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

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

	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

^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
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

ISSN: 1471-2458