Eat, Drink, and be Monitored

Ponca City, We Love You writes "A new restaurant has opened at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, fitted with a control center and two dozen hidden cameras devoted to exploring the question of what makes people eat and drink the way they do. Over the next 10 years, a team of more than 20 scientists will use the research facility to watch how people walk through the restaurant, what food catches their eye, whether they always sit at the same table and how much food they throw away. Researchers will examine environmental influences on eating behavior by making small changes in the color of the lights, in accompanying sounds, in the scents or the furniture. "We want to find out what influences people: colors, taste, personnel," said one researcher. "This restaurant is a playground of possibilities. We can ask the staff to be less friendly and visible or the reverse." University staff who want to eat at the new restaurant will have to sign a consent form agreeing to be watched."

Comments

Big question to be solved?

[foobsr]

Does THC increase or diminish food intake?

CC.

on privacy

[j_166]

I don't really see the privacy implications. Presumably, those going to this research facility to eat know that its a research facility. They have to sign a consent form. The title of the article should be "Eat, Drink, and Participate in Food Science Research", but I guess "Eat, Drink, and Be Monitored" just sounds more Orwellian.

Re:on privacy

[the_humeister]

It's just to get people riled up to click on the link so that they'll hopefully RTFA and then write a post about how the title is misleading...

Re:on privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is a sign on the door...

Having the experience of living in the Netherlands as foreigner for the last 5 years or so, I can tell you that the tolerance and support for surveillance in this country is scary. Very scary.

It comes AFAIK from a tradition of religious control, where people's lives were very closely followed by the religious. Go to any village in this country, and you will only see houses with huge windows and without curtains.

Nowadays everybody supports more cameras in the street.

This country has a culture of peer monitoring of behaviour, and peer "active" enforcing of acceptable behaviour (normally through the waving of a censoring finger, while preaching). Everybody watches everybody, and everyone will point in a censor-like way, to anyone not acting normally. This is no joke. The saying is "act normally" ("Doet normaal!"), for anyone doing anything nor conforming to "morally & socially" approved behaviour.

I could go on... but I better not.

Re:on privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably, those going to this research facility to eat know that its a research facility. Then it's a complete waste of effort. If those participating know that it's being monitored then they'll be playing a role, not acting naturally. The waiter is rude to you, what do you do? Well there's cameras everywhere, are you going to play "nobody messes with me, buster" or are you going to play "calm and unflustered"? The waitress is flirting with you, are you going to show play "real man" or "faithful husband"?

It could be a lot of fun, but it isn't science. Unless they are also monitoring another restaurant surreptitiously and the point is to see how differently people behave when they know they're being watched.

Re:on privacy

[yootje]

Disclaimer: I am Dutch ;) First off, I don't think it has anything to do with religion, people just like to watch people and gossip about it, especially in small communities. You almost don't see this behaviour in the cities and in small towns it's reducing, I think (I live in a city myself). You can also look at this in an other perspective: Maybe the open curtains say: we have nothing to hide, look at us? Or maybe people just like to watch birds. And I don't what you are trying to say about the "doe normaal"-saying: when someone wants to kick someone's ass: that's not conforming to "morally & socially" approved behaviour, is it wrong to say "please act normal" in that situation? Or when someone is shouting through the streets? Or when someone says he likes to have sex with dead chickens?

Re:on privacy

[porcupine8]

You don't sign an agreement every time you enter. You sign once, and then eat there whenever you want all school year (or however long, dunno how long the agreements last). A lot of research is done in front of cameras - if you leave the cameras there long enough, people forget they're there. I do educational research, and you always go into the classroom a few days early and start recording (or pretending to record). By the time you're ready to collect your data, the kids have forgotten the camera's there 90% of the time. Sure, it's not perfect, but people generally can't keep their guard up through an entire class/meal, let alone several in a row once the camera has faded into the back of their mind. And if the cameras aren't visible, even better.

The fact is, behavioral science in a tightly-controlled laboratory can only tell us so much about how people function out in the real world. Behavioral/cognitive scientists are starting to realize this, and looking for better ways to research real-world behavior in a way that's decently reliable and valid. There are tradeoffs.

Re:on privacy

[BlendieOfIndie]

American culture, on the other hand, can be VERY judgemental and VERY conformist

Much like in the Netherlands, it also depends where you live in America. The South East (where I'm originally from) seems to adhere to these properties more so than other areas of the country (ex. California). In big cities you see less of the judgemental/conformist culture (just like in the Netherlands). Furthermore, I believe the judgmental/conformity traits hold the least in Western, individualistic cultures. I would expect these traits to be most prominent in Eastern, collectivist cultures like Japan. In Eastern cultures, you are defined as being part of "the group."

if you know

[Turn-X Alphonse]

But if you know you're being watched won't it effect how you act?

If that woman knows someone is watching her she might resist eating that extra few fries, but if she isn't she might just go get another bag cause she's had a shitty day.

Re:if you know

[Zironic]

It's rather irrelevant though.

What they want to know isn't "How do you eat"

But "How does your eating change if we do X and Y"

So how you're eating when you're being watched will become the baseline they're doing experiments on seeing how it changed by changing variables.

Re:if you know

[CapsaicinBoy]

Disclaimer: IAAFS

Without meaning to be rude, you are flat out wrong. It just so happens that I study ingestion behavior for a living. My work is more related to the genetics of eating behavior and food choice, so this facility is less directly useful to me personally, but it absolutely will move the field forward. Unlike armchair quarterbacks that take cheapshots on the intarweb, every practicing scientist recognizes the inherent tradeoffs between experimental control and generalizability.

