Table 1. Sociodemographic information for front-of-package nutrition label Internet study sample^a.

Characteristic	M (+SD) or n (col. %)	df	Test statistic	p-valueb
Age (years, M [SD])	43.4 (15.9)	5;1193	0.26	0.935
BMI (M [SD])	29.1 (8.1)	5;1153	1.23	0.294
Normal weight (<25)	412 (35.5%)	5	3.87	0.569
Overweight/obese (>25)	747 (64.5%)
Genderc
Female	673 (54.0%)	5	26.15	<0.001
Race/Ethnicity		15	24.57	0.056
White, non-Hispanic	870 (70.0%)
Black, non-Hispanic	158 (12.7%)
Hispanic	106 (8.5%)
Other	108 (8.7%)
Education level		20	22.60	0.309
<High school	113 (9.1%)
High school or GED	497 (40.1%)
Some college, associate's	287 (23.1%)
degree, trade school
Bachelor's degree	227 (18.3%)
Graduate/professional degree	117 (9.4%)
Income		25	16.25	0.907
<$15,000	172 (13.9%)
$15,000-$30,000	256 (20.6%)
$30,001-$45,000	194 (15.6%)
$45,001-$60,000	200 (16.1%)
$60,001-$75,000	139 (11.2%)
$75,000+	279 (22.5%)
Married		5	1.23	0.942
Yes	540 (43.5%)
Currently trying to lose weight		5	2.38	0.794
Yes	639 (51.2%)
No	608 (48.8%)
How much nutrition labels generally influence food/drink choicesd (M [SD])	6.0 (2.5)	5;1241	0.78	0.566

Internet survey of 1,247 adults, conducted June-July 2013.

^aTable values are M+SD for continuous variables and n (column %) for categorical variables. Percentages are calculated based on the total number of participants providing data for each variable.

^bTest statistics and p-values are for univariate ANOVAs (continuous variables) or chi-squared tests (categorical variables) comparing the six front-of-package study conditions.

^cPercent female, by study condition: No Label (47.4%); Single Traffic Light (55.0%); Multiple Traffic Light (61.3%); NuVal (63.4%); Facts Up Front (46.2%); NAM 3-Star Label (46.0%)

^dMeasured on a 9-point Likert scale, 1=do not influence, 9=strongly influence

df = degrees of freedom