1

© 2016, American Marketing Association

Journal of Marketing Research
PrePrint, Unedited
All rights reserved. Cannot be reprinted without the express
permission of the American Marketing Association.

Shining Light on Atmospherics: How Ambient Light Influences Food Choices

DIPAYAN BISWAS

COURTNEY SZOCS

BRIAN WANSINK

ROGER CHACKO *

* Dipayan Biswas (dbiswas@usf.edu) is Professor of Marketing, University of South Florida,

Tampa, FL 33620. Courtney Szocs (courtne@pdx.edu) is Assistant Professor of Marketing,

Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201. Brian Wansink (wansink@cornell.edu) is John S.

Dyson Professor of Marketing, Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell

University, Ithaca, NY 14850. Roger Chacko (rchacko@alum.mit.edu) is EVP, Chief Branding

and Marketing Officer at Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group. The authors thank the JMR Editor,

Associate Editor, and reviewers, for helpful comments and suggestions.

 2

ABSTRACT

Retail atmospherics is emerging as a major competitive tool, and it is especially notable in the

restaurant industry where lighting is used to create the overall ambience and influence consumer

experience. Along with influencing overall experience, can ambient light luminance have

unintended consequences in terms of influencing what a diner orders? The results of a field study

at multiple locations of a major restaurant chain and a series of lab studies robustly show that

consumers tend to choose less healthy food options when ambient lighting is dim (vs. bright).

Process evidence suggests that this phenomenon occurs because ambient light luminance

influences mental alertness, which in turn influences food choices. While restaurant and perhaps

grocery store managers can use these insights and their ambient light switches to nudge

consumers toward targeted food choices, such as healthy or high margin signature items, health

conscious consumers can opt for dining environments with bright ambient lighting.

Keywords: ambient light, retail atmospherics, luminance, healthy and unhealthy food choices,
sensory marketing.
 3

If a restaurant makes its ambient lighting brighter versus dimmer, would the patrons order

differently? Along with having implications for consumer health and wellbeing, this is a

managerially relevant research question since retail and restaurant managers are increasingly

focusing on atmospherics to influence consumer experiences and to differentiate themselves

from competitors (Broniarczyk and Hoyer 2006; Carroll 2012; Weitz and Whitfield 2006). More

broadly, marketers are placing greater emphasis on in-store ambience and displays as strategic

marketing tools (Chandon et al. 2009). Ambient factors can be especially critical since managers

can make subtle and inexpensive changes to the store or restaurant ambience on a regular basis,

and sometimes at different times of the day.

While prior research has extensively examined different critical aspects of atmospherics

(Spence et al. 2014), such as scent (Morrin and Ratneshwar 2003), music (Baker et al. 2002;

Bruner 1990), flooring (Meyers-Levy, Zhu, and Jiang 2010), and ceiling height (Meyers-Levy

and Zhu 2007), little is known about how ambient lighting levels might influence specific

product choices. This is especially noteworthy since in many retail/restaurant contexts, managers

can control the ambient light luminance (brightness or dimness) with relative ease and with

minimal monetary investment by merely adjusting a dial or flipping a switch.

Accordingly, this research examines how increasing versus decreasing the luminance of

ambient light might influence choices between food items that are considered healthy versus

unhealthy. Our findings have both conceptual and practical implications. From a conceptual

perspective, the findings of our studies robustly document how ambient light luminance impacts

choices between healthy and unhealthy food options. They thus contribute to the findings of a

wider set of studies, examining choices for healthy/unhealthy options, focusing on such factors

as mode of decision-making (Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999), temptation (Dhar and Wertenbroch
 4

2012), self-control (Baumeister 2002; Kivetz and Simonson 2002), display patterns (Romero and

Biswas 2016), and health claims (Chandon and Wansink 2007), among others. We contribute to

this literature stream by examining the role of atmospherics, such as in the form of ambient light

luminance, in influencing choices between healthy/unhealthy options.

Following a brief background on how lighting has influenced general, non-choice

behavior (such as quantity of food consumed), we build our conceptual framework and then test

our hypotheses through five experiments (with one conducted at several locations of a chain

restaurant and four conducted in the lab) along with another experiment reported in the Web

Appendix. We first examine the main effects of ambient light on product choices through a field

experiment (Study 1a) as well as through controlled lab experiments (Studies 1b and 1c) and find

that preference for healthy food options is higher when choices are made in bright (vs. dim)

ambient light luminance. Studies 2a-2b provide process evidence for the proposed theorization

by examining the moderating effect of inducing alertness. We also report the results of an

additional study, in the Web Appendix, where we examine the moderating effects of inducing

sleepiness (i.e., reduced alertness).

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Ambient Lighting and Behavior

Ambient lighting can influence stimulation levels, cognitive associations, and overall

behavior in general (Spence et al. 2014) and hence can be a potentially effective tool for

marketers. Moreover, since it is easy and inexpensive to alter ambient lighting, not surprisingly,

stores and restaurants vary greatly in terms of ambient light luminance. Light luminance is

measured in lux (lumens per square meter) (Thimijan and Heins 1983). To put things in
 5

perspective, the luminance of full outdoor daylight is approximately 10,000 lux, twilight is

approximately 11 lux, the recommended luminance level for normal office work is 500 lux, and

medical facilities and operating rooms are usually required to have luminance levels above 1,000

lux (Bosworth Instruments 2016; Nielsen, Svendsen, and Jensen 2011; The Engineering Toolbox

2016; Thorington 1985).

In the context of restaurants, based on anecdotal evidence, dimly lit restaurants tend to

have ambient light luminance between 10 and 40 lux; however, some restaurants have more

extreme levels of ambient light luminance. For example, Qi, a restaurant in New York City (near

Times Square) has such dim ambient lighting that many people find it difficult to read the menu

inside the restaurant. Along similar lines, the menus at Cero’s Speakeasy (a restaurant in Tampa,

Florida) come with reading lights attached since the ambient lighting is so dim that diners could

otherwise not see the menu. At an even more extreme level, it is literally pitch dark at the

Opaque restaurant chain and the company capitalizes on the idea of dark dining as a point of

differentiation (Sala 2010).

Incidentally, there are norms and expectations associated with lighting and other aspects

of atmospherics; for example, fast food restaurants tend to have bright lights and fast music

while fine dining restaurants tend to have dim lights and relaxing music (Wansink and van

Ittersum 2012). There might also be self-selection issues, whereby certain consumers might

prefer restaurants with dimmer versus brighter lighting (Spence et al. 2014).

The limited research examining the effects of ambient light has had a much different

focus than on choice. For instance, Wansink and van Ittersum (2012), in an experimental study at

a Hardee’s fast food franchise restaurant, softened the lighting and music in the restaurant to

create a relatively fine dining experience condition and found that consumers spent more time
 6

and ate less in the “fine dining” area than in the main dining area. Since these consumers were

assigned to the lighting (bright or dim) condition after they had selected their food, it is not

known if such a change would have influenced initial food choices. Along the same lines,

research shows that soft or warm lighting tends to cause people to stay longer and enjoy an

unplanned dessert or drink (Wansink 2004). However, from these studies, it is unclear as to how

lighting might influence the healthfulness of the ordered foods and beverages.

A series of studies in “dark restaurants” (Scheibehenne, Todd, and Wansink 2010;

Wansink et al. 2012) manipulated visual cue availability of food items by having diners eat in

either the presence versus absence of light. They found that consumption volume was higher

when participants ate in the absence of light (in total darkness) than in the presence of light. In

these studies, all participants ate the same food items and hence it is again not clear how ambient

light might influence food choices.

Prior studies have also examined the effects of light on consumers’ wall color perceptions

and subsequent product evaluations. For instance, Oberfeld et al. (2009) found that white wine

tasted better in rooms where lighting was used to make the walls seem blue or red. Similarly,

Areni and Kim (1994) found that bright versus soft ambient light led to consumers handling and

examining more bottles of wine, with the effects being moderated by shelf level of the wine; it is

not clear though what the light luminance levels were across the conditions or how lighting

influenced choices.

Although these prior studies demonstrate interesting findings, none of these studies

focused on ambient light luminance level and its potential effects on choices involving healthy

and unhealthy items. As a result, it remains unclear how ambient light luminance level might

influence consumers’ choices between healthy versus unhealthy food options. Moreover, our
 7

studies differ from these prior studies because we do not examine the absence versus presence of

light (i.e., total darkness vs. presence of lighting) nor do we examine the effects of light color

influencing wall color perceptions. Instead, in our studies, across all conditions, light is present

and is of the same color but varies only in the level of luminance (i.e., brightness/dimness).

We next discuss factors that can influence choices between relatively healthy and

unhealthy foods. Following this, there is a discussion of how ambient light might influence

product choices by affecting decision making modes, alertness levels, inhibition, and focus on

self-presentation.

Making Choices between Healthy and Unhealthy Options

When choosing between healthy and unhealthy options, consumers are in essence

choosing between options that dominate on affective/hedonic dimensions and thus appeal to the

heart (i.e., unhealthy options) and options that dominate on cognitive/utilitarian dimensions and

thus appeal to the mind (i.e., healthy options) (Khan, Dhar, and Wertenbroch 2005; Shiv and

Fedorikhin 1999). When faced with conflicts of the heart and mind, the consumer’s decision-

making mode plays an influential role in determining the choice outcome. Specifically, when

choices are made in a more deliberate (or cognitive) manner, there is increased preference for

virtues or healthy food options (Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999). As a result, there tends to be a

positive correlation between the degree of attentional resources devoted to the choice task and

preference for the healthy option (Dhar and Wertenbroch 2012). Along similar lines, research

shows that mindful eating leads to healthier food consumption (Wansink 2006). Moreover, at a

broader level, choices between healthy and unhealthy options are often influenced by trade-offs

between short-term benefits in terms of taste/pleasure and long-term benefits in terms of

 8

health/wellbeing (Romero and Biswas 2016). Greater degree of deliberate and cognitive

processing tends to enhance focus on long-term benefits (Dhar and Wertenbroch 2012; Gardner

et al. 2014).

So between high and low levels of ambient light luminance, which condition would

facilitate a higher degree of mindful or deliberate cognitive decision-making versus mindless or

affective decision-making? Research suggests that dim (vs. bright) ambient light reduces mental

alertness (Cajochen 2007), inhibition (Hirsch, Galinsky, and Zhong 2011), and self-presentation

focus (Kasof 2002; Zhong, Bohns, and Gino 2010). As will be discussed in detail below, these

theoretical accounts would predict greater preference for healthy options in bright (vs. dim)

ambient light.

