Fast food restaurant lighting and Music can reduce

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Fast food restaurant lighting and Music can reduce"

Melvin Horn
6 years ago
Views:

1 Psychological Reports: Human Resources & Marketing 2012, 111, 1, Psychological Reports 2012 Fast food restaurant lighting and Music can reduce CALORIE INTAKE and increase satisfaction 1, 2 Brian Wansink Cornell University Koert van Ittersum Georgia Institute of Technology Summary. Recent research shows that environmental cues such as lighting and music strongly bias the eating behavior of diners in laboratory situations. This study examines whether changing the atmosphere of a fast food restaurant would change how much patrons ate. The results indicated that softening the lighting and music led people to eat less, to rate the food as more enjoyable, and to spend just as much. In contrast to hypothesized U-shaped curves (people who spend longer eat more), this suggests a more relaxed environment increases satisfaction and decreases consumption. Environmental cues have been shown to increase the food intake of unwary individuals (Wansink, 2006, 2010). Yet if these factors including lighting and music lead people to eat more, would changing these factors lead them to eat less? A restaurant s atmosphere might lead people to overeat if it stimulates them to eat faster (Lawton, 2004), or it might lead people to overeat if it encourages a person to stay longer at the restaurant and order additional food (Wansink, 2004). For instance, one study examined 1,400 diners in a restaurant that either played fast music or relaxing, instrumental music. When the music was relaxing, diners ate 11 minutes longer (56 minutes in total). While they did not spend more money on food, the average table spent over $30 on drinks, far more than the $21.62 spent by the fast music group (Milliman, 1986). Fast food restaurants, often considered to contribute to obesity, are not designed to be relaxing. They are characterized by bright lights, noisereflecting surfaces, and stimulating yellow-and-red colors (Sobal & Wansink, 2007). Lighting and noise could have a psychological influence on food consumption because they directly or indirectly influence eating duration (Garg, Wansink, & Inman, 2007). A frequent observation and a robust empirical finding (Cohen s d =.60) is that the longer one dines, the more one eats (Caldwell & Hibbert, 2002). Both lighting and noise may influence consumption partly because they encourage people to spend more 1 Address correspondence to Brian Wansink, John S. Dyson Professor of Marketing, Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, 110 Warren Hall, Ithaca, NY or (wansink@cornell.edu) or Koert van Ittersum, Associate Professor of Marketing, Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology, 800 West Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, GA or (koert.vanittersum@scheller. gatech.edu). 2 The authors are grateful for the generous cooperation of the national management of Hardees and Carl s Jr. and their local franchise in Champaign, IL. Thanks also to John Murray and Matthew M. Cheney for help in data collection. DOI /01.PR ISSN

2 OVEREATING: LIGHTING AND MUSIC 229 time eating (Wansink, 2004). Although each will be discussed separately, their combined effect is what will be experimentally explored. Lighting appears to influence consumption in two different ways: eating duration may be increased, and disinhibition and perhaps monitoring may be decreased (Scheibehenne, Todd, & Wansink, 2010). It has been reported that harsh or bright illumination decreases the duration of a store or restaurant visit, while soft or warm lighting generally causes people to linger longer (Cohen s d =.25; Lyman, 1989; Ragneskog, Brane, Karlsson, & Kihlgren, 1996; Summers & Hebert 2001). People are less aroused, less inhibited, and less self-conscious when the lights are low, and they may be more likely to consume more than they otherwise would (Cohen s d =.39; Areni & Kim 1994; Lavin & Lawless, 1998). The general findings with noise have been similar; the more discomforting the noise, the less time people spend in a restaurant (r =.54; North & Hargreaves, 1996). Sometimes this leads them to eat more quickly (Roballey, McGreevey, & Rongo, 1985; Lindman, Lindfors, Dahla, & Toivola, 1987). In contrast, slow music is associated with slower eating, but it also is associated with higher consumption of both food and drinks (Cohen s d =.89; Milliman, 1986; Caldwell & Hibbert, 2002). The more customers liked the music, the longer they stayed in the eating environment (Wansink, 1992). With more time spent, more food may be ordered, i.e., dessert or another drink (cf. Milliman, 1986). Stroebele and de Castro (2004) noted that apparently music or even noise, in general, accelerates intake of food during a restaurant meal (Cohen s d =.79). In contrast, when the music is soft, the duration of the meal is prolonged and additional consumption encouraged. Eating in fast food restaurants is often associated with bright lights, bright colors, and loud noises from music, televisions, or patrons that reflect and reverberate from the hard surfaces. It would appear that people eating in a fast food environment would eat faster and eat more per minute than those in a calmer restaurant environment. However, the immediate increase in calories consumed might be offset in the long run if the relaxing music, mood, and lighting of a restaurant led to extension of the dining experience and more food ordered. Method Permission and instutional review board approval were obtained to modify a Hardee s fast food restaurant in Champaign, Illinois, to have two dining areas. One of these was a fast food environment, unchanged from its usual appearance with the bright lights, bright colors, and loud noise and music typical of fast food restaurants. The other was a fine dining environment, modified to have a more relaxing atmosphere: a separate, walled-in smoking room in the restaurant was used. Plants and paintings, window shades, and indirect lights were added, white table cloths and

