Do Kid Friendly Cereals Contain More Sugar and Less Fiber than Non-Kid Friendly Cereals? A

Grocery Store Observation.

Statistics 409

Spring, 2014

Abstract:

Ready to eat cereals are a breakfast staple in the United States, especially among

children. The nutrition profile of cereal varies as some contain a different amount of calories,

sugar, or fiber than others. The purpose of this study was to investigate the nutritional profiles of

cereals in a local grocery store to determine the nutritional quality of cereals marketed to

children. This study was an observational study in which the caloric, sugar, and fiber content of

31 “Kid Friendly” and “non- Kid Friendly” cereals were analyzed. Results from this study found

the calories of Kid-Friendly cereal were greater than non-Kid Friendly cereals when assessed by

weight in grams. The sugar content of Kid Friendly cereals was significantly higher than non-

Kid Friendly cereals in all forms of measurement including serving size, volume (cup) and

weight in grams. The fiber content of non-Kid Friendly was greater than Kid Friendly cereal

when assessed by serving size and volume (cup), but not when assessed by weight in grams.

Results from this study could be used to determine cereals that are more healthful and those that

are less healthful.

Introduction:

Breakfast has been described as being the most important meal of the day. It has been

reported that those who consume a well-balanced breakfast have better overall nutrition profiles,

improved cognitive functioning, and are less likely to become overweight(Rampersaud, Pereira,

Girard, Adams, & Metzl, 2005; Schwartz, Vartanian, Wharton, & Brownell, 2008). Ready-to-eat

cereals have become a common breakfast staple in the U.S., especially for children and young

adults. Roughly 25-50% of children in the U.S. between the ages 4-18 consume ready to eat

cereal for breakfast(Song et al., 2006). However, not all cereals are created equal in terms of

their nutrition profile as cereals have varying caloric, sugar, fiber, and protein content(Paul

Pestano, Etan Yeshua, & Houlihan, 2011).Cereals marketed to children are commonly high in

sugar and low in fiber, raising concerns about their nutritional value(Schwartz et al., 2008).

High sugar consumption can contribute to weight gain and diseases associated with obesity such

as heart disease, cancer and diabetes("How to break the sugar habit- and help your health in the

process," 2013). Additionally, studies have shown consumption of high-sugar cereals negatively

affect academic performance. Children who eat cereals high in sugar before school have a

shorter attention span, less energy, and do not perform as well as their peers who eat lower-sugar

cereals(Benton, Maconie, & Williams, 2007; Paul Pestano et al., 2011; Warren, Henry, &

Simonite, 2003). On the contrary, dietary fiber is beneficial to health as it helps to control blood

sugar levels, promotes satiety, and maintains bowel health("Dietary fiber: Essential for a healthy

diet.," 2014). Concerns about how nutritional cereals marketed to children really are have

spurred many studies aimed to confront this problem.

The food industry has made extensive efforts in marketing to children including

television advertisements, having licensed characters (TV/movie characters) or other cartoon

characters on food packages, as well as including activities or promotions directed to capture

kids’ attention(Harris, Bargh, & Brownell, 2009; Schwartz et al., 2008). It is thoughtthat the

messages communicated to children through food advertising results in unhealthy food

consumption(Harris et al., 2009; Kelly Brownell & Horgen, 2004).Ninety-eight percent of food

advertisements geared towards children promote products that are high in fat, sugar, and/ or

sodium(Harris et al., 2009; Powell, Szczypka, Chaloupka, & Braunschweig, 2007).Shwartzet al

(2008) conducted a study to assess if cereals marketed to children are nutritionally the same as

cereals not marketed to children(Schwartz et al., 2008). Results from this study found children’s

cereals contain more calories, sugar, and sodium while contain less beneficial nutrients including

fiber and protein(Schwartz et al., 2008). Considering this and the importance of a healthy

breakfast, advertising to children can portray unhealthy eating behaviors with positive

outcomes(Harris et al., 2009).

Poor eating habit established during childhood can continue throughout

adulthood("Improving the Health of Our Nation's Youth At a Glance ", 2011). A study done by

Harris and Bargh (2009) examined food preferences and eating behaviors among college

students, and assessed the connection with parental communication and television experience.