Ambient Light and Mental Alertness

Sleep research as well as ergonomics research show that bright lighting enhances mental

alertness and task performance because among other physiological changes, bright light

suppresses melatonin, which is the primary controller of circadian (day/night) sleep bio-rhythms

(Crowley et al. 2003; Daurat et al.1993; Lowden, Åkerstedt, and Wibom 2004). In contrast to the

alerting effects of bright lighting, low levels of light luminance (i.e., dim lights) have been

shown to increase sleepiness and reduce alertness (Badia et al. 1991; Lowden, Åkerstedt, and

Wibom 2004).

Overall, ambient light influences physiological reactions in terms of melatonin

production, core body temperature, heart rate, and cortisol production, all of which are correlated

with alertness levels (Lockley et al. 2006). Specifically, bright (vs. dim) light influences human

psychophysiology instantaneously by inducing endocrine, leading to suppression of melatonin

 9

and an increase in cortisol levels, along with physiological changes in terms of enhanced core

body temperature, and also psychological changes in the form of reduced sleepiness and

enhanced alertness (Rüger et al. 2006).

In the context of the present research, these literature streams suggest that consumers will

be less mentally alert in dimly (vs. brightly) lit environments due to psychophysiological factors.

Additional research across different domains has established a positive relationship between

mental alertness, attention, and cognitive performance (Lim and Dinges 2008; Thomas et al.

2000). In fact, emerging research in neuroscience shows that ambient light can modulate cortical

activity related to alertness, which in turn can stimulate cognitive functions and activity (Virginie

et al. 2015). In essence, a higher level of mental alertness enhances cognitive performance.

Therefore, it can be proposed that in dim (vs. bright) ambient light, consumers will be less alert

mentally and hence exert reduced cognitive processing when choosing between the healthy and

unhealthy food options.

When consumers choose between healthy and unhealthy food items, a lower level of

cognitive availability tends to lead to greater preference for unhealthy options (Dhar and

Wertenbroch 2012; Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999). Moreover, research also shows that reduced

mental alertness leads to mindless decisions (Janssen et al. 2008) and mindless decisions tend to

lead to unhealthy behavior (Wansink, Just, and Payne 2009). Thus, based on our preceding

discussions, we propose that in dim (vs. bright) lighting there will be greater preference for the

unhealthy food item. In other words, there will be greater preference for the healthy option when

ambient light is bright (vs. dim). Formally stated:

H1: When given a choice between healthy and unhealthy options, consumers will have
greater preference for healthy options when ambient light luminance is bright (vs. dim).
 10

Ambient Light, Self-Presentation Focus, and Inhibition

Theories related to self-presentation focus and inhibition also predict similar behavioral

outcomes to that predicted by H1. Research in the domain of self-presentation focus suggests

that focus and concern about self-presentation is enhanced in the presence of bright light (Kasof

2002; Zhong, Bohns, and Gino 2010). Since enhanced focus on self-presentation is likely to lead

to greater degree of preference for healthy options, there should be higher choice likelihood of

the healthy option when ambient light is bright (vs. dim), consistent with H1’s prediction.

In a related vein, research in the domain of inhibition suggests that consumer decision-

making tend to be more disinhibited in dim (vs. bright) ambient light. This is mainly because dim

lighting gives people a sense of perceived anonymity, which in turn encourages moral

transgressions (Zhong, Bohns, and Gino 2010). In the context of choosing between healthy and

unhealthy product options, disinhibition is likely to enhance preference for the unhealthy (vs.

healthy) option since enhanced disinhibition would imply reduced self-control, which in turn

would reduce the likelihood of choosing the healthy option (Romero and Biswas 2016). In other

words, theories related to inhibition would also suggest that preference for the healthy option

should be higher when ambient light is bright (vs. dim). In essence, research on self-presentation

focus and (dis)inhibition would make similar predictions as H1.

It is worth noting that, as demonstrated by studies across different domains, although

mental alertness and disinhibition are different constructs, they can have a causal (Baumeister,

Heatherton, and Tice 1994; Herman and Polivy 1993) or correlational relationship (Verwey and

Zaidel 2000). That is, reduced mental alertness can lead to disinhibition (Baumeister, Heatherton,

and Tice 1994; Herman and Polivy 1993). Similarly, extraneous factors can affect both these

constructs; for instance, a high level of intoxication not only leads to reduced mental alertness,
 11

but also reduces inhibition (Heinz et al. 2011; Steele and Josephs 1990). Along similar lines,

self-presentation focus influences inhibition, whereby focusing on self-presentation tends to

make people more inhibited (Heatherton, Striepe, and Wittenberg 1998; Leary and Atherton

1986).

In summary, building on research related to alertness, inhibition, and self-presentation

focus, H1 predicts higher preference for the healthier option when ambient light is bright (vs.

dim). We test this hypothesis in Study 1a.

STUDY 1A: HOW AMBIENT LIGHT INFLUENCES FOOD ORDERING IN RESTAURANT

CHAINS

Method

Study 1a was a field experiment conducted at four different locations of a restaurant

chain, in collaboration with the corporate management. The restaurants where the study was

conducted are part of a major casual dining chain with over 1200 locations in 23 countries. The

four locations where the study was run are all based in the same metropolitan area of a major city

in the US, and these locations are in close proximity to each other. This study was a single factor

between-subjects experiment with two manipulated conditions of ambient light luminance

(bright vs. dim).

The experiment was conducted at the four restaurant outlets on a single random weekday.

The study was undertaken on a single day to avoid potential confounds related to weather and

other extraneous variables. The study was run between 6 and 8 pm. Two of the restaurants,

randomly chosen, had dim lighting while the other two had bright lighting. In the dim ambient

light condition, the restaurants had a low light luminance level of 25 lux while in the bright
 12

ambient light condition, the light luminance was set at 250 lux. The light luminance levels were

based on a pretest using interactive feedback from the restaurant staff (at a different location than

where the main studies were conducted). Specifically, the restaurant staff at the pretest site felt it

was too dark below 25 lux and anything above 250 lux was deemed as too bright for the

restaurant. The usual luminance level at these restaurants varied between 100 and 125 lux and all

these locations had similar layout and decor.

To avoid implicit demand effects, none of the researchers were involved with selecting or

approaching participants; restaurant employees were asked to randomly approach restaurant

patrons and ask them to fill out a short survey. The staff members at these locations did not have

any information about the hypotheses or purposes of the study. Senior executives from the

corporate office oversaw the procedure to ensure consistency across the four locations. Each

restaurant was instructed to get approximately forty completed surveys. This led to a total of one

hundred sixty restaurant patrons (51% females), completing the survey (N = 78 for the dim light

restaurants and N = 82 for the bright light restaurants), across the four locations.

The study survey asked participants which menu item(s) they ordered and the restaurant

staff unobtrusively verified whether the item indicated on the survey matched the actual order.

Participants were also asked about their alertness level, with a reverse-coded measure (1 = very

alert, 7 = not at all alert). Patrons also indicated their age in brackets, with 19% being between

21-29, 16% between 30-39, 19% between 40-49, 23% between 50-59, 17% between 60-69, and

6% at 70+.

The researchers, a priori, coded each item on the restaurant menu as healthy versus

unhealthy based on prior commercial standards (Pope et al. 2014). Specifically, grilled and baked

fish, white meat (chicken and turkey), and vegetables were coded as healthy while fried food
 13

items and red meat (beef and pork) were coded as unhealthy. Each restaurant patron’s order was

accordingly coded as healthy versus unhealthy. If somebody ordered an unhealthy item,

irrespective of whether they ordered something healthy along with it, the overall meal was coded

as “unhealthy” ordering (e.g., Chernev 2011). For example, if someone ordered a steak and a

salad, it was coded as “unhealthy” ordering. We also computed the calorie content for the

ordered food item(s).

Results

Main tests for choice and alertness. Consistent with H1, for the restaurant locations with

bright (vs. dim) ambient light, a higher proportion of patrons ordered healthy foods (52.44% vs.

34.62%; χ2 = 5.16, p < .05). Figure 1 graphically presents the key findings. Also, consistent with

our theorizing, mental alertness was higher in the bright (vs. dim) ambient light condition (5.28

vs. 3.99; F(1, 158) = 16.42, p < .01).

Since females (vs. males) tend to choose healthier options (Wardle et al. 2004), we ran

the analysis with gender as a covariate to rule out the alternative explanation of the effects being

driven by gender distribution differences across the conditions. Including gender as a covariate

made the effects stronger (χ2 = 5.66, p < .02). We also examined the effects of gender, as an

independent variable, on food choices. While gender had directional main effects on food

choices, with females (vs. males) directionally choosing healthier options to a greater extent, the

effects were not significant (49.35% vs. 37.84%; χ2 = 2.03, p = .15). There was no interaction

effect between gender and ambient light on food choice (p > .45).

Main tests for calories. We also analyzed the data with total calories ordered, as a

continuous variable. There was a significant effect of ambient light on total calories purchased,
 14

with calorie purchases being higher for dim (vs. bright) lighting (Mdim-light = 1336.49, SD =

598.36 vs. Mbright-light = 962.56, SD = 580.70; F(1, 158) = 16.09, p < .001). Overall, customers in

dim ambient light settings purchased 38.85% more calories than those in bright ambient light

settings.

Mediation tests. Mediation analysis using Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) PROCESS macro

Model 4 with 5,000 bootstrapped samples (Hayes 2012) shows indirect effects of ambient light

luminance on food choices, with the effects being mediated by mental alertness (B = -.226, SE =

.136, 95% CI95: -.571, -.029), as evidenced by the CI (confidence interval) excluding zero.

Similar indirect mediation effects emerged for calories ordered (B = -52.106, SE = 32.229, 95%

CI95: -136.555, - 1.619).

<Insert Figure 1 about here>

Discussion

The results of Study 1a demonstrate that consistent with our hypothesis, restaurant

patrons tend to order healthier items and fewer calories when dining in a brightly (vs. dimly) lit

restaurant. Process evidence shows that mental alertness mediates the effects of ambient light on

food choices and calories purchased. Specifically, these results support the theoretical premise of

mental alertness being higher in bright lighting, which in turn leads to higher degree of ordering

of healthy options, and lower level of calories purchased, in bright (vs. dim) ambient lighting. It

should be noted though that since alertness was measured after customers placed their orders,

this might be a correlational effect instead of a causal effect. Since Study 1a was conducted

across four different locations, there might have been potential differences across these locations,
 15

such as in clientele profiles that could have had confounding effects. Hence, next, Study 1b

replicates the key findings of Study 1a in a controlled lab setting.

