Skip to main content

Table 3 Adjusted odds ratios (95 % confidence intervals) for associations between weight status and strong ad responses

From: Finding the keys to successful adult-targeted advertisements on obesity prevention: an experimental audience testing study

  Message acceptance Argument strength Personalised perceived effectiveness Negative emotional impact
Become a swapper 0.92 (0.61-1.38) 0.92 (0.65-1.32) 2.62** (1.82-3.75) 1.20 (0.55-2.63)
Toxic fat 1.11 (0.71-1.74) 1.24 (0.84-1.85) 2.16** (1.52-3.06) 2.42** (1.62-3.61)
Take life on 1.00 (0.68-1.46) 1.13 (0.80-1.59) 2.30** (1.60-3.30) 1.56 (0.64-3.85)
Measure up 1.49 (0.95-2.35) 1.48 (1.00-2.18) 3.23** (2.24-4.65) 2.27* (1.39-3.72)
Piece of string 0.90 (0.60-1.35) 1.07 (0.74-1.54) 2.01** (1.42-2.85) 2.33* (1.35-4.01)
Full monty 0.97 (0.67-1.42) 1.03 (0.73-1.44) 2.33** (1.57-3.45) 1.51 (0.86-2.63)
Correctly identified 1.05 (0.74-1.49) 0.85 (0.59-1.21) 1.57 (1.07-2.31) 1.53 (0.73-3.20)
Why am I fat 1.20 (0.83-1.72) 0.86 (0.61-1.22) 1.74* (1.15-2.63) 1.29 (0.80-2.09)
  1. Footnote: For all models, healthy weight is the reference category (1.00). Significant difference between groups *P < 0.01; **P < 0.001. Analyses adjusted for gender, age group, education level, parental status, and previous exposure to the ad