The Hoax of the Fake Restaurant that Never Was – Psychology Leads Us to Participate When We Should Not!
The Psychology Behind the Hoax: Why People Contributed to the Fiction of “The Shed at Dulwich”
Primary Category: Psychology of Scams
Authors:
• Tim McGuinness, Ph.D. – Anthropologist, Scientist, Director of the Society of Citizens Against Relationship Scams Inc.
• Portion by Gabriel Friedlander of Wizer-Training
About This Article
The story of The Shed at Dulwich, a fictional restaurant that became TripAdvisor’s top-rated spot in London, highlights the vulnerabilities in online systems and the psychological tendencies that enable trust in fabricated narratives. While the experiment was an amusing critique of digital culture, it also exposed the potential harm of fake reviews, including the erosion of trust, unfair competition, and encouragement of fraudulent behavior.
False reviews not only mislead consumers but also undermine the integrity of legitimate businesses, and their creation violates regulations like those enforced by the FTC, which impose legal and financial consequences. This cautionary tale emphasizes the need for critical thinking, accountability, and integrity in digital interactions to maintain trust and fairness in the online world.
How a Fake Restaurant Experient Became the Number 1 Restaurant in London – How the Public Participated in a Hoax (Fraud) Experient to Expand the Fake Reviews
The Psychology Behind the Hoax: Why People Contributed to the Fiction of “The Shed at Dulwich”
Imagine stumbling upon the #1-rated restaurant in London on TripAdvisor—a must-visit culinary gem known for its quirky menu and unforgettable ambiance. Now imagine learning that this acclaimed restaurant never existed. This is the story of The Shed at Dulwich, a fake restaurant created by journalist Oobah Butler as a social experiment. What started with a few fake reviews and a simple website quickly spiraled into a phenomenon, with people clamoring for reservations, writing glowing reviews, and even posting staged photos.
But how did this happen? And why did so many people knowingly contribute to the fiction? The psychology behind this hoax sheds light on human behavior, our trust in online systems, and the appeal of participating in a shared illusion.
Here is the Story – Courtesy of Gabriel Friedlander of Wizer-Training
Imagine this… You’re scrolling online looking for the best Black Friday deals, and you stumble across a “MUST-TRY” restaurant—the #1 spot in London. Sounds amazing, right? But what if I told you that restaurant never even existed?
Here’s the story: The Shed at Dulwich was a completely fake restaurant, created by journalist Oobah Butler as a social experiment. It all started with a few fake reviews he and his friends wrote. Then, he set up a website and created a quirky menu using random, creative ideas.
What happened next? Calls started pouring in for reservations. Playing along, Butler claimed they were fully booked for 6 weeks. To his shock, people didn’t just believe him – they doubled down, writing glowing reviews and even posting fake photos!
In just 7 months, this imaginary restaurant became TripAdvisor’s #1-rated spot in London!
What would make people do this?
The Role of Social Influence
At the heart of ‘The Shed at Dulwich’ hoax lies the power of social influence. People often look to others to determine their own actions, especially in ambiguous or unfamiliar situations. This behavior is driven by two key factors: the bandwagon effect and social proof.
Bandwagon Effect: Once the restaurant began gaining positive reviews, it created a feedback loop. Each new review reinforced the illusion of credibility, encouraging others to follow suit. The popularity of The Shed became its own justification for more engagement.
Social Proof: Humans are naturally inclined to trust collective behavior as a shortcut to determining quality or legitimacy. If hundreds of people were praising this restaurant, it must be worth the hype, right? This trust in group behavior allowed the hoax to gain momentum and sustain itself.
The Thrill of Participation in a Hoax
For many, contributing to The Shed at Dulwich was more than just going along with a trend—it was an opportunity to be part of something unique and mischievously clever. Several psychological drivers made participation appealing:
A Sense of Exclusivity: The narrative of The Shed as a fully booked, exclusive destination added allure. Contributing to its story, whether through a review or photo, gave people a sense of belonging to an “in-crowd” that was part of a quirky, elite secret.
Rebellion Against the System: Many contributors may have seen the hoax as a playful way to expose the flaws in platforms like TripAdvisor. By participating, they felt they were subverting a flawed system while simultaneously enjoying the humor of the situation.
Creative Expression: Writing a fake review or crafting a staged photo offered people a chance to engage their imagination. It wasn’t just about fooling others—it was a way to engage in storytelling and humor, making their contribution a form of self-expression.
