Food Preferences
Conditions
Keywords
food labeling, sustainability, diet, food choices
Brief summary
The aim of this study is to compare responses to 5 different types of labels for restaurant menus: 1) Control (non-sustainability-label: neutral labels not referencing environmental sustainability); 2) Numeric text-only sustainability label; 3) Endorsement text-only sustainability label; 4) Endorsement icon-only sustainability label; 5) Endorsement text-plus-icon sustainability label. Participants will be randomized to 1 of the 5 labeling arms above. Each participant will view 3 labels (shown in random order) from their randomly assigned labeling arm and respond to survey questions about each label (e.g., attention, perceived effectiveness).
Detailed description
This is an online randomized controlled trial. Investigators will recruit participants through a survey company to complete an online survey. In the study, participants will be randomized to 1 of 5 labeling arms: 1) Control (non-sustainability-label: neutral labels not referencing environmental sustainability); 2) Numeric text-only sustainability label; 3) Endorsement text-only sustainability label; 4) Endorsement icon-only sustainability label; 5) Endorsement text-plus-icon sustainability label. Participants will be randomized to 1 of the 5 labeling arms above. Each participant will view 3 labels (shown in random order) from their randomly assigned labeling arm and respond to survey questions about each label (e.g., attention, perceived effectiveness).
Interventions
BEHAVIORALNeutral labels
Participants view neutral labels (QR codes with and without neutral text) for menu items
BEHAVIORALNumeric text-only sustainability labels
Participants view labels with numeric text depicting the greenhouse gas emissions associated with production of the menu item
BEHAVIORALEndorsement text-only sustainability labels
Participants view labels using text to endorse menu items as having low environmental impact
BEHAVIORALEndorsement icon-only sustainability labels
Participants view labels using icons to endorse menu items as having low environmental impact
BEHAVIORALEndorsement text-plus-icon sustainability labels
Participants view labels using text and icons to endorse menu items as having low environmental impact
Sponsors
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
Stanford University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Participants will be US adults * Ages 18 or older * With an over-sample of adults (50% of total sample) 18-29 years
Exclusion criteria
* Younger than 18 * Non-US
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived message effectiveness | The survey will take up to 20 minutes | Participants will rate the extent to which the label makes them want to choose items with the label on a 5-point scale ranging from low (1) to high (5). They will also rate the extent to which the label makes eating items with the label seem appealing to them on a 5-point scale ranging from low (1) to high (5). These items are adapted from the 3-item UNC Perceived Message Effectiveness scale. Investigators will average responses to these two items to create a perceived message effectiveness score, which will also range from low (1) to high (5). Higher scores therefore indicate higher perceived message effectiveness. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Attention | The survey will take up to 20 minutes | Participants will rate the extent to which the label captures their attention on a 5-point response scale ranging from low (1) to high (5). Higher scores indicate more attention-grabbing labels (a better outcome). |
| Thinking about environmental effects | The survey will take up to 20 minutes | Participants will rate the extent to which the label makes them think about the environmental impacts of their food choices on a 5-point response scale ranging from low (1) to high (5). Higher scores indicate labels elicit more thinking about environmental effects (a better outcome). |
| Anticipated social interactions | The survey will take up to 20 minutes | Participants will rate how likely they are to talk about the label with others in the next week on a 5-point response scale ranging from low (1) to high (5). Higher scores indicate labels elicit more anticipated social interactions (a better outcome). |
| Believability | The survey will take up to 20 minutes | Participants will rate how believable the label is on a 5-point response scale ranging from low (1) to high (5). Higher scores indicate labels are more believable (a better outcome). |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed