Comparing the Effectiveness of Animated Videos and Talking-head Videos in Science Communication

Overview

Journal Br J Health Psychol

Specialty Psychology

Date 2025 Feb 20

PMID 39976202

Authors

Clara L Marx

Laura M Konig

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Online videos are becoming increasingly popular for obtaining nutrition-related information. Learning theories suggest that videos may differ in their effectiveness of conveying knowledge depending on the correspondence between audio and visual content. We thus tested whether two popular video formats, i.e. talking-head and animated videos, differed regarding knowledge transfer effectiveness and their ability to stimulate content sharing.

Design: 2 video format x 3 topic between-subjects experiment.

Methods: A total of 358 participants who were representative for the German population regarding age, gender and level of education were randomly assigned to viewing one video format about one of three nutrition-related topics. Afterwards, they rated the video, indicated willingness to share the information with others and answered a set of quiz questions about all three topics to assess knowledge.

Results: Videos did not differ in their evaluation (F[1, 352] = 0.16, p = .898), knowledge transfer (F[2, 352] = 0.10, p = .749) or content sharing (F[1, 352] = 0.12, p = .727). However, participants received a better knowledge score for the video topic they watched a video about than for the other two topics (F[4, 704] = 50.00, p < .001, partial η2 = .22).

Conclusions: Therefore, both formats can be considered equally effective for use in science communication.

Citing Articles

Comparing the effectiveness of animated videos and talking-head videos in science communication.

Marx C, Konig L Br J Health Psychol. 2025; 30(1):e12786.

PMID: 39976202 PMC: 11840882. DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12786.

References

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

Schneider S, Beege M, Nebel S, Schnaubert L, Rey G . The Cognitive-Affective-Social Theory of Learning in digital Environments (CASTLE). Educ Psychol Rev. 2021; 34(1):1-38. PMC: 8242289. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-021-09626-5. View

Lungu D, Roislien J, Wiig S, Shortt M, Ferre F, Berg S . The Role of Recipient Characteristics in Health Video Communication Outcomes: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(12):e30962. PMC: 8759013. DOI: 10.2196/30962. View

Douglas B, Ewell P, Brauer M . Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA. PLoS One. 2023; 18(3):e0279720. PMC: 10013894. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279720. View

Weiss K, Konig L . Does the medium matter? Comparing the effectiveness of videos, podcasts and online articles in nutrition communication. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2022; 15(2):669-685. DOI: 10.1111/aphw.12404. View

Denniss E, Lindberg R, McNaughton S . Quality and accuracy of online nutrition-related information: a systematic review of content analysis studies. Public Health Nutr. 2023; 26(7):1345-1357. PMC: 10346027. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980023000873. View

Dalyot K, Rozenblum Y, Baram-Tsabari A . Engagement patterns with female and male scientists on Facebook. Public Underst Sci. 2022; 31(7):867-884. PMC: 9535961. DOI: 10.1177/09636625221092696. View

Polat H . Instructors' presence in instructional videos: A systematic review. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2023; :1-33. PMC: 9786415. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-022-11532-4. View

Giese H, Neth H, Gaissmaier W . Determinants of information diffusion in online communication on vaccination: The benefits of visual displays. Vaccine. 2021; 39(43):6407-6413. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.09.016. View

10.

Cohen J . A power primer. Psychol Bull. 2009; 112(1):155-9. DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155. View

11.

Watson J, van der Linden S, Watson M, Stillwell D . Negative online news articles are shared more to social media. Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):21592. PMC: 11405697. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-71263-z. View

12.

Schneider S, Krieglstein F, Beege M, Rey G . Successful learning with whiteboard animations - A question of their procedural character or narrative embedding?. Heliyon. 2023; 9(2):e13229. PMC: 9898452. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13229. View

13.

Marx C, Konig L . Comparing the effectiveness of animated videos and talking-head videos in science communication. Br J Health Psychol. 2025; 30(1):e12786. PMC: 11840882. DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12786. View

14.

. Global, regional, and national burden of diabetes from 1990 to 2021, with projections of prevalence to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2023; 402(10397):203-234. PMC: 10364581. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01301-6. View

15.

Kotz J, Giese H, Konig L . How to debunk misinformation? An experimental online study investigating text structures and headline formats. Br J Health Psychol. 2023; 28(4):1097-1112. DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12670. View

16.

Sina E, Boakye D, Christianson L, Ahrens W, Hebestreit A . Social Media and Children's and Adolescents' Diets: A Systematic Review of the Underlying Social and Physiological Mechanisms. Adv Nutr. 2022; 13(3):913-937. PMC: 9156385. DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmac018. View

17.

Milkman K, Berger J . The science of sharing and the sharing of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111 Suppl 4:13642-9. PMC: 4183177. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1317511111. View