First, before the Correlation !=Causation weenies get their panties in a bunch, I'm happy for you that you passed stats 101, but you need to understand that RCTs are not the only way to do science. Yes, randomization is really nice for making claims about causation, but at least in humans, I can't assign you a specific gene (TAS2R38) or personality trait (novelty seeking). Yet we can still use the scientific method to make predictions based on theory and test those predictions.

Second, much of this work is done today using self report. Certainly, observation can induce bias, but so can self-report. When separate methods, with separate flaws confirm the same findings, science moves forward.

Finally, your comment about blinds, controls and isolation of variables is totally ignorant. The ability to manipulate this artificial restaurant in ways you could never manipulate a real restaurant is *exactly* what provides those controls.

Here is an example. Imagine I have a theory how socialization influences the time people spent at the table and the amount they consume. In this restaurant, I can manipulate the table size (2 vs. 4 chairs), social attachment between people (sit with friends or random assignment) or gender (do women eat more or less when seated with random men, male friends, just women, etc) to test my theories.

Re:Scum

[Yalius]

Subvert our reason? If our reason wasn't already subverted, this wouldn't work at all. Like it or not, your mind isn't as independent as you'd like to believe. It's already being influenced by thousands of external stimuli, and you have no idea how they're influencing you. Wouldn't you rather know what makes you choose the things you do, rather than leave it up to others to decide for you? At least, this is being researched publicly, so the results will be available. So the next time you walk into a restaurant and see that the carpeting as a burgundy instead of maroon, you'll know what it's supposed to make you decide. And face it, "they" can probably already play you like a drum whenever they feel like it. Your mind hasn't ever been your own. Ever since the first social environment arose, decisions and thinking have been made by groups, not individuals. Get used to it.

Wait just a minute!

[NetSettler]

We can ask the staff to be less friendly and visible or the reverse.

They have the ability to just ask waitstaff to be more friendly or visible and thereby cause it to just happen??? Forget the rest of the research, this one technique is wholly unknown to and long sought by restaurants everywhere. They should just publish how they manage that trick and call it a day!

Better still, patent it, and retire wealthy.

Science?

[no-body]

I wonder how they comensate for the factor introduced by the folks being watched knowing to be watched and playing a game.

Maybe they glean something out of it to predict human behavior.

I wish all the power to humans to be as unpredictable and crazy as ususal and make them scratch their heads after they find out that things don't add up.

Re:Science?

[gotzero]

Most university affiliated learning centers/experiments like this usually have heavily subsidized costs of goods. At my university, there was a restaurant that the hotel and restaurant management students ran. It was the best food and atmosphere for miles around, almost free, and completely not advertised. A lot of people did not know about it, and I ate there as often as I could get a reservation. I would have been happy to sign a waiver that my behavior could be watched there. I am sure a lot of my behavior was watched anyway, b/c the student staff were way too friendly to not be answering immediately to someone... Researching human behavior is a tough thing to tackle. Obviously the best data would come from blind or even double blind tests, but any kind of waiver or admission of experiment will obviously influence the subjects. The fact that people act differently when watched is enough on its own to show that there is still a ton to be learned on the subject.

Re:YouTube worthy.

[stormguard2099]

No, the day some unsuspecting crook tries to stick up the place, now THAT'S gonna be funny. I hope that gets on court tv. "I now present evidence 1-p, videofeed #16"

This is really NOT news

[zoomshorts]

This type of 'research' has been going on for a LONG time.
The only thing different here is a controlled setting
specifically designed for research, which by it's very nature,
will skew the findings. Restaruants have been doing this forever.
What sells, what ambience sells the most while encouraging
turn-over. Stuff any motel and restaruant manager knows to
look for anyway.

Yawn. Supersize that!

Re:Scum

[Albanach]

Nonsense, they don't care about the individual, they care about statistically significant shifts in the group.

Think about it, if burgundy carpets makes ten percent of the customers purchase a more expensive salad, and with no identifiable negatives, then it makes sense to install burgundy carpets if they want to shift more of these salads. It doesn't matter that it has no effect on 90% of the customers - indeed they would be well aware that it has no effect on them.

Stores run promotions all the time that are aimed at shifting a tiny proportion of their customers to a more expensive product. It doesn't work for the majority, but increasing your profit per customer for even a small proportion makes sense if you can do it without detriment to the majority of your customer base.

Similarly, while you may guess at why people made a choice, there's no need to know exactly why, just that you can record a statistically significant shift in their patters when you change one stimuli.

Re:Scum

[ubrgeek]

It's already being influenced by thousands of external stimuli, and you have no idea how they're influencing you

I have to admit, that's a pretty persuasive argument. You've definitely gotten me to change my mind on the subject ... :)

In response to the "wasteofmoney" tag

[QuantumFTL]

No this isn't research into space, into sexy supercomputing clusters, or other far-flung reaches of technology. This is research into basic elements of human behavior - indeed elements with a very strong environmental impact. Technology cannot solve all of our problems, it cannot solve the human condition. Part of fixing the ills in our society (and those we inflict on our supporting biosphere) is to learn how to subconsciously promote better behavior on the part of everyone. Small changes, done across the board, can make great gains - and much of these benefits "stack" with benefits from new technology.

So don't knock this research until you've looked at the numbers - according to this article in 1997, Americans threw away (for one reason or another) 27% of edible food, that's 96 *billion* pounds, which is ~400 pounds per person, per year! Sure, this occurs at many stages, but each stage can be improved.

I am sure that these tapes will be studied years later by linguists, behaviorists, game theorists, businessmen and efficiency specialists. Besides, with research, we never know what we're going to learn until we try.