STUDY 1B: REPLICATION IN LAB SETTING

Method

Study 1b was a single factor between-subjects design experiment with two manipulated

conditions (ambient light luminance: bright vs. dim). One hundred thirty university students

(average age 23 years, 53.5% females) participated in the experiment in exchange for course

credit. It should be noted that across all our studies, the key dependent variable is food choice

and the average sample size for each condition is over 35 participants; this target sample size was

determined based on the approach adopted in prior research with choice (a dichotomous

variable) as the DV (e.g., White et al. 2016). Also, across all our studies, the entire data was

collected in one round and all the analyses were conducted only after all the data were collected.

In Study 1b, all the participants responded to the question on food choice but two of the

participants did not respond to some of the other questions, including the questions on inhibition

and the alertness task; these two participants were retained in the sample. The bright and dim

lighting conditions had 50.0% and 57.38% females, respectively. The experiment was conducted

in a laboratory with technological options to have any level of ambient light luminance between

0 and 1200 lux, uniformly throughout the lab.

In order to ensure ecological validity, in the dim ambient light condition, the lab had a

luminance of 10 lux while in the bright ambient light condition, the luminance was set at 900

lux. Thus, the manipulations of dim and bright lighting conditions were more extreme in this

study than in Study 1a. This is because, unlike field studies, which have managerial constraints,
 16

lab studies allow greater flexibility in the experimental manipulations. Importantly, based on

luminance measurements taken by the researchers at various restaurants in a major metropolitan

area in the US, a couple of very dim restaurants in the metropolitan area had luminance levels

around 10 lux while a couple of very brightly lit restaurants had luminance levels of around 900

lux. Hence, the chosen luminance levels of 10 lux and 900 lux for Study 1b have ecological

validity.

For the experiment, participants first arrived at a waiting area and were then brought into

the main lab by a research assistant. After participants entered the lab, they were seated at a

table. In the initial few minutes, participants were asked to settle down and then asked if they

needed any pens/pencils, to switch off their cell phones, and also to be quiet during the entire

duration of the study; they were then handed a survey. After this, they were asked to choose

between two food options – 100-calorie Oreos and chocolate covered Oreos. These food items

have been used in prior studies to represent healthy and unhealthy options respectively (Wilcox

et al. 2009). Participants were told they could have only one of these food options and they were

told to record their preference on the survey. We also measured inhibition by asking participants

to indicate their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with a statement

on behavioral inhibition (“right now, I feel inhibited”) (Duke and Bègue 2015).

Study 1a had self-reported measures of alertness, which provided mediation evidence for

the underlying process. In Study 1b, we attempted to examine the effects of ambient light on

objective measures of mental alertness. Specifically, we measured mental alertness level at the

beginning of the study by using a digit span task, employed in prior research (Irmak, Block, and

Fitzsimons 2005). That is, we assessed participants’ mental alertness levels by showing them a

series of numbers (between 1 and 99) displayed on a screen. Each number sequence was
 17

automatically timed to be displayed for exactly half a second, following which, participants were

asked to reproduce the numbers on the surveys, in the exact order in which they were displayed

on the screen. Four such sets were displayed, with the first set having a sequence of five

numbers, progressively going up to seven numbers in the third and fourth sets. In essence, a total

of 25 numbers were displayed across the four sets; see Web Appendix A for details.

Results and Discussion

Main tests. Consistent with the findings observed in Study 1a, a higher proportion of

participants preferred the healthy option with bright (vs. dim) ambient light (68.12% vs. 49.18%;

χ2 = 4.74, p < .05). The results of Study 1b again support H1. We also ran the analysis with

gender as a covariate. The results of this analysis show that having gender as a covariate leads to

equivalent result patterns for main effects of ambient light on food choice (χ2 = 4.67, p < .05).

We also examined the direct effects of gender on food choice. There was a main effect of gender

on food choice, with females (vs. males) choosing healthier options to a greater extent (66.18%

vs. 49.15%; χ2 = 3.77, p < .06). There was no interaction effect between ambient light and gender

on food choice (p > .40).

The self-reported measure of behavioral inhibition was similar across the two ambient

lighting levels (5.60 vs. 5.46; F(1, 126) = .32, p = .57), which suggests that disinhibition was not

a dominant factor in influencing the effects of ambient light on food choices.

Assumption checks related to alertness. We theorized that ambient light influences

mental alertness, which in turn would influence choices between healthy versus unhealthy

options. The digit span task, although unrelated to the food choice task, gave an objective

measure of alertness level. The number of correct responses from the digit span task was
 18

recorded. Results from the digit span task show that participants were able to observe and

reproduce the numbers (that were displayed for half a second) with greater accuracy when they

were in bright (vs. dim) ambient light (Mbright-light = 10.94 vs. Mdim-light = 9.98; F(1, 126) = 4.88, p

< .05).

Study 1b replicated the key findings of Study 1a in a controlled lab setting, and also

provided additional evidence for our theorizing. Specifically, while Study 1a had self-reported

measure of alertness, Study 1b tested our theoretical claims with an objective measure of

alertness. Next, Study 1c examines if the effects of Study 1b hold when participants are made to

indicate their choices aloud.

STUDY 1C: ORDERING OUT LOUD

Method

Study 1c was similar to Study 1b in terms of procedure, with the only difference being

that while in Study 1b participants anonymously recorded their food preference on a paper

survey, in Study 1c participants also had to indicate their choices aloud. The objective behind

this approach was to examine if eliminating the perceived anonymity of choices might change

the pattern of results observed in Study 1b. In a group setting, indicating preferences aloud

(instead of just recording preferences on a survey) draws attention to the self, which in turn

reduces perceived anonymity. Moreover, reduction of perceived anonymity enhances inhibition

(Fern 1982).

To enhance the robustness of the findings across studies, a different set of food options,

chocolate versus granola bar (Laran 2010), was used in this study. Similar to the approach used

in Study 1b, participants first arrived at a waiting area and were then randomly assigned to a
 19

session and the ambient lighting for each session was also randomly determined. In the lab, all

the participants were seated at a large, rectangular table.

After the initial few minutes (similar to the procedure used in Study 1b), participants

were told that there were two food items, a chocolate bar and a granola bar, and that that they

could choose only one of these for eating. A sample of each food item was displayed at the

center of the table. Participants were told to indicate their response on the survey and then raise

their hand and indicate their preference aloud to the researcher. A research assistant then brought

the participant her/his preferred item. Seventy-one university students (average age 22 years,

47.7% females) participated in the experiment in exchange for course credit. In the bright and

dim light conditions, there were 41.2% and 58.4% females, respectively.

Results and Discussion

Consistent with the findings observed in Studies 1a-1b and as predicted by H1, there was

greater preference for the healthy option with bright (vs. dim) ambient light (54.29% vs. 30.56%;

χ2 = 4.10, p < .05). Including gender as a covariate enhanced the effect (χ2 = 6.26, p < .02). There

were no main effects of gender on food choice (χ2 = .32, p = .57) and neither were there

interaction effects between gender and lighting on food choice (p > .70).

Study 1c had two objectives. First, it replicated the effects of Studies 1a and 1b with a

different set of product options. Second, the results of Study 1c again highlight how mental

alertness, as opposed to (dis)inhibition, is likely to have been a more dominant force in

determining the outcomes of Studies 1a-1b. That is, if inhibition had a more dominant role in

determining the food choice outcome, then the pattern of results should have been different when

participants had to indicate their choice aloud. However, indicating choice aloud led to the same
 20

pattern of results as observed in Study 1b when participants recorded their responses

anonymously on a survey. Although this does not technically rule out the role of inhibition as an

underlying process, it does highlight that factors that enhance inhibition levels do not necessarily

change the pattern of results related to effects of ambient light on food choices. Next, Studies 2a-

2b provide additional evidence for the process driving the effects of ambient light on food

choices by examining the moderating effect of manipulated mental alertness.

STUDIES 2A-2B: THE ROLE OF MENTAL ALERTNESS

The results of Studies 1a-1c support a mental alertness based explanation for the effects

of ambient light on product choices; Studies 2a and 2b provide more direct evidence for this

proposed theorization. Specifically, we theorized that mental alertness would be lower when

ambient light is dim (vs. bright), which in turn will lead to unhealthier choices under dim (vs.

bright) ambient light. If our conceptualization holds, then this differential effect of dim versus

bright ambient light on food choices would get attenuated when consumers’ mental alertness

levels are enhanced. That is, we propose that the effects predicted by H1 and demonstrated in

Studies 1a-1c, would hold under regular mental alertness levels but will get attenuated when

mental alertness is enhanced. Formally stated:

H2: Under regular mental alertness levels, when given a choice between healthy and
unhealthy options, consumers will have greater preference for healthy options when
ambient light luminance is bright (vs. dim).
Under enhanced mental alertness, these effects will get attenuated, whereby the
preference pattern will be the same across bright and dim ambient lights.

STUDY 2A: PLACEBO-INDUCED MENTAL ALERTNESS

Method
 21

H2 was tested in Study 2a with the help of a 2 (ambient light luminance: bright vs. dim)

X 2 (mental alertness level: regular vs. high) between-subjects experiment. The procedure was

similar to Studies 1b-1c whereby participants first arrived at a waiting area and were then

brought into a lab and seated at a table. The ambient light luminance in the lab was manipulated

in the same manner as in Studies 1b-1c (i.e., 10 lux for dim ambient light and 900 lux for bright

ambient light). Mental alertness level was manipulated through placebo effects, associated with

sampling a beverage, consistent with the approach adopted in prior studies (Biswas, Grewal, and

Roggeveen 2010; Shiv, Carmon, and Ariely 2005). Participants were first given a beverage,

which was identical across all conditions. In the “high alertness” conditions, participants were

told that the beverage contained a high level of caffeine. No such statement was provided in the

“regular alertness” conditions. A pretest (N = 34; mean age 25 years; 50% females) was

conducted to see if providing such a statement did indeed enhance mental alertness. The results

of the pretest showed that participants reported that they felt more alert (measured on a 1-7 scale,

where 1 = low alertness and 7 = high alertness) after sampling the beverage when they were told

it contained caffeine versus when they were not (Mcaffeine-present = 5.67 vs. Mcaffeine-absent = 4.26;

F(1, 32) = 9.97, p < .01).

