Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 1;175:106084. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2022.106084

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.

a

Explicit liking responses measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, labelled at either end by ‘not at all’ (0), to ‘very’ (100).

b

Explicit wanting responses measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, labelled at either end by ‘not at all’ (0), to ‘very’ (100).

c

Stationery items did not have labels on them and were presented in the HWL, IAL and no label groups as control stimuli.

d

Cohen's d compared to the no label group.