MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403837555 · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2024.107723

Robots in the kitchen: The automation of food preparation in restaurants and the compounding effects of perceived love and disgust on consumer evaluations

2024· article· en· W4403837555 on OpenAlexafffund
Ethan Pancer, Theodore J. Noseworthy, Lindsay McShane, Nükhet Taylor, Matthew Philp

Bibliographic record

VenueAppetite · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityCarleton UniversityYork UniversitySaint Mary's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsDisgustCompoundingPsychologyAdvertisingFood scienceSocial psychologyMedicineBusinessChemistryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Restaurants are swiftly embracing automation to prepare food, experimenting with innovations from robotic arms for frying foods to pizza-making robots. While these advances promise to enhance efficiency and productivity, their impact on consumer psychology remains largely unexplored. We present four experiments that demonstrate how food service automation leads to negative downstream effects (i.e., diminished taste perceptions, decreased willingness to pay, less favorable attitudes towards food items) across multiple food categories. This stems in part from two distinct contagion effects, whereby automation appears to undermine the food's ability to contain symbolic love (positive contagion from human contact) while simultaneously increasing feelings of disgust (negative contagion from machine contact). Moreover, we highlight how communicating the consumer-oriented benefits of automation can suppress the disgust associated with automation and subsequently mitigate the deleterious effects on consumer evaluations. Our findings suggest that service retailers should consider the psychological impact on consumers when shifting away from human involvement in a category as intimate and consequential as the production of our food.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAppetiteSame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207