The authors proposed a model to determine whether prior television exposure predicts greater

perceived taste and enjoyment of unhealthy, highly advertised foods and unhealthy diet in early

adulthood. A survey was issued to 206 college students to assess current TV viewing, childhood

and adolescent viewing, memories of parental rules and attitudes about eating and television

viewing, attitude ratings of a variety of foods on taste and health-conscious eating habits, and

current consumption of different types of foods.

Results from this survey show that marketing of unhealthy foods viewed by children and

adolescence may form unhealthy eating habits in students reaching adulthood. Perceived

knowledge of healthy vs. unhealthy foods stemming from marketing campaigns may distort an

individual’s ability to determine what is healthy to eat.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the nutritional profiles of cereals in a local

grocery store to determine the nutritional quality of “kid-friendly” cereals. Our goal was to find

a relationship between cereals mainly targeted to children and high sugar content. The following

analysis underlines some of the concerns about “kid-friendly” marketing and nutritional health

outlined in some of the studies mentioned above. By using some simple statistical methods, we

plan to unveil trends that may support the notion that kid-friendly cereals are commonly high in

sugar and low in fiber content.

Methods:

The sample site for our study was the Shaw’s grocery store located in Wakefield, RI.

During April of 2014, we recorded the nutritional information off 31 different cereals located on

the second shelf from the floor to simulate the primary line-of-sight for children [a tactic used by

marketing companies(Aviva Musicus, Aner Tal, & Wansink, 2014)].The informationrecorded

off each box was: serving size (cups and grams), calories per serving, dietary fiber (grams), sugar

(grams), and whether or not the cereal appeared to be “kid-friendly”. We defined “kid-friendly”

as cereals that contained cartoon characters on the box to catch a child’s attention; this is

consistent with methodology used in previous research(Schwarts, 2008). Additionally, we used

sugar and fiber content as an indication of unhealthy vs. healthy cereal. This information was

then formulated into Excel spread sheets in order to perform our statistical analyses.

The calorie, sugar and fiber content provided on cereal boxes is calculated on the

seemingly consistent basis of "serving size." These serving sizes actually varied in both volume

(0.75 to 1.25 cups) and weight (27 to 55 g).We therefore chose to transform the data to provide a

consistent basis upon which to compare the variables. We first calculated calories, sugar and

fiber per 1 cup by dividing the amount of each per serving by the number of cups per serving.

We also calculated calories, sugar and fiber per 30g (a common serving size weight) by dividing

each variable by the serving size weight and multiplying by 30. Each of these transformations

have merit on their own but due to the inconsistent bulk density (weight per volume) of cereal

they should probably all be considered.

One extreme example of the effect this transformation has is the fiber content of

Shredded Wheat (Graph 1). At first glance it appears to have a much higher fiber content than all

other cereals (9 g per serving when the next highest is 4 g per serving). This, however, is

partially due to its unusually high serving size (1.25 cups/59 g). Once the fiber content is

calculated for 1 cup of cereal it decreases relative to others. When calculated by weight (30 g

cereal) it decreases even further. In fact, by weight Shredded Wheat has barely more fiber than

Frosted Flakes (4.6 vs. 4.1 g fiber/30 g cereal).

Graph 1: Fiber content by serving, by volume (1 cup) and by weight (30 g) for all cereals evaluated. Red circle

indicates change in Shredded Wheat fiber content relative to other cereals once serving size is normalized by volume

or weight.

Results:

I. Variables

Table 1: Independent and dependent variables of cereal study.

0

2

4

6

8

10

Gen

eric

Ho

ney

Oat

s an

d F

lake

s

Gen

eric

Cin

nam

on

Cru

nch

cer

eal

Gen

eric

Ho

ney

Gra

ham

Oh

's

Gen

eric

Ap

ple

Cru

nch

ies

Gen

eric

Fro

sted

Fru

it O

s

Mar

shm

ello

w T

reas

ure

s

Gen

der

ic F

rost

ed F

lake

s

Gen

eric

Co

co C

om

ets

Co

rn P

op

s

Shre

dd

ed W

hea

t

Ho

ney

Bu

nch

es o

f O

ats

wit

h V

anill

a

Ho

ney

Bu

nch

es o

f O

ats

Ho

ney

Ro

aste

d

Ho

ney

Bu

nch

es o

f O

ats

Alm

on

ds

Wild

Har

vest

Cra

nb

erry

Alm

on

d

Fro

sted

Ch

eeri

os

Ch

oco

late

Ch

eeri

os

Her

seys

Co

oki

es N

' Cre

am

Gra

in B

erry

Spec

ial K

ori

gin

al

Spec

ial K

Red

Ber

ries

Hea

rt t

o H

eart

cin

nam

on

Co

rn F

lake

s

Ap

ple

Jac

ks

Ch

oco

late

To

ast

Cru

nch

Ch

oco

late

Lu

cky

Ch

arm

s

Luck

y C

har

ms

Fro

sted

Fla

kes

Ho

ney

Sm

acks

Fro

ot

Loo

ps

Go

lden

Gra

ham

s

Op

ps!

All

Ber

ries

Fib

er

(g)

Cereal Type

Cereal Fiber Content by Serving, Weight and Volume

Fiber Per Serving (g)

Fiber per 1 cup (g)

Fiber per 30 g (g)

Dependent Independent

Continuous Discrete

Categorical Generic/Not Generic, Kid Friendly/Not Kid Friendly

Quantiative Calories, Sugar, Fiber

The dependent variables for the experiment were Calories, Sugar (g), and Fiber (g)

(Table 1). These variables are both continuous and quantitative. They are continuous because

their values can theoretically take on any number on the real number line and quantitative

because the values may only be numbers. The independent variables for the experiment are

Generic versus non-Generic brands of cereal and Kid Friendly versus non-Kid Friendly cereals

(Table 1). These variables are both discrete and categorical. They are discrete because they

only take on two values (yes or no) and categorical because they involve qualities, not numbers.

The goal of the experiment was to determine how much our independent variables affect our

dependent variables, for instance, whether Kid Friendly cereals affect the amount of sugar per

serving.

II. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2: 5 Number summary, median and mode for sugar content (per 30 g cereal) for kid friendly vs. not

kid friendly cereal.

The five number summaries in Table 2 show the descriptive statistics for the experiment.

In particular, the statistics are for Sugar per 30 Grams in Kid versus non-Kid Friendly cereals.

The median for Kid Friendly cereal was significantly higher than non-Kid Friendly cereals,

12.64 versus 6.102. However, the maximum values for both data sets are much less different

with Kid Friendly at 16.67 and non-Kid Friendly at 13.333 which is not surprising considering

Sugar per 30 Grams

Kid Friendly Not Kid Friendly

Min. 8.71 0

Q1 10.79 5.924

Median 12.64 6.102

Q3 14.05 10

Max. 16.67 13.333

Std. Dev. 2.204 3.25

Mode None 10

that the standard deviation for non-Kid Friendly cereals is much higher than Kid Friendly. What

this means is that non-Kid Friendly cereals will have values the range much further from the

median than Kid Friendly cereals. For instance, non-Kid Friendly cereals have a large range

from a minimum value of 0 to a maximum of 13.33 and Kid Friendly cereals only range from

8.71 to 16.67 by comparison. Given that the data for both data sets is small (n<30) the shape of

the distributions appear asymmetrical, as seen in the box plots (Graph 2).

Graph 2. Box plot for kid friendly and not kid friendly sugar content by weight (30 gram cereal).

III. Distribution

We determined the frequency distribution for the sugar content (per 30 g cereal) for our

two categories of cereal: Kid Friendly and non-Kid Friendly. To do this we divided the range of

sugar content for each category by five. This gave us a class width that would divide our data

into 5 intervals. While the sample distribution of the non-Kid-Friendly cereals appears to be left

skewed (Graph 3), the distribution of the Kid Friendly cereal appears bimodal (Graph 4).

Graph 3.Frequency distribution for grams sugar/30 grams cereal in not kid-friendly cereals.

Class width is 2.7 g with left end point included and right excluded.

Graph 4.Frequency distribution for grams sugar/30 grams cereal in kid-friendly cereals.

Class width is 1.6 g with left end point included and right excluded.