3 230 B. Wansink & K. van Ittersum candles were placed on the tables. The room was soundproofed and soft jazz ballad instrumentals were played over the sound system. When lunchtime customers arrived, usually in groups of two to four people, they were randomly seated in either the main part of the restaurant (n = 33), or escorted to the converted fine dining room (n = 29). The latter were told it was a new idea the restaurant was trying. If they were seated in the converted fine dining room, food was delivered to them, and a waiter frequently stopped by to refill their beverages and to ask them if they wanted to order anything else. Participants time at their tables was unobtrusively measured by confederate diners with stopwatches. The amount of calories in the food originally ordered was computed, and the leftover weight of what they did not eat was subtracted from the starting weight to provide an indicator of total calories eaten. As customers left, they were asked to rate the quality of the food that day on a 10-point scale with anchors of 1: Not very good; 10: Very good. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs; SPSS Version 19), using restaurant style (fine dining vs fast food) as an independent, between-subjects variable, were used to analyze the data. Results As would be expected by random assignment, the people in both the fine dining and fast food groups ordered similar foods and a similar number of calories on their first ordering (Ms = and 687.6, SDs = and 447.4; F 1,57 = 1.32, p =.26, η 2 = 0.02). Those eating in the fine dining restaurant ate for 4.7% longer than those in the main eating area (Ms = 36.7 and 35.1, SDs = 6.9 and 5.1; F 1,57 = 2.91, p <.10, η 2 = 0.05). This led them to eat less (86% vs 95%; F 1,57 = 10.51, p =.002, η 2 = 0.16) and to waste more of the food (by average weight) they had originally ordered (14% vs 5%; F 1,57 = 10.51, p =.002, η 2 = 0.16). Assuming that the food had equal caloric density/gm, this would have resulted in a total of 133 fewer calories (fine dining restaurant: M = calories, SD = vs fast food restaurant: M = calories, SD = 451.4; F 1,57 = 3.81, p =.06, η 2 = 0.06). Those in the fine dining condition were no more likely to order extra food than those in the fast food condition. Furthermore, when they ordered extra food, they ordered 14.0% fewer calories ( compared to calories), but this calorie difference was not significant (F 1,38 = 2.32, p =.13, η 2 =.03). Examining the whole meal, in contrast to expectation, people in the fine dining condition ate less than those in the fast food condition. This difference in calorie intake amplified for those who ordered additional food (refills, desserts, and so on; fine dining restaurant: M = calories, SD = vs fast food restaurant: M = calories, SD = 554.1; F 1,38 = 4.43, p =.04, η 2 = 0.10).

