Responses to counter-advertisement at baseline
As shown in Table 
Participants’ cognitive, motivational and emotional responses to counter-advertisement at baseline (n = 1075)oxy_comment_start comment="The footnotes have gotten mixed up in your reordering of the tables. Thus, we have fixed these to match how the tables are currently being shown in the proof. However, please note that our requested changes to the proof in the methods section will mean that the order of the tables in text will revert to how it was in our submitted manuscript. After you have made our requested changes, can you please double-check that the footnotes to each table are correctly matching? If possible, it would be great if we could be sent an updated proof to confirm this for ourselves."Notesoxy_comment_end: Boldfaced figures highlight the counter-advertisement that produced the strongest response among participants. Pairwise differences were assessed using one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. a Significantly higher than control ad at p < 0.05; b Significantly higher than counter-ad exposing alcohol harms at p < 0.05; c Significantly higher than counter-ad exposing alcohol sponsorship at p < 0.05Compared to seeing the control ad (M = 2.13), viewing either counter-ad made participants feel more motivated to reduce the amount of alcohol they consume, although these scores were only around the mid-point of the scale (i.e., M = 4.28–4.45). In general, participants’ emotional responses to the counter-ads were moderate (means ranged from 1.97 (‘confused’) to 4.40 (‘encouraged’) on the 7-point scale). However, the counter-ad exposing alcohol sponsorship and harms elicited stronger feelings of surprise (M = 4.28 vs. M = 3.15, 