Lighting and Music Reduce Fast-Food Meal Size

Patrons in part of a fast-food restaurant that had a fine-dining atmosphere consumed almost a fifth fewer calories per meal than those in the regular section. Steve Mirsky 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!

In lab tests, music and lighting can affect how much people eat. Now a study has found that changing the ambiance of a fast food restaurant to more of a fine-dining atmosphere lessened the amount of food people crammed into their pie holes. To quote the paper, “softening the lighting and music led people to eat less, to rate the food as more enjoyable, and to spend just as much.”

That last finding means that fast food joints, which are accused of contributing to the obesity epidemic, might actually try it. The study was led by well-known eating behaviorist Brian Wansink from Cornell University and appears in the journal Psychological Reports. [Brian Wansink and Koert van Ittersum, Fast Food Restaurant Lighting and Music Can Reduce Calorie Intake and Increase Satisfaction]

The researchers converted part of a Hardee’s so that it had soft lighting and slow jazz instrumentals. The patrons were expected to possibly eat more in the relaxed section, because they’d linger, maybe get dessert. But they actually averaged 18 percent fewer calories per meal than the folks in the rowdy section—down from an average of 949 calories to 775. The overall experience appears to have been a more satisfying meal. Even if there was less of it.


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.


—Steve Mirsky

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

[And here's a 2007 audio interview with Brian Wansink.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe