Explain how restaurant music and background noise affect consumers
Use North et al. and Woods et al. to distinguish restaurant spending from food-taste ratings, and evaluate why sound effects depend on context and measurement.
Original StudyForA teaching for the Cambridge 2028–2030 syllabus. This is not Cambridge material or an official mark scheme. Research findings are summarised for learning and should not be treated as universal consumer rules.
Before you begin
- This lesson covers Cambridge Psychology 9990 Consumer Psychology section 2.1.2 in the 2028–2030 Version 1 syllabus. It does not claim that sound has one uniform effect on all consumers.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which outcome did North et al. (2003) measure in the restaurant?
What you will learn
- Describe North et al. (2003) and interpret its restaurant-spending findings
- Describe Woods et al. (2011), Study 1, on background noise and taste ratings
- Explain proposed cross-modal, attentional and contrast accounts without treating them as proven causes
- Evaluate individual and situational influences, reductionism, determinism, generalisation and validity
North et al. (2003) measured spending in a restaurant
North, Shilcock and Hargreaves played classical music, pop music or no music in a British restaurant over 18 evenings. They calculated mean spend per person at each table for categories including starters, main courses, desserts, coffee, drinks, food, and the total bill; they also measured time in the restaurant.
A multivariate analysis found an overall difference between conditions: total spending was higher with classical music than with pop music or no music. Follow-up analyses found differences in spending on starters, coffee, total food spend and overall spend. This is evidence about spending in that restaurant and those evenings, not proof that classical music always makes every person spend more.
The field setting and actual bills are strengths for studying real restaurant behaviour. However, the same diners were not necessarily compared across conditions, and evenings can differ in customer mix, menu choices, events or service. The study supports a situational influence while leaving individual preference and other explanations open.
Woods et al. (2011), Study 1 tested taste ratings under white noise
Forty-eight University of Manchester students (39 women and nine men; ages 19–39, mean 22) tasted small pieces of sweet and savoury, crunchy and soft foods. In a repeated-measures design they experienced a no-noise baseline and quiet white noise (45–55 dB) and loud white noise (75–85 dB) through headphones. They rated sweetness, saltiness and liking; all participants wore headphones across conditions, and condition order was counterbalanced.
Ratings of sweetness and saltiness were lower in loud than quiet noise. The loud-versus-baseline difference reached significance for sweetness, but not saltiness; the study found no significant main effect of noise on liking. The authors concluded that background noise can dampen reported gustatory intensity, while noting that results depend on the rating and comparison used.
This laboratory design provides tighter control of sound level and food presentation than a restaurant observation. Its student volunteer sample, headphones, selected foods and subjective ratings limit generalisation to everyday eating. A later experiment in the same paper found louder noise made food seem crunchier, showing that background sound does not simply weaken every food perception.
Several mechanisms are possible, but the studies do not settle why
Sound and taste may interact across sensory systems; a loud sound may create a contrast that makes a taste seem less intense; noise may draw attention away from food; or learned links between sound qualities and tastes may change a rating. These are possible explanations, not mechanisms directly isolated by Woods et al.
A restaurant's music may also affect mood, pace, social interaction or time spent, so a change in the final bill need not be caused only by a direct change in taste or by the customer's conscious choice. Individual music preference, hunger, budget, companions and the occasion may alter responses.
A focused sensory rating study reduces a complex experience to defined measures, which can be useful for testing a prediction but can be reductionist if used to explain all consumer behaviour. Sound does not determine an identical response in every shopper: personal goals and context matter. Generalisation should be limited to the participants, sounds, foods and outcomes that were studied.
Connect method to the claim
Use North et al. when the claim concerns actual restaurant spending under different music conditions; use Woods et al. when it concerns reported taste intensity during controlled noise. Neither study directly measures the other's main outcome.
A strong comparison identifies the sound condition, sample or setting, outcome measure, result and one limitation. It avoids converting a group average into a rule about every diner, or treating a possible psychological mechanism as a finding.
Sources for this lesson
Pause and explain
Which statement best represents Woods et al. (2011), Study 1?
Worked example
A café owner claims, ‘Woods proved that loud music makes food taste worse, so we should always play quiet music.’ Improve the conclusion using the syllabus studies.
