Table 3 Preferences for genetic-based personalized nutrition by psychological characteristics
From: Consumer acceptance of genetic-based personalized nutrition in Hungary
Particularly attractive, % | Both attractive and not attractive, % | Not attractive at all, % | χ2 | N | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | |||||
Male | 18.9 (− 3.2) | 45.6 (− 0.2) | 35.5 (3.1) | 14.906** | 1000 |
Female | 27.6 (3.2) | 46.1 (0.2) | 26.3 (− 3.1) | ||
Age | |||||
18–29 | 24.9 (0.5) | 49.7 (1.1) | 25.4 (− 1.6) | 42.088*** | 999 |
30–39 | 24.8 (0.5) | 49.1 (0.9) | 26.1 (− 1.4) | ||
40–49 | 21.9 (− 0.5) | 56.1 (3.2) | 21.9 (− 2.9) | ||
50–59 | 27.2 (1.2) | 44.4 (− 0.4) | 28.5 (− 0.6) | ||
60–69 | 22.1 (− 0.4) | 42.9 (− 0.8) | 35.0 (1.3) | ||
70– | 20.1 (− 1.1) | 30.8 (− 4.2) | 49.1 (5.5) | ||
Education | |||||
Primary school | 14.7 (− 2.3) | 42.2 (− 0.8) | 43.1 (3.0) | 32.408*** | 999 |
Vocational school | 19.6 (− 2.4) | 48.1 (1.1) | 32.3 (1.0) | ||
High school | 25.5 (1.1) | 44.5 (− 0.7) | 29.9 (− 0.3) | ||
Higher education | 36.8 (3.9) | 46.6 (0.2) | 16.5 (− 3.8) | ||
Subjective income | |||||
Can live on it very well and can also save | 27.3 (0.7) | 45.5 (0.0) | 27.3 (− 0.7) | 22.483** | 979 |
Can live on it but can save little | 28.6 (2.9) | 46.4 (0.4) | 25.0 (− 3.1) | ||
Just enough to live on but cannot save | 19.7 (− 2.7) | 46.8 (0.7) | 33.5 (1.7) | ||
Sometimes cannot make ends meet | 20.3 (− 0.7) | 35.1 (− 1.9) | 44.6 (2.7) | ||
Have regular financial problems | 11.1 (− 0.9) | 33.3 (− 0.7) | 55.6 (1.6) | ||