Brain activity explains message effectiveness: A mega-analysis of 16 neuroimaging studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persuasive communication in marketing, political, and health domains influences sales, elections, and public health. We present a mega-analysis (a pooled analysis of raw data) of 16 functional MRI datasets (572 participants, 739 messages, and 21,688 experimental trials) assessing the neural correlates of the effectiveness of messages in individual message receivers and at scale (in large groups of message receivers who did not undergo neuroimaging). Existing theories suggest that decision-making is driven by expected rewards and perceived social relevance associated with the expected outcomes of a given choice. Consistent with these theories, we find that (i) brain activity implicated in reward and social processing is associated with message effectiveness in individuals and at scale across diverse domains (e.g. marketing and health campaigns); (ii) exploratory analysis further suggests language, emotion, and sensorimotor processes as pertinent to message effectiveness; and (iii) brain activity provides complementary information on message effectiveness at scale beyond self-reports provided by the same neuroimaging participants. This study offers novel insights into the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying effective messaging, highlights a path toward greater unity and efficiency in persuasion research, and suggests practical intervention targets for message design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".