Skip to main content

Table 2 Mean number of correct healthier choices (± SD) in the pair wise comparison task (Task 1)

From: Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: a randomized-controlled study

 

No label

Tick label

Traffic light

GDA

CGDA

Total

Total (1)

20.2 ± 3.2

21.5 ± 2.7

24.8 ± 2.4

22.8 ± 3.2 (a)

23.1 ± 3.1 (a)

22.5 ± 3.3

Sex (2)

      

- Female

20.7 ± 3.3

22.3 ± 2.0

24.7 ± 2.5

23.2 ± 2.7

23.4 ± 2.3

22.8 ± 2.9

- Male

19.5 ± 2.9

20.8 ± 3.1

24.8 ± 2.3

22.3 ± 3.7

22.8 ± 3.7

22.1 ± 3.6

Education (3)

      

- Low

19.0 ± 1.7

21.4 ± 2.9

23.6 ± 1.4

23.3 ± 2.4

21.8 ± 5.0

22.1 ± 3.4

- Middle

20.4 ± 3.3

22.2 ± 2.2

24.5 ± 2.9

22.1 ± 4.0

23.2 ± 2.9

22.5 ± 3.4

- High

20.2 ± 3.2

21.3 ± 2.8

25.1 ± 2.2

23.2 ± 2.5

23.4 ± 2.6

22.6 ± 3.2

Weight group (4)

      

- BMI < 25

20.4 ± 3.4

21.9 ± 2.6

25.0 ± 2.0

23.0 ± 3.0

23.6 ± 2.9

22.8 ± 3.2

- BMI ≥ 25

19.9 ± 2.6

21.0 ± 2.8

24.2 ± 3.0

22.4 ± 3.5

22.2 ± 3.4

21.9 ± 3.4

  1. (1) A one-way ANOVA of experimental conditions (label format) yielded a significant main effect (p < 0.001)
  2. (a) Means were not significantly different in post-hoc t-tests
  3. (2) A two-way ANOVA of label format x sex yielded significant main effects for label format (p < 0.001) and sex (p < 0.01)
  4. (3) A two-way ANOVA of label format x educational level yielded only a significant main effect for label format (p < 0.001).
  5. (4) A two-way ANOVA of label format x weight group yielded significant main effects for label format (p < 0.001) and weight group (p < 0.01)