Skip to main content

Table 2 Effect of food advertising on the type and quantity of food chosen

From: The effects of food advertising and cognitive load on food choices

Ā 

Number of caloriesa

Number of unhealthy snacksb

Ā 

Coefficient

[95% Confidence interval]c

Coefficient

[95% Confidence interval]c

Model 1: Food advertising alone

Ā Ā Ā Ā 

ā€ƒFood advertising

65

[10 ā€“ 121]

1.28

[1.07 ā€“ 1.53]

Model 2: Food advertising with additional controls d

Ā Ā Ā 

ā€ƒFood advertising

67

[11 ā€“ 122]

1.28

[1.07 ā€“ 1.53]

ā€ƒFemale

-2

[ā€“66 ā€“ 62]

1.00

[0.82 ā€“ 1.23]

ā€ƒForeign

211

[53 ā€“ 369]

1.99

[1.16 ā€“ 3.43]

ā€ƒHigh income

130

[ā€“18 ā€“ 278]

1.44

[0.85 ā€“ 2.45]

ā€ƒLow income

178

[28 ā€“ 327]

1.80

[1.05 ā€“ 3.07]

ā€ƒDiet quality

19

[ā€“17 ā€“ 54]

1.03

[0.92 ā€“ 1.15]

ā€ƒFast food

-3

[ā€“18 ā€“ 12]

1.00

[0.95 ā€“ 1.04]

ā€ƒRegular exercise

-39

[ā€“97 ā€“ 19]

0.91

[0.76 ā€“ 1.10]

ā€ƒYear degree expected

1.6

[ā€“21 ā€“ 24]

1.03

[0.95 ā€“ 1.10]

Model 3: Food advertising with interaction effect

Ā Ā Ā 

ā€ƒFood advertising

36

[ā€“43 ā€“ 114]

1.14

[0.89 ā€“ 1.47]

ā€ƒHigh cognitive load

-22

[ā€“101 ā€“ 57]

0.85

[0.65 ā€“ 1.11]

ā€ƒFood advertisingā€‰+ā€‰High cognitive load

59

[ā€“51 ā€“ 169]

1.25

[0.88 ā€“ 1.79]

Equivalence tests:

Ā Ā Ā Ā 

ā€ƒInteractionā€‰ā‰¤ā€‰50Ā kcal

Ā 

p-valueā€‰=ā€‰0.56

Ā Ā 

ā€ƒInteraction effect has a rate ratioā€‰ā‰¤ā€‰1.25

Ā Ā 

p-valueā€‰=ā€‰0.50

  1. aTobit regression.
  2. bPoisson regression.
  3. cBolded coefficients are significant at the 5% level.
  4. dSee TableĀ 1 for variable definitions.