Table 3.
Effect of sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) price increase rationales on SSB purchasing intentions and favourability towards soda companies among respondents (n 494) to an undergraduate student survey about an SSB tax at a large US Midwestern university, April–November 2013
| SSB purchasing intentions | Favourability towards soda companies | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full sample | Full sample | Consume SSB once weekly or less | Consume SSB more than weekly | |||||
| β | se | β | se | β | se | β | se | |
| Tax on SSB | −0·21 | 0·14 | −0·07 | 0·16 | 0·03 | 0·29 | −0·07 | 0·19 |
| User fee | −0·47** | 0·14 | −0·36* | 0·16 | −0·69* | 0·32 | −0·24 | 0·18 |
| Reduces obesity | −0·42** | 0·14 | −0·36* | 0·16 | −0·66* | 0·30 | −0·19 | 0·18 |
| Budget deficit | −0·16 | 0·14 | −0·02 | 0·16 | −0·15 | 0·35 | −0·01 | 0·17 |
| Offset oral health-care costs | −0·23 | 0·14 | −0·01 | 0·16 | −0·25 | 0·32 | 0·08 | 0·18 |
| Offset chronic health-care costs | −0·42** | 0·14 | −0·13 | 0·16 | −0·41 | 0·30 | 0·02 | 0·18 |
| Protecting children | −0·37** | 0·14 | 0·06 | 0·16 | 0·44 | 0·30 | −0·10 | 0·18 |
| Constant | 2·98*** | 0·10 | 2·73*** | 0·11 | 2·56*** | 0·23 | 2·78*** | 0·12 |
| n | 493 | 493 | 148 | 345 | ||||
Estimates are coefficients (β) and their standard errors from ordinary least-squares regression models. The reference category is the group that received a message describing a price increase with no justification.
*P≤0·05, **P≤0·01, ***P≤0·001.