Framing, risk perception and social health campaigns: A neuroscientific analysis

Health authorities have widely used social health campaigns to improve the attitudes and healthy behaviours of the population. During the COVID-19 pandemic, they became an essential tool in increasing compliance with health measures, especially among the young population, a particularly reluctant group. The aim of this study was to analyse the effectiveness of different campaigns in improving young people's intention to change their behaviour towards compliance with health measures. For this purpose, an experimental study was conducted using neurophysiological tools (electroencephalogram and galvanic skin response) as well as self-reported data from a questionnaire. The experiment analysed three health campaigns with different narrative frames and emotions in the messages. The results showed different degrees of persuasive effectiveness depending on the framing, emotions used, and level of intensity of such emotions. Overall, it was concluded that negative framing strategies and high levels of intensity worked effectively. The influence of the perceived risk declared by the participants on the impact of the different campaigns was also analysed. In this case, for the most difficult target to activate, subjects with low perceived risk, negative and low-intensity framing strategies were revealed to be the most effective. Implications for the design of campaigns were derived, and limitations and future lines of research were addressed.

Automated summary

Health authorities have utilized social health campaigns to improve people's attitudes and behaviors towards health. This study examined the effectiveness of different campaigns in influencing young people's intention to comply with health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. The experimental study analyzed three campaigns with different narratives and emotions, using neurophysiological tools and self-reported data. The results showed that negative framing strategies and high intensity emotions were most effective. The perceived risk of participants also played a role, with negative and low-intensity framing strategies being most effective for those with low perceived risk.