Skip to main content

Table 2 Effects of warning label type consumer reactions and intentions

From: Testing front-of-package warnings to discourage red meat consumption: a randomized experiment with US meat consumers

 

Health Mean (SE)

Diff.

Environment Mean (SE)

Diff.

Combined Mean (SE)

Diff.

Perceived Message Effectiveness (n = 1,234)

2.84 (1.25)

A

2.61 (1.21)

B

2.91 (1.26)

A

Believability (n = 1,235)

3.08 (1.21)

AB

2.93 (1.24)

B

3.10 (1.19)

A

Negative emotions (n = 1,212)

2.43 (1.28)

A

2.24 (1.19)

B

2.49 (1.26)

A

Perceived risk

 Carbon footprint (n = 1,235)

3.05 (1.25)

A

3.06 (1.26)

A

3.27 (1.19)

B

 Environment (n = 1,235)

3.07 (1.24)

AB

2.94 (1.27)

A

3.22 (1.21)

B

 Early death (n = 1,234)

3.31 (1.22)

A

3.04 (1.14)

B

3.30 (1.21)

A

 Colon and rectal cancer (n = 1,235)

3.33 (1.21)

A

3.03 (1.17)

B

3.36 (1.14)

A

Grabs attention (n = 1,235)

3.54 (1.21)

A

3.32 (1.17)

B

3.32 (1.21)

B

Intentions to reduce (n = 1,234)

2.85 (1.39)

A

2.79 (1.36)

A

2.91 (1.32)

A

 

%

Diff.

%

Diff.

%

Diff.

Learned something new (n = 1,235)

52

AB

46

A

58

B

  1. Note. Learning something new was a binary Yes/No outcome. Percents presented are % that responded “yes” to learning something new. All other outcomes were measured on a 5 point scale. Intentions to reduce was measured as (1=Definitely not...5 Definitely). The other outcomes were measured on a scale of 1=Not at all...5=A great deal)
  2. SE standard error, Diff Within each row, conditions sharing a letter are not significantly different from each other at p<0.05