In the main study, participants were asked to drink the beverage, and to avoid hypothesis

guessing, they were asked a couple of questions about the taste of the beverage. After this,

participants completed the focal task, which involved choosing between a healthy (baked potato)

and an unhealthy (fries) food item (Wilcox et al. 2009). They were also asked how mentally alert

they felt at that point (with 1 = not at all alert, 7 = extremely alert).

Three hundred fifty three university students (average age 23 years; 49.6% females)

participated in this experiment in exchange for course credit. In the “caffeinated” (i.e., high
 22

alertness level) condition, there was equivalent proportion of females in the bright and dim light

conditions (40.30% and 45.78%) and there was a similar pattern for the “non-caffeinated” (i.e.,

regular alertness level) condition as well (55.56% and 53.47%).

Results

Main tests. The results of a 2 (ambient light luminance: bright vs. dim) X 2 (mental

alertness level: regular vs. high) logistic regression revealed a significant interaction effect on

food choice (Wald χ2 = 6.34, p < .05). Including gender as a covariate demonstrated a similar

level of interaction effect (Wald χ2 = 6.56, p < .05). There was no main effect of gender on food

choice (χ2 = .62, p = .43) and there was no interaction effect between gender and ambient light

on food choice (p > .60).

Follow-up tests showed that consistent with H2, when no caffeine information was given,

choice for the healthy item was higher with bright (vs. dim) ambient light (49.0% vs. 32.67%; χ2

= 5.55, p < .05) but the effects got attenuated when participants were given a “caffeinated”

beverage (46.27% vs. 54.12%; χ2 = .92, p = .34). It is interesting to note that consistent with our

theorizing, with bright ambient light, the choice pattern for healthy versus unhealthy items

remained the same irrespective of whether the alertness level was regular versus high (49.0% vs.

46.27%; χ2 = .12, p = .73); with dim ambient light, the preference for healthy food was enhanced

when mental alertness was high (vs. regular) (54.12% vs. 32.67%; χ2 = 8.69, p < .01). These

findings are consistent with our conceptualization and predictions. That is, in bright ambient

lighting, mental alertness level was high by default and hence the “caffeinated” beverage did not

have any effect. In contrast, in dim ambient lighting, mental alertness level was lower and the
 23

“caffeinated” beverage helped in enhancing the alertness level and thus the preference of the

healthy item.

Test of moderated mediation. Moderated mediation analysis using Preacher and Hayes’s

(2008) PROCESS macro Model 8 with 5,000 bootstrapped samples (Hayes 2013) shows

moderated mediation of alertness for the interaction effect between ambient light and alertness

level on food choice (B = .193, SE = .109, CI95: .030, .464). Consistent with our expectations, for

the “regular alertness” condition, the indirect effects of ambient light on food choice was

significantly mediated by alertness (B = .144, SE = .076, CI95: .028, .329); there was no such

significant mediation effect for the “high alertness” condition (B = -.049, SE = .068, CI95: -.206,

.066). These results again highlight the role of alertness as the underlying process for the effects

of ambient light luminance on food choices.

Ruling out alternative explanations. As mentioned earlier, alternative explanations for the

observed effects can be provided by theories related to inhibition and self-presentation focus,

which predict the same behavioral outcomes for dim versus bright ambient lighting as mental

alertness theories. While Study 1b examined the effects on self-reported measures of inhibition,

Study 2a examined the effects on self-reported measures of self-presentation focus. In order to

examine the role of self-presentation focus, participants were asked to indicate their level of

agreement with three statements (adapted from Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss 1975) such as

“Right now, I am very concerned about the way I am presenting myself,” “Right now, I am

worried about making a good impression,” and “Right now, I am aware of what other people

think of me” (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). One participant did not respond to the self-

presentation questions. A 2 (ambient light luminance) X 2 (mental alertness level) ANOVA

showed a non-significant interaction effect on self-presentation focus (F(1, 348) = 1.55, p = .21).
 24

Follow-up tests showed that self-presentation focus level was similar across bright (vs. dim)

ambient lighting (Mbright-light = 3.33 vs. Mdim-light = 3.14; F(1, 350) = 1.13, p = .29). These results

provide further support for the contention that mental alertness, as opposed to self-presentation

focus, is the dominant underlying process for the effects observed in our studies.

We also examined if having an alerting “caffeinated” beverage might trigger thoughts

related to healthy/unhealthy lifestyle. Accordingly, towards the end of the survey, we measured

health orientation by asking participants to indicate the extent to which they disagreed/agreed (1

= strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) with two items: “Calorie levels influence what I eat”

and “Eating healthy is important to me” (Chandon and Wansink 2007). Four participants did not

respond to the health orientation questions. The mean score on these two items were similar

across the “caffeinated” and “non- caffeinated” conditions, both in the bright light (4.75 vs. 4.44;

F(1, 345) = 1.79, p = .18) and dim light (4.82 vs. 4.63; F(1, 345) = .77, p = .38) conditions.

Discussion

Study 2a provides additional evidence regarding the role of mental alertness in

influencing the effects of ambient light luminance on choices between healthy and unhealthy

options. Under regular mental alertness, similar to the effects observed in Studies 1a-1c, there is

greater preference for the unhealthy option when ambient light was dim (vs. bright). However,

when mental alertness is enhanced through a placebo effect, the effects get attenuated. While

enhancing mental alertness did not have any effect in the case of bright ambient light, it did

influence choices in the case of dim ambient light. Specifically, with dim ambient light, there

was greater preference for the healthy option when mental alertness was enhanced. Tests of

moderated mediation provide further empirical support for our theorizing.

 25

While Study 1b examined the role of inhibition level, Study 2a examined the potential

effects of self-presentation focus and also the moderated mediation effects of alertness. The

results of both these studies suggest that although inhibition and self-presentation make similar

prediction as H1, mental alertness seems to be the dominant underlying process. Next, Study 2b

replicates the findings of Study 2a using a direct manipulation of inducing alertness.

STUDY 2B: INDUCING ALERTNESS DIRECTLY

Method

Study 2b was a 2 (ambient light luminance: bright vs. dim) X 2 (induced mental alertness

level: regular vs. enhanced) between-subjects experiment. While in Study 2a, mental alertness

level was manipulated through a placebo effect, Study 2b manipulated mental alertness in a more

direct manner. Specifically, in the “enhanced mental alertness” conditions, mental alertness was

manipulated by asking participants, at the beginning of the study, to be mentally alert while

undertaking the tasks in the study. No such instructions were given in the “regular mental

alertness” conditions.

Continuing with the objective of having different food choice scenarios across the

studies, mainly to ensure robustness, in Study 2b, participants had the option of choosing

between raisins and M&Ms (Salerno, Laran, and Janiszewski 2014). Mental alertness was

measured by asking participants: “How alert do you feel right now?” (1 = not at all alert, 7 =

very alert). One hundred forty nine university students (average age 22 years; 53% females)

participated in this experiment for course credit. In the bright and dim lighting conditions, 51.3%

and 54.8% were female, respectively. The procedure, with the exception of the mental alertness

manipulation and food choices, was similar to Study 2a.

 26

Results

Food choice. The results of a 2 (ambient light luminance) X 2 (mental alertness level)

logistic regression revealed a significant interaction effect on product choice (Wald χ2 = 4.73, p <

.05). Including gender as a covariate keeps the overall effect and chi-square value unchanged (at

χ2 = 4.73). There was no main effect of gender on food choice (χ2 = 1.40, p = .24) and there was

no interaction effect between gender and ambient light on food choice (p > .50).

Follow-up tests showed that choice of the healthy item was higher with bright (vs. dim)

ambient light when there was no “alertness” inducement (27.45% vs. 7.50%; χ2 = 5.87, p < .05)

but the effects got attenuated when mental alertness was enhanced (28.0% vs. 30.30%; χ2 = .04,

p = .85). It is interesting to note that consistent with our theorizing, with bright ambient light, the

choice pattern for healthy versus unhealthy items remained the same irrespective of whether the

induced alertness level was regular versus high (27.45% vs. 28.0%; χ2 = .003, p = .96); with dim

ambient light, the preference for healthy food was enhanced when mental alertness was induced

(vs. regular) (30.30% vs. 7.50%; χ2 = 6.42, p < .05). These findings are consistent with our

conceptualization. That is, for bright ambient lighting, mental alertness level was high by default

and hence enhancing alertness did not have any effect. In contrast, for dim ambient lighting,

enhancing mental alertness increased preference of the healthy item.

Alertness effects. The results of a 2 (ambient light luminance) X 2 (mental alertness level)

ANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect on self-reported alertness level (F(1, 145) =

4.79, p < .05). Follow-up tests show that inducing (vs. not inducing) alertness led to higher

perceived alertness level (5.52 vs. 4.23; F(1, 145) = 30.86, p < .01). Also, consistent with our

theorization, self-reported mental alertness level was higher for bright (vs. dim) ambient light in
 27

the absence of induced alertness (4.67 vs. 3.68; F (1, 145) = 10.85, p < .01) with the effects

getting attenuated when alertness was induced (5.48 vs. 5.55; F(1, 145) = .03, p = .86).

Discussion

The results of Study 2b replicate the findings of Study 2a using a different type of mental

alertness manipulation and again highlight the role of mental alertness as the dominant

underlying factor in influencing the effects of dim versus bright ambient lighting on food

choices.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The results of five experiments (one conducted as a field study at multiple locations of a

major restaurant chain and four in labs) show that consumers have greater preference for

unhealthy options when the luminance of ambient light is dim (vs. bright). Similarly, as the

results of Study 1a show, dim (vs. bright) ambient lighting also leads to higher volume of calorie

consumption. Process evidence suggests that dim (vs. bright) ambient light reduces the level of

mental alertness, which in turn leads to greater preference for unhealthy options. These results

contribute to the growing literature on choices between healthy and unhealthy options and also to

the literature on how ambient factors influence food choices. While prior studies have examined

different factors that can influence choices between healthy and unhealthy product options

(Chandon and Wansink 2007; Dhar and Wertenbroch 2012; Romero and Biswas 2016; Shiv and

Fedorikhin 1999), the present research is the first to examine how ambient light influences such

choices.
 28

It might be noted though that several factors influence choices between healthy/unhealthy

options and ambient light luminance is only one such factor that can nudge consumers towards

more healthful choices. It also needs to be emphasized that we are claiming relative effects of

ambient light instead of absolute effects. In other words, changing the ambient light can lead to

relatively higher/lower levels of unhealthy choices; however, depending on context and food

options, the overall choice pattern might still be unhealthy. In fact, the results of our Study 2b

demonstrate such a pattern, whereby bright lighting leads to only 27.45% healthy choices;

however, that is still significantly better than dim lighting, which had 7.50% healthy choices.

