Abstract
Are people are product literate enough to make informed decisions about plant-based and animal-based milk products? In 8 studies, we provide evidence that consumers do not make mistakes indicative of pervasive lack of milk product literacy. People were accurate at identifying plant-based and animal-based milk and cheese products as being plant or animal-based (74% - 84% of the time). In a more difficult task, participants were generally accurate at identifying nutritional differences between plant-based and animal-based milk and cheese products (50%–62% accuracy). We also developed the Milk Literacy Scale, which is a 12-item, validated, knowledge-based instrument that measures knowledge of differences among plant-based and animal-based milk products. The Milk Literacy Scale predicted accuracy in both identification tasks. All results were replicated in a large sample (N = 1054). These results suggest that people are generally product literate about milk products to make informed choices. The studies offer some insights into what kinds of interventions would help make people even more product literate.
Notes
This same systematic review suggested that nearly 75% of Americans report using nutrition labels at least sometimes when they make a buying decision.
A two-parameter model is different from a 1-parameter model. One-parameter models only estimate item difficulty and assume that the discrimination for each item is the same. Three-parameter models include a pseudo-guessing parameter in addition to estimating difficulty and discrimination that helps to control for people getting items correct simply by guessing (Baker, 2004).
A coding mistake prevented demographic data from being collected in Study 2.
We conducted analyses without excluding participants who straight-lined. As expected, including those participants did not change the results drastically, but they did mute effects making some of the effects more difficult to detect. This pattern is exactly what would be expected given straight-lined responses.
References
Baker, F.B. 2001. The basics of item response theory. 2nd ed. College Park: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
Buhrmester, M., T. Kwang, and S.D. Gosling. 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6 (1): 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.
Buhrmester, M., S. Talifar, and S.D. Gosling. 2018a. An evaluation of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on Psychological Science 13 (2): 149–154.
Buhrmester, M.D., S. Talaifar, and S.D. Gosling. 2018b. An Evaluation of Amazon's Mechanical Turk, Its Rapid Rise, and Its Effective Use. Perspectives on Psychological Science 13 (2): 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706516.
Campos, S., J. Doxey, and D. Hammond. 2011. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition 14 (8): 1496–1506. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980010003290.
Chandler, J., P. Mueller, and G. Paolacci. 2014. Nonnaivete among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods 46 (1): 112–130. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7.
Cokely, E.T., A. Feltz, S. Ghazal, J. Allan, D. Petrova, and R. Garcia-Retamero. 2018. Skilled Decision Theory: From intelligence to numeracy and expertise. In Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, ed. A. Ericsson, R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, and A. Williams, 476–505. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cokely, E.T., M. Galesic, E. Schulz, S. Ghazal, and R. Garcia-Retamero. 2012. Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgment and Decision making 7 (1): 25–47.
Cowburn, G., and L. Stockley. 2005. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: A systematic review. Public Health Nutrition 8: 21–28.
Crump, M.J.C., J.V. McDonnell, and T.M. Gureckis. 2013. Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS One 8 (3): e57410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057410.
Dairy Pride Act. (2017).
Dickson-Spillmann, M., M. Siegrist, and C. Keller. 2011. Development and validation of a short, consumer-oriented nutrition knowledge questionnaire. Appetite 56 (3): 617–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.034.
Feltz, A. 2015. Ethical information transparency and sexually transmitted diseases. Current HIV Research 13: 421–431.
Feltz, A., and E.T. Cokely. 2017. Informing ethical decision making. In Handbook of Neuroethics, ed. K. Rommelfanger and L.S. Johnson, 314–327. New York: Routledge.
Feltz, S., & Feltz, A. (2019). The Knowlege of Animal as Food Scale. Human-Animal Interaction Bulletin 7 (2): 19-45.
Finnell, K.J., and R. John. 2017. Research to Understand Milk Consumption Behaviors in a Food-Insecure Low-Income SNAP Population in the US. Beverages 46: 1–12.
Garcia-Retamero, R., Petrove, D., Feltz, A., & Cokely, E. (in press). Measuring graph literacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. In Encyclopedia of Health and Risk Message Design and Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ghazal, S., E.T. Cokely, and R. Garcia-Retamero. 2014. Predicting biases in very highly educated samples: Numeracy and metacognition. Judgment and Decision making 9 (1): 15–34.
Gosling, S.D., P.J. Rentfrow, and W.B. Swann. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality 37 (6): 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
Hall, C., and F. Osses. 2013. A review to inform understanding of the use of food safety messages on food labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37: 422–432.
Hess, R., V.H. Visschers, and M. Siegrist. 2012. The role of health-related, motivational and sociodemographic aspects in predicting food label use: a comprehensive study. Public Health Nutrition 15 (3): 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898001100156X.
Ho, J., Maradiaga, I., Martin, J., Nguyen, H., & Trinh, L. (2016). Almond Milk vs. Cow Milk Life Cycle Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/cow-vs-almond-milk-1.pdf
Kopp, S. 2012. Defining and conceptualizing product literacy. Journal of Consumer Affairs 46: 190–203.
Leiner, D. (2016). Too fast, too straight, too weird: Post-hoc identification of meaningless data in internet surveys. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dominik_Leiner/publication/258997762_Too_Fast_Too_Straight_Too_Weird_Post_Hoc_Identification_of_Meaningless_Data_in_Internet_Surveys/links/59e4596baca2724cbfe85921/Too-Fast-Too-Straight-Too-Weird-Post-Hoc-Identification-of-Meaningless-Data-in-Internet-Surveys.pdf.
