Related Experiment Videos
Causal Language in Health Warning Labels and US Adults' Perception: A Randomized Experiment
Marissa G Hall1, Anna H Grummon1, Olivia M Maynard1
1Marissa G. Hall, Anna H. Grummon, and Madeline R. Kameny are with the Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Olivia M. Maynard is with the Medical Research Council Integrative Epidemiology Unit, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Desmond Jenson is with the Public Health Law Center, Mitchell Hamline School of Law, St. Paul, MN. Barry M. Popkin is with the Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
None:
Objectives. To examine US adults' reactions to health warnings with strong versus weak causal language.Methods. In 2018, we randomly assigned 1360 US adults to answer an online survey about health warnings for cigarettes, sugar-sweetened beverages, or alcohol. Participants rated 4 warning statements using different causal language variants ("causes," "contributes to," "can contribute to," and "may contribute to") displayed in random arrangement.Results. Most participants (76.3%) selected the warning that used "causes" as the 1 that most discouraged them from wanting to use the product. "Causes" was also selected most often (39.0% of participants) as the warning that participants most supported implementing. By contrast, most (66.1%) chose "may contribute to" as the warning that least discouraged them from wanting to use the product. We found few demographic differences in these patterns.Conclusions. Warnings with stronger causal language are perceived to be effective and are supported by the public.