Even in our field experiment at the restaurants (Study 1a), bright ambient light leads to 52.44%

healthy choices, but it is significantly worse at 34.62% with dim ambient lighting.

The findings of our research contribute to the literature on choice construction in general.

Prior studies examining choice and preference construction have often focused on the role of

product attributes (Amir and Levav 2008) and there have been only a limited number of studies

examining the role of ambient factors in influencing choice construction. The present research

takes an important step in highlighting the role of ambient factors in influencing product choices.

The findings of this research also contribute to the literature on ambient light. While prior

research attests to the importance of ambient lighting in influencing physiological (Lowden,

Akerstedt, and Wibom 2004), psychological (Schaller, Park, and Mueller 2003), and behavioral

responses (Zhong, Bohns, and Gino 2010), this is the first study to link ambient light luminance

with consumer choices for healthy and unhealthy options. In addition, the findings of this

research contribute to the growing literature on the role of visual cues and availability of light or

the softening of light on food consumption (Scheibehenne, Todd, and Wansink 2010; Wansink

2004; Wansink et al. 2012; Wansink and van Ittersum 2012). These studies found for example,
 29

that softening the light in conjunction with the music led to stronger perceptions of a finer dining

experience and lower consumption volume (Wansink and van Ittersum 2012), and that the

absence of light led to a greater amount of food consumption due to the non-availability of visual

cues (Scheibehenne, Todd, and Wansink 2010; Wansink et al. 2012). We extend this literature

stream by demonstrating how dimming of ambient light enhances choice likelihood for

unhealthy options.

The present research is also possibly the first study to examine the interaction effects

between ambient light and placebo effects (or even induced factors) related to enhancing mental

alertness. As the results of Studies 2a-2b show, factors that can enhance consumer mental

alertness can diminish the effects of ambient light on food choices. We also conducted an

additional experiment (reported in details in the Web Appendix) where we examined the

moderating effects of inducing sleepiness through a priming task and examined choice from a

menu of food options. The results of this study show that inducing sleepiness (which is

conceptually similar to reducing mental alertness) attenuates the effects observed in Studies 1a-

1c, whereby higher level of sleepiness enhances choice likelihood of unhealthy options,

irrespective of ambient light luminance level. Other factors that can potentially influence mental

alertness can be certain types of alerting and sleep-inducing ambient scents (Spangenberg,

Crowley, and Henderson 1996) and music with certain tempos and volumes (Mattila and Wirtz

2001). Clearly, additional work is needed to examine how these other ambient factors (scent and

music) might interact with ambient light and influence product choices.

This research also has important potential implications for sensory marketing and retail

atmospherics. While prior studies in the domains of sensory marketing and retail atmospherics

have examined different types of sensory cues (Biswas et al. 2014; Knoferle et al. 2012; Krishna
 30

2012), the present research is the first to focus on the effects of ambient light on food choices.

Moreover, while there has been extant work examining the effects of other sensory cues, such as

ambient scent and music, hardly any work has examined the effects of ambient light on product

choices. In fact, the findings of our research have implications for cross-modal influences,

whereby ambient light, which is processed through the visual system influences food choices,

which relate to the gustatory system.

Limitations and Future Research

As discussed earlier, theories related to inhibition and self-presentation focus make

similar predictions as those related to mental alertness. The findings of our research provide

process evidence in favor of the dominant role of mental alertness. The results of our studies did

not provide evidence for the role of inhibition or self-presentation focus as alternative underlying

processes. However, we just had self-reported measures of self-presentation focus and inhibition,

and in the case of inhibition, Study 1c had a response elicitation method that enhances inhibition

and yet the pattern of results from this study were similar to that of the other studies. In other

words, we did not empirically rule out the roles of inhibition and self-presentation focus as

underlying processes – we just found direct empirical evidence for the role of mental alertness.

In fact, it is possible that although mental alertness is the dominant underlying process, inhibition

and self-presentation focus might play supporting roles. This is especially likely since these

variables are interlinked (Baumeister et al.1994; Carver and Scheier 1978; Heatherton, Striepe,

and Wittenberg 1998; Heinz et al. 2011). Future research should examine the link between these

variables and their respective roles, in the context of ambient light luminance, in greater depth.

Along these lines, bright ambient light can potentially heighten social desirability concerns,
 31

which in turn might influence food ordering. Additional research is needed to examine this in

greater depth.

While we did provide empirical evidence regarding the underlying process related to

mental alertness, one limitation of our studies (except Study 1b) is that alertness was measured

after participants made their food choices. This was done to avoid hypothesis guessing or

suspicion from responding to alertness questions before making the food choice. Accordingly,

the mediation effects demonstrated in our studies might be more correlational, than causal, in

nature. At the same time though, the objective measure of alertness, in Study 1b, was conducted

before participants made any food choices.

Our field study was conducted at a casual dining restaurant with food options that varied

significantly in terms of healthfulness levels and our lab studies were conducted with young

adults who have varied levels of health goals. The findings of our studies may not hold in the

context of fast food restaurants, where most of the consumers tend to visit with the mindset of

ordering something unhealthy; along similar lines, not surprisingly, frequency of fast-food

restaurant visits is associated with higher BMI levels (Rosenheck 2008). To further examine this

issue, we conducted an online (MTurk) study with thirty participants (57% females; average age

= 33 years), asking them whether they go to a fast-food place with the goal of ordering

something healthy or unhealthy. Overall, 90% (10%) of the participants indicated they go in with

a goal of ordering something unhealthy (healthy) (χ2 = 19.20, p < .01) when they visit fast-food

places. With such a strong tendency for ordering something unhealthy while visiting a fast-food

restaurant, ambient lighting is unlikely to make a significant difference.

Research in the domain of threat management systems suggests that, humans

instinctively become more vigilant in dimly lit environments due to enhanced perception of
 32

vulnerability to threat/danger in darkness (Neuberg, Kenrick, and Schaller 2011). It can be

speculated that vigilance might be more at play in novel and/or unfamiliar environments. For

example, dining as a tourist at an unfamiliar restaurant in a new place can be a good catalyst for

enhancing vigilance level when the ambient light is dimmed. Can effects of enhanced vigilance

be consistent with those of enhanced mental alertness or can they offer competing hypotheses?

Future research needs to examine if the main effects of ambient lighting observed in our studies

might get changed for studies conducted in unfamiliar or novel settings. Similarly, self-

presentation focus might have been a more influential factor in dining contexts where impression

management is key. So for dining experiences in the contexts of dating or job interviews,

ambient lighting might influence self-presentation focus to a greater extent than that observed in

our research (e.g., in Study 2a).

In our studies, we focused on aggregate choices without factoring in individual

personality or behavioral traits, which can be relevant moderators. For instance, an individual’s

healthiness perspective can moderate the effects observed in our studies. Along similar lines, the

time of day might influence consumers’ alertness levels and also the luminance levels outside the

stores and restaurants. Moreover, time of day can be associated with different types of meals,

which in turn can influence consumption outcomes (Khare and Inman 2006). Hence, time of day

can potentially moderate the findings observed in our studies. Along similar lines, incidental

affect can potentially influence alertness levels and also food choices (Garg, Wansink, and

Inman 2007). Future research should examine the role of such potential moderators that can be

managerially relevant.

We examined choices involving healthy and unhealthy food items only. Future research

should examine the effects of ambient light luminance on non-food product choices in other
 33

domains. For instance, would indulgences in terms of high priced purchases be greater when a

store has dim (vs. bright) ambient light? How about purchases of utilitarian versus hedonic

products across different ambient light luminance levels? Additional studies are needed to

answer these research questions.

We focused on the effects of ambient light. However, retail atmospherics entail several

other elements (such as music, scent, wall color, and overall décor). Hence, it might be

interesting to examine the interaction effects between ambient light and these other elements of

retail atmospherics. Along similar lines, while we study effects of ambient light luminance, there

are other elements of ambient light, such as color of the light, that are potentially interesting. For

instance, Lehrl et al. (2007) showed that keeping luminance levels constant, blue (vs. yellow)

light leads to greater alertness and faster information processing. Can this in turn influence

product choices? Given the dearth of research in the marketing literature examining the effects of

ambient light on product choices, this is relatively uncharted territory with potential for

significant additional work.

Managerial and Consumer Implications

Since managers of retail outlets and restaurants can usually control the retail atmospheric

elements (such as the luminance level of the ambient light) with relative ease, it is important to

understand how changing such elements influences choice. In essence, since ambient light

influences consumer choices, marketers can potentially manipulate the ambient light luminance

level to drive preferences towards signature or high-margin items.

The findings of our research can be of interest to regulators as well. Regulators have

often expressed concerns about widespread obesity and have often tried to encourage healthy
 34

eating through restrictive mechanisms, such as for example, in the recent case related to

restricted sales of sugary beverages in New York City (Strauss and Castagna 2013). However,

restrictive policies are often met with consumer reactance, as was the outcome in the New York

City beverage case (Saul 2013). Instead of having restrictive policies, which often lead to

consumer reactance, a more effective strategy to encourage healthy eating would be through the

use of subtle factors, such as ambient light. Since ambient light luminance influences choices

between healthy and unhealthy options, employing certain ambient light luminance levels can be

an effective strategy to influence choices for healthy versus unhealthy food items. In addition,

ambient light luminance being a subtle environmental factor and not being restrictive in nature,

is less likely to be met with consumer reactance.

While we demonstrate the effects of ambient light on food choices across a robust set of

experiments and thus provide existence proof of ambient lighting effects, care must be taken

when generalizing across all types of restaurant or store settings. As previously mentioned, there

can be several settings where the effects of our studies may not hold; for example, Dairy Queen

has very bright ambient lighting while some fine vegan restaurants have dim lighting. This is

especially likely to be the case since several other factors, apart from ambient light, such as

brand image, type of restaurant, and availability of options, among others, influence food

choices. Moreover, alertness levels can moderate the effects. That is, very high and very low

levels of alertness attenuate the effects, as demonstrated by Studies 2a and 2b and the study

reported in the Web Appendix.

In terms of consumer wellbeing, dining in brightly lit ambient settings might be a good

option if the goal is to enhance choice likelihood for healthy options. Since dim (vs. bright)

ambient light reduces mental alertness level, dining in dimly lit environments might lead to
 35

greater likelihood of yielding to the temptation of going for the sumptuous, but unhealthy,

chocolate dessert. Hopefully, our study has shed some light on the effects of ambient light on

product choices and will trigger further research in this topic domain.
 36

References

Amir, On and Jonathan Levav (2008), “Choice Construction versus Preference Construction:

The Instability of Preferences Learned in Context,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45

(2), 145–58.

Areni, Charles S. and David Kim (1994), “The Influence of In-Store Lighting on Consumers’

Examination of Merchandise in a Wine Store,” International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 11 (March), 117– 25.

Badia, P., B. Myers, M. Boecker, J. Culpepper, and J. R. Harsh (1991), “Bright Light Effects on

Body Temperature, Alertness, EEG, and Behavior,” Physiology & Behavior, 50 (3), 583–

88.

Baker, Julie, A. Parasuraman, Dhruv Grewal, and Glenn B. Voss (2002), “The Influence of

Multiple Store Environment Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value and Store Patronage

Intentions,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (April), 120–41.

Baumeister, Roy F. (2002), “Yielding to Temptation: Self-Control Failure, Impulsive

Purchasing and Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (4), 670–76.

———, Todd F. Heatherton, and Dianne M. Tice (1994), Losing Control: How and

Why People Fail at Self-Regulation. New York, Academic Press.

Biswas, Dipayan, Dhruv Grewal, and Anne Roggeveen (2010), “How the Order of Sampled

Experiential Products Affects Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (3), 508–19.

———, Lauren Labrecque, Donald Lehmann, and Ereni Markos (2014), “Making Choices

While Smelling, Tasting, and Listening: The Role of Sensory (Dis)similarity When

Sequentially Sampling Products,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (1), 112–26.

Bosworth Instruments (2016), “Typical Light Levels,” [Last accessed:

 37

http://www.bosworthinstrument.com/Lightmeterinfo.html].

Broniarczyk, Susan M. and Wayne D. Hoyer (2006), “Retail Assortment: More ≠ Better,” in

Retailing in the 21st Century: Current and Future Trends, Manfred Krafft and Murali K.

Mantrala, eds. New York, Springer Publishing, 225–38.

Bruner, Gordon, C. (1990), “Music, Mood and Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (4), 94–

104.

Cajochen, Christian (2007), “Alerting Effects of Light,” Sleep Medicine Reviews, 11, 453–64.

Carroll, Matthew (2012), “How Retailers Can Replicate the ‘Magic’ of the Apple Store…

Online,” (accessed February 12, 2013), [available at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewcarroll/2012/06/26/how-retailers-can-replicate-the-

magic-of-the-apple-store-online/].

Carver, Charles S. and Michael F. Scheier (1978), “Self-Focusing Effects of Dispositional Self-

Consciousness, Mirror Presence, and Audience Presence,” Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 36 (3), 324–32.

Chandon, Pierre and Brian Wansink (2007), “The Biasing Health Halos of Fast Food Restaurant

Health Claims: Lower Calorie Estimates and Higher Side-Dish Consumption Intentions,”

Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (October), 301–14.

——— and ——— (2012), “Does Food Marketing Need to Make Us Fat? A Review and

Solutions,” Nutrition Reviews, 70:10 (October), 571–93.

———, J. Wesley Hutchinson, Eric T. Bradlow, and Scott Young (2009), “Does In-Store

Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand

Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 1–17.
 38

Chernev, Alexander (2011), “The Dieter’s Paradox,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21 (2),

178-83.

Crowley, Stephanie, J., Clara Lee, Christine Y. Tseng, Louis F. Fogg, and Charmane I. Eastman

(2003), “Combinations of Bright Light, Scheduled Dark, Sunglasses, and Melatonin to

Facilitate Circadian Entrainment to Night Shift Work,” Journal of Biological Rhythms,

18 (6), 513–23.

Daurat, Agnes, Acacia Aguirre, Jean Foret, Philippe Gonnet, Anne Keromes, and Odile Benoit

(1993), “Bright Light Affects Alertness and Performance Rhythms during a 24-h

Constant Routine,” Physiology & Behavior, 53 (5), 929–36.

Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2012), “Self-Signaling and the Costs and Benefits of

Temptation in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 49 (1), 15–25.

Duke, Aaron A. and Laurent Bègue (2015), “The Drunk Utilitarian: Blood Alcohol

Concentration predicts Utilitarian Responses in Moral Dilemmas,” Cognition, 134, 121–

27.

Fenigstein, Allan, Michael F. Scheier, and Arnold H. Buss (1975), “Public and Private Self-

Consciousness: Assessment and Theory,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 43 (August), 522–27.

Fern, Edward F. (1982), “Why do Focus Groups Work: A Review and Integration of Small

Group Process Theories,” in NA – Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 9, Eds.

Andrew Mitchell, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 444–51.

Gardner, Meryl P., Brian Wansink, Junyong Kim, and Se-Bum Park (2014), “Better Moods for

Better Eating? How Mood Influences Food Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,

24, 320–35.
 39

Garg, Nitika, Brian Wansink, and J. Jeffrey Inman (2007), “The Influence of Incidental Affect

on Consumers’ Food Intake,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (January), 194–206.

Hayes, Andrew F. (2012), “PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable

Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling,” Unpublished White Paper,

Available at: www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

——— (2013), An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process

Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New York: Guilford.

Heatherton, Todd F., Meg Striepe and Lauren Wittenberg (1998), “Emotional Distress and

Disinhibited Eating: The Role of Self,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24

(3), 301–13.

Heinz, Adrienne J., Anne Beck, Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, Philipp Sterzer, and Andreas Heinz

(2011), “Cognitive and Neurobiological Mechanisms of Alcohol-related Aggression,”

Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12 (7), 400–13.

Herman, Peter C. and Janet Polivy (1993), “Mental Control of Eating: Excitatory and Inhibitory

Food Thoughts,” Handbook of Mental Control, Daniel M. Wegner and James W.

Pennebaker eds. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 491–505.

Hirsch, Jacob B., Adam D. Galinsky, and Chen-Bo Zhong (2011), “Drunk, Powerful, and in the

Dark: How General Processes of Disinhibition Produce Both Prosocial and Antisocial

Behavior,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (5), 415–27.

Irmak, Caglar, Lauren G. Block, and Gavan Fitzsimons (2005), “The Placebo Effect in

Marketing: Sometimes You Just have to Want it to Work,” Journal of Marketing

Research, 42 (November), 406–09.

 40

Janssen, Loes, Bob M. Fennis, Ad Th.H. Pruyn, and Kathleen Vohs (2008), “The Path of Least

Resistance: Regulatory Resource Depletion and the Effectiveness of Social Influence

Techniques,” Journal of Business Research, 61 (10), 1041–45.

Kasof, Joseph (2002), “Indoor Lighting Preferences and Bulimic Behavior: An Individual

Differences Approach,” Personality and Individual Differences, 32 (3), 383–400.

Khan, Uzma, Ravi Dhar, and Klaus Wertenbroch (2005), “A Behavioral Decision Theory

Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian Choice,” in Inside Consumption: Frontiers of

Research on Consumer Motives, Goals and Desires, S. Ratneshwar and David Glen

Mick, eds. London: Routledge, 144–65.

Khare, Adwait and J. Jeffrey Inman (2006), “Habitual Behavior in American Eating Patterns:

The Role of Meal Occasions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (March), 567–75.

Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2002), “Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of

Precommitment to Indulge,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (September), 199–217.

Knoferle, Klemens, Eric R. Spangenberg, Andreas Hermann and Jan R. Landwehr (2012), “It is

All in The Mix: The Interactive Effect of Music Tempo and Mode on In-Store Sales,”

Marketing Letters, 23 (1), 325–37.

Krishna, Aradhna (2012), “An Integrative Review of Sensory Marketing: Engaging the Senses to

Affect Perception, Judgment, and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (3),

332–51.

Laran, Juliano (2010), “Goal Management in Sequential Choices: Consumer Choices for Others

Are More Indulgent than Personal Choices,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37

(August), 304–14
 41

Leary, Mark and Susan C. Atherton (1986), “Self-Efficacy, Social Anxiety, and Inhibition in

Interpersonal Encounters,” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4 (3), 256–67.

Lehrl, S., K. Gerstmeyer, J. H. Jacob, H. Frieling, A. W. Henkel, R. Meyrer, J. Wiltfang, J.

Kornhuber and S. Bleich (2007), “Blue Light Improves Cognitive Performance,” Journal

of Neural Transmission, 114, 1435–63.

Lim, Julian and David Dinges (2008), “Sleep Deprivation and Vigilant Attention,” Annals of the

New York Academy of Sciences, 1129, 305–22.

Lockley, Steven W., Erin E. Evans, Frank A.J.L. Scheer, George C. Brainard, Charles A.

Czeisler, Daniel Aeschbach (2006), “Short-Wavelength Sensitivity for the Direct Effects

of Light on Alertness, Vigilance, and the Waking Electroencephalogram in Humans,”

Sleep, 29 (2), 161–68.

Lowden, Arne, Torbjöjn Åkerstedt, and Roger Wibom (2004), “Suppression of Sleepiness and

Melatonin by Bright Light Exposure During Breaks in Night Work,” Journal of Sleep

Research, 13, 37–43.

Mattila, Anna S. and Jochen Wirtz (2001), “Congruency of Scent and Music as a Driver of In-

Store Evaluations and Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 77 (2), 273–90.

Meyers-Levy, Joan and Rui Zhu (2007), “The Influence of Ceiling Height: The Effect of Priming

on the Type of Processing That People Use,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2),

174–86.

———, ———, and Lan Jiang (2010), “Context Effects from Bodily Sensations: Examining

Bodily Sensations Induced by Flooring and the Moderating Role of Product Viewing

Distance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (1), 1–14.

 42

Morrin, Maureen and S. Ratneshwar (2003), “Does It Make Sense to Use Scents to Enhance

Brand Memory?” Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (1), 10–25.

Neuberg, Steven L., Douglas T. Kenrick, and Mark Schaller (2011), “Human Threat

Management Systems: Self-Protection and Disease Avoidance,” Neuroscience and

Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1042–51.

Nielsen, Martin V., Svend Svendsen, Lotte B. Jensen (2011), “Quantifying the Potential of

Automated Dynamic Solar Shading in Office Buildings through Integrated Simulations of

Energy and Daylight,” Solar Energy, 85 (5), 757–68.

Oberfeld, Daniel, Heiko Hecht, Ulrich Allendorf, and Florian Wickelmaier (2009), “Ambient

Lighting Modifies the Flavor of Wine,” Journal of Sensory Studies, 24, 797–32.

Pope, Lizzy, Andrew S. Hanks, David R. Just, and Brian Wansink (2014), “New Year’s Res-

Illusions: Food Shopping in the New Year Competes with Healthy Intentions,” PLOS

ONE, 9(12): e110561.

Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), “Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for

Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models,” Behavior

Research Methods, 40 (3), 879–91.

Romero, Marisabel and Dipayan Biswas (2016), “Healthy Left, Unhealthy Right: Can

Displaying Healthy Items to the Left (versus Right) of Unhealthy Items Nudge Healthier

Choices?” Journal of Consumer Research, June, forthcoming.

Rosenheck, Robert (2008), “Fast Food Consumption and Increased Calorie Intake: A Systematic

Review of a Trajectory Towards Weight Gain an Obesity Risk,” Obesity Reviews, 9,

535–47.
 43

Rüger, Melanie, Marijke C. M. Gordijn, Domien G. M. Beersma, Bonnie de Vries, Serge Daan

(2006), “Time-of-day-dependent Effects of Bright Light Exposure on Human

Psychophysiology: Comparison of Daytime and Nighttime Exposure,” American Journal of

Physiology - Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 290 (5), R1413–

R1420.

Sala, Laurenne (2010), “Dining in the Dark at Opaque: Eat Like Nobody’s Watching,” (accessed

January 30, 2015), [available at www.huffingtonpost.com/laurenne-sala/dining-in-the-

dark-at-opa_b_783383.html].

Salerno, Anthony, Juliano Laran and Chris Janiszewski (2014), “Hedonic Eating Goals and

Emotion: When Sadness Decreases the Desire to Indulge,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 41 (1), 135–51.

Saul, Michael H. (2013), “Judge Cans Soda Ban,” Wall Street Journal, 03/11/2013,

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578354543929974394.html

].

Schaller Mark, Justin H. Park, and Annette Mueller (2003), “Fear of the Dark: Interactive Effects

of Beliefs about Danger and Ambient Darkness on Ethnic Stereotypes,” Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (5), 637–49.

Scheibehenne, Benjamin, Peter M. Todd, and Brian Wansink (2010), “Dining in the Dark: The

Importance of Visual Cues for Food Consumption and Satiety,” Appetite, 55 (3), 710–13.

Shiv, Baba and Alexander Fedorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of

Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26

(3), 278–92.
 44

———, Ziv Carmon and Dan Ariely (2005), “Placebo Effects of Marketing Actions: Consumers

May Get What They Pay For,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (November), 383–93.

Spangenberg, Eric R., Ayn E. Crowley, and Pamela W. Henderson (1996), “Improving the Store

Environment: Do Olfactory Cues Affect Evaluations and Behaviors?” Journal of

Marketing, 60 (2), 67–80.

Spence, Charles, Nancy M. Puccinelli, Dhruv Grewal, Anne L. Roggeveen (2014), “Store

Atmospherics: A Multisensory Perspective,” Psychology & Marketing, 31 (July), 472–

88.

Steele, Claude M. and Robert A. Josephs (1990), “Alcohol Myopia: Its Prized and Dangerous

Effects,” American Psychologist, 45, 921–33.

Strauss, Gary and Rebecca Castagna (2013), “NYC Ban on Large Sugary Drinks Fizzles Again,”

USA Today, 07/30/2013, [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/30/new-

york-ban-on-larged-sized-sugary-drinks-rejected/2599429].

The Engineering Toolbox (2016), “Luminance - Recommended Light Levels,” (Last accessed:

April 29, 2016) [available at http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/light-level-rooms-

d_708.html].

Thimijan Richard W. and Royal D. Heins (1983), “Photometric, Radiometric and Quantum Light

Units of Measure: A Review of Procedures for Interconversion,” HortScience, 18 (6),

818–22.

Thomas, Maria, Helen Sing, Gregory Belenky, Henry Holcomb, Helen Mayberg, Robert

Dannals, Henry Wagner, David Thorne, Kathryn Popp, Laura Rowland, Amy Welsh,

Sharon Balwinski, and Daniel Redmond (2000), “Neural Basis of Alertness and
 45

Cognitive Performance Impairments during Sleepiness,” Journal of Sleep Research, 9

(4), 335–52.

Thorington, Luke (1985), “Spectral, Irradiance, and Temporal Aspects of Natural and Artificial

Light,” Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 453, 28–54.

Verwey, Willem B. and David M. Zaidel (2000), “Predicting Drowsiness Accidents from

Personal Attributes, Eye Blinks and Ongoing Driving Behaviour,” Personality and

Individual Differences, 28, 123–42.

Virginie Gabel, Micheline Maire, Carolin F. Reichert, Sarah L. Chellappa, Christina Schmidt,

Vanja Homes, Christian Cajochen, Antoine U. Viola (2015), “Dawn Simulation Light

Impacts on Different Cognitive domains under Sleep Restriction,” Behavioural Brain

Research, 281 (March), 258-66.

Wansink, Brian (2004), “Environmental Factors that Increase the Food Intake and Consumption

Volume of Unknowing Consumers,” Annual Review of Nutrition, 24, 455–79.

——— (2006), Mindless Eating Why We Eat More Than We Think. New York: Bantam Dell.

———, David R. Just, and Collin R. Payne (2009), “Mindless Eating and Healthy Heuristics for

the Irrational,” American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 165–69.

———, Mitsuru Shimizu, Armand V. Cardello, and Alan O. Wright (2012), “Dining in the

Dark: How Uncertainty Influences Food Acceptance in the Absence of Light,” Food

Quality and Preference, 24 (1), 209–12.

——— and Koert van Ittersum (2012), “Fast Food Restaurant Lighting and Music can Reduce

Calorie Intake and Increase Satisfaction,” Psychological Reports: Human Resources &

Marketing, 111 (1), 228–32.

 46

Wardle, Jane, Anne M. Haase, Andrew Steptoe, Maream Nillapun, Kiriboon Jonwutiwes, and

France Bellisie (2004), “Gender Differences in Food Choice: The Contribution of Health

Beliefs and Dieting,” Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27 (2), 107–16.

Weitz, Barton and Mary Beth Whitfield (2006), “Trends in U.S. Retailing,” in Retailing in the

21st Century: Current and Future Trends, Manfred Krafft and Murali K. Mantrala, eds.

New York: Springer Publishing, 59–77.

White, Katherine, Lily Lin, Darren Dahl, and Robin J. B. Ritchie (2016), “When do Consumers

Avoid Imperfections? Superficial Packaging Damage as a Contamination Cue,” Journal

of Marketing Research, February, 110–23.

Wilcox, Keith, Beth Vallen, Lauren Block, and Gavan J. Fitzsimons (2009), “Vicarious Goal

Fulfillment: When the Mere Presence of a Healthy Option Leads to an Ironically

Indulgent Decision,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 380–93.

Zhong, Chen-Bo, Vanessa L. Bohns, and Francesca Gino (2010), “Good Lamps Are the Best

Police,” Psychological Science, 21 (3), 311–14.

 47

Figure 1

Study 1a: The Effects of Ambient Light Luminance on Ordering of Healthy (vs. Unhealthy)

Foods at a Restaurant Chain

HEALTHY CHOICE UNHEALTHY CHOICE

70% 65.38%

60%
PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS

52.44%
50% 47.56%

40% 34.62%

30%

20%

10%

0%
BRIGHT DIM
AMBIENT LIGHT LUMINANCE
 48

WEB APPENDIX

Shining Light on Atmospherics: How Ambient Light Influences Food Choices

DIPAYAN BISWAS

COURTNEY SZOCS

BRIAN WANSINK

ROGER CHACKO

WEB APPENDIX A: STUDY INSTRUMENTS

STUDY # STUDY OVERVIEW AND INSTRUMENTS USED

1a Field study conducted at four different locations of a major casual dining
restaurant chain.
The dependent variable was the food item(s) chosen by the participants from
the regular menu of the restaurant chain.

Alertness was measured with a reverse-coded item:

“How alert do you feel right now” (1 = very alert, 7 = not at all alert)

1b Participants were given the option to choose between two food options (100-
calorie Oreos and chocolate covered Oreos). Participants were asked:

“If given a choice, which one of these food options would you prefer to have
right now?
__________ 100 Calorie Oreos
__________ Chocolate Covered Oreos”

Mental alertness was objectively measured by using a digit span task,

employed in prior research (Irmak, Block, and Fitzsimons 2005). That is, we
assessed participants’ mental alertness levels by showing them a series of
numbers (between 1 and 99) displayed on a screen. Each number sequence
was automatically timed to be displayed for exactly half a second, following
which, participants were asked to reproduce the numbers on the surveys, in the
exact order in which they were displayed on the screen. Four such sets were
displayed, with the first set having a sequence of five numbers, progressively
 49

going up to seven numbers in the third and fourth sets. The four sets of
numbers displayed were:
4 22 35 41 60
12 29 43 64 77 86
3 17 29 47 53 75 88
2 21 34 49 57 72 83

Inhibition was measured by asking participants to indicate the extent to which

they disagree/agree with the following statement (with 1 = strongly disagree, 7
= strongly agree): “Right now, I feel inhibited.”

1c Participants chose between a chocolate bar and a granola bar. Samples of each
of these two items were displayed on a large table. Participants were asked:

“There are two food options in front of you – a piece of chocolate and a piece
of granola bar. If given a choice, which one of these food options would you
prefer to have right now?
_______ Chocolate
_______ Granola Bar

Please raise your hand and indicate your preference to the researcher so that
s/he can give you your preferred food option.”

2a Choice option between baked potato and fries. Participants were asked:

“If given a choice, which one of these food options would you prefer to have
right now?
__________ Baked Potato
__________ Fries”

Mental alertness was measured by asking participants: “How mentally alert do

you feel right now?” (1 = not at all alert, 7 = extremely alert).

Self-presentation focus was measured by asking participants to indicate the

extent to which they disagree/agree with the following statements (with
1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree):
- “Right now, I am very concerned about the way I am presenting
myself.”
- “Right now, I am worried about making a good impression.”
- “Right now, I am aware of what other people think of me.”