Lunn, T.E., C.A. Nowson, A. Worsley, and S.J. Torres. 2014. Does personality affect dietary intake? Nutrition 30 (4): 403–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2013.08.012.
Mason, W., and S. Suri. 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods 44 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3758/S13428-011-0124-6.
Paollacci, G., J. Chandler, and P. Ipeirotis. 2010. Running experiements using Amazon Mechanial Turk. Judgment and Decision making 5: 411–419.
Petrova, D., R. Garcia-Retamero, A. Catena, E. Cokely, A.H. Carrasco, A.A. Moreno, and J.A.R. Hernandez. 2017. Numeracy Predicts Risk of Pre-Hospital Decision Delay: a Retrospective Study of Acute Coronary Syndrome Survival. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 51 (2): 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9853-1.
Rizopoulos, D. 2006. LTM: An R package for latent variable modeling and item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software 17 (5).
Rouse, S. 2015. A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data. Computers in Human Behavior 43 (1): 304–307.
Team, R.C. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna: Australia.
Thomas, K.A., and S. Clifford. 2017. Validity and Mechanical Turk: An assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Computers in Human Behavior 77: 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.038.
Vanga, S.K., and V. Raghavan. 2018. How well do plant based alternatives fare nutritionally compared to cow's milk? Journal of Food Science and Technology 55 (1): 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-2915-y.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Items used in Study 1. Correct answer in parentheses. Difficulty and discrimination, respectively, in brackets.
Soy Subscale
-
1.
Whole cow milk has more cholesterol than fortified soy milk. (T) [−9.1, 0.17]
-
2.
Whole cow milk has more protein than fortified soy milk. (F) [−0.23, −1.5]
-
3.
Whole cow milk has more Vitamin C than fortified soy milk. (T) [0.31, 1.62]
-
4.
Whole cow milk has more calories than fortified soy milk (T) [−3.4, 0.5]
-
5.
Whole cow milk has more fat than fortified soy milk. (T) [−4.54, 0.47]
-
6.
Whole cow milk has more fiber than fortified soy milk. (F) [0.44, −1.58]
-
7.
Whole cow milk has more sodium than fortified soy milk. (T) [−0.37, 0.82]
-
8.
Whole cow milk has more iron than fortified soy milk. (F) [−0.03, −2.4]
-
9.
Whole cow milk has more saturated fat than fortified soy milk. (T) [−6.61, 0.3]
-
10.
Whole cow milk has more calcium than fortified soy milk. (T) [−0.33, 1.66]
-
11.
Whole cow milk has more carbohydrates than fortified soy milk. (T) [−0.92, 0.85]
-
12.
Whole cow milk has more lactose than fortified soy milk. (T) [−4.86, 0.29]
-
13.
Cow milk and fortified soy milk have all the same nutrients. (F) [1.63, −0.61]
Milk Subscale
-
14.
Whole cow milk has more protein than skim cow milk. (F) [0.71, 1.48]
-
15.
Whole cow milk has more fat than skim cow milk. (T) [12.85, −0.18]
-
16.
Whole cow milk has more calories than skim cow milk. (T) [14.22, −0.18]
-
17.
Whole cow milk has more calcium than skim cow milk. (F) [0.36, 2.62]
-
18.
Whole cow milk has more Vitamin C than skim cow milk. (F) [−0.19, 2.36]
-
19.
Whole cow milk has more sodium than skim cow milk. (F) [0.26, 1.59]
-
20.
Whole cow milk has more fiber than skim cow milk. (F) [0.4, 2.11]
-
21.
Whole cow milk has more cholesterol than skim cow milk. (F) [2.71, 0.81]
-
22.
Whole cow milk has more iron than skim cow milk. (F) [0.39, 2.11]
-
23.
Fortified soy milk is made with some cow milk. (F) -1.51, 0.62]
Appendix 2
Items used in Studies 2. Items removed from Studies 3–8 in italics.
Soy Subscale
-
1.
Whole cow milk has more Vitamin C than fortified soy milk. (T)
-
2.
Whole cow milk has more calories than fortified soy milk (T)
-
3.
Whole cow milk has more fat than fortified soy milk. (T)
-
4.
Whole cow milk has more sodium than fortified soy milk. (T)
-
5.
Whole cow milk has less saturated fat than fortified soy milk. (F)
-
6.
Whole cow milk less more calcium than fortified soy milk. (F)
-
7.
Whole cow milk has fewer carbohydrates than fortified soy milk. (F)
-
8.
Whole cow milk has less lactose than fortified soy milk. (F)
Milk Subscale
-
9.
Whole cow milk has more protein than skim cow milk. (F)
-
10.
Whole cow milk has more calcium than skim cow milk. (F)
-
11.
Whole cow milk has more Vitamin C than skim cow milk. (F)
-
12.
Whole cow milk has more sodium than skim cow milk. (F)
-
13.
Whole cow milk has more fiber than skim cow milk. (F)
-
14.
Whole cow milk has more cholesterol than skim cow milk. (F)
-
15.
Whole cow milk has more iron than skim cow milk. (F)
-
16.
Fortified soy milk is made with some cow milk. (F)
Appendix 3
Sample Product Identification Milk Items
Sample Product Identification Cheese Items
Milk Nutrition Identification Items
Cheese Nutrition Identification Items
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feltz, S., Feltz, A. Consumer Accuracy at Identifying Plant-based and Animal-based Milk Items. Food ethics 4, 85–112 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-019-00051-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-019-00051-7