Table 4.
Alcohol consumed (ml) | B=ln eB | SE(B) | z | p | eB | LL95% | UL95% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 5.069 | 0.058 | 86.94 | < .001 | 159.03 | 141.86 | 178.28 |
Weekly Consumption | 0.009 | 0.008 | 1.18 | .24 | 1.01 | 0.99 | 1.03 |
Gender | −0.464 | 0.122 | −3.81 | < .001 | 0.63 | 0.50 | 0.80 |
Video Condition | −0.129 | 0.123 | −1.04 | .30 | 0.88 | 0.69 | 1.12 |
Approach IAT | −0.125 | 0.140 | −0.89 | .37 | 0.88 | 0.67 | 1.16 |
Explicit Approach | 0.041 | 0.035 | 1.17 | .24 | 1.04 | 0.97 | 1.12 |
Video × Approach IAT | 0.107 | 0.277 | 0.39 | .70 | 1.11 | 0.65 | 1.92 |
Video × Explicit Approach | 0.052 | 0.075 | 0.69 | .49 | 1.05 | 0.91 | 1.22 |
alpha (dispersion parameter) | 0.473 | 0.064 | 0.362 | 0.617 | |||
| |||||||
Alcohol Percent of Total | B | SE(B) | t | p | β | UL95% | UL95% |
| |||||||
Intercept | 0.546 | 0.012 | 46.72 | < .001 | – | – | – |
Weekly Consumption | 0.003 | 0.002 | 1.86 | .07 | 0.16 | −0.01 | 0.34 |
Gender | 0.004 | 0.025 | 0.16 | .88 | 0.01 | −0.16 | 0.19 |
Video Condition | −0.032 | 0.025 | −1.27 | .21 | −0.11 | −0.27 | 0.06 |
Approach IAT | 0.052 | 0.028 | 1.87 | .06 | 0.16 | −0.01 | 0.33 |
Explicit Approach | 0.007 | 0.007 | 1.02 | .31 | 0.09 | −0.08 | 0.25 |
Video × Approach IAT | −0.042 | 0.055 | −0.77 | .44 | −0.06 | −0.23 | 0.10 |
Video × Explicit Approach | −0.003 | 0.015 | −0.21 | .84 | −0.02 | −0.18 | 0.14 |
Note. Bolded rows indicated significant effects; alpha = .034. B = unstandardized parameter estimate, log-linked for truncated negative binomial regression of alcohol consumed (ml); SE = standard error of the parameter estimate; eB = exponentiated coefficient also known as the Incident Rate Ratio; LL95% and UL95% = lower and upper limits of 95% confidence intervals. Weekly consumption equals total typical weekly alcohol consumption in US standard drinks as reported on the Daily Drinking Questionnaire. Gender was coded 0 = male, 1 = female. Video condition = exposure to either happy/neutral (Muppets or Denali) or sad (Schindler’s List) video clip; video condition was coded 0 = happy/neutral, 1 = sad. Predictors were mean centered prior to creation of product terms.