Skip to main content

Table 3 Subgroup and moderator analyses

From: Priming food intake with weight control cues: systematic review with a meta-analysis

Moderator variables Subgroup level p for between subgroup heterogeneity Effect size (Hedges’ g) (95% CI)i
Subgroups
WC goals Weak WC goals (n = 13) 0.351 −0.071 (− 0.329, 0.187)
Strong WC goals (n = 13) −0.248 (− 0.517, 0.020)
WC goals (removing negative affectii) Weak WC goals (n = 10) 0.020 0.014 (−0.249, 0.278)
Strong WC goals (n = 10) −0.440 (− 0.718, − 0.163)**
Sex Females (n = 5) 0.056 −0.305 (− 0.574, − 0.036)*
Males (n = 5) 0.057 (− 0.200, 0.314)
Categorical moderators
Cue type Exercise (n = 6) 0.309 0.018 (−0.268, 0.303)
Low kcal foods (n = 6) −0.302 (− 0.560, − 0.044)*
Mixed (n = 5) −0.098 (− 0.403, 0.206)
Thin models (n = 9) −0.249 (− 0.476, − 0.022)*
Thin models – negative (n = 4) 0.105 (−0.238, 0.448)
TV show (n = 1) −0.339 (− 0.968, 0.290)
Cue engagement Attended (n = 23) 0.616 −0.169 (− 0.316, − 0.023)*
Incidental (n = 5) −0.160 (− 0.444, 0.124)
Subliminal (n = 3) 0.061 (−0.375, 0.498)
Cue validated Not validated (n = 21) 0.213 −0.098 (− 0.242, 0.046)
Validated (n = 10) −0.263 (− 0.478, − 0.047)*
Sample type General community (n = 3) 0.363 −0.263 (− 0.616, 0.090)
Mixed (n = 5) −0.295 (− 0.579, − 0.010)*
Students (n = 23) −0.091 (− 0.236, 0.055)
Sex Females (n = 13) 0.884 −0.137 (− 0.333, 0.059)
Mixed (n = 18) −0.156 (− 0.316, 0.004)
Cue-food intake intervaliii During/immediately (n = 16) 0.091 −0.188 (− 0.347, − 0.030)*
After tasks (n = 9) −0.284 (− 0.496, − 0.072)**
After negative tasks (n = 4) 0.107 (− 0.216, 0.431)
Counterbalanced (n = 1) 0.417 (−0.173, 1.006)
Varied (n = 1) −0.008 (− 0.545, 0.528)
Snack type Not reported (n = 1) 0.132 −0.106 (− 0.894, 0.681)
Savoury (n = 8) −0.316 (− 0.549, − 0.083)**
Sweet (n = 11) 0.023 (−0.167, 0.213)
Sweet and savoury (n = 11) −0.221 (− 0.426, − 0.017)*
Outcome Energy intake (n = 11) 0.849 −0.167 (− 0.380, 0.046)
Grams (n = 12) −0.136 (− 0.338, 0.067)
Grams z-scores (n = 1) −0.258 (− 0.984, 0.467)
Ounces (n = 2) 0.108 (−0.390, 0.606)
Piece count (n = 5) −0.227 (− 0.554, 0.101)
Controlled appetiteiv No control (n = 15) 0.016 −0.008 (− 0.169, 0.154)
Controlled for (n = 16) −0.289 (− 0.451, − 0.128)***
Theoretical approachv Body image (n = 9) 0.427 − 0.125 (− 0.350, 0.099)
Goal priming (n = 19) −0.231 (− 0.367, − 0.096)**
  1. Note. iEffect size, 95% confidence intervals and asterisks denoting statistical significance refer to the subgroup level; iiPost-hoc analyses; iiiInterval between cue exposure and assessment of food intake; ivBased on either study procedures or including reported appetite in analyses; vTwo studies using motor priming were not included in the moderator analysis as both were from one article [26], another using vicarious goal fulfilment was also not included [46]. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 at the subgroup level