Skip to main content

Table 5 Event/brand image similarity scoresa for pairings of Commonwealth Games with sponsor brands~ by sponsorship condition

From: The impact of unhealthy food sponsorship vs. pro-health sponsorship models on young adults’ food preferences: a randomised controlled trial

  Commonwealth Games and
unhealthy food sponsor brand pairing
Commonwealth Games and healthier food sponsor brand pairing
Sponsorship condition Predicted mean B (95% CI) β p Predicted mean B (95% CI) β p
Non-food branding 37.51 Ref    41.31 Ref   
Unhealthy food branding 40.58 3.07 (0.89, 5.25) 0.10 0.006 41.68 0.37 (−1.59, 2.32) 0.01 0.713
Healthier food branding 39.68 2.17 (−0.03, 4.37) 0.07 0.053 43.89 2.58 (0.61, 4.55) 0.09 0.010
Obesity prevention campaign branding 38.24 0.74 (−1.46, 2.93) 0.02 0.511 41.69 0.38 (−1.58, 2.34) 0.01 0.704
  1. aSum of the absolute differences in participants’ ratings of the Commonwealth Games and the (a) unhealthy food sponsor brand and (b) healthier food sponsor brand, on 10 adjectives. Scores have been reverse coded such that higher numbers indicate greater image similarity for each event-brand pairing. ~Image perceptions of the obesity prevention campaign brands were not assessed
  2. B unstandardised regression coefficient, CI confidence interval, β standardised regression coefficient, Ref reference category in linear regression model. Linear regression analyses included product category as a covariate. Boldfaced results are significant at p < 0.05