The effects of food advertising and cognitive load on food choices

BMC Public Health

Table 4 Effect of food advertising on the number of snacks chosen

		All snacks		Healthy snacks		Unhealthy snacks
	N	Rate ratio* [95% CI]	*p-value*	Rate ratio* [95% CI]	*p-value*	Rate ratio* [95% CI]	*p-value*
Full sample	351	1.23 [1.09 – 1.40]	*0.01*	1.19 [1.00 – 1.42]	0.06	1.28 [1.07 – 1.53]	*0.01*
Stratification by experimentally manipulated cognitive load
Low-cognitive-load Sub-sample	173	1.18 [0.99 – 1.41]	0.06	1.22 [0.96 – 1.57]	0.11	1.14 [0.89 – 1.47]	0.29
High-cognitive-load Sub-sample	178	1.28 [1.07 – 1.54]	*0.01*	1.15 [0.89 – 1.48]	0.28	1.43 [1.11 – 1.85]	*0.01*
Sub-stratifications by parental SES
Low cognitive load
High SES	68	1.46 [1.10 – 1.95]	*0.01*	1.81 [1.20 – 2.71]	*<0.01*	1.18 [0.78 – 1.77]	0.44
Low SES	76	0.95 [0.73 – 1.23]	0.70	0.88 [0.61 – 1.27]	0.50	1.02 [0.71 – 1.47]	0.90
High cognitive load
High SES	78	1.15 [0.87 – 1.52]	0.32	1.29 [0.88 – 1.88]	0.19	1.01 [0.67 – 1.52]	0.59
Low SES	72	1.26 [0.95 – 1.68]	0.11	0.84 [0.56 – 1.27]	0.41	1.84 [1.22 – 2.78]	*<0.01*

*Ratio of unhealthy snacks chosen by those in the food-advertising group to those in the non-food-advertising group.
Note: For each outcome, the results of 7 separate Poisson regressions are reported. In each regression the intervention status is the only variable. Coefficients can be interpreted as the percentage increase in number of unhealthy snacks chosen in the food advertising group over the number chosen in the non-food advertising group (i.e., 1.28 implies that the food-advertising group chose an average of 28% more unhealthy snacks than non-food advertising group). Significant results are in bold.

ISSN: 1471-2458