Skip to main content

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

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

   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
  1. *Ratio of unhealthy snacks chosen by those in the food-advertising group to those in the non-food-advertising group.
  2. 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.
\