S

Why do people still make unhealthy choice even when they have

nutrition facts on fast food menus?

Presenter :Yuefeng PanMentor: Catherine A. Cole

Tippie Research Fair Januray, 27th,2015

2

Study 1As reported by Dr. Christina

A. Roberto and her colleagues

Objective: Assessed the impact of restaurant menu calorie labels on food choices and intake

Three Conditions: A menu without calorie labels (no calorie labels) A menu with calorie labels (calorie labels) A menu with calorie labels and a label stating the recommended

daily caloric intake for an average adult (calorie labels plus information).

3

Study 1As reported by Dr. Christina

A. Roberto and her colleagues Procedure

Participants were 303 members of the New Haven, Connecticut, community recruited be- tween August 2007 and August 2008 via flyers, word of mouth, newspaper advertisements, and craigslist.com postings. The only exclusion criterion was age younger than 18 years. All participants provided written informed consent.

Three Version of menus: No calorie label, Calorie label and Calorie label plus information

DVs:1) Total calories ordered2) Total calories consumed3) Total postdinner calories4) Dinner plus postdiner calories5) Difference in estimated and actual calories

consumed

Dietary Recall Interview the next day.

Self-Reported demographic information by participants

4

Study 1As reported by Dr. Christina

A. Roberto and her colleagues

No Calo

rie La

bel

Calor

ie Lab

el Only

Calor

ie Lab

el Plus

Inform

ation

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500 2189.371862.23 1859.7

Total calories ordered

Total calories orderedPolynomial (Total calories ordered)

5

Results

Conclusion: Calorie labels on restaurant menus impacted food choices and intake; adding a recommended daily caloric requirement label increased this effect, suggesting menu label legislation should require such a label

In Study 2: We want to incorporate nutrition knowledge—our hypothesis is that whether the effect observed in study 1 will be stronger for high knowledge consumers).

6

Study 2

Hypothesis: High knowledge people will not be as influenced by calorie information on menus as low knowledge people.

Study 2 DV:

1. Total Calories Ordered

2. Perceived Healthiness

3. Error between perceived calorie consumption and actual calorie consumption

IVs:

1. Different version of menus

2. Different nutrition knowledge level

8

Study 2 Method

Amazon Mechanical Turks 277 total – 42 pretest= 235 valid Number of eliminated: (1)Who have not finished the survey: 18 subjects (2)Who finished the survey within 3min(mean=382.91s,

SD=182.71s): 14 subjects (3)Who doesn’t meet the screening criteria 58 subjectsFinal subjects: 145

Independent Variable

1. Two versions of menu

Menu with Calorie info

Menu without Calorie info

2. Nutrition Knowledge(Nutrition Grade)

High knowledge

Low knowledge

10

Independent Variable 1

Different Version of Fast Food Menu: V1: Menu with Calorie Information V2: Menu without Calorie Information

11

Nostalgic Ad

Calories Ad

Control Ad

Control Ad

13

Independent Variable 2

Nutrition Grade for the quiz: 14 questions in total, get 1 point when answer is right

14

Grades Distribution Table

15

Grades Distribution Graph

Use 8 point as cut up points:

Group 1(Low Knowledge): Grades ≦ 8

Group 2(High Knowledge): Grades > 8

16

Dependent Variable 1

Which Sandwich Would You Choose? (Actual Calories Consumption):

Cheese Burger 330 Cal Hamburger 280 CalFish Filet 470 CalCrispy Chicken 550 CalGrilled Chicken 450 CalDouble Quarter Pounder 760 CalDV1: Actual number of Calorie

17

Dependent Variable 2

Absolute Error: Absolute value between perceptual calorie consumption and actual calorie consumption

DV2: AbsoluteDifferece=|Actual Calorie - Perceived Calorie|

18

Dependent Variable 3

Perceived Healthiness

DV3: Healthy M=average of the above items

19

Dependent Variable 4

Likelihood of visiting

DV4: LikelyhoodVisiting

20

Next page is…

When 0-8 belongs to low knowledge group 1 When 9-13 belongs to high knowledge group 2

21

Results 1---Calories Ordered

22

Result 2---Absolute Difference between the calories ordered and the estimated calories

23

Absolute Difference

NewMenu=0, P<0.138, t=1.498

NewMenu=1, P<0.367, t=0.909

Group=1, P<0.016, t=2.481

Group=2, P<0.000, t=4.445

24

Result 3---perceived healthiness of the restaurant

25

Perceived healthiness of the menu

NewMenu=0, P<0.044, t=2.044

NewMenu=1, P<0.035, t=-2.157

Group=1, P<0.012, t=2.585

Group=2, P<0.091, t=-1.708

26

Result 4---Likelihood of visit

27

Likelihood Visit

NewMenu=0, P<0.097, t=1.679

NewMenu=1, P<0.071, t=-1.835

Group=1, P<0.072, t=1.837

Group=2, P<0.09, t=-1.716

28

Conclusion

29

Summary

Low knowledge consumers High Knowledge consumers

-Absolute Difference-Perceived healthiness-Visiting

30

Limitations

We didn’t track their actual behavior We tried to eliminate the people who didn’t pay

attention, but there’s no guarantee Mturks

31

Next page is…

When 0-9 belongs to low knowledge group 1 When 10-13 belongs to high knowledge group 2

32

Results 1---Calories Ordered

33

Result 2---Absolute Difference between the calories ordered and the estimated calories

34

Absolute Difference

NewMenu=0, P<0.068, t=1.851

NewMenu=1, P<0.839, t=-0.204

Group=1, P<0.000, t=3.818

Group=2, P<0.007, t=2.785

35

Result 3---perceived healthiness of the restaurant

36

Perceived healthiness of the menu

NewMenu=0, P<0.105, t=1.640

NewMenu=1, P<0.023, t=-2.329

Group=1, P<0.055, t=1.945

Group=2, P<0.049, t=-2.013

37

Result 4---Likelihood of visit

38

Likelihood Visit

NewMenu=0, P<0.395, t=0.856

NewMenu=1, P<0.132, t=-1.526

Group=1, P<0.376, t=0.890

Group=2, P<0.154, t=-1.448