4 OVEREATING: LIGHTING AND MUSIC 231 In the fine dining condition, ratings of the food were higher than in the fast food condition (7.28 vs 5.84; F 1,58 = 8.99, p =.004, η 2 = 0.13), and researchers commented that customers often made positive remarks after their debriefing. Discussion It was hypothesized that people in a relaxed environment with soft lighting and music would eat longer and order more than those in a typical environment. This was not the case. Diners in a converted fine dining room in a fast food restaurant with dim lighting and soft music ate less than those in the main dining area. They ordered a similar amount of food, but they ate more slowly and left more on their plates. These results challenge the generally hypothesized U-shaped effect of restaurant lighting and music on food consumption (Wansink, 2004, 2006). Loud music and bright lights accelerated one s food consumption, and soft music and soft lights decelerated consumption. Even when people stayed longer, they ate less. Debriefings indicated that because they were taking more time as they ate, their food tended to lose its appeal, so they stopped eating indicating they might have been more responsive to internal cues than external ones (Wansink, Payne, & Chandon, 2007). However, after they finished their meal, they rated the food as tasting better than did those in the loud, colorful, main dining room. With only two conditions, it was not possible to fully explore the U- shaped relationship that is thought to exist. As in Milliman (1986), this current study did show that people who lingered longer did not compensate by eating more food. While they might have ordered additional food, they also left more on their plates, either because it cooled or because satiety cues began to register. The authors previous warnings not to eat too much in relaxing situations may have been premature. There are clear implications for restaurants wishing to help consumers slow down and enjoy their food (Wansink & Payne, 2008). Yet there are also implications for consumers who want to eat less. A less sensory-stimulating restaurant environment (quieter with softer lights) may lead one to eat less of what was originally ordered, but it may also lead to subsequent orders. The way to have your cake and eat it too may be to enjoy the atmosphere instead of the cake. References Areni, C. S., & Kim, D. (1994) The influence of in-store lighting on consumers examination of merchandise in a wine store. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, Caldwell, C., & Hibbert, S. A. (2002) The influence of music tempo and musical preference on restaurant patrons behavior. Psychological Market, 19,

5 232 B. Wansink & K. van Ittersum Garg, N., Wansink, B., & Inman, J. J. (2007) The influence of incidental affect on consumers food intake. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), Lavin, J., & Lawless, H. T. (1998) Effects of color and odor on judgments of sweetness among children and adults. Food Quality and Preference, 9, Lawton, G. (2004) Angelic host. New Scientist, 184(December), Lindman, R., Lindfors, B., Dahla, E., & Toivola, H. (1987) Alcohol and ambiance: social and environmental determinants of intake and mood. Alcohol and Alcoholism, Suppl. 02(1), Lyman, B. (1989) A psychology of food: more than a matter of taste. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Milliman, R. E. (1986) The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1996) The effects of music on responses to a dining area. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, Ragneskog, H., Brane, G., Karlsson, I., & Kihlgren, M. (1996) Influence of dinner music on food intake and symptoms common in dementia. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 10, Roballey, T. C., McGreevy, C., & Rongo, R. R. (1985) The effect of music on eating behavior. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, Scheibehenne, B., Todd, P. M., & Wansink, B. (2010) Dining in the dark: the importance of visual cues for food consumption and satiety. Appetite, 55(3), Sobal, J., & Wansink, B. (2007) Kitchenscapes, tablescapes, platescapes, and foodscapes: influences of microscale built environments on food intake. Environment and Behavior, 39(1), Stroebele, N., & de Castro, J. M. (2004) The effect of ambience on food intake and food choice. Nutrition, 79, Summers, T. A., & Hebert, P. R. (2001) Shedding some light on store atmospherics: influence of illumination on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 54, Wansink, B. (1992) Listen to the music: the impact on affect, perceived time passage, and applause. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, Wansink, B. (2004) Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annual Review of Nutrition, 24, Wansink, B. (2006) Mindless eating: why we eat more than we think. New York: Bantam- Dell. Wansink, B. (2010) From mindless eating to mindlessly eating better. Physiology & Behavior, 100(5), Wansink, B., & Payne, C. R. (2008) Eating behavior and obesity at Chinese buffets. Obesity, 16(8), Wansink, B., Payne, C. R., & Chandon, P. (2007) Internal and external cues of meal cessation: the french paradox redux? Obesity, 15, Accepted July 27, 2012.

Latest findings in behavioural science to explain the psychology of food choices and barriers to behaviour change

Latest findings in behavioural science to explain the psychology of food choices and barriers to behaviour change Presented by: Erin Boyd Kappelhof, MS, MPH, RDN Managing Partner Eat Well Global, Inc.