Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| P30AG034532 | U.S. NIH Grant/Contract | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| University of California, Berkeley | OTHER |
| National Institute on Aging (NIA) | NIH |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
We will study the extent to which soft drink information labels -- designed to curb unhealthy consumption -- are well-targeted to the most biased consumers.The study team will deploy novel methods for evaluating the targeting properties of information labels via an incentive-compatible online shopping experiment. At a high-level, we will ask whether the treatment effects of the information labels are concentrated on individuals with the biggest self-control problems and with the least knowledge of nutrition. We will first use the methodology from Allcott et al. (2019) to estimate the internality for each participant. We will then have participants make shopping decisions for soft drinks, first absent any information labels and then, for those not in the control group, in the presence of an information label. The within-subject design of the soft drinks experiment will allow us to estimate how the effects of the labels covary with consumers' internalities, and thus to determine whether the labels are well-targeted.
We will use online ads to recruit people who are shopping online for soda, and direct them to a two-stage online Qualtrics experiment. In the first stage (Part I), we will elicit subjects' nutritional literacy and self-control for resisting sugary drinks, following the methodology of Allcott et al. (2019). Allcott et al. (2019) show that these two measures explain 31% of sugary drinks consumption in a nationally-representative sample of approximately 20,000 households, after controlling for detailed demographic information and elicitations of "tastes" for various types of drinks. Additionally, Allcott et al. (2019) demonstrate how these measures can be used to provide an estimate of over-consumption of sugary drinks at the individual level. Consequently, the first stage allows us to obtain estimates of the internality.
A week later, we will recruit participants in the first stage to participate in the second stage of the experiment (Part II). We create a time delay to minimize the potential effect of the first-stage questions on the second-stage choices. In the second stage, we will first ask participants to select their three favorite sugary drinks from a list. We will then ask participants to make an initial set of choices between those drinks and sugar-free alternatives (e.g., Seagram's Ginger Ale versus 365 Ginger) at various relative prices. Specifically, we will elicit their willingness to pay using a multiple price list, as is standard in the behavioral economics literature, where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. Choices will be incentive-compatible: for each consumer we will honor their choice in a randomly selected decision (i.e., we will purchase the chosen package of soft drinks for them plus award them any additional money associated with that choice).
Following an initial set of choices, we will ask subjects to choose again. In this second set of choices, we will randomize whether participants see the soft drink options paired with an information label. We will also randomize the types of labels, including: (i) an inflated nutrition label that draws attention to the differences in calories and sugar content, (ii) the stoplight warning label developed by Grummon, Hall, et al. (2019), and (iii) a graphic warning label developed by Donnelly et al. (2018). The control group will instead make the same choices without seeing any label. Leveraging the within-subject nature of design, we will then estimate how well-targeted each information label is by estimating how the subjects' internalities covary with their changes in the prices at which they are willing to buy soft drinks after seeing the information label.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | No Intervention | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are not presented with nutrition or warning labels when choosing between beverages. | |
| Nutrition Labels Arm | Experimental | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown enlarged nutrition labels when choosing between beverages. |
|
| Text Warning Labels Arm | Experimental | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. |
|
| Graphic Warning Labels Arm | Experimental | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a graphic warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. The message, for example, could include photos of tooth decay and other negative health outcomes. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nutrition Facts | Other | The nutritional information label for each beverage is enlarged. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative | How much consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative. | 1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment) |
| Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative, Among Adults Aged 65+ | How much older adult consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative. | 1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment) |
Not provided
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative, by Subgroups | How much different groups of consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative. |
Inclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Dmitry Taubinsky, PhD | UC Berkeley and NBER | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of California, Berkeley | Berkeley | California | 94720 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Background | Allcott H, Lockwood BB, Taubinsky D. Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2019; 134(3). | ||
| 30772370 | Background | Grummon AH, Hall MG, Taillie LS, Brewer NT. How should sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings be designed? A randomized experiment. Prev Med. 2019 Apr;121:158-166. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.010. Epub 2019 Feb 14. | |
| 29912624 |
Not provided
Not provided
De-identified IPD will be posted to ClinicalTrials.gov and Open Science Framework within 12 months of the primary completion date or the resulting paper's online publication date, whichever comes first.
Within 12 months of the primary completion date or the resulting paper's online publication date, whichever comes first.
Replication data and code are available via Dropbox. Use the URL provided below, or navigate to the project by searching for "When Do 'Nudges' Increase Welfare?" at allcott.stanford.edu/research/.
This was a two-stage study. In Stage 1, participants completed a baseline survey about their demographic characteristics, consumer bias, self control, and nutrition knowledge. Randomization occurred in Stage 2, in which participants' willingness to pay for sugary drink was measured.
