Health warnings may make teens and young adults think twice before scrolling, but a new Stanford-led study could not determine whether the messages actually change their behavior.
“Teens and young adults consistently reported that they felt the warning messages we tested would reduce their social media use compared with a control message,” said senior study author Thomas Robinson, MD, the Irving Schulman, MD, Professor in Child Health at Stanford University.
The peer-reviewed randomized clinical trial, published Sept. 4 in JAMA Health Forum, enrolled 1,012 US participants ages 13 to 29 in an online experiment conducted in December 2025. The sample included 499 teenagers ages 13 to 17 and 513 young adults ages 18 to 29.
Each participant viewed 15 messages in random order on a blurred mock Instagram page: 13 health warnings, a prompt to take a screen-time break and a neutral message about seatbelt use. Participants then used five-point scales to rate how much each message discouraged them from wanting to use social media and increased their awareness of its harms.
Warnings about overall mental health harms, depression and anxiety received the highest average ratings. All the health warnings except the one about addiction also rated significantly higher than the screen-time break prompt for discouraging use.
Those results answer a narrower question than the headline-friendly idea that labels make young people log off. The researchers measured perceived effectiveness after a single exposure; they did not track time on apps, changes in habits or mental-health outcomes.
Related: 20-Year-Old Suing Social Media Companies Speaks Out About Devastating Addiction
“However, we haven’t tested that yet, and that’s the next step — to actually test it, because we need to then test in a real-world setting what happens when these messages are displayed when you open your social media.” Robinson said real-world testing comes next.
The study’s randomized order strengthens comparisons among the messages, but it cannot show that warnings cause people to reduce their use. The authors also noted the convenience sample, static mock page, blurred background and one-time exposures as limits on how confidently the findings apply to real feeds and repeated pop-ups.
The policy question reaches nearly every family. A US Surgeon General’s advisory says up to 95% of 13- to 17-year-olds use a social platform, and one-third report using social media almost constantly.
Warnings alone may also lose their punch as users get accustomed to them. Clinical psychologist Melissa Greenberg, who did not participate in the study, told CNN that a new warning may interrupt a user at first.
“People stop seeing the things that are always there,” Greenberg cautioned.
That makes a label a useful conversation starter, not a substitute for attentive parenting. Families can ask what fills a child’s feed, whether it affects sleep, mood or body image, and whether notifications crowd out schoolwork, meals, worship and face-to-face friendships.
The Surgeon General recommends a family media plan, tech-free zones, responsible adult modeling and time for in-person friendships. The American Psychological Association likewise advises social-media literacy before adolescents begin using platforms, followed by age-appropriate review, discussion and coaching.
For Movieguide® families, media literacy can turn the pause created by a warning into practiced discernment. Parents and young people can examine why a message feels persuasive, compare health claims with trustworthy evidence and make deliberate choices about when to log off.
The study gives researchers a promising reason to test warnings in the real world, not a verdict on their power to change behavior. Clear language may help young users notice risk, but steady family guidance can help them build habits that last after the pop-up fades.
Read Next: Scrolling Short-Form Content Does This to Your Brain
Questions or comments? Please write to us here.
