Effects of UPF Warning Labels on Social Media Among Teens and Young Adults
Trial statusNot yet recruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age13-29
SponsorUniversity of Tennessee
About this trial
This study aims to evaluate whether Ultra-Processed Food (UPF) warning labels on social media posts improve consumer understanding and influence purchase intentions among teens and young adults. Participants aged 13-29 in the United States will be recruited and randomized into two groups: a control group (no label) and an intervention group (UPF warning). Participants will view social media posts featuring UPFs with or without warning labels and respond to survey questions following each post.
Eligibility criteria
This trial accepts healthy volunteersQualifiers
Aged 13-29
Reside in the US
Can read and speak English
Disqualifiers
Under the age of 13 or over 29
Reside outside of the United States
Unable to complete a survey in English
Trial design
Design model
Parallel
Treatments tested in this trial
UPF Warning Labels
BehavioralParticipants will view four Instagram posts featuring UPFs, displayed with warning labels
No Labels (Control)
BehavioralParticipants will view four Instagram posts featuring UPFs, displayed without warning labels
Treatment groups
1,000 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groupsGroup A: UPF Warning LabelsExperimental treatment 1 intervention
Group B: No Label (Control)Other 1 intervention
Trial outcomes
Primary outcomes
1
Consumer understanding
For each social media post, participants will be asked whether they think the product is ultra-processed. Response options will be "yes", "no", or "I don't know". Consumer understanding will be coded as a binary outcome: "yes" = correct; "no" and "I don't know" = incorrect.
Time frame
Assessed during one-time 10-minute online study survey2
Purchase intentions
For each social media post, participants will be asked how likely they would buy the product in the next week, either in-store or online. Response options will be on a 1-5 Likert scale, with 5 being "very likely". Higher scores indicate higher intentions to purchase the product.
Time frame
Assessed during one-time 10-minute online study surveySecondary outcomes
1
Perceived healthfulness
For each social media post, participants will be asked how healthy the product seems to them. Responses options will be on a 1-5 Likert scale, with 5 indicating "very healthy". Higher scores indicate higher perceived healthfulness.
Time frame
Assessed during one-time 10-minute online study survey2
Perceptions of control over healthy eating
After viewing all four social media posts, all participants will be shown the UPF warning label (regardless of condition) and asked whether the UPF warning labels make them feel "less in control of making healthy eating decision," "neither less nor more in control or making healthy eating decisions," or "more in control of making healthy eating decisions." Responses will be binary coded: "more in control" = 1; "less" or "neither" = 0.
Time frame
Assessed during one-time 10-minute online study survey3
Policy support for ultra-processed food warning labels
After viewing all four social media posts, all participants will be shown the UPF warning label (regardless of condition) and asked whether they support or oppose a policy requiring these labels on social media advertisements for ultra-processed foods and beverages. Response options will be on a 1-5 Likert scale, with 5 indicating "Strongly support." Higher scores will indicate higher support for warning labels.
Time frame
Assessed during one-time 10-minute online study surveySponsors and contacts
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
University of Tennessee
Lead sponsor
Stanford University
Collaborator
Source ClinicalTrials.gov
This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options: