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

  Number of caloriesa Number of unhealthy snacksb
  Coefficient [95% Confidence interval]c Coefficient [95% Confidence interval]c
Model 1: Food advertising alone     
 Food advertising 65 [10 – 121] 1.28 [1.07 – 1.53]
Model 2: Food advertising with additional controls d    
 Food advertising 67 [11 – 122] 1.28 [1.07 – 1.53]
 Female -2 [–66 – 62] 1.00 [0.82 – 1.23]
 Foreign 211 [53 – 369] 1.99 [1.16 – 3.43]
 High income 130 [–18 – 278] 1.44 [0.85 – 2.45]
 Low income 178 [28 – 327] 1.80 [1.05 – 3.07]
 Diet quality 19 [–17 – 54] 1.03 [0.92 – 1.15]
 Fast food -3 [–18 – 12] 1.00 [0.95 – 1.04]
 Regular exercise -39 [–97 – 19] 0.91 [0.76 – 1.10]
 Year degree expected 1.6 [–21 – 24] 1.03 [0.95 – 1.10]
Model 3: Food advertising with interaction effect    
 Food advertising 36 [–43 – 114] 1.14 [0.89 – 1.47]
 High cognitive load -22 [–101 – 57] 0.85 [0.65 – 1.11]
 Food advertising + High cognitive load 59 [–51 – 169] 1.25 [0.88 – 1.79]
Equivalence tests:     
 Interaction ≤ 50 kcal   p-value = 0.56   
 Interaction effect has a rate ratio ≤ 1.25    p-value = 0.50
  1. aTobit regression.
  2. bPoisson regression.
  3. cBolded coefficients are significant at the 5% level.
  4. dSee Table 1 for variable definitions.
\