So why does a bigger fork make one eat less?

Assuming that this claim is true? Why?

In a recent study done at an Italian restaurant, researchers found that diners who used larger utensils ate less, surprisingly enough. The researchers believe that bigger forks somehow trick people's minds into thinking they've eaten more. . . .

Another possibility is that eating a meal with a big fork is awkward and more difficult. Could it simply be that if you make eating more difficult, people will eat less? I did see some research years ago that babies who were breastfeed consumed less milk during any given meal than those feed from a bottle. The reason was that more work was required by the baby. One interesting consequence of this is that breastfeed babies are thus more likely to wake up during the night wanting to eat more. It seems hard to think that breastfeed babies are having some "mind tricks" occurring to them.

Just as the size of our houses have doubled over the last 30 years, so apparently also have the sizes of our meals (though the meal sizes have grown more slowly).

Meal sizes have grown over the past few decades, contributing to an obesity epidemic in the United States. In fact, Cornell University researchers recently found amusing proof of portion swelling when they compared the 1936 and the 2006 editions of that homemaking classic, Joy of Cooking. They found that the recipe for chicken gumbo went from 228 calories per serving in the 1936 version to 576 calories in the 2006 edition. Why? The editors simply had to jack up the portion sizes to meet our oversized modern-day appetites. . . .