Skip to main content

Table 3 Effects of counter-advertising condition on policy support and beliefs about alcohol industry marketing at follow-up (n = 1075)

From: Can counter-advertising exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms influence sport spectators’ support for alcohol policies? An experimental study

 

Counter-advertising condition

Omnibus test for condition

Control ad

(n = 356)

Counter-ad exposing alcohol harms

(n = 367)

Counter-ad exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms

(n = 352)

%

%

%

 

Policy support (% support)

 Complete removal of alcohol sponsorship from sport

32.3

36.5

51.4 ab

χ2(2) = 29.03, p < 0.001

 Ban on alcohol advertising at sports grounds

37.9

42.2

59.9 ab

χ2(2) = 38.55, p < 0.001

 Ban on alcohol advertising during sporting broadcasts at times when children watch TV (i.e., before 8:30pm)

54.5

59.9

74.7 ab

χ2(2) = 32.61, p < 0.001

 Policy preventing sporting organisations and teams from entering into new sponsorship arrangements with alcohol companies

36.8

40.6

53.4 ab

χ2(2) = 22.22, p < 0.001

Beliefs supportive of alcohol industry marketing (% agree)

 Alcohol companies make a positive contribution to the community through sport sponsorship

54.8

50.1

37.8 ab

χ2(2) = 21.11, p < 0.001

 Alcohol companies behave in socially responsible ways

42.4

41.4

28.1 ab

χ2(2) = 19.98, p < 0.001

 Alcohol companies should be allowed to sponsor sport since their products are legal

63.2

60.5

38.9 ab

χ2(2) = 49.18, p < 0.001

Beliefs opposing alcohol industry marketing (% agree)

 Alcohol companies are training children to think that sport goes hand-in-hand with alcohol

53.1

56.4

68.2 ab

χ2(2) = 19.90, p < 0.001

 Alcohol companies will stop at nothing to sell their products

58.7

55.6

66.8 b

χ2(2) = 9.93, p = 0.007

Overall belief about alcohol companies (% like)

59.0

54.5

38.1 ab

χ2(2) = 33.41, p < 0.001

  1. oxy_comment_start comment="As noted above, the footnotes have gotten mixed up in your reordering of the tables. Thus, we have fixed these to match how the tables are currently being shown in the proof. However, please note that our requested changes to the proof in the methods section will mean that the order of the tables in text will revert to how it was in our submitted manuscript. After you have made our requested changes, can you please double-check that the footnotes to each table are correctly matching? If possible, it would be great if we could be sent an updated proof to confirm this for ourselves."Notesoxy_comment_end: Boldfaced figures highlight the counter-advertisement that produced the highest (policy support, beliefs opposing alcohol industry marketing) or lowest (beliefs supportive of alcohol industry marketing, overall belief about alcohol companies) percentage among participants. Logistic regression models controlled for days elapsed between surveys, dose of advertising exposure and game number. Where the omnibus test for counter-advertising condition was significant (p < 0.05), pairwise differences were assessed with a Bonferroni correction applied. a Significant difference compared to control ad at p < 0.05; b Significant difference compared to counter-ad exposing alcohol harms at p < 0.05
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us