Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Prev Med. 2020 Jan 23;132:105998. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.105998

Table 2.

Effects of “100% Vitamin C” claim, fruit image, and health warning on perceived product healthfulness and consumption interest, in Study 1 (n=2,149), Study 2 (n=670), Study 3 (n=1,006), and overall (n=3,825)

Perceived product healthfulness Consumption interest
ADE SE p ADE SE p
“100% Vitamin C” claim
 Study 1 .75 .08 <.001 .49 .09 <.001
 Study 2 .72 .14 <.001 .43 .16 .006
 Study 3 .51 .10 <.001 .21 .12 .09
 Average .66 .11 <.001 .38 .13 .001
Fruit image
 Study 1 −.03 .08 .67 −.10 .09 .27
 Study 2 −.15 .14 .29 −.22 .16 .16
 Study 3 .26 .10 .014 .21 .12 .09
 Average .03 .11 .81 −.04 .13 .77
Health warning
 Study 1 −.94 .08 <.001 −.60 .09 <.001
 Study 2 −.57 .14 <.001 −.53 .16 .001
 Study 3 −.44 .10 <.001 −.35 .12  .005
 Average −.65 .11 <.001 −.49 .13 <.001

Note. ADE=average differential effect from linear regression models. SE=standard error. Bold indicates statistically significant findings at p<.05 level.