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Stage 1 - All Enrolled Participants | Baseline survey about demographic characteristics, consumer bias, self control, and nutrition knowledge |
| FG001 | Control Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are not presented with nutrition or warning labels when choosing between beverages. |
| FG002 | Graphic Warning Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a graphic warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. The message, for example, could include photos of tooth decay and other negative health outcomes. Graphic Warning: The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using a combination of words/text and graphic images/photographs. |
| FG003 | Nutrition Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown enlarged nutrition labels when choosing between beverages. Nutrition Facts: The nutritional information label for each beverage is enlarged. |
| FG004 | Text Warning Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. Text Warning: The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using words/text and simple images. |
| FG005 | Stage 2 - Not Randomized | Subjects began Part II of the experiment, but did not reach the point of randomization. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Stage 2 |
|
Includes all participations who completed the Stage 1 survey.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Control Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are not presented with nutrition or warning labels when choosing between beverages. |
| BG001 | Graphic Warning Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a graphic warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. The message, for example, could include photos of tooth decay and other negative health outcomes. Graphic Warning: The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using a combination of words/text and graphic images/photographs. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical | Count of Participants |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative | How much consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Dollars per 12-pack of soda | 1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment) |
|
From enrollment of first participant (October 18, 2021) to completion of final participant (December 22, 2021), roughly 2 months
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Stage 1 - Non-Randomized | Subjects did not reach Part II of the experiment, and therefore did not reach the point of randomization. This includes subjects who completed Part I but never started Part II and subjects who started Part I but never finished it. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sarah Holmes Berk | NBER | 617-588-1445 | sholmes@nber.org |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot | Yes | No | No | Study Protocol | Aug 17, 2021 | Dec 8, 2022 | Prot_000.pdf |
| SAP | No | Yes | No | Statistical Analysis Plan | Apr 1, 2021 | Dec 8, 2022 | SAP_001.pdf |
| ICF | No | No | Yes | Informed Consent Form | Aug 17, 2021 | Dec 8, 2022 | ICF_002.pdf |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Text Warning | Other | The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using words/text and simple images. |
|
|
| Graphic Warning | Other | The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using a combination of words/text and graphic images/photographs. |
|
| 1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment) |
| Background |
| Donnelly GE, Zatz LY, Svirsky D, John LK. The Effect of Graphic Warnings on Sugary-Drink Purchasing. Psychol Sci. 2018 Aug;29(8):1321-1333. doi: 10.1177/0956797618766361. Epub 2018 Jun 18. |
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
| BG002 | Nutrition Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown enlarged nutrition labels when choosing between beverages. Nutrition Facts: The nutritional information label for each beverage is enlarged. |
| BG003 | Text Warning Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. Text Warning: The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using words/text and simple images. |
| BG004 | Non-Randomized | Subjects did not reach Part II and were therefore not randomized. |
| BG005 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Participants |
|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Includes respondents who answered Female or Male to question about gender | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Bias | Survey-based estimate of consumer bias, the amount by which consumers over-estimate their utility from consuming sugary drinks | Mean | Standard Deviation | Dollars per 12-pack of soda |
|
| Self-Control | Survey-based estimate of self-control. Participants were asked to respond to the statement "I drink soda pop or other sugar-sweetened beverages more often than I should," with possible responses of "Definitely," "Mostly," "Somewhat," and "Not at all." These answers were coded as 0, 1/3, 2/3, and 1, respectively. | Mean | Standard Deviation | units on a scale |
|
| Nutrition Knowledge | Participants were asked to answer 28 questions from the General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire (GNKQ), a widely used nutrition-knowledge elicitation device in the public health literature. Each participant's nutrition knowledge score was then estimated as the proportion of correct answers among the 28. Hence higher values represent greater nutrition knowledge. | Mean | Standard Deviation | Proportion of correct answers |
|
| OG001 | Graphic Warning Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a graphic warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. The message, for example, could include photos of tooth decay and other negative health outcomes. Graphic Warning: The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using a combination of words/text and graphic images/photographs. |
| OG002 | Nutrition Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown enlarged nutrition labels when choosing between beverages. Nutrition Facts: The nutritional information label for each beverage is enlarged. |
| OG003 | Text Warning Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. Text Warning: The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using words/text and simple images. |
|
|
|
| Primary | Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative, Among Adults Aged 65+ | How much older adult consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Dollars per 12-pack of soda | 1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment) |
|
|
|
|
| Other Pre-specified | Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative, by Subgroups | How much different groups of consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative. | We report on gender, race, and ethnicity subgroups. Because each row represents one such subgroup, the number analyzed is by definition smaller than the overall number analyzed. For example, there are 667 participants in the Control Arm, but only 316 of these identified as Male. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Dollars per 12-pack of soda | 1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment) |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 1,203 |
| 0 |
| 1,203 |
| 0 |
| 1,203 |
| EG001 | Control Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are not presented with nutrition or warning labels when choosing between beverages. | 0 | 696 | 0 | 696 | 0 | 696 |
| EG002 | Graphic Warning Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a graphic warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. The message, for example, could include photos of tooth decay and other negative health outcomes. Graphic Warning: The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using a combination of words/text and graphic images/photographs. | 0 | 683 | 0 | 683 | 0 | 683 |
