New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Stare Down Gulls to Avoid Lunch Loss

Researchers slowed the approach of greedy gulls by an average of 21 seconds by staring at the birds versus looking elsewhere. Christopher Intagliata 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!

No trip to the beach would be complete without a swarm of hungry gulls. But don’t get distracted. Because one of those gulls may soon go after your food. “There’s a very small proportion of extremely bold individuals that seem to ruin the reputation of the whole species.”

Neeltje Boogert, an animal behavior researcher at the University of Exeter. She studied the food-snatching habits of gulls in seaside towns in the southern U.K. and found that very few—only the boldest—would actually take the bait. Or make that the bite.

The experiment went like this: A researcher crouched near a gull, then set out a plastic bag of french fries. For those brave gulls that then started to approach, the researcher either stared straight at the gull, as in “I see you, thief,” or the researcher simply looked away. And it turns out, staring down the gulls made them hesitate 21 seconds on average before approaching the fries. 


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.


The results are in the journal Biology Letters. [Madeleine Goumas et al., Herring gulls respond to human gaze direction]

Gulls aren’t the only ones who behave better when being watched. A 2006 study found that people paid three times as much for their drinks at an unattended honor-system coffee bar when just an image of staring eyes was displayed nearby. 

As for the gulls, Boogert points out that we need to learn to live with them—because the particular species she studied, the herring gull, is on the U.K.’s Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern.

“The thing is: people don’t want to have a seaside holiday without gulls. So it’s just trying to find ways to harmoniously live with one of the only wildlife species we still have around in these coastal areas.”

So don’t turn your back on the gulls, she says. Both figuratively for conserving the species and, of course, literally—for conserving your lunch.

—Christopher Intagliata

[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