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