| EG003 | Nutrition Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown enlarged nutrition labels when choosing between beverages. Nutrition Facts: The nutritional information label for each beverage is enlarged. | 0 | 668 | 0 | 668 | 0 | 668 |
| EG004 | Text Warning Labels Arm | In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. Text Warning: The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using words/text and simple images. | 0 | 683 | 0 | 683 | 0 | 683 |
| EG005 | Stage 2 - Non-Randomized | Subjects began Part II of the experiment, but did not reach the point of randomization. | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 |
Not provided
Not provided
| Between 18 and 65 years |
|
| >=65 years |
|
| Male |
|
| Not Hispanic or Latino |
|
| Unknown or Not Reported |
|
| Asian |
|
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
|
| Black or African American |
|
| White |
|
| More than one race |
|
| Unknown or Not Reported |
|
| Treatment Effect |
| -0.61 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -0.87 |
| -0.35 |
| Superiority |
| Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.25 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.48 | -0.17 | Superiority |
|
| Gender: Male |
|
|
| Race: American Indian or Alaska Native |
|
|
| Race: Asian |
|
|
| Race: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander |
|
|
| Race: Black or African American |
|
|
| Race: White |
|
|
| Race: More Than One Race |
|
|
| Race: Unknown or Not Reported |
|
|
| Ethnicity: Hispanic |
|
|
| Ethnicity: Not Hispanic |
|
|
| Ethnicity: Other / Prefer Not To Say |
|
|
| Regression, Linear |
| <0.001 |
| Treatment Effect |
| -0.53 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -0.70 |
| -0.36 |
Unit: $ per 12-pack |
| Superiority |
| Gender subgroup: Female or other | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.41 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.57 | -0.25 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Gender subgroup: Male | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.48 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.65 | -0.32 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Gender subgroup: Female or other | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.28 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.42 | -0.14 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Gender subgroup: Male | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.57 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.57 | -0.27 | Superiority | Unit: $ per 12-pack |
| Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -2.23 | 2-Sided | 95 | -3.34 | -1.12 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Asian | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.69 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.15 | -0.23 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | 0.80 | 2-Sided | 95 | 0.80 | 0.80 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Black or African American | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | 0.45 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.24 | 1.14 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: White | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.50 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.63 | -0.37 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: More Than One Race | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.96 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.67 | -0.25 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.38 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.16 | 0.40 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.44 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.07 | 0.19 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Asian | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.54 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.91 | -0.17 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | 0.00 | 2-Sided | 95 | 0.00 | 0.00 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Black or African American | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | 0.16 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.36 | 0.68 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: white | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.44 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.57 | -0.31 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: More Than One Race | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -1.18 | 2-Sided | 95 | -2.04 | -0.32 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.38 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.90 | 0.14 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: American Indian or Alaska Native | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.79 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.54 | -0.04 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Asian | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.51 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.90 | -0.12 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | Regression, Logistic | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | 0.80 | 2-Sided | 95 | 0.80 | 0.80 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Black or African American | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.04 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.79 | 0.71 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: White | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.33 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.44 | -0.22 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: More Than One Race | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.41 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.76 | -0.06 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Race subgroup: Unknown or Not Reported | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.27 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.85 | 0.31 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | 0.23 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.45 | 0.91 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.52 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.65 | -0.39 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Ethnicity subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.93 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.48 | -0.38 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.16 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.70 | 0.38 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.45 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.57 | -0.33 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Ethnicity subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.79 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.42 | -0.16 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Ethnicity subgroup: Hispanic | Regression, Linear | 0.980 | Treatment Effect | 0.01 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.40 | 0.41 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Ethnicity subgroup: Not Hispanic | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.36 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.47 | -0.25 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |
| Ethnicity Subgroup: Other or Prefer Not to Say | Regression, Linear | <0.001 | Treatment Effect | -0.39 | 2-Sided | 95 | -1.03 | 0.25 | Unit: $ per 12-pack | Superiority |