This study examined the educational effectiveness of combining hazard-mechanism explanations and evacuation instructions in tsunami-related video messages, using both behavioral and neural measures. University students were assigned to one of four groups (mechanism, evacuation, combination, or control) and exposed to video materials while undergoing fMRI. The educational effect was assessed by changes in evacuation intent in a scenario-based decision-making task before and after video exposure. Results showed that all tsunami-related video groups had higher increases in evacuation intent than the control group, confirming that both mechanism and evacuation content were effective. However, the combined condition did not produce additional behavioral benefits. Neuroimaging analysis revealed diminished activation in five cortical regions related to self-referential processing (posterior cingulate cortex (PCC)), visual processing (lingual gyrus and inferior occipital gyrus), and auditory processing (bilateral superior temporal gurus) in the combination group compared to the evacuation-only group. Importantly, PCC activity was positively correlated with increased evacuation intent, suggesting its role as a neural index of educational effectiveness. These findings indicate that although hazard-mechanism and evacuation-instruction videos are individually effective, their combination may impose cognitive load that undermines self-referential processing and reduces neural engagement. Implications for the design of disaster education materials highlight the importance of balancing informational richness with cognitive processing demands to optimize preparedness outcomes.

1. [1] T. A. Codreanu, A. Celenza, and I. Jacobs, “Does disaster education of teenagers translate into better survival knowledge, knowledge of skills, and adaptive behavioral change? A systematic literature review,” Prehosp. Disaster Med., Vol.29, No.6, pp. 629-642, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X14001083
2. [2] S. Custodio, G. Silveira, L. Matias, I. Mata, C. Matos, J. M. Palma-Oliveira, F. Rocha, and F. C. Lopes, “Educating for earthquake science and risk in a tectonically slowly deforming region,” Seismol. Res. Lett., Vol.87, No.3, pp. 773-782, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220150239
3. [3] National Research Council “How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition,” The National Academies Press, 2000. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853
4. [4] M. K. Lindell and R. W. Perry, “The protective action decision model: Theoretical modifications and additional evidence,” Risk Anal., Vol.32, No.4, pp. 616-632, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x
5. [5] S. Michie, M. M. van Stralen, and R. West, “The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions,” Implement. Sci., Vol.6, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
6. [6] J. Sutton and C. Woods, “Tsunami warning message interpretation and sense making: Focus group insights,” Weather Clim. Soc., Vol.8, No.4, pp. 389-398, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-15-0067.1
7. [7] E. Iselin, “The effects of information load and information diversity on decision quality in a structured decision task,” Account. Organ. Soc., Vol.13, No.2, pp. 147-164, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(88)90041-4
8. [8] M. Eppler and J. Mengis, “The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines,” Inf. Soc., Vol.20, No.5, pp. 325-344, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240490507974
9. [9] C. Chang, “Behavioral recommendations in health research news as cues to action: Self-relevancy and self-efficacy processes,” J. Health Commun., Vol.21, No.8, pp. 954-968, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1204377
10. [10] A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency,” Am. Psychol., Vol.37, No.2, pp. 122-147, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
11. [11] X. Nan, M. F. Dahlstrom, A. Richards, and S. Rangarajan, “Influence of evidence type and narrative type on HPV risk perception and intention to obtain the HPV vaccine,” Health Commun., Vol.30, No.3, pp. 301-308, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.888629
12. [12] I. S. Ramsay, M. C. Yzer, M. Luciana, K. D. Vohs, and A. W. MacDonald, III, “Affective and executive network processing associated with persuasive antidrug messages,” J. Cogn. Neurosci., Vol.25, No.7, pp. 1136-1147, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00391
13. [13] L.-A. Casado-Aranda, N. van der Laan, and J. Sanchez-Fernandez, “Neural activity in self-related brain regions in response to tailored nutritional messages predicts dietary change,” Appetite, Vol.170, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105861
14. [14] E. C. Kranzler, R. Schmaelzle, M. B. O’Donnell, R. Pei, and E. B. Falk, “Adolescent neural responses to antismoking messages, perceived effectiveness, and sharing intention,” Media Psychol., Vol.22, No.2, pp. 323-349, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2018.1476158
15. [15] M. Takubo, M. Sugiura, R. Ishibashi, N. Miura, and A. Tanabe-Ishibashi, “How disaster prevention videos contribute to tsunami evacuation: Subjective motivation and risk-sensitive attitude in a simulation experiment,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.19, No.1, pp. 94-104, 2024. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2024.p0094
16. [16] A. Kopacz, G. Banerski, and C. Biele, “Cognitive and visual processing of 3D enhanced disaster risk communication video,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., Vol.75, Article No.102971, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102971
17. [17] P. Gersmehl, “Brain science and geographic thinking: A review and research agenda for K-3 geography,” Educ. Sci., Vol.13, No.12, Article No.1199, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13121199
