Overview

This report summarizes Study 4, a 4-condition between-subjects experiment examining how supplement format affects consumer perceptions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four format conditions:

  • Pill (reference category)
  • Round Gummy (Gum)
  • Bear Gummy (Bear)
  • Orange Gummy (Food)

Key dependent variables: Perceived Risk, Perceived Efficacy, and Fair Price. Manipulation checks assess drug-like (MC_D), food-like (MC_F), and supplement-like (MC_S) perceptions.

Sample

Participants by Condition (after exclusions)
Condition N
Pill 123
Round Gummy 120
Bear Gummy 112
Orange Gummy 121

Total N after exclusions: 476

Scale Reliability

Scale Reliability
Scale Metric Value
Risk (R1-R3) Cronbach’s alpha 0.939
Efficacy (E2, E3) Inter-item r 0.921
Fair Price (FP1, FP2) Inter-item r 0.948

All scales show excellent reliability (alpha = .94 for Risk; r > .92 for Efficacy and Fair Price).

Manipulation Checks

Drug-like and Food-like Perceptions

Manipulation Check Means by Condition
Condition MC_D Mean MC_D SD MC_F Mean MC_F SD N
Pill 1.76 1.41 -2.55 0.82 123
Round Gummy -0.38 1.73 0.29 1.88 120
Bear Gummy -0.96 1.82 1.08 1.83 112
Orange Gummy -0.95 1.74 1.38 1.40 121

Omnibus Tests

One-way ANOVA: Manipulation Checks
DV df F p
MC_D (Drug-like) 3 71.751 0
MC_F (Food-like) 3 166.243 0

Pairwise Comparisons (Tukey HSD)

Tukey HSD: MC_D (Drug-like)
Contrast diff lwr upr p (adj)
Gum-Pill -2.139 -2.694 -1.584 0.000
Bear-Pill -2.720 -3.285 -2.155 0.000
Food-Pill -2.715 -3.269 -2.161 0.000
Bear-Gum -0.580 -1.149 -0.012 0.043
Food-Gum -0.575 -1.133 -0.018 0.040
Food-Bear 0.005 -0.562 0.572 1.000
Tukey HSD: MC_F (Food-like)
Contrast diff lwr upr p (adj)
Gum-Pill 2.845 2.337 3.352 0.000
Bear-Pill 3.633 3.117 4.150 0.000
Food-Pill 3.933 3.427 4.439 0.000
Bear-Gum 0.789 0.269 1.308 0.001
Food-Gum 1.088 0.579 1.598 0.000
Food-Bear 0.300 -0.219 0.818 0.444

Planned Contrast: Pill vs. All Gummies

Planned Contrast: Pill vs. All Gummies Combined
DV b SE t p
MC_D (Drug-like) 1.890 0.133 14.237 0
MC_F (Food-like) -2.601 0.124 -20.940 0

Takeaway: The manipulation worked cleanly. Pill is perceived as significantly more drug-like and less food-like than all gummy formats. Bear and Orange Gummies are rated more food-like than Round Gummy, but all three gummy types are statistically indistinguishable on drug-likeness.

Severity Perception (MC_S)

MC_S Descriptives by Condition
Condition M SD N
Pill -1.14 1.52 123
Round Gummy -1.34 1.44 120
Bear Gummy -1.70 1.22 112
Orange Gummy -1.43 1.37 121
Regression: MC_S ~ Format Condition (Reference = Pill)
Term b SE t p
(Intercept) -1.138 0.126 -9.047 0.000
Cond_FormGum -0.203 0.179 -1.136 0.256
Cond_FormBear -0.558 0.182 -3.063 0.002
Cond_FormFood -0.292 0.179 -1.632 0.103
Pairwise Comparisons: MC_S (Tukey-adjusted)
contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
Pill - Gum 0.203 0.179 472 1.136 0.667
Pill - Bear 0.558 0.182 472 3.063 0.012
Pill - Food 0.292 0.179 472 1.632 0.362
Gum - Bear 0.355 0.183 472 1.935 0.215
Gum - Food 0.088 0.180 472 0.490 0.961
Bear - Food -0.267 0.183 472 -1.458 0.464

DV Descriptives

DV Means and SDs by Condition
Condition Risk M Risk SD Efficacy M Efficacy SD FP M FP SD N
Pill -0.41 1.61 0.79 1.20 -0.35 1.77 123
Round Gummy -1.08 1.38 0.98 1.23 -0.14 1.70 120
Bear Gummy -0.91 1.41 0.60 1.48 -0.39 1.85 112
Orange Gummy -1.05 1.47 0.73 1.25 -0.37 1.70 121

Perceived Risk

Plot

Regression (Reference = Pill)

Regression: Risk ~ Format Condition (Reference = Pill)
Term b SE t p
(Intercept) -0.407 0.132 -3.068 0.002
Cond_FormGum -0.674 0.189 -3.575 0.000
Cond_FormBear -0.507 0.192 -2.643 0.008
Cond_FormFood -0.643 0.188 -3.418 0.001

Pairwise Comparisons

Pairwise Comparisons: Risk (Tukey-adjusted)
contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
Pill - Gum 0.674 0.189 472 3.575 0.002
Pill - Bear 0.507 0.192 472 2.643 0.042
Pill - Food 0.643 0.188 472 3.418 0.004
Gum - Bear -0.167 0.193 472 -0.864 0.823
Gum - Food -0.031 0.189 472 -0.164 0.998
Bear - Food 0.136 0.193 472 0.705 0.895
Estimated Marginal Means: Risk
Cond_Form emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL
Pill -0.407 0.132 472 -0.667 -0.146
Gum -1.081 0.134 472 -1.344 -0.817
Bear -0.914 0.139 472 -1.187 -0.641
Food -1.050 0.134 472 -1.312 -0.787

Takeaway: All three gummy formats significantly lower perceived risk relative to Pill. The three gummy types do not differ from each other, suggesting the pill-vs-gummy distinction (not gummy shape) drives the effect.

Perceived Efficacy

Plot

Regression (Reference = Pill)

Regression: Efficacy ~ Format Condition (Reference = Pill)
Term b SE t p
(Intercept) 0.793 0.116 6.815 0.000
Cond_FormGum 0.191 0.166 1.152 0.250
Cond_FormBear -0.190 0.168 -1.128 0.260
Cond_FormFood -0.061 0.165 -0.371 0.711

Pairwise Comparisons

Pairwise Comparisons: Efficacy (Tukey-adjusted)
contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
Pill - Gum -0.191 0.166 472 -1.152 0.658
Pill - Bear 0.190 0.168 472 1.128 0.673
Pill - Food 0.061 0.165 472 0.371 0.983
Gum - Bear 0.381 0.169 472 2.246 0.113
Gum - Food 0.252 0.166 472 1.516 0.429
Bear - Food -0.129 0.169 472 -0.761 0.872
Estimated Marginal Means: Efficacy
Cond_Form emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL
Pill 0.793 0.116 472 0.564 1.021
Gum 0.983 0.118 472 0.752 1.215
Bear 0.603 0.122 472 0.363 0.842
Food 0.731 0.117 472 0.501 0.962

With Covariates (PI, PS)

Regression: Efficacy ~ Format + PI + PS (covariates mean-centered)
Term b SE t p
(Intercept) 0.796 0.114 6.997 0.000
Cond_FormGum 0.176 0.162 1.088 0.277
Cond_FormBear -0.143 0.165 -0.864 0.388
Cond_FormFood -0.083 0.162 -0.515 0.607
PI_c -0.018 0.040 -0.444 0.657
PS_c 0.136 0.034 3.984 0.000
Pairwise Comparisons: Efficacy with Covariates (Tukey-adjusted)
contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
Pill - Gum -0.176 0.162 469 -1.088 0.697
Pill - Bear 0.143 0.165 469 0.864 0.824
Pill - Food 0.083 0.162 469 0.515 0.955
Gum - Bear 0.319 0.166 469 1.916 0.223
Gum - Food 0.260 0.163 469 1.593 0.384
Bear - Food -0.059 0.166 469 -0.357 0.984

Takeaway: Format had no significant effect on efficacy in either the unadjusted or covariate-adjusted models, F(3,472) = 1.76, p = .154.

Fair Price

Plot

Regression (Reference = Pill)

Regression: Fair Price ~ Format Condition (Reference = Pill)
Term b SE t p
(Intercept) -0.354 0.158 -2.237 0.026
Cond_FormGum 0.212 0.225 0.942 0.346
Cond_FormBear -0.039 0.229 -0.171 0.864
Cond_FormFood -0.014 0.224 -0.063 0.950

Pairwise Comparisons

Pairwise Comparisons: Fair Price (Tukey-adjusted)
contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
Pill - Gum -0.212 0.225 472 -0.942 0.782
Pill - Bear 0.039 0.229 472 0.171 0.998
Pill - Food 0.014 0.224 472 0.063 1.000
Gum - Bear 0.251 0.230 472 1.091 0.695
Gum - Food 0.226 0.226 472 1.001 0.749
Bear - Food -0.025 0.230 472 -0.109 1.000
Estimated Marginal Means: Fair Price
Cond_Form emmean SE df lower.CL upper.CL
Pill -0.354 0.158 472 -0.664 -0.043
Gum -0.142 0.160 472 -0.456 0.173
Bear -0.393 0.166 472 -0.718 -0.067
Food -0.368 0.159 472 -0.681 -0.055

With Covariates (PI, PS)

Regression: Fair Price ~ Format + PI + PS (covariates mean-centered)
Term b SE t p
(Intercept) -0.335 0.157 -2.135 0.033
Cond_FormGum 0.210 0.223 0.941 0.347
Cond_FormBear -0.035 0.228 -0.152 0.879
Cond_FormFood -0.069 0.223 -0.307 0.759
PI_c -0.160 0.054 -2.940 0.003
PS_c 0.106 0.047 2.249 0.025
Pairwise Comparisons: Fair Price with Covariates (Tukey-adjusted)
contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
Pill - Gum -0.210 0.223 469 -0.941 0.783
Pill - Bear 0.035 0.228 469 0.152 0.999
Pill - Food 0.069 0.223 469 0.307 0.990
Gum - Bear 0.244 0.229 469 1.066 0.711
Gum - Food 0.278 0.225 469 1.240 0.602
Bear - Food 0.034 0.229 469 0.148 0.999

Takeaway: Format had no significant effect on fair price, F(3,472) = 0.52, p = .668. This held after controlling for prior supplement intake (PI) and prior supplement use (PS).

Summary of Key Findings

Summary of Format Effects Across DVs
DV F (omnibus) Pill vs. Gummies Among Gummies With PI/PS
Perceived Risk 5.53*** Significant (p < .001) No differences –
Perceived Efficacy 1.76 n.s. No differences No change
Fair Price 0.52 n.s. No differences No change

Bottom line: Format selectively activated risk perception — pill format elevates perceived risk relative to all gummy formats — but had no effect on perceived efficacy or fair price. The effect is driven by the pill/gummy distinction, not by shape differences among gummy types.