Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 1;16:3. doi: 10.1186/s12263-021-00683-7

Table 3.

Preferences for genetic-based personalized nutrition by psychological characteristics

Particularly attractive, % Both attractive and not attractive, % Not attractive at all, % χ2 N
Gender
 Male 18.9 (− 3.2) 45.6 (− 0.2) 35.5 (3.1) 14.906** 1000
 Female 27.6 (3.2) 46.1 (0.2) 26.3 (− 3.1)
Age
 18–29 24.9 (0.5) 49.7 (1.1) 25.4 (− 1.6) 42.088*** 999
 30–39 24.8 (0.5) 49.1 (0.9) 26.1 (− 1.4)
 40–49 21.9 (− 0.5) 56.1 (3.2) 21.9 (− 2.9)
 50–59 27.2 (1.2) 44.4 (− 0.4) 28.5 (− 0.6)
 60–69 22.1 (− 0.4) 42.9 (− 0.8) 35.0 (1.3)
 70– 20.1 (− 1.1) 30.8 (− 4.2) 49.1 (5.5)
Education
 Primary school 14.7 (− 2.3) 42.2 (− 0.8) 43.1 (3.0) 32.408*** 999
 Vocational school 19.6 (− 2.4) 48.1 (1.1) 32.3 (1.0)
 High school 25.5 (1.1) 44.5 (− 0.7) 29.9 (− 0.3)
 Higher education 36.8 (3.9) 46.6 (0.2) 16.5 (− 3.8)
Subjective income
 Can live on it very well and can also save 27.3 (0.7) 45.5 (0.0) 27.3 (− 0.7) 22.483** 979
 Can live on it but can save little 28.6 (2.9) 46.4 (0.4) 25.0 (− 3.1)
 Just enough to live on but cannot save 19.7 (− 2.7) 46.8 (0.7) 33.5 (1.7)
 Sometimes cannot make ends meet 20.3 (− 0.7) 35.1 (− 1.9) 44.6 (2.7)
 Have regular financial problems 11.1 (− 0.9) 33.3 (− 0.7) 55.6 (1.6)

Source: Authors’ own compilation. Adjusted standardized residuals are in brackets. **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001