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)