Explaining Socioeconomic Differences in Support for Sugar Restrictions in Schools

Subjects will be randomly exposed to one of 5 conditions:

1) Control
2) Information treatment emphasizing classroom externalities
3) Information treatment emphasizing policy alternatives
4) Information emphasizing childrens‘ self-control
5) Information emphasizing greater affectedness of low-SES students

2026-05-21

2026-06-30

Main dependent variable:
(Question: To what extent do you agree with the following statement?)
• Support for sugar restrictions in schools: “There should be stricter rules regarding sugary consumables in all schools.”

Secondary dependent variables (different school levels):
(Question: “To what extent do you agree with the following statements?”)
• Support for sugar restrictions in primary schools: “There should be stricter rules regarding sugary consumables in all primary schools.”
• Support for sugar restrictions in secondary school up to 10th grade: “There should be stricter rules regarding sugary consumables in all secondary schools up to 10th grade.”
• Support for sugar restrictions in secondary schools from 11th grade upwards: “There should be stricter rules regarding sugary consumables in all secondary schools from 11th grade upwards.”



Secondary dependent variables (posterior beliefs)
Question: “To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the availability of sugary consumables in schools?”
• Belief about health effects of sugar: “Foods with added sugar are harmful to health.”/“Beverages with added sugar are harmful to health.”
• Belief about Externalities (impact on others): “Children and adolescents consume more sugar when they see their classmates consuming sugary foods and beverages.”
• Belief about Availability of alternative policies: “Even without restricting the availability of sugar, there are effective ways to promote a more conscious approach to sugar consumption in schools and to reduce sugar intake.”
• Belief about Students’ self-control ability: “Many children and adolescents are capable of limiting their own consumption of sugary foods and beverages.”
• Belief about Effectiveness of restrictions: “Stricter rules to reduce the availability of sugary consumables in schools can help ensure that children and adolescents consume less sugar at school.”

All outcomes are measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Somewhat disagree; 3 = Neither; 4 = Somewhat agree; 5 = Strongly agree; 9 = Don’t know).
All outcomes will be binarized: 1 if response ∈ {4, 5}; 0 if response ∈ {1, 2, 3, 9}
“Don’t know” responses are coded as 0 to reflect absence of expressed support.


Secondary dependent variables (posterior beliefs about inequality)
(Question: “To what extent do you agree with the following statements?”)
A) Belief about sugar consumption at school of low-SES students: “Socially disadvantaged children and adolescents consume too much sugar at school.”
B) Belief about sugar consumption at school of high-SES students: “Socially advantaged children and adolescents consume too much sugar at school.”
C) Belief about benefits of sugar restrictions at school of low-SES students: “Socially disadvantaged children and adolescents benefit from stricter rules regarding sugary consumables in schools.”
D) Belief about benefits of sugar restrictions at school of high-SES students: “Socially advantaged children and adolescents benefit from stricter rules regarding sugary consumables in schools.”
All outcomes are measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Somewhat disagree; 3 = Neither; 4 = Somewhat agree; 5 = Strongly agree; 9 = Don’t know).
To measure the social gradient in perceived problem affectedness and perceived policy benefits, the following differences will serve as dependent variables
A)-B) and
C)-D)
“Don’t know” responses are coded as missing.

This study investigates the determinants of public support for paternalistic policies targeting children, focusing on restrictions of sugar consumption in schools. We document differences in preferences for smartphone bans across several socio-economic characteristics and investigate the role of beliefs, values and own smartphone use and sophistication in explaining these differences. In particular, we leverage a survey experiment to examine the importance of beliefs about children’s self-control, externalities imposed on peers, the role of private forces to regulate behaviour, and perceived socioeconomic inequalities in exposure and impact and document differences in updating across the studied SES groups.

Not available

randomization done in survey software

individual

No

approx. 3600

approx. 3600

approx. 720 in each of the 5 treatments