Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 7;10(2):353. doi: 10.3390/foods10020353

Table 5.

Pairwise comparisons between significant demographic groups for willingness to try.

A-Age B-Education C-Activity Area
Sex 18–30 31–50 >51 P/H/E 1 University Master PhD MeatS 2 Meat W 3 Other S 4 Others 5
Female 3.05 d 3.41 c 3.69 b 3.3 c,d 3.16 d 3.72 b 3.31 c 3.81 a,b 4.16 a 3.31 c 3.18 c
Male 3.08 d 3.87 a 3.89 a 3.41 b 3.47 b 3.91 a 3.62 b,c 3.83ab 3.57 b 3.54 b 3.56 b
D-Income E-Meat consumption
Sex <1 k 1–3 k 3–5 k 5–7 k 8–10 k >10 k Never Rarely Regularly Daily
Female 3.07 d 3.37 c 3.29 c,d 3.69 b 3.50 a,b,c 3.72 a,b 2.26 e 3.02 d 3.22 c 3.68 b
Male 3.12 d 3.59 b,c 3.81 a,b 3.90 a 3.81 a,b 3.55 b 1.86 e 3.20 c 3.55 b 3.84 a
F-Education G-Meat consumption
Age P/H/E University Master PhD Never Rarely Regularly Daily
18–30 3.04 e 2.99 e 3.35 c,d 3.39 c,d 2.54 e,f 2.95 e 3.09 d,e 3.15 d
31–50 3.4 d 3.66 c 3.92 b 3.42 c,d 2.04 f 3.09 d,e 3.56 c 4 b
>51 3.39 d 3.86 b 4.15 a 3.88 a,b,c 1.72 f,g 3.33 c 3.83 b 4.16 a

1 P/H/E: primary school/high school/engineering school; 2 Meat S: meat scientist; 3 Meat W: meat worker; 4 Other S: scientist work outside meat sector; 5 Others: people not scientist and outside the meat sector; Based on estimated marginal means; a–e: different letters in the same section indicate means with significant statistical differences at the 0.05 level; To correct for multiple testing, a Bonferroni-adjustment was used.