For significant interaction terms it was planned to present the results separately for every CX-5461 datasheet discount and price increase combination. Analyses were conducted using SPSS statistical software (version 17.00, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). n = 125 (83%) participants completed the study. Compared to the final study sample, non-responders were older (Δ = 7.42 years) and had a smaller household size (Δ = 0.82 persons). From this sample, participants who were barely responsible for groceries in real life (n = 1) or with a low appreciation score of the Virtual Supermarket (n = 6) were excluded. A low appreciation score was set on the fifth percentile, which included participants with

a score ≤ 42 (range = 27–77; mean = 58, SD = 9.6). Also, n = 1 person was excluded due to missing data. The final study sample included n = 117 participants (Fig. 3; Table 2). Ninety-one percent of the participants scored ≥ 5 (1 = lowest; 7 = highest) on comprehension of the software. Furthermore, 85% scored ≥ 5 on the question Obeticholic Acid asking whether their experimental groceries corresponded with their regular groceries and 94% scored ≥ 5 on the question asking whether the products in the web-based supermarket were good and recognizable.

Participants with the highest discount on healthier foods purchased the most products within this category (32.0 items), compared to the other discount conditions (27.2 and 24.6 items respectively) and also purchased the most fruits and vegetables. However, this group also purchased the highest number of calories. This was especially apparent

in the conditions with the lowest price increase on unhealthier foods (Table 3). There were Fossariinae no significant interactions between price increase and discount level for any outcome measure. This means that the effects of the discounts were irrespective of price increase level and vice versa. This could however be due to our small sample size. Interaction terms were therefore removed from the model, and results of the ANCOVA will be presented at discount and price increase levels separately. Participants with a 50% discount purchased significantly more healthy foods than participants with no discount (Δ = 6.62, p = 0.002) or a 25% discount (Δ = 4.87, p = 0.02) (Table 4a). Furthermore, participants with a 50% discount purchased 821 g more vegetables for their household for a week (p = 0.03) compared to no discount and 768 g more compared to the 25% discount conditions (p = 0.04). However, participants in the highest discount condition also purchased significantly more items in total (Δ = 10.40, p = 0.001) compared to no discount, and significantly more calories (Δ = 10,505 kcal, p = 0.001) compared to no discount. The discounts had no statistically significant effects on the proportion of healthier products purchased within each of the eight most popular food categories (Table 1 and Table A.1), but effects were generally in the same direction as for the overall analyses.