Table 2.
Study 2: Primary and continuous secondary outcomes between study groups.
Raw mean (SD) | Estimated MD compared to no label (95% CI) | Pairwise p value (compared to no label) | Cohens (95% CI) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Implicit motivation score (ms) for chocolate bars – Manikin task | |||||
IAL (n = 447) | 49.5 (123.5) | −30.5 (−47.5, −13.5) | <0.001 | −0.23 (−0.36, −0.10)d | |
HWL(n = 453) | 37.9 (145.8) | −42.0 (−59.0, −25.1) | <0.001 | −0.32 (−0.45, −0.19)d | |
No label (n = 470) | 80.9 (122.5) | - | - | 0.14 (0.08, 0.19)^ | |
HWL/IAL combined (n = 900) | 43.7 (135.2) | −36.3 (−51.0, −21.7) | <0.001 | −0.28 (−0.39, −0.16)d | |
Rate of commission errors for chocolate bars - GNG task | |||||
IAL (n = 454) | 0.19 (0.23) | −0.04 (−0.1, −0.01) | 0.009 | −0.17 (−0.30, −0.04)d | |
HWL(n = 455) | 0.18 (0.20) | −0.05 (−0.1, −0.02) | 0.001 | −0.29 (−0.35, −0.09)d | |
No label (n = 470) | 0.23 (0.22) | - | - | 0.10 (0.04, 0.14)^ | |
HWL/IAL combined (n = 909) | 0.19 (0.21) | −0.04 (−0.1, −0.02) | <0.001 | −0.20 (−0.31, −0.08) | |
Rate of omission errors for chocolate bars - GNG task | |||||
IAL (n = 454) | 0.03 (0.14) | 0.01 (−0.01, 0.03) | 0.244 | 0.08 (0.05, 0.21)d | |
HWL(n = 455) | 0.02 (0.10) | −0.003 (−0.02, 0.01) | 0.692 | −0.03 (−0.15, 0.10)d | |
No label (n = 470) | 0.02 (0.12) | - | - | 0.04 (0.00, 0.09)^ | |
HWL/IAL combined (n = 909) | 0.03 (0.12) | 0.003 (−0.01, 0.02) | 0.656 | 0.03 (0.09, 0.14)d | |
Reaction time (ms) for chocolate bars - GNG task | |||||
IAL (n = 454) | 451.8 (77.6) | 5.1 (−4.6, 14.8) | 0.299 | 0.07 (0.06, 0.20)d | |
HWL (n = 455) | 454.7 (73.7) | 8.5 (−1.2, 18.2) | 0.084 | 0.11 (0.02, 0.24)d | |
No label (n = 470) | 446.5 (73.8) | - | - | 0.05 (0.04, 0.16)^ | |
HWL/IAL combined (n = 909) | 453.2 (76.6) | 6.8 (−1.5, 15.2) | 0.109 | 0.09 (0.02, 0.20)d | |
Explicit likinga | |||||
IAL (n = 454) | 56.7 (23.4) | −8.0 (−10.0, −6.0) | <0.001 | −0.51 (−0.64, −038)d | |
HWL (n = 457) | 57.3 (23.3) | −8.9 (−10.9, −6.9) | <0.001 | −0.57 (−0.70, −0.44)d | |
No label (n = 471) | 64.2 (19.0) | - | - | 0.26 (0.20, 0.31)^ | |
HWL/IAL combined (n = 911) | 57.0 (23.3) | −8.4 (−10.2, −6.7) | <0.001 | −0.54 (−0.65, −0.43)d | |
Explicit wantingb | |||||
IAL (n = 454) | 34.5 (27.3) | −8.4 (−10.7, −6.2) | <0.001 | −0.48 (−0.61, −0.35)d | |
HWL (n = 457) | 30.7 (27.0) | −12.2 (−14.5, −9.9) | <0.001 | −0.69 (−0.82, −0.56)d | |
No label (n = 471) | 42.2 (27.5) | - | - | 0.29 (0.23, 0.34)^ | |
HWL/IAL combined (n = 911) | 32.6 (27.2) | −10.3 (−12.3, −8.4) | <0.001 | −0.58 (−0.69, −0.47)d | |
Implicit motivation score (ms) for stationery – manikin taskc | |||||
IAL (n = 447) | 19.8 (120.9) | 21.2 (4.9, 37.5) | 0.011 | 0.17 (0.04, 0.30)d | |
HWL (n = 453) | 13.0 (140.8) | 14.4 (−1.8, 30.7) | 0.082 | 0.11 (0.01, 0.24)d | |
No label (n = 470) | −0.7 (113.8) | - | - | 0.07 (0.00, 0.12)^ | |
HWL/IAL combined (n = 900) | 16.4 (124.7) | 17.8 (3.8, 31.8) | 0.013 | 0.41 (0.29, 0.52) |
Milliseconds (ms). Irrelevant Aversive labels (IAL). Health Warning Label (HWL). Confidence interval (CI). Standard deviation (SD). difference (MD). Confidence interval (CI). Go/no-go (GNG). Milliseconds (ms).
N.B. 12 participants had missing data for the manikin task and 3 participants had missing data for the go/no-go task, all other analysis is complete.
^ Cohen's f between all three groups.
Explicit liking responses measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, labelled at either end by ‘not at all’ (0), to ‘very’ (100).
Explicit wanting responses measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, labelled at either end by ‘not at all’ (0), to ‘very’ (100).
Stationery items did not have labels on them and were presented in the HWL, IAL and no label groups as control stimuli.
Cohen's d compared to the no label group.