Cognitive and Emotional Inoculation Against Nutrition-Related Misinformation in Young Adults
Trial statusNot yet recruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18-30
SponsorBeijing Normal University
About this trial
This study aims to examine the effects of cognitive and emotional inoculation interventions on young adults' ability to identify and respond to nutrition-related misinformation on social media. The study will compare two game-based inoculation approaches-a cognitive inoculation intervention and an emotional inoculation intervention-with a control condition. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and 2 weeks later.
Eligibility criteria
This trial does not accept healthy volunteersQualifiers
Aged 18 to 30 years.
Able to read and understand Chinese.
Able to access and independently complete the online intervention game and study questionnaires.
Has access to WeChat for study communication and follow-up reminders.
Disqualifiers
Younger than 18 years or older than 30 years.
Unable to read Chinese or independently complete the online study procedures.
Does not provide electronic informed consent.
Trial design
Design model
Parallel
Treatments tested in this trial
Cognitive Game-Based Inoculation.
BehavioralParticipants will complete a five-level interactive game designed to build resistance to nutrition-related misinformation on social media. In each level, participants act as a health-content creator and choose between an original social media post and alternative titles that may use misleading persuasive techniques. The game addresses five techniques: fake authority, impossible expectations, fear appeals, conspiracy framing, and false dichotomies. After each decision, participants receive cognitive feedback explaining how the misleading technique operates, the linguistic cues that may indicate its use, and how to evaluate whether the claim is supported by verifiable evidence.
Emotional Game-Based Inoculation.
BehavioralParticipants will complete a five-level interactive game designed to build resistance to nutrition-related misinformation on social media. The game uses the same scenarios and addresses the same five misleading techniques as the cognitive inoculation intervention: fake authority, impossible expectations, fear appeals, conspiracy framing, and false dichotomies. After each decision, participants receive emotional feedback designed to help them recognize and reflect on the emotional cues triggered by manipulative messages, including unwarranted reassurance, desire, anxiety, anger, and pressure to make extreme choices. The feedback explains how these emotional responses may influence judgment of nutrition-related information.
General Nutrition Health Education.
BehavioralParticipants will read eight brief sections of general nutrition health education adapted from the Chinese Dietary Guidelines (2022). This condition provides credible healthy-diet information without instruction about nutrition-related misinformation, persuasive techniques, evidence verification, fact-checking, or emotional manipulation cues. The sections cover dietary variety; energy balance and physical activity; fruit and vegetable intake; animal-source foods; limiting salt, oil, sugar, and alcohol; regular meals and adequate hydration; food selection, label reading, and food hygiene; and sustainable dietary practices.
Treatment groups
330 Participants
are divided into 3 treatment groupsGroup A: Cognitive InoculationExperimental treatment 1 intervention
Group B: Affective InoculationExperimental treatment 1 intervention
Group C: General Nutrition EducationActive comparator 1 intervention
Trial outcomes
Primary outcomes
1
Perceived Credibility of Nutrition-Related Misinformation
Change from baseline in perceived credibility of nutrition-related misinformation will be assessed using simulated social-media posts about diet and health. Participants will rate the perceived credibility of each post using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all credible) to 7 (extremely credible). Higher scores indicate greater perceived credibility of nutrition-related misinformation, representing a worse outcome. Lower scores indicate lower perceived credibility of nutrition-related misinformation.
Time frame
Baseline (T0), immediate post-intervention (T1), and 2-week follow-up (T2).2
Manipulation-Technique Recognition Accuracy
Change from baseline in the accuracy of recognizing manipulation techniques in nutrition-related social-media information will be assessed using simulated posts containing both misleading and accurate content. Participants will identify the persuasion or manipulation technique used in each post, or indicate that no misleading technique is present. Higher scores indicate better recognition accuracy.
Time frame
Baseline (T0), immediate post-intervention (T1), and 2-week follow-up (T2).Secondary outcomes
1
Intention to Share Nutrition-Related Misinformation
Change from baseline in willingness to share nutrition-related misinformation will be assessed using simulated social-media posts about diet and health. Participants will rate their willingness to share the information with others on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). Higher scores indicate greater intention to share nutrition-related misinformation and represent a worse outcome.
Time frame
Baseline (T0), immediate post-intervention (T1), and 2-week follow-up (T2).2
Intention to Fact-Check Nutrition-Related Information
Change from baseline in intention to verify nutrition-related information will be assessed using simulated social-media posts about diet and health. Participants will rate the extent to which they would check whether the information is accurate or supported by reliable evidence on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). Higher scores indicate greater intention to fact-check nutrition-related information and represent a better outcome.
Time frame
Baseline (T0), immediate post-intervention (T1), and 2-week follow-up (T2).3
Perceived Manipulativeness
Change from baseline in perceived manipulativeness will be assessed by participants' ratings of the extent to which nutrition-related social-media posts are perceived as deliberately attempting to influence or guide their judgment. Ratings will be made on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all manipulative) to 7 (extremely manipulative). Higher scores indicate greater perceived manipulativeness.
Time frame
Baseline (T0), immediate post-intervention (T1), and 2-week follow-up (T2).4
Perceived Emotional Manipulation
Change from baseline in perceived emotional manipulation will be assessed in response to nutrition-related social-media posts. Participants will rate the extent to which the posts rely on emotional appeals rather than factual information.Ratings will be made on 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Higher scores indicate greater perceived emotional manipulation.
Time frame
Baseline (T0), immediate post-intervention (T1), and 2-week follow-up (T2).Other outcomes
1
Critical and Electronic Health Literacy
Change from baseline in critical and electronic health literacy will be assessed using self-report items addressing participants' ability to find, evaluate, and apply online diet- and health-related information, including the ability to identify omissions, exaggeration, or weak evidence. Responses will be rated on 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher critical and electronic health literacy.
Time frame
Baseline (T0) and 2-week follow-up (T2).Sponsors and contacts
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
Source ClinicalTrials.gov
This trial is not recruiting at the moment. You can still explore other options: