloS one2018
Effect of glass shape on the pouring accuracy of liquid volume.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of fluid balance charting and interventions to improve it: a systematic review.BMJ open quality · 2023Pooled it
- A standardised set of images for judgements of proportion.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Nucleation increases the visual appeal of lager but does not alter overall likeability or drinking rate.Harm reduction journal · 2022Article
- A study on accuracy and precision of fluid volume measurements by nurses, patients and healthy persons in a clinical setting.Nursing open · 2022Article
- Glassware design and drinking behaviours: a review of impact and mechanisms using a new typology of drinking behaviours.Health psychology review · 2022Review
- Glass shape influences drinking behaviours in three laboratory experiments.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Impact of glass shape on time taken to drink a soft drink: A laboratory-based experiment.PloS one · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe shape of glassware may exacerbate or counteract biases in perceived volume, which may lead people to misjudge the pouring of alcoholic drinks. The aim of these studies was to investigate the effect of glass shape on the pouring accuracy of liquid volume.
methodsIn Study 1, using an online computerised task, participants (n = 211) were asked to pour liquid in glasses in a within-subjects design with factors of glass shape (straight, curved) and requested percentage fullness (10, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 75, 80, 90%). Curve estimations were carried out to determine if errors followed a linear or non-linear relationship. In Study 2, in a real world experimental study, participants (n = 96) were asked to pour water to the midpoint of pint glasses in a within-subjects design with one factor of glass shape (straight, curved, tulip, inverted). Differences between poured amounts were analysed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA.
resultsIn Study 1, participants under-poured in curved glasses compared to straight glasses at all requested amounts. In Study 2, participants under-poured in curved (p < 0.001, dz = 1.51) and tulip (p < 0.001, dz = 0.59) glasses compared to straight glasses. Findings were inconclusive as to whether or not a difference was present between pourings in inverted and straight glasses. Participants displayed a tendency to under-pour in all glasses relative to requested amounts in both studies.
conclusionsThe shape of glassware appears to influence the pouring accuracy of liquid. Pouring in tulip and curved glasses was more inaccurate compared to straight glasses, possibly due to the height of liquid within the glass and volume changing in a non-linear relationship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.