Are Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Information Labels Well-Targeted

NCT05038163 | Completed Results

• 2 other identifiers: 2020-08-13558P30AG034532
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 5,845
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

We will study the extent to which soft drink information labels -- designed to curb unhealthy consumption -- are well-targeted to the most biased consumers.The study team will deploy novel methods for evaluating the targeting properties of information labels via an incentive-compatible online shopping experiment. At a high-level, we will ask whether the treatment effects of the information labels are concentrated on individuals with the biggest self-control problems and with the least knowledge of nutrition. We will first use the methodology from Allcott et al. (2019) to estimate the internality for each participant. We will then have participants make shopping decisions for soft drinks, first absent any information labels and then, for those not in the control group, in the presence of an information label. The within-subject design of the soft drinks experiment will allow us to estimate how the effects of the labels covary with consumers' internalities, and thus to determine whether the labels are well-targeted.

Conditions

Soft Drink Consumption; Sugar-sweetened Beverages; Information Labels

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (2)

• Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative

  How much consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative.

  1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment)

• Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative, Among Adults Aged 65+

  How much older adult consumers like, or are willing to pay for, sugar-sweetened beverages when compared to a sugar-free alternative. The survey instrument uses a multiple price list (MPL) to elicit each respondent's relative willingness to pay (WTP) for the sugary drink vs. the non-sugary alternative, a standard methodology in the economics literature where consumers answer a series of questions about whether they would prefer to buy a sugar-sweetened beverage at price X or a sugar-free alternative at price Y. For example, a relative WTP of $1.60 indicates a respondent is willing to pay an additional $1.60 for the sugary drink compared to the non-sugary alternative.

  1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment)

Other Outcomes (1)

• Willingness to Purchase Sugar-sweetened Beverage vs. Sugar-free Alternative, by Subgroups

  1 week after recruitment (during Part II of the experiment)

Study Arms (4)

Control Arm

NO INTERVENTION

In Part II of the experiment, subjects are not presented with nutrition or warning labels when choosing between beverages.

Nutrition Labels Arm

EXPERIMENTAL

In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown enlarged nutrition labels when choosing between beverages.

Other: Nutrition Facts

Text Warning Labels Arm

EXPERIMENTAL

In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages.

Other: Text Warning

Graphic Warning Labels Arm

EXPERIMENTAL

In Part II of the experiment, subjects are shown a graphic warning message about the health risks of sugary beverages when choosing between beverages. The message, for example, could include photos of tooth decay and other negative health outcomes.

Other: Graphic Warning

Interventions

Nutrition Facts OTHER

The nutritional information label for each beverage is enlarged.

Nutrition Labels Arm

Text Warning OTHER

The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using words/text and simple images.

Also known as: Stoplight Warning

Text Warning Labels Arm

Graphic Warning OTHER

The health risks of sugary beverages are communicated to subjects using a combination of words/text and graphic images/photographs.

Graphic Warning Labels Arm

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• US resident
• Shopping online for sugar-sweetened beverages

Sponsors & Collaborators

• National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.: lead
• University of California, Berkeley: collaborator
• National Institute on Aging (NIA): collaborator

Study Sites (1)

University of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, California, 94720, United States

Location

Related Publications (3)

• Allcott H, Lockwood BB, Taubinsky D. Regressive Sin Taxes, with an Application to the Optimal Soda Tax. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2019; 134(3).

  BACKGROUND

• Grummon AH, Hall MG, Taillie LS, Brewer NT. How should sugar-sweetened beverage health warnings be designed? A randomized experiment. Prev Med. 2019 Apr;121:158-166. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.02.010. Epub 2019 Feb 14.

  PMID: 30772370 BACKGROUND

• Donnelly GE, Zatz LY, Svirsky D, John LK. The Effect of Graphic Warnings on Sugary-Drink Purchasing. Psychol Sci. 2018 Aug;29(8):1321-1333. doi: 10.1177/0956797618766361. Epub 2018 Jun 18.

  PMID: 29912624 BACKGROUND

Results Point of Contact

• Title: Sarah Holmes Berk
• Organization: NBER

sholmes@nber.org

617-588-1445

Study Officials

• Dmitry Taubinsky, PhD

  UC Berkeley and NBER

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Publication Agreements

• PI is Sponsor Employee: No
• Restrictive Agreement: No

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: PREVENTION
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: August 31, 2021
• First Posted: September 8, 2021
• Study Start: October 18, 2021
• Primary Completion: December 22, 2021
• Study Completion: December 22, 2021
• Last Updated: December 11, 2024
• Results First Posted: April 7, 2023

Record last verified: 2024-11

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF, ANALYTIC CODE
• Time Frame: Within 12 months of the primary completion date or the resulting paper's online publication date, whichever comes first.
• Access Criteria: Replication data and code are available via Dropbox. Use the URL provided below, or navigate to the project by searching for "When Do 'Nudges' Increase Welfare?" at allcott.stanford.edu/research/.

Locations

US (1)