New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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.]
 

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