IV. Hypothesis Testing

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.35 4.05 6.75 9.45 12.15

Fre

qu

en

cy

Grams Sugar per 30 Grams Cereal

Frequency Distribution for Not Kid-Friendly Cereal Sugar Content

0

1

2

3

4

5

9.5 11.1 12.7 14.3 15.9

Fre

qu

en

cy

Grams Sugar per 30 Grams Cereal

Frequency Distribution for Kid-Friendly Cereal Sugar Content

To test hypotheses about our data we chose the Student’s t distribution, first studied by

W.S. Gosset in 1908(Johnson & Bhattacharyya, 2009). We chose this distribution because our

samples (n=17 and n=14) are small (n<30). Although you assume the population is normal, for a

small sample you cannot also assume the sample has a normal distribution so you say it has a t

distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom. In this case degrees of freedom (n-1) are necessary

because each different sample size has a different distribution(Johnson & Bhattacharyya, 2009).

A t distribution is also appropriate for hypothesis testing when comparing the means of

two small samples that are random and independent(Johnson & Bhattacharyya, 2009). Our

samples are indeed random and independent because choosing a Kid Friendly cereal has no

effect on which non-Kid Friendly cereal goes in the other group. We also had to decide if our

variances are equal. Since some of our standard deviations violate the rule that 0.5<s1/s2<2, we

cannot assume they are equal (see Appendix Table 1 for std. deviations). The t test is still

appropriate but this results in a more conservative confidence interval. For example, with equal

variances assumed the CI for calories per serving is (-7.108, 36.352) but with equal variances not

assumedit is (-5.785, 35.029) (Appendix Table 2).

Our null hypotheses are that the mean calories, fiber and sugar content of Kid Friendly

are equal to non-Kid Friendly cereals. Our alternative hypotheses are that a.) the mean calories

for Kid Friendly cereals is greater than non-Kid Friendly cereals, b.) the mean sugar content for

Kid Friendly cereals is greater than non-Kid Friendly cereals and c.) the mean fiber for Kid

Friendly cereals is less than non-Kid Friendly cereals. We ran a t test on SPSS with a confidence

level of 95% and equal variances not assumed.

The results show that although the Kid Friendly cereals had lower calories per serving

and by volume (1 cup cereal); they had more calories by weight (30 g cereal)(Graph 5 and

Appendix Table 1). None of these results, however, were significant (p=0.05) (Appendix Table

2).

Graph5: Mean calories per serving, 1 cup and 30 g of cereal (+/- 1 standard deviation). No significance at p

= 0.05.

Unlike mean calories, there was a significant difference in mean sugar contents. It was

significantly higher for Kid Friendly cereals than non-Kid Friendly cereals when measured by

serving, weight or volume (p < 0.001)(Graph 6 and Appendix Table 2).

0 20 40 60 80

100 120 140 160 180 200

Not Kid Friendly

Kid Friendly Not Kid Friendly

Kid Friendly Not Kid Friendly

Kid Friendly

Calories (Serving) Calories (1 Cup) Calories (30 g)

Cal

ori

es

+/-

1 s

td. d

ev.

Mean Calories

Graph6: Mean sugar per serving, 1 cup and 30 g of cereal (+/- 1 standard deviation). * indicates

significance at p =0 .05.

Although mean fiber (g) was higher in non-Kid Friendly cereal than in Kid Friendly

cereal, when measured by serving and volume (1 cup of cereal), it was virtually the same when

measured by weight (30 g cereal) (Appendix Table 1). None of these differences, however,were

significant at the p=0.05 level (Graph 7).

Graph7: Mean fiber per serving, 1 cup and 30 g of cereal (+/- 1 standard deviation). No significance at p =

0.05.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Not Kid Friendly

Kid Friendly Not Kid Friendly

Kid Friendly Not Kid Friendly

Kid Friendly

Sugar (Serving) Sugar (1 Cup) Sugar (30 g)

Suga

r (g

) +/

- 1

std

. de

v.

Mean Sugar

* *

*

*

*

*

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

5

Not Kid Friendly

Kid Friendly Not Kid Friendly

Kid Friendly Not Kid Friendly

Kid Friendly

Fiber (Serving) Fiber (1 Cup) Fiber (30 g)

Fib

er

(g)

+/-

1 s

td. d

ev.

Mean Fiber

Although it appears there is a correlation between the presence of Kid Friendly marketing

on a cereal box and high sugar content, this does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.

While collecting data we noticed that there appeared to be differences between generic and brand

name cereals. We re-divided our data into generic and brand name cereals, regardless of Kid

Friendly marketing and ran another t test. A t test, assuming unequal variances, is again

appropriate because of our small sample sizes (n = 8 and n=23) (Appendix Table 3).