Show the worked solution
- Identify what Woods et al. manipulated and measured.
- Distinguish a taste-rating result from restaurant spending and from the proposed mechanism.
- State a finding and a limitation before making a practical recommendation.
Answer Woods et al. (2011), Study 1 found lower sweetness and saltiness ratings in loud than quiet white noise, but liking did not significantly change and the loud-versus-baseline result was clear for sweetness rather than saltiness. The lab study used student volunteers, headphones and selected foods, so it does not establish how all café customers respond. North et al. found higher total spending with classical music in one restaurant, which is a different outcome and setting. A café should test its own customers and measure both experience and behaviour before making a broad rule.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
In North et al. (2003), what was the overall finding when classical, pop and no music were compared? Name one reason it should not be treated as a universal rule.
Give me a hint
Begin with the measured outcome, then identify the setting.
Compare my reasoning
- The study compared table spending and time during 18 evenings in one British restaurant.
- The overall analysis found greater total spending with classical music than with pop music or no music.
- Customer mix, evening context and one restaurant limit the claim; the result does not show that all diners or venues will respond identically.
Classical music was associated with higher total spending than pop music or no music in the restaurant studied. Because the research covered one restaurant and evenings can differ, the finding is not a universal rule for every diner or venue.
Look for these in your work
- Correct outcome
- Correct direction of result
- One contextual limit
Evaluate the claim: ‘Woods et al. (2011) proved that background noise makes food less enjoyable.’
Give me a hint
Separate intensity ratings from liking, and compare loud noise with both quiet noise and baseline.
Compare my reasoning
- Study 1 used 48 student volunteers in repeated-measures sound conditions and asked them to rate selected foods.
- Sweetness and saltiness ratings were lower in loud than quiet noise, but food liking did not show a significant noise effect.
- The loud-versus-baseline difference was significant for sweetness but not saltiness; the lab sample and white-noise setup limit everyday generalisation.
The claim is too broad. Woods et al. found lower sweetness and saltiness intensity ratings in loud than quiet white noise, but did not find a significant effect on food liking. The study used student volunteers, headphones and selected foods, so it cannot show that background noise always makes meals less enjoyable.
Look for these in your work
- Intensity and liking distinguished
- Comparison conditions interpreted accurately
- Method and generalisation evaluated
A school canteen wants to test whether a new background playlist changes the experience of lunch. Propose measures that distinguish a change in perceived taste from a change in consumer behaviour, and name one ethical or practical safeguard.
Give me a hint
Use one measure for the sensory claim and a separate one for spending or choice.
Compare my reasoning
- Keep food, serving size, price and time window comparable, and compare the playlist with a suitable control condition; record sound levels and let students opt out where practical.
- Collect a brief, voluntary taste-intensity rating for one specified food, and separately record anonymised choice, waste or spend data if appropriate; do not treat one as a substitute for the other.
- Protect privacy, account for allergies and sensory sensitivities, avoid potentially harmful volume, and explain that differences may reflect the playlist, individual preference or other situational factors.
A fair canteen test would measure taste ratings separately from anonymised food choice or spend, while holding menu, price and timing as similar as practical. The canteen should protect privacy, account for allergies and sensory sensitivities, keep volume safe and avoid assuming the playlist caused any observed difference without a suitable comparison.
Look for these in your work
- Perception and behaviour use separate measures
- Relevant conditions controlled
- Privacy and wellbeing protected
Common mistakes
- Saying North et al. measured food taste rather than spending
- Saying Woods et al. showed that loud noise significantly reduced food liking
- Treating a proposed attentional or cross-modal mechanism as proven by the study
- Generalising a laboratory white-noise result to all music, foods and diners
- Assuming one sound condition controls every customer's spending decision
What can you explain now?
What did North et al. find about restaurant spending, and what did Woods et al. find about food ratings?
Compare with the explanation
Classical music was associated with higher total spending than pop or no music in the studied restaurant; loud white noise lowered reported sweetness and saltiness relative to quiet noise in Woods Study 1.
These are different studies and outcomes: restaurant bills in a field setting versus controlled sensory ratings in a laboratory.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Compare the main outcome and one limitation of North et al. (2003) with Woods et al. (2011), Study 1.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.