TABLE 2—
Regressions Predicting Number of Calories Purchased, Testing Main Effects and Interactions Among Fast-Food Consumers Who Received a Per-Meal or Per-Day Calorie Recommendation or No Recommendation, Before and After the 2008 Implementation of Calorie Labeling in New York City
| Variable | Model 1: Main Effects, Calories (SE) | Model 2: Interactions, Calories (SE) |
| Constant | 743.15** (49.08) | 704.59** (56.52) |
| Calories posted | 17.74 (28.20) | 103.97a (58.30) |
| Either recommendationb | 61.44a (34.22) | 49.79 (53.19) |
| Per-meal recommendationc | −20.05 (33.07) | 26.81 (51.45) |
| Brooklyn | 83.61** (28.67) | 172.53** (57.43) |
| Friday | 30.37 (27.82) | 35.63 (27.84) |
| Women | −10.34 (28.33) | −11.24 (28.36) |
| African American | 63.64* (29.47) | 57.32a (29.64) |
| Age | −2.77** (0.99) | −2.73** (0.99) |
| Calories posted × either recommendation | 22.68 (69.51) | |
| Calories posted × per-meal recommendation | −72.17 (67.00) | |
| Calories posted × Brooklyn | −166.08** (56.66) | |
| Brooklyn × either recommendation | −1.48 (69.62) | |
| Brooklyn × per-meal recommendation | −39.82 (67.03) | |
| Model statistics | ||
| Omnibus F test | F(8,1027) = 3.59 | F(13,1022) = 2.99 |
| R2 | 0.027 | 0.037 |
Note. The sample size was n = 1036.
a
Data approached significance at P < .1.
b
Dummy code comparing the presence of either of the 2 calorie recommendation conditions to the control condition.
c
Dummy code comparing the per-meal recommendation to either of the other conditions.
*P < .05; **P < .01.