Although there was not a significant difference in calories per serving or by volume

between generic and brand name cereal, there was a significant difference by weight

(p=0.41)(Appendix Table 4). In this case generic had more calories although when measured by

serving or volume it has less. Because of the mixed results for calorie content, depending on how

it was measured, there does not appear overall to be a significant difference (Graph 8).

Graph 8: Mean calories per serving, 1 cup and 30 g of cereal (+/- 1 standard deviation). * indicates

significance at p =0.05.

The results for the difference of the mean sugar content of generic and brand name cereal

was more decisive (Graph 8). Generic cereal had significantly more sugar when measured by

serving (p=0.30), by volume (p= 0.13) and by weight (p=0.17) (Appendix Table 4). What this

0 20 40 60 80

100 120 140 160 180 200

Generic Brand Generic Brand Generic Brand

Calories (Serving) Calories (1 Cup) Calories (30 g)

Cal

ori

es

+/-

1 s

td. d

ev.

Mean Calories

means for the results concerning high sugar content of Kid Friendly cereal is unclear. One factor

potentially influencing the generic results is that more of the generic cereals were Kid Friendly

while more of the brand name cereals were non-Kid Friendly.

Graph9: Mean sugar per serving, 1 cup and 30 g of cereal (+/- 1 standard deviation). * indicates

significance at p =0.05.

Finally, while brand name cereals appeared to have more fiber than generic cereals

(Graph 10), the results were not significant at the p=0.05 level (Appendix Table 4). This was

likely due to large standard deviations within each category.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Generic Brand Generic Brand Generic Brand

Sugar (Serving) Sugar (1 Cup) Sugar (30 g)

Suga

r (g

) +/

- 1

std

. de

v.

Mean Sugar

Graph10: Mean fiber per serving, 1 cup and 30 g of cereal (+/- 1 standard deviation). No significance at p =

0.05.

Conclusion/Discussion:

Our study found some interesting results between the relationship of Kid Friendly

marketing and the nutrition value of cereals found in a popular supermarket. This study also

identified examples of how data may be manipulated for marketing purposes to display healthier

cereal options both for kids and adults. The example given for fiber content, for instance, can be

done for a variety of different nutritional variables to help determine what is truly provided by

“healthier” cereals.

Although our sample size was relatively small (31 cereals), we felt that this analysis

covered common cereal brands found in most major supermarket chains. This being said, the

variable of generic vs. non-generic cereals will change between different supermarkets as each

have their own generic cereal brands. A further study could make a comparison between

different supermarket generic cereals and their nutritional values. Moreover, further research

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Generic Brand Generic Brand Generic Brand

Fiber (Serving) Fiber (1 Cup) Fiber (30 g)

Fib

er

(g)

+-

1 s

td. d

ev.

Mean Fiber

would want to increase the sample size of cereals examined and also compare cereals found in a

child’s line-of-sight vs. elsewhere in the cereal isle in order to validate the notion that cereals are

marketed by shelf location.

This analysis supports other studies that identify Kid Friendly cereals as having higher

amounts of sugar than cereals marketed more towards adults. Based off our research on past

experiments regarding this concern, we feel that this type of statistical analysis could be

beneficial for changing unhealthy eating habits in kids and as they enter adulthood. Simply by

recognizing what kind of cereal is available at your local grocery store can help prevent

childhood obesity and future health problems later in life.

REFERENCES

Aviva Musicus, Aner Tal, & Wansink, B. (2014). Eyes in the Aisles: Why is Cap’n Crunch Looking Down at My Child? Retrieved May 6, 2014, from http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/op/cerealeyes

Benton, D., Maconie, A., & Williams, C. (2007). The influence of the glycaemic load of breakfast on the behaviour of children in school. Physiol Behav, 92(4), 717-724. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.05.065

Dietary fiber: Essential for a healthy diet. (2014). Retrieved April 29, 2014, from http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/fiber/art-20043983

Harris, J. L., Bargh, J. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2009). Priming effects of television food advertising on eating behavior. Health Psychol, 28(4), 404-413. doi: 10.1037/a0014399

How to break the sugar habit- and help your health in the process. (2013). Retrieved April 29 2014, from http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Womens_Health_Watch/2013/July/how-to-break-the-sugar-habit-and-help-your-health-in-the-process

Improving the Health of Our Nation's Youth At a Glance (2011). Retrieved April 29, 2014, from http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/dash.htm

Johnson, R. A., & Bhattacharyya, G. K. (2009). Statistics Principles and Methods (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. .

Kelly Brownell, & Horgen, K. B. (2004). Food Fight: The Inside Story of The Food Industry, America's Obesity Crisis, and What We Can Do About It. New York.

Paul Pestano, Etan Yeshua, & Houlihan, J. (2011). Sugar in Children's Cereals: Popular Brands Pack More Sugar Than Snack Cakes and Cookies Environmental Working Group

Powell, L. M., Szczypka, G., Chaloupka, F. J., & Braunschweig, C. L. (2007). Nutritional content of television food advertisements seen by children and adolescents in the United States. Pediatrics, 120(3), 576-583. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-3595

Rampersaud, G. C., Pereira, M. A., Girard, B. L., Adams, J., & Metzl, J. D. (2005). Breakfast Habits, Nutritional Status, Body Weight, and Academic Performance in Children and Adolescents. J Am Diet Assoc, 105(5), 743-760. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2005.02.007

Schwartz, M. B., Vartanian, L. R., Wharton, C. M., & Brownell, K. D. (2008). Examining the Nutritional Quality of Breakfast Cereals Marketed to Children. J Am Diet Assoc, 108(4), 702-705. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2008.01.003

Song, W. O., Chun, O. K., Kerver, J., Cho, S., Chung, C. E., & Chung, S.-J. (2006). Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereal Consumption Enhances Milk and Calcium Intake in the US Population. J Am Diet Assoc, 106(11), 1783-1789. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2006.08.015

Warren, J. M., Henry, C. J., & Simonite, V. (2003). Low glycemic index breakfasts and reduced food intake in preadolescent children. Pediatrics, 112(5), e414.

Appendices:

Kid friendly (n=1, y=2) N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Calories per serving 1 17 131.76 38.606 9.363

2 14 117.14 9.945 2.658

calories per cup 1 17 149.80392 32.945042 7.990346

2 14 138.80952 18.838365 5.034765

calories per 30 g 1 17 115.19363 7.146164 1.733199

2 14 117.89294 4.532496 1.211361

Sugar (g) 1 17 7.53 3.466 .841

2 14 12.29 2.367 .633

sugar per cup 1 17 8.94118 4.177046 1.013082

2 14 14.40476 2.429092 .649202

suger per 30 g 1 17 7.00944 3.249088 .788019

2 14 12.36896 2.204339 .589134

Dietary Fiber (g) 1 17 2.47 2.004 .486

2 14 2.00 1.109 .296

Fiber per 1 cup 1 17 2.69804 1.684920 .408653

2 14 2.42857 1.475895 .394450

Fiber per 30 g 1 17 2.04373 1.132541 .274681

2 14 2.04192 1.162040 .310568

Appendix Table 1: Kid friendly vs. not kid friendly calories, sugar and fiber (per serving, per 1

cup and per 30 g cereal).

Appendix Table 2: SPSS t test results for kid friendly vs. not kid friendly mean calories, sugar

and fiber (per serving, per 1 cup and per 30 g cereal). Significance at p = 0.05.

Kid Friendly Vs. Not

t-test for Equality of Means

t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Lower Upper

Calories per

serving

Equal variances assumed 1.376 29 .179 14.622 10.625 -7.108 36.352

Equal variances not assumed 1.502 18.534 .150 14.622 9.733 -5.785 35.029

calories per cup Equal variances assumed 1.107 29 .278 10.994398 9.935788 -9.326571 31.315366

Equal variances not assumed 1.164 26.153 .255 10.994398 9.444284 -8.413073 30.401868

calories per 30

g

Equal variances assumed -1.223 29 .231 -2.699306 2.206672 -7.212456 1.813844

Equal variances not assumed -1.277 27.402 .212 -2.699306 2.114562 -7.035054 1.636442

Sugar (g) Equal variances assumed -4.359 29 .000 -4.756 1.091 -6.988 -2.525

Equal variances not assumed -4.520 28.145 .000 -4.756 1.052 -6.911 -2.602

sugar per cup Equal variances assumed -4.322 29 .000 -5.463585 1.264267 -8.049302 -2.877868