Health Orientation was measured by asking participants to indicate the extent

to which they disagree/agree with the following statements (with 1=strongly
disagree, 7=strongly agree):
- “Calorie levels influence what I eat.”
- “Eating healthy is important to me.”
 50

2b Participants were given the option to choose raisins or M&Ms. They were
asked:

“If given a choice, which one of these food options would you prefer to have
right now?
__________ Raisins
__________ M&M’s”

Mental alertness was measured by asking participants: “How alert do you feel
right now?” (1 = not at all alert, 7 = very alert).

Study Sleepiness was primed by asking participants to write a short essay:

reported in “Try to think of a situation when you were extremely sleepy. In the box below,
Web please describe a situation when you were extremely sleepy. Highlight as to
Appendix B why you were so sleepy.”

In the choice task, participants chose a food option from a menu. The menu is
provided in Web Appendix C below.

Mental alertness was measured by asking participants: “How mentally alert do

you feel right now?” (1 = not at all alert, 7 = very alert).

Sleepiness was measured by asking participants: “How sleepy do you feel at

this moment?” (1 = not at all sleepy, 7 = very sleepy).

Also, across all studies, participants were asked to indicate their gender and age.
 51

WEB APPENDIX B: STUDY ON ROLE OF DIMINISHED ALERTNESS

This study examined the effects of diminished alertness level. As mentioned in the main

body of our paper, prior literature categorizes alertness and sleepiness as being at conceptually

opposite ends of a continuum (Åkerstedt and Gillberg 1990; Lockley et al. 2006). That is, dim

(vs. bright) light enhances sleepiness and reduces alertness. In fact, multiple studies have

examined alertness through the lens of sleepiness (Kayumov et al. 2000; Thomas et al. 2000).

Accordingly, we examine if inducing sleepiness might alter the effects observed in Studies 1a-

1c. Specifically, we hypothesize that under regular mental alertness levels, when given a choice

between healthy and unhealthy options, consumers will have greater preference for healthy

options when ambient light luminance is bright (vs. dim); under diminished mental alertness,

these effects will get attenuated, whereby the preference pattern will be the same across bright

and dim ambient lights.

It might be noted though that although the same pattern of effects are being predicted by

H2 (in the main article text), the direction of the means would be different. That is, for H2, the

means for the “alertness enhanced” bright and dim conditions approached the means for “regular

alertness” bright condition, while we are predicting that the means for the “diminished alertness”

bright and dim conditions should approach the means for “regular alertness” dim condition.

Method

A 2 (ambient light luminance: bright vs. dim) X 2 (mental alertness level: regular vs.

diminished) between-subjects experiment tested our prediction related to reduced mental

alertness. While in Study 2b (in the main article text), we had mental alertness level enhanced by

asking participants to be more alert while taking the survey, such an approach would be
 52

unrealistic when diminishing alertness. That is, asking participants to be less alert or to be sleepy,

while taking the survey, would arouse suspicion. Accordingly, we manipulated diminished

alertness level through a priming task. Specifically, at the beginning of the study, participants

were asked to try to think of a situation when they were extremely sleepy. Then, similar to the

approach used in prior studies (e.g., Chiao et al. 2006), participants were asked to write a short

essay describing the situation when they were extremely sleepy. They were also asked to

highlight why they were so sleepy. In the “regular” mental alertness condition, participants were

not given such a priming task.

After this, participants were given a menu (see Web Appendix C for the items listed in

the menu). The menu had eight items, four of which were healthy (i.e., Veggies & Cucumber-

Dill Yogurt Dip, Green Salad, Grilled Chicken Wrap, Grilled Fish Wrap) and the other four were

unhealthy (i.e., Mozzarella Sticks, Loaded Fries, Fried Chicken Sandwich, Battered Fried Fish

Sandwich). All menu items were priced equally. Participants were asked which one item they

would like to order from the menu. So, while our other lab experiments (Studies 1b-2b in the

paper) were conducted in the context of making a choice from a set of two options, this study

involved choosing from a menu with a wider set of options. After indicating their menu choice,

participants indicated how sleepy they felt at that moment (1 = not at all sleepy, 7 = very sleepy)

and how mentally alert they felt at that moment (1 = not at all alert, 7 = very alert).

One hundred eighty eight students (average age 22 years; 50.8% females) from a major

US university participated in this experiment for course credit. Four participants either did not

make a choice from the menu or selected multiple items (implying they did not pay attention to

the instructions for the menu selection task) and these participants were not considered for the

choice or calorie analyses. However, all participants responded to all the other measures. The
 53

procedure, with the exception of the alertness manipulation and food choices, was similar to

Study 2b reported in the main article text.

Results and Discussion

Main tests. Employing the more conservative backward logistic regression for the 2

(ambient light luminance) X 2 (induced mental alertness level) model revealed a marginally

significant interaction effect on food choice (Wald χ2 = 2.98, p = .08). Including gender as a

covariate keeps the effect unchanged (Wald χ2 = 2.92, p < .09). Using forward logistic regression

reveals a stronger 2 X 2 interaction effect on food choice (Wald χ2 = 6.10, p < .05). Again,

including gender as a covariate keeps the pattern of effects unchanged (Wald χ2 = 5.52, p < .05).

Overall, gender did not have a significant main effect on food choices (χ2 = 1.25, p = .26) and

there was no interaction effect between gender and ambient lighting on choice (p > .40).

Follow-up tests showed that choice of the healthy item was higher with bright (vs. dim)

ambient light when alertness level was regular (Pbright-light = 70.97% vs. Pdim-light = 45.76%; χ2 =

7.92, p < .01), but the effects got attenuated when mental alertness was diminished (Pbright-light =

42.42% vs. Pdim-light = 43.33%; χ2 = .01, p = .94). Consistent with our conceptualization, the

choice likelihood for healthy options was similar for “regular alertness” dim light condition and

the “diminished alertness” dim and bright light conditions (all p’s > .75). That is, diminishing the

alertness level brought choice patterns similar to the dim lighting condition.

We also examined the effects on total calories chosen. The results of a 2 (ambient light)

X 2 (induced alertness) ANOVA on total calories of the chosen option showed a marginally

significant interaction effect (F(1, 180) = 3.13, p < .08). Follow-up tests showed that in the

absence of any priming, total calories chosen was lower when ambient light was bright (vs. dim)
 54

(Mbright-light = 323.19, SD = 178.37 vs. Mdim-light = 432.60, SD = 196.66; F(1, 180) = 9.40, p <

.01). In contrast, when mental alertness was reduced (through sleepiness priming), the total

calories chosen were same for bright versus dim ambient lighting (Mbright-light = 443.18, SD =

204.28 vs. Mdim-light = 444.57, SD = 220.70; F(1, 180) = .001, p = .98). These results support our

predictions and theorization.

Sleepiness and alertness measures. Consistent with our manipulation, priming

participants with sleepiness led to (marginally) higher self-reported measures of perceived

sleepiness (Mregular alertness = 4.17 vs. Mdiminished alertness = 3.78; F(1, 186) = 3.21, p < .08). Also, as

observed in our other studies, self-reported mental alertness level was lower when ambient light

was dim (vs. bright) (Mdim-light = 4.65 vs. Mbright-light = 5.11; F(1, 186) = 6.71, p < .05).

The results of this study again emphasize the role of mental alertness as the dominant

underlying factor in influencing the effects of dim versus bright ambient lighting on food

choices. While the paper’s Study 2a influenced mental alertness through a placebo effect and

Study 2b examined effects of enhanced mental alertness, the current study demonstrated the

same process evidence by diminishing mental alertness through induced sleepiness.

 55

WEB APPENDIX C: MENU USED IN “REDUCED ALERTNESS STUDY”

Mozzeralla Sticks
$8.50
Fried mozzarella sticks served with marinara sauce.

Veggies & Cucumber-Dill Yogurt Dip

Carrot sticks, celery sticks and cucumber slices served $8.50
with cucumber-dill yogurt dip.

Loaded Fries
Fries topped with cheddar and Colby jack cheeses, $8.50
sour cream and chives served with Ranch dressing.

Green Salad
Mixed greens, tomatoes, red and green peppers, $8.50
onions, and cucumbers with vinaigrette dressing.

Grilled Chicken Wrap

Grilled chicken breast, lettuce, tomatoes and light $8.50
mayo on a whole wheat tortilla wrap.

Fried Chicken Sandwich

Fried chicken breast tossed in buffalo sauce,
$8.50
tomatoes and blue cheese with mayo, on a buttery
roll.

Grilled Fish Wrap

Grilled white fish, lettuce and tomato on a wheat $8.50
wrap.

Battered Fried Fish Sandwich

Battered white fish fried, lettuce and tomato on a $8.50
buttery roll.
 56

WEB APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL REFERENCES USED IN WEB APPENDIX

Åkerstedt, Torbjöjn and Mats Gillberg (1990), “Subjective and Objective Sleepiness in the

Active Individual,” International Journal of Neuroscience, 52, 29-37.

Chiao, Joan Y., Hannah E. Heck, Ken Nakayama, and Nalini Ambady (2006), “Priming Race in

Biracial Observers affects Visual Search for Black and White Faces,” Psychological

Science, 17 (5), 387-92.

Irmak, Caglar, Lauren G. Block, and Gavan Fitzsimons (2005), “The Placebo Effect in

Marketing: Sometimes You Just have to Want it to Work,” Journal of Marketing

Research, 42 (November), 406-09.

Kayumov, Leonid, Vadim Rotenberg, Kenneth Buttoo, Christine Auch, S. R. Pandi-Perumal and

Colin M. Shapiro (2000), “Interrelationships Between Nocturnal Sleep, Daytime

Alertness, and Sleepiness,” The Journal of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences,

12 (1), 86-90.

Lockley, Steven W., Erin E. Evans, Frank A.J.L. Scheer, George C. Brainard, Charles A.

Czeisler, Daniel Aeschbach (2006), “Short-Wavelength Sensitivity for the Direct Effects

of Light on Alertness, Vigilance, and the Waking Electroencephalogram in Humans,”

Sleep, 29 (2), 161-68.

Thomas, Maria, Helen Sing, Gregory Belenky, Henry Holcomb, Helen Mayberg, Robert

Dannals, Henry Wagner, David Thorne, Kathryn Popp, Laura Rowland, Amy Welsh,

Sharon Balwinski, and Daniel Redmond (2000), “Neural Basis of Alertness and

Cognitive Performance Impairments during Sleepiness,” Journal of Sleep Research, 9

(4), 335-52.