1) A study assessed the impact of calorie labels on menus on food choices and intake, finding that labels led to fewer calories ordered and consumed, and adding a recommended daily calorie amount increased this effect. 2) A follow up study examined whether the effect varied by nutrition knowledge, hypothesizing high knowledge individuals would be less influenced by calorie labels. It found low knowledge consumers had a larger absolute difference between calories ordered and estimated, perceived menus as less healthy, and were less likely to visit compared to high knowledge consumers. 3) Limitations included not tracking actual behavior and potential inattention from online participants.

1. S
Why do people still make
unhealthy choice even when they
have nutrition facts on fast food
menus?
Presenter :Yuefeng Pan
Mentor: Catherine A. Cole
Tippie Research Fair
Januray, 27th,2015

2. Study 1
As reported by Dr. Christina A.
Roberto and her colleagues
S Objective: Assessed the impact of restaurant menu calorie labels on food
choices and intake
S Three Conditions:
S A menu without calorie labels (no calorie labels)
S A menu with calorie labels (calorie labels)
S A menu with calorie labels and a label stating the recommended daily caloric
intake for an average adult (calorie labels plus information).
2

3. Study 1
As reported by Dr. Christina A.
Roberto and her colleagues
S Procedure
S 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.
3
Three Version of menus: No calorie label, Calorie
label and Calorie label plus information
DVs:
1) Total calories ordered
2) Total calories consumed
3) Total postdinner calories
4) Dinner plus postdiner calories
5) Difference in estimated and actual calories
consumed
Dietary Recall
Interview the next
day.
Self-Reported
demographic
information by
participants

4. Study 1
As reported by Dr. Christina A.
Roberto and her colleagues
4
2189.37
1862.23 1859.7
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
No Calorie Label Calorie Label Only Calorie Label Plus Information
Total calories ordered
Total calories ordered
Poly. (Total calories ordered)

5. Results
S 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
S 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).
5

6. Study 2
S Hypothesis: High knowledge people will not be as
influenced by calorie information on menus as low
knowledge people.
6

7. Study 2
S DV:
1. Total Calories Ordered
2. Perceived Healthiness
3. Error between perceived calorie consumption and actual calorie consumption
S IVs:
1. Different version of menus
2. Different nutrition knowledge level

8. Study 2 Method
S Amazon Mechanical Turks
S 277 total – 42 pretest= 235 valid
S Number of eliminated:
S (1)Who have not finished the survey: 18 subjects
S (2)Who finished the survey within 3min(mean=382.91s,
SD=182.71s): 14 subjects
S (3)Who doesn’t meet the screening criteria 58 subjects
Final subjects: 145
8

9. Independent Variable
S 1. Two versions of menu
Menu with Calorie info
Menu without Calorie info
S 2. Nutrition Knowledge(Nutrition Grade)
High knowledge
Low knowledge

10. Independent Variable 1
S Different Version of Fast Food Menu:
S V1: Menu with Calorie Information
S V2: Menu without Calorie Information
10

11. Nostalgic Ad
11
Calories Ad

12. Control Ad
Control Ad

13. Independent Variable 2
13
Nutrition Grade for the quiz: 14 questions in total, get 1
point when answer is right

14. Grades Distribution Table
14

15. Grades Distribution Graph
15
Use 8 point as cut up points:
Group 1(Low Knowledge):
Grades ≦ 8
Group 2(High Knowledge):
Grades > 8

16. Dependent Variable 1
S Which Sandwich Would You Choose? (Actual Calories
Consumption):
Cheese Burger 330 Cal
Hamburger 280 Cal
Fish Filet 470 Cal
Crispy Chicken 550 Cal
Grilled Chicken 450 Cal
Double Quarter Pounder 760 Cal
16
DV1: Actual number of Calorie

17. Dependent Variable 2
S Absolute Error: Absolute value between perceptual
calorie consumption and actual calorie consumption
17
DV2: AbsoluteDifferece=|Actual Calorie - Perceived Calorie|

18. Dependent Variable 3
S Perceived Healthiness
18
DV3: Healthy M=average of the above items

19. Dependent Variable 4
19
S Likelihood of visiting
S DV4: LikelyhoodVisiting

20. Next page is…
S When 0-8 belongs to low knowledge group 1
S When 9-13 belongs to high knowledge group 2
20

21. Results 1---Calories Ordered
21

22. Result 2---Absolute Difference between the calories
ordered and the estimated calories
22

23. Absolute Difference
23
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
24

25. Perceived healthiness of the menu
25
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
26

27. Likelihood Visit
27
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
28

29. Summary
S Low knowledge consumers High Knowledge
consumers
-Absolute Difference
-Perceived healthiness
-Visiting
29

30. Limitations
S We didn’t track their actual behavior
S We tried to eliminate the people who didn’t pay attention,
but there’s no guarantee Mturks
30

31. Next page is…
S When 0-9 belongs to low knowledge group 1
S When 10-13 belongs to high knowledge group 2
31

32. Results 1---Calories Ordered
32

33. Result 2---Absolute Difference between the calories
ordered and the estimated calories
33

34. Absolute Difference
34
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
35

36. Perceived healthiness of the menu
36
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
37

38. Likelihood Visit
38
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