Equal variances not assumed -4.541 26.367 .000 -5.463585 1.203245 -7.935219 -2.991952

suger per 30 g Equal variances assumed -5.250 29 .000 -5.359518 1.020954 -7.447603 -3.271432

Equal variances not assumed -5.447 28.085 .000 -5.359518 .983897 -7.374664 -3.344372

Dietary Fiber

(g)

Equal variances assumed .784 29 .439 .471 .600 -.757 1.698

Equal variances not assumed .827 25.739 .416 .471 .569 -.700 1.641

Fiber per 1 cup Equal variances assumed .468 29 .643 .269468 .575502 -.907567 1.446502

Equal variances not assumed .474 28.865 .639 .269468 .567968 -.892394 1.431329

Fiber per 30 g Equal variances assumed .004 29 .997 .001811 .413545 -.843984 .847606

Equal variances not assumed .004 27.581 .997 .001811 .414611 -.848064 .851686

Appendix Table 3: Generic vs. brand name calories, sugar and fiber (per serving, per 1 cup and

per 30 g cereal).

1= generic, 2 = not

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Calories per serving 1 8 121.25 8.345 2.950

2 23 126.52 34.458 7.185

calories per cup 1 8 145.83333 18.235671 6.447283

2 23 144.49275 30.577087 6.375763

calories per 30 g 1 8 120.28488 5.491688 1.941605

2 23 115.06582 5.905711 1.231426

Sugar (g) 1 8 12.13 3.182 1.125

2 23 8.83 3.713 .774

sugar per cup 1 8 14.33333 3.111678 1.100144

2 23 10.39130 4.395420 .916508

suger per 30 g 1 8 11.99266 2.891134 1.022170

2 23 8.53846 3.833306 .799300

Dietary Fiber (g) 1 8 1.50 1.069 .378

2 23 2.52 1.755 .366

Fiber per 1 cup 1 8 1.87500 1.500661 .530564

2 23 2.82029 1.555497 .324343

Fiber per 30 g 1 8 1.49471 1.073485 .379534

2 23 2.23359 1.103089 .230010

Appendix Table 4: SPSS t test results for generic vs. brand name mean calories, sugar and fiber

(per serving, per 1 cup and per 30 g cereal). Significance at p = 0.05.

Generic Vs. Not

t-test for Equality of Means

t df

Sig.

(2-

tailed

)

Mean

Differenc

e

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference

Lower Upper

Calories

per serving

Equal variances assumed -.424 29 .675 -5.272 12.433 -30.701 20.157

Equal variances not assumed -.679 27.580 .503 -5.272 7.767 -21.193 10.650

calories per

cup

Equal variances assumed .116 29 .908 1.340580 11.533494 -22.248064 24.929224

Equal variances not assumed .148 20.996 .884 1.340580 9.067404 -17.516312 20.197471

calories per

30 g

Equal variances assumed 2.189 29 .037 5.219062 2.384153 .342920 10.095203

Equal variances not assumed 2.270 13.090 .041 5.219062 2.299182 .255457 10.182666

Sugar (g) Equal variances assumed 2.237 29 .033 3.299 1.474 .283 6.314

Equal variances not assumed 2.416 14.188 .030 3.299 1.366 .373 6.224

sugar per

cup

Equal variances assumed 2.330 29 .027 3.942029 1.692051 .481397 7.402661

Equal variances not assumed 2.753 17.418 .013 3.942029 1.431889 .926527 6.957531

suger per

30 g

Equal variances assumed 2.319 29 .028 3.454203 1.489298 .408246 6.500160

Equal variances not assumed 2.662 16.245 .017 3.454203 1.297579 .706828 6.201578

Dietary

Fiber (g)

Equal variances assumed -1.540 29 .134 -1.022 .663 -2.378 .335

Equal variances not assumed -1.942 20.530 .066 -1.022 .526 -2.117 .074

Fiber per 1

cup

Equal variances assumed -1.493 29 .146 -.945290 .633111 -2.240147 .349568

Equal variances not assumed -1.520 12.648 .153 -.945290 .621849 -2.292530 .401950

Fiber per

30 g

Equal variances assumed -1.642 29 .111 -.738882 .449872 -1.658974 .181210

Equal variances not assumed -1.665 12.548 .121 -.738882 .443791 -1.701161 .223397