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