Cognitive Biases at Play
Several mental shortcuts and biases helped perpetuate the hoax and encouraged participation:
Confirmation Bias: Once people saw others celebrating The Shed, they were more likely to look for reasons to believe in its authenticity rather than question it. Positive reviews and glowing endorsements became self-reinforcing, creating a bubble of collective belief.
Authority Bias: The fact that TripAdvisor ranked The Shed as the #1 restaurant in London lent it an air of legitimacy. Many people implicitly trust platforms like TripAdvisor, assuming they rigorously vet their content, which reduced skepticism.
Availability Heuristic: The sheer volume of reviews and engagement around The Shed made it feel real. When something appears frequently and vividly in our mental landscape, we’re more likely to believe in its reality.
The Reward of Engagement
Contributing to the hoax wasn’t just entertaining—it was socially rewarding. For many, the act of writing a review or posting a fake photo was a way to connect with others and gain validation.
Social Validation: Participating in a popular trend often garners likes, comments, and attention from others. Contributing to The Shed hoax allowed individuals to feel part of a shared cultural moment, boosting their sense of social belonging.
Humor and Entertainment: For some, the sheer absurdity of The Shed at Dulwich was irresistible. Writing an over-the-top review or staging a humorous photo became an opportunity for fun, with the added bonus of sharing a laugh with others in the know.
The Power of Trust in Online Systems
A significant factor in the success of The Shed at Dulwich was the implicit trust people place in online platforms. Sites like TripAdvisor are seen as reliable arbiters of quality, and their rankings carry weight.
Trust in Technology: Many people assume that platforms use rigorous algorithms and vetting processes to ensure accuracy. This faith in technology can blind users to the potential for manipulation or fraud.
Suspension of Disbelief: Once a narrative gains traction, people are less likely to question its validity. In the case of The Shed, the combination of high rankings, glowing reviews, and an engaging backstory made it easier for individuals to accept the illusion without skepticism.
Lessons from the Hoax
The story of The Shed at Dulwich is a powerful reminder of how easily perception can be manipulated. It highlights the vulnerabilities in how we trust online systems and underscores the psychological factors that drive collective behavior.
For consumers, this serves as a cautionary tale: just because something is highly rated online doesn’t make it real or trustworthy. And for those contributing to such hoaxes, it’s a testament to the human need for connection, creativity, and a little bit of mischief.
The hoax of The Shed at Dulwich reveals much about human psychology: our tendency to trust group behavior, the allure of participation, and our blind faith in digital platforms. It also shows the fine line between reality and illusion in the online world. By understanding the psychological drivers behind such phenomena, we can become more discerning and thoughtful in our interactions with the digital world—and perhaps laugh a little at the quirky, creative ways we navigate it.
But, there is also a darker side to this …
The Harm Such a Hoax Can Do
While the story of The Shed at Dulwich is often seen as an amusing and harmless experiment, it also highlights several potential harms that such hoaxes can cause. These consequences go beyond the surface humor and point to deeper issues in trust, accountability, and the potential for real-world damage.
Erosion of Trust in Online Platforms
One of the most significant harms of such a hoax is the erosion of trust in online review platforms. Sites like TripAdvisor, Yelp, and others rely on user trust to maintain their credibility. When users discover that a highly-rated restaurant is a complete fabrication, it undermines the integrity of the entire platform. For legitimate businesses that depend on these reviews to attract customers, this loss of trust can have a ripple effect, making it harder for them to stand out or gain credibility.
Misplaced Resources and Opportunity Costs
The success of The Shed at Dulwich hoax means that thousands of people spent time and effort trying to book a reservation, write reviews, or contribute to its fictional narrative. While this might seem harmless in isolation, it represents a collective waste of time and resources that could have been spent supporting real businesses. Legitimate restaurants and venues lose visibility and potential revenue as attention shifts to fabricated entities like The Shed.
Encouragement of Fraudulent Behavior
The story of The Shed sets a dangerous precedent by showing how easy it is to manipulate online systems and public opinion. This can inspire others to engage in similar behavior, not as harmless experiments but as deliberate attempts to defraud people. For example, scammers might create fake businesses to steal personal information, collect deposits for non-existent services, or deceive consumers into wasting their money on fraudulent products.
Impact on Consumers
For consumers, hoaxes like The Shed at Dulwich can lead to frustration and a sense of betrayal. People who invested time, effort, and hope into visiting a non-existent restaurant might feel duped, questioning their ability to make sound decisions. Over time, this can foster a culture of skepticism, where even legitimate businesses and reviews are met with doubt, harming trust in the broader marketplace.
Also remember that while this fake restaurant made it to #1, that also means that another real and deserving restaurant did not make it to number 1, and that could have had a significant financial impact on them.
Ethical Concerns and Reputation Damage
While some contributors to the hoax might see their actions as playful, others may not realize the ethical implications of participating in deliberate deception. This kind of behavior can blur the lines between harmless fun and actions that perpetuate misinformation. For platforms like TripAdvisor, such incidents damage their reputation and raise questions about their ability to maintain accuracy and prevent misuse.
Potential for Harmful Copycat Scenarios
The success of The Shed at Dulwich could inspire similar hoaxes with less benign intentions. For instance, scammers could fabricate fake charities, investment opportunities, or other entities designed to exploit public trust for financial or personal gain. These scenarios could have far-reaching consequences, from financial losses to emotional distress for victims.
Balancing Creativity with Responsibility
While The Shed at Dulwich is a fascinating and entertaining case study, it serves as a reminder of the potential harm that hoaxes can cause. The digital world thrives on trust, and every instance of deception chips away at that foundation. As amusing as these experiments may seem, they come with real-world implications that affect businesses, consumers, and the credibility of online platforms. Moving forward, fostering a culture of accountability and awareness in digital spaces will be critical to ensuring that trust is preserved and harm is minimized.
Writing False Reviews is a Crime:
U.S. FTC Regulations and Legal Implications
While the story of The Shed at Dulwich may seem like a harmless experiment, it is essential to recognize that writing false reviews can be a criminal act, with serious legal and financial consequences. Under the guidelines set by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States and similar regulatory bodies worldwide, fabricating reviews to manipulate public opinion violates consumer protection laws.
FTC’s Stance on False Reviews
The FTC explicitly prohibits deceptive or unfair business practices, including the posting of fake reviews to mislead consumers. According to the FTC’s guidelines:
False or Misleading Endorsements: Writing reviews for a product, service, or business that you have never used or visited is considered a false endorsement. These reviews create a misleading impression of quality or reliability, which is illegal under the FTC Act.
Paid Reviews Without Disclosure: Accepting money, goods, or services in exchange for a review without disclosing this relationship also violates FTC rules. Transparency is a cornerstone of fair advertising, and fake reviews compromise this principle.
Legal Consequences of False Reviews
The consequences of writing or soliciting fake reviews can be severe. The FTC has fined individuals and businesses for engaging in such deceptive practices. For example:
Civil Penalties: Offenders can face hefty fines for violating consumer protection laws. In some cases, these fines can amount to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the scale of the offense.
Lawsuits: Businesses or individuals harmed by fake reviews may file civil lawsuits seeking damages. For example, legitimate competitors can argue that fake reviews caused them to lose revenue or suffer reputational harm.
Cease-and-Desist Orders: The FTC can issue cease-and-desist orders to individuals or businesses caught writing false reviews, forcing them to stop the deceptive activity immediately.
Why False Reviews Are Harmful
The FTC’s strict stance against fake reviews underscores the harm they cause to consumers and the marketplace. False reviews mislead consumers into making decisions based on fabricated information, which can result in financial losses, disappointment, and erosion of trust in online platforms. For legitimate businesses, fake reviews create unfair competition and can undermine their efforts to establish credibility.
Global Perspective: Similar Laws Worldwide
Beyond the United States, many other countries have laws against fake reviews. In the European Union, for example, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive prohibits misleading or deceptive marketing practices, including the posting of fake reviews. Countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada have similar consumer protection laws that impose penalties on those engaging in deceptive practices.
In the United Kingdom:
According to FieldFisher
The presence of fake consumer reviews is an issue that has caught the attention of the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (the “CMA“). In May 2020, the CMA launched an initial investigation looking into suspicious reviews where, for example, a single user has reviewed an unlikely range of products or services, or where the reviewer has received incentives to review.
Then, in April 2022 the UK Government announced reforms to protect the public from misleading reviews in marketplaces. In particular, new legislation that is subject to consultation will seek to prevent traders and marketplaces:
-
-
-
- Commissioning users to submit fake reviews;
- Hosting consumer reviews without taking reasonable steps to check their authenticity; and
- Offering or advertising to submit, commission or facilitate fake reviews.
-
-
The government is also set to give the CMA enhanced powers to award compensation to consumers and directly enforce consumer law generally by imposing financial penalties for:
-
-
-
- Breaching consumer protection laws, with penalties worth up to 10% of global annual turnover for businesses or up to £300,000 in the case of an individual;
- Breaching undertakings given to the CMA, with penalties worth up to 5% of a business’ annual global turnover or up to £150,000 for an individual, and additional daily penalties for continued non-compliance; or
- Non-compliance with an information notice, concealing evidence or providing false information, with penalties worth up to 1% of a business’s annual global turnover or up to £30,000 for an individual, and additional daily penalties for continued non-compliance.
-
-
While the government is seeking further evidence on how best to regulate around the issue of fake reviews, the reforms underline the UK’s commitment to adapt to market trends, as well as the need for those businesses falling within the scope of new or existing laws to implement the steps necessary to ensure compliance.
For other countries, including the UK see here: https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/insights/fake-reviews-crackdown-in-europe-and-beyond
A Cautionary Tale
While The Shed at Dulwich succeeded in manipulating an online platform for humorous purposes, it also serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of violating consumer protection laws. What may begin as an amusing experiment or an attempt to boost visibility can quickly escalate into legal trouble, financial penalties, and reputational damage.
Upholding Integrity in Online Spaces
Writing false reviews is not just unethical—it’s illegal. The FTC’s regulations are in place to protect consumers and ensure fair competition in the marketplace. As we navigate the increasingly digital world, understanding the legal and moral implications of our actions is crucial. Upholding integrity in online spaces benefits everyone—businesses, consumers, and the platforms that connect them. By respecting these principles, we can help maintain trust and accountability in the digital age.
Conclusion: Lessons from The Shed at Dulwich
The story of The Shed at Dulwich may seem like an amusing social experiment, but it reveals deeper truths about the vulnerabilities in our digital systems, the psychology of trust, and the ethical dilemmas of online behavior. The ease with which a fictional restaurant reached the top of TripAdvisor’s rankings underscores the need for critical thinking when navigating online platforms.
While this hoax entertained and educated, it also exposed the potential harm of fabricated reviews, including the erosion of trust, unfair competition, and encouragement of unethical behavior. The legal implications, as highlighted by FTC regulations, further emphasize the seriousness of manipulating public opinion through false endorsements.
Moving forward, it is crucial for individuals, businesses, and online platforms to foster a culture of accountability and integrity. Consumers must approach reviews with skepticism, platforms must implement robust mechanisms to prevent manipulation, and contributors must consider the broader impact of their actions. By doing so, we can ensure a digital environment that upholds trust, fairness, and reliability—values essential to the thriving of both businesses and consumers in the modern age.
References
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shed_at_Dulwich
- Patrick Grafton-Green (7 December 2017), “Writer ‘tricks’ TripAdvisor into making his Dulwich shed number one ranked restaurant in London”, Evening Standard
- Valentine Low (7 December 2017), “Prankster Oobah Butler tricks TripAdvisor into thinking his shed is London’s best restaurant”, The Times
- Helena Horton (6 December 2017), “Garden shed becomes top-rated London restaurant on TripAdvisor after site tricked by fake reviews”, Daily Telegraph
- The Never-Ending War on Fake Reviews”. The New Yorker. 31 May 2018. Retrieved 1 June 2018.
- Harry Wallop (11 January 2018), “From Evelyn’s Table to Tom Kerridge’s Shed: the rise of the micro-restaurant”, The Times
Please Leave Us Your Comment
Also, tell us of any topics we might have missed.
Thank you for your comment. You may receive an email to follow up. We never share your data with marketers.
Recent Reader Comments
on Thanksgiving and its Meaning for Scam Victims – 2024: “Thanksgiving was the first holiday spent at the beginning of my experience. Thought I was teaching “My Brit” all about…” Nov 25, 10:39
on A Scam Victim in Extreme Distress – Stopping the Pain – 2024: “Knowing it and truly believing it are two different things, and there is where it does get better. That threshold…” Nov 19, 02:27
on A Scam Victim in Extreme Distress – Stopping the Pain – 2024: “Yes I know the scam was not my fault and that I was targeted by them. It just doesn’t make…” Nov 17, 12:16
on President Trump Launches Campaign for Free Speech and to Go After Tech Industry Platforms – 2024: “This is very good! This is the beginning of great things, in my opinion.” Nov 10, 09:18
on The Bouba-Kiki Effect and the Psychology of Scam Victims – 2024: “This excellent article highlights the power of awareness, mindfulness and intuition as tools of discernment in our daily life. Bringing…” Nov 7, 01:06
on The Bouba-Kiki Effect and the Psychology of Scam Victims – 2024: “Great, very informative article. The information on the Effect not only explains why we were so easy, quick to accept…” Nov 6, 12:09
Did you find this article useful?
If you did, please help the SCARS Institute to continue helping Scam Victims to become Survivors.
Your gift helps us continue our work and help more scam victims to find the path to recovery!
You can give at donate.AgainstScams.org
Important Information for New Scam Victims
- Please visit www.ScamVictimsSupport.org – a SCARS Website for New Scam Victims & Sextortion Victims
- SCARS Institute now offers a free recovery program at www.SCARSeducation.org
- Please visit www.ScamPsychology.org – to more fully understand the psychological concepts involved in scams and scam victim recovery
If you are looking for local trauma counselors please visit counseling.AgainstScams.org or join SCARS for our counseling/therapy benefit: membership.AgainstScams.org
If you need to speak with someone now, you can dial 988 or find phone numbers for crisis hotlines all around the world here: www.opencounseling.com/suicide-hotlines
A Question of Trust
At the SCARS Institute, we invite you to do your own research on the topics we speak about and publish, Our team investigates the subject being discussed, especially when it comes to understanding the scam victims-survivors experience. You can do Google searches but in many cases, you will have to wade through scientific papers and studies. However, remember that biases and perspectives matter and influence the outcome. Regardless, we encourage you to explore these topics as thoroughly as you can for your own awareness.
Statement About Victim Blaming
Some of our articles discuss various aspects of victims. This is both about better understanding victims (the science of victimology) and their behaviors and psychology. This helps us to educate victims/survivors about why these crimes happened and to not blame themselves, better develop recovery programs, and to help victims avoid scams in the future. At times this may sound like blaming the victim, but it does not blame scam victims, we are simply explaining the hows and whys of the experience victims have.
These articles, about the Psychology of Scams or Victim Psychology – meaning that all humans have psychological or cognitive characteristics in common that can either be exploited or work against us – help us all to understand the unique challenges victims face before, during, and after scams, fraud, or cybercrimes. These sometimes talk about some of the vulnerabilities the scammers exploit. Victims rarely have control of them or are even aware of them, until something like a scam happens and then they can learn how their mind works and how to overcome these mechanisms.
Articles like these help victims and others understand these processes and how to help prevent them from being exploited again or to help them recover more easily by understanding their post-scam behaviors. Learn more about the Psychology of Scams at www.ScamPsychology.org
SCARS Resources:
- Getting Started: ScamVictimsSupport.org
- FREE enrollment in the SCARS Institute training programs for scam victims SCARSeducation.org
- For New Victims of Relationship Scams newvictim.AgainstScams.org
- Subscribe to SCARS Newsletter newsletter.againstscams.org
- Sign up for SCARS professional support & recovery groups, visit support.AgainstScams.org
- Find competent trauma counselors or therapists, visit counseling.AgainstScams.org
- Become a SCARS Member and get free counseling benefits, visit membership.AgainstScams.org
- Report each and every crime, learn how to at reporting.AgainstScams.org
- Learn more about Scams & Scammers at RomanceScamsNOW.com and ScamsNOW.com
- Learn more about the Psychology of Scams and Scam Victims: ScamPsychology.org
- Self-Help Books for Scam Victims are at shop.AgainstScams.org
- Worldwide Crisis Hotlines: International Suicide Hotlines – OpenCounseling : OpenCounseling
- Campaign To End Scam Victim Blaming – 2024 (scamsnow.com)
Psychology Disclaimer:
All articles about psychology and the human brain on this website are for information & education only
The information provided in this and other SCARS articles are intended for educational and self-help purposes only and should not be construed as a substitute for professional therapy or counseling.
Note about Mindfulness: Mindfulness practices have the potential to create psychological distress for some individuals. Please consult a mental health professional or experienced meditation instructor for guidance should you encounter difficulties.
While any self-help techniques outlined herein may be beneficial for scam victims seeking to recover from their experience and move towards recovery, it is important to consult with a qualified mental health professional before initiating any course of action. Each individual’s experience and needs are unique, and what works for one person may not be suitable for another.
Additionally, any approach may not be appropriate for individuals with certain pre-existing mental health conditions or trauma histories. It is advisable to seek guidance from a licensed therapist or counselor who can provide personalized support, guidance, and treatment tailored to your specific needs.
If you are experiencing significant distress or emotional difficulties related to a scam or other traumatic event, please consult your doctor or mental health provider for appropriate care and support.
Also read our SCARS Institute Statement about Professional Care for Scam Victims – click here
If you are in crisis, feeling desperate, or in despair please call 988 or your local crisis hotline.
-/ 30 /-
What do you think about this?
Please share your thoughts in a comment below!
Leave a Reply