New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Appetizers Can Psychologically Spoil Your Appetite

Mediocre main dishes taste even worse when they follow delectable appetizers—an example of the so-called "hedonic effect." Erika Beras reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Lots of things influence how your dinner may taste to you: how it’s presented on a plate, how hungry you are and of course, your taste buds. But researchers wanted to know if early courses—appetizers—influence the taste of a meal, and truly do whet your appetite.

Researchers had 64 volunteers eat one of two meals. The meals were the same—bruschetta as an appetizer and an entrée of pasta with garlic and oil. The pasta that everyone got was prepared to be only so-so. But some of the volunteers first got a bruschetta that was made to be mediocre, while the others got one that was stellar. 

Then the volunteers rated the meals. And people who ate the good appetizer thought their entrée was even worse than did people who had the middling appetizer. The study is in the journal Food Quality and Preference. [Jacob Lahne and Debra A. Zellner, The great is the enemy of the good: Hedonic contrast in a coursed meal]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


This work builds on previous studies that have focused on the perception of food and drink, and other sensory experience. In one investigation for example, researchers found that hearing a loud sound first then makes a soft sound seem to sound even softer. 

Researchers call this effect hedonic contrast—the perception or pleasure gained from something is affected by how it compares to other similar stimuli. Maybe keep that fact in mind—or on the tip of your tongue—next time you plan your courses. 

—Erika Beras

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe