It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Mass media can powerfully affect health decision-making. Pre-testing through focus groups or surveys is a standard, though inconsistent, predictor of effectiveness. Converging evidence demonstrates that activity within brain systems associated with self-related processing can predict individual behavior in response to health messages. Preliminary evidence also suggests that neural activity in small groups can forecast population-level campaign outcomes. Less is known about the psychological processes that link neural activity and population-level outcomes, or how these predictions are affected by message content. We exposed 50 smokers to antismoking messages and used their aggregated neural activity within a ‘self-localizer’ defined region of medial prefrontal cortex to predict the success of the same campaign messages at the population level (n = 400 000 emails). Results demonstrate that: (i) independently localized neural activity during health message exposure complements existing self-report data in predicting population-level campaign responses (model combined R2 up to 0.65) and (ii) this relationship depends on message content—self-related neural processing predicts outcomes in response to strong negative arguments against smoking and not in response to compositionally similar neutral images. These data advance understanding of the psychological link between brain and large-scale behavior and may aid the construction of more effective media health campaigns.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA
2 Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
3 Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
4 Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
5 Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, USA; Department of Communication Studies
6 Center for Health Communications Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
7 Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA
8 Center for Health Communications Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA