Skip to main content

Table 2 Linear regression of the perceived risk of wine and vodka consumption

From: How health warning labels on wine and vodka bottles influence perceived risk, rejection, and acceptance

 

Wine (n = 255)

Vodka (n = 250)

 

Unstandardized B

[95% CI]

SE (B)

Beta

t

Unstandardized B

[95% CI]

SE (B)

Beta

t

Constant

56.28 [28.04, 84.52]

14.34

 

3.92**

75.00 [46.94, 103.06]

14.25

 

5.26**

Health warning label (HWL) group b

0.48 [-4.06, 5.03]

2.31

0.01

0.21

0.44 [-3.88, 4.75]

2.19

0.01

0.20

Social norms a

-1.29 [-3.31, 0.74]

1.03

-0.09

-1.25

-2.81 [-5.68, 0.06]

1.46

-0.16

-1.93

Positive health effects a

-6.04 [-8.11, -3.96]

1.05

-0.39

-5.72**

-4.97 [-7.52, -2.42]

1.29

-0.30

-3.84**

Benefits of drinking alcohol

1.67 [-0.03, 3.36]

0.86

0.12

1.94

1.27 [-0.62, 3.15]

0.96

0.09

1.32

Alcohol consumption a

-0.08 [-0.25, 0.10]

0.09

-0.05

-0.88

-0.11 [-0.49, 0.27]

0.19

-0.04

-0.57

Gender c

3.58 [-1.06, 8.23]

2.36

0.09

1.52

3.74 [-0.77, 8.24]

2.29

0.10

1.63

Age

-0.04 [-0.19, 0.12]

0.08

-0.03

-0.47

-0.12 [-0.27, 0.03]

0.08

-0.10

-1.62

Education

0.71 [-1.72, 3.14]

1.23

0.03

0.58

-1.00 [-3.36, 1.36]

1.20

-0.05

-0.83

  1. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01
  2. a These variables were beverage-specific. For example, social norms referred to social norms about drinking wine for the wine groups and social norms about drinking vodka in the vodka groups
  3. b Dummy-coded HWL group: 0 = no HWL, 1 = with an HWL
  4. c Dummy-coded gender: 0 = male, 1 = female