18. [18] N. A. Herweg and M. J. Kahana, “Spatial representations in the human brain,” Front. Hum. Neurosci., Vol.12, Article No.297, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00297
19. [19] J. K. Rilling and A. G. Sanfey, “The neuroscience of social decision-making,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., Vol.62, No.1, pp. 23-48, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131647
20. [20] Y. Ni and J. Li, “Neural mechanisms of social learning and decision-making,” Sci. China Life Sci., Vol.64, No.6, pp. 897-910, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-020-1833-8
21. [21] N. Labutina, S. Polyakov, L. Nemtyreva, A. Shuldishova, and O. Gizatullina, “Neural correlates of social decision-making,” Iran. J. Psychiatry, Vol.19, No.1, Article No.148, 2024. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijps.v19i1.14350
22. [22] M. Takubo, M. Sugiura, R. Ishibashi, N. Miura, and A. Tanabe-Ishibashi, “A risk-scrutinizing attitude is independent of risk-sensitive attitude and may hamper a proper protective response: A tsunami simulation experiment,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.19, No.1, pp. 81-93, 2024. https://doi.org/10.20965/jdr.2024.p0081
23. [23] X. Schmalz, G. Schulte-Krne, E. D. Simone, and K. Moll, “What do artificial orthography learning tasks actually measure? Correlations within and across tasks,” J. of Cognition, Vol.4, No.1, Article No.7, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.144
24. [24] J. R. Matthews, N. Sugihara, S. Nagisa, H. Ohashi, and K. Shibata, “The order of task decisions and confidence ratings has little effect on metacognition,” Commun. Psychol., Vol.3, No.1, Article No.140, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-025-00321-7
25. [25] B. L. L. Foster, S. R. R. Koslov, L. Aponik-Gremillion, M. E. E. Monko, B. Y. Y. Hayden, and S. R. R. Heilbronner, “A tripartite view of the posterior cingulate cortex,” Nat. Rev. Neurosci., Vol.24, No.3, pp. 173-189, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-022-00661-x
26. [26] R. Leech and D. J. Sharp, “The role of the posterior cingulate cortex in cognition and disease,” Brain, Vol.137, No.1, pp. 12-32, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt162
27. [27] H. F. Chua, I. Liberzon, R. C. Welsh, and V. J. Strecher, “Neural correlates of message tailoring and self-relatedness in smoking cessation programming,” Biol. Psychiatry, Vol.65, No.2, pp. 165-168, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.08.030
28. [28] J. Sweller, “Cognitive load theory,” J. P. Mestre and B. H. Ross (Eds.), “Psychology of Learning and Motivation,” pp. 37-76, Elsevier, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
29. [29] P. Ayres and J. Sweller, “The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning: The split-attention principle in multimedia learning,” R. E. Mayer (Ed.), “The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning,” Cambridge University Press, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.009
30. [30] V. Schmithorst, S. Holland, and E. Plante, “Cognitive modules utilized for narrative comprehension in children: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study,” Neuroimage, Vol.29, No.1, pp. 254-266, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.07.020
31. [31] M. Jung-Beeman, E. Bowden, J. Haberman, J. Frymiare, S. Arambel-Liu, R. Greenblatt, P. Reber, and J. Kounios, “Neural activity when people solve verbal problems with insight,” PLoS Biol., Vol.2, No.4, pp. 500-510, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020097
32. [32] R. M. Willems, S. L. Frank, A. D. Nijhof, P. Hagoort, and A. van den Bosch, “Prediction during natural language comprehension,” Cereb. Cortex, Vol.26, No.6, pp. 2506-2516, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv075
33. [33] J. Bogousslavsky, J. Miklossy, J. Deruaz, G. Assal, and F. Regli, “Lingual and fusiform gyri in visual processing: A clinicopathological study of superior altitudinal hemianopia,” J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, Vol.50, No.5, pp. 607-614, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.50.5.607
34. [34] J. Moll, R. de Oliveira-Souza, I. Bramati, and J. Grafman, “Functional networks in emotional moral and nonmoral social judgments,” Neuroimage, Vol.16, No.3, pp. 696-703, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1118
35. [35] M. Pico-Perez, J. Radua, T. Steward, J. M. Menchon, and C. Soriano-Mas, “Emotion regulation in mood and anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis of fMRI cognitive reappraisal studies,” Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry, Vol.79, No.B, pp. 96-104, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.06.001
36. [36] C. Gerlach, C. Aaside, G. Humphreys, A. Gade, O. Paulson, and I. Law, “Brain activity related to integrative processes in visual object recognition: Bottom-up integration and the modulatory influence of stored knowledge,” Neuropsychologia, Vol.40, No.8, pp. 1254-1267, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00222-6
37. [37] K. Motoki, S. Suzuki, R. Kawashima, and M. Sugiura, “A combination of self-reported data and social-related neural measures forecasts viral marketing success on social media,” J. Interact. Mark., Vol.52, pp. 99-117, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2020.06.003
38. [38] E. B. Falk, E. T. Berkman, and M. D. Lieberman, “From neural responses to population behavior: Neural focus group predicts population-level media effects,” Psychol. Sci., Vol.23, No.5, pp. 439-445, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611434964
39. [39] R. A. Peterson, “On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis,” J. Consum. Res., Vol.28, No.3, pp. 450-461, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1086/323732