↓ Skip to main content

Reds are more important than greens: how UK supermarket shoppers use the different information on a traffic light nutrition label in a choice experiment

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
27 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
282 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Reds are more important than greens: how UK supermarket shoppers use the different information on a traffic light nutrition label in a choice experiment
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12966-015-0319-9
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Colour coded front-of-pack nutrition labelling ('traffic light labelling') has been recommended for use in the UK since 2006. The voluntary scheme is used by all the major retailers and some manufacturers. It is not clear how consumers use these labels to make a single decision about the relative healthiness of foods. Our research questions were: Which of the four nutrients on UK traffic light labels (total fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt) has the most influence on decisions? Do green lights or red lights have a greater influence? Are there age and gender differences in how people use the colour and nutrient information? We recruited participants from a UK supermarket chain membership list to conduct an online choice experiment in May 2014. We analysed data using multilevel logisitic models with food choices (n = 3321) nested in individuals (n = 187) as the unit of analysis. A food with more reds was 11.4 (95 % confidence intervals: 10.3, 12.5) times less likely to be chosen as healthy, whereas a food with more greens was 6.1 (5.6, 6.6) times more likely to be chosen as healthy. Foods with better colours on saturated fat and salt were 7.3 (6.7, 8.0) and 7.1 (6.5, 7.8) times more likely to be chosen as healthy - significantly greater than for total fat (odds ratio 4.8 (4.4, 5.3)) and sugar (5.2 (4.7, 5.6)). Results were broadly similar for different genders and age groups. We found that participants were more concerned with avoiding reds than choosing greens, and that saturated fat and salt had a greater influence on decisions regarding healthiness than total fat and sugar. This could influence decisions about food reformulation and guidance on using nutrition labelling.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 282 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Ecuador 1 <1%
Unknown 281 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 67 24%
Student > Bachelor 27 10%
Researcher 24 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 5%
Other 37 13%
Unknown 93 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 8%
Psychology 19 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 5%
Other 55 20%
Unknown 109 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,717,730
of 34,302,672 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#495
of 2,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,364
of 443,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#7
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,302,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 443,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.