Table 2.
Proportion of participants who strongly agreed or agreed to the statements evaluating label acceptability (n = 2105)
| GDA (n = 697) | MTL (n = 708) | WL (n = 700) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |
| Liking | |||
| I like this label | 296 (42.5) | 655 (92.5) | 557 (79.6)a |
| I want to see this label on the front of packages | 380 (54.5) | 644 (91.0) | 582 (83.1)a |
| This label will help me choose a healthier product | 328 (47.1) | 636 (89.8) | 585 (83.6)a |
| Attractiveness | |||
| This label does not catch my attention | 446 (64.0) | 145 (20.5) | 228 (32.6)a |
| This label provides me with the information I need | 360 (51.7) | 588 (83.1) | 540 (77.1) |
| This label is easy to identify | 379 (54.4) | 667 (94.2) | 623 (89.0)a |
| This label provides reliable information | 380 (54.5) | 564 (79.7) | 531 (75.9) |
| Perceived cognitive work-load | |||
| This label is too complex to understand | 438 (62.8) | 90 (12.7) | 116 (16.6)a |
| This label takes too long to understand | 431 (61.8) | 77 (10.9) | 112 (16.0)a |
| This label makes me uncomfortable | 351 (50.4) | 61 (8.62) | 107 (15.3)a |
GDA Guideline Daily Allowance, MTL Multiple Traffic Light, WL Warning Labels
Bold numbers indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) with GDA. a: Significant difference (p < 0.05) between MTL and WL
Chi2 was used to test for significant differences between labelling conditions