Opinion: Is Too Much Information Undermining Health Messaging?
In an era of digital abundance, health brands are investing heavily in expert-backed content, omnichannel strategies and data-informed decision-making. The underlying belief is that more information leads to better choices, which in turn will drive improved health outcomes. But in practice, information overload is undermining engagement and stalling behaviour change.
Research on cognitive load theory suggests that when people are overwhelmed by complexity, they disengage and tune out (Khaleel et al., 2019). The result isn’t empowerment but inertia. Instead of clarifying decisions, excessive information fuels confusion, decision fatigue and withdrawal from meaningful action.
The brain was not built for volume
The modern information environment far exceeds what our evolutionary wiring was designed to handle. As psychologist and Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman (2011) outlines in his dual-system theory, human reasoning and decision-making involve two distinct and complementary streams of thinking. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and driven by emotion. In contrast, System 2 is slower, deliberate, and analytical.
System 1 evolved to help us navigate a complex world with minimal cognitive effort. It is our default, especially when we’re tired, distracted or overwhelmed. And our current climate ensures that we often are all three.
Nowhere is this more relevant than in health. Today’s audiences are bombarded by a 24/7 stream of advice from social media, government campaigns, wearable technology and medical professionals. Each interaction is competing for a very limited mental bandwidth.
Rather than engaging in critical analysis, individuals increasingly rely on instincts, past habits or the loudest voice in the room. In this cognitive climate, complexity doesn’t serve to inform; it repels.
The cognitive cost of health messaging
The problem compounds when life stressors such as workload, family obligations, financial strain and disrupted sleep are layered in. These external pressures further erode the capacity for effortful decision-making.
Research on decision fatigue (Evan and Stanovich, 2013) shows that when faced with too many choices, people struggle to evaluate options rationally. Even small decisions feel exhausting and overwhelming. In the context of healthcare, this often leads to one of two outcomes: impulsive choices or avoidance altogether.
Brands that communicate through complex analogies, heavy medical and scientific terminology or multiple calls-to-action risk alienating the very people they seek to support.
The consequence of information overload extends beyond disengagement. It creates fertile ground for misinformation. This is especially concerning in health contexts, where information overload can foster vulnerability to misinformation (Bannerjee & Rao, 2020). When credible guidance feels inaccessible or cognitively demanding, people will gravitate towards simple, emotionally charged narratives rather than wade through evidence-based guidance. This behaviour is evident in the rise of viral health trends and misinformation on social media, where catchy headlines and anecdotal stories frequently overshadow the scientific material.
Clarity is a strategic asset
The way forward is not to reduce accuracy but to refine delivery. People do not seek to be educated on every single aspect of a health topic; they want clear, actionable solutions that speak to them in a relatable manner. The information should fit seamlessly into their lives. Some brands have begun adopting this principle of cognitive simplicity.
Headspace, the widely popular meditation app, has streamlined its offering to prioritise ease of use. Rather than educating users on the neuroscience of mindfulness, the app invites people to act immediately on their specific need, i.e., stress relief, sleep improvement or focus. The technical material is available, but only for those who choose to seek it. The core experience is curated to be intuitive, frictionless and emotionally relevant.
The app’s design aligns with System 1 processing. It reduces the cognitive burden of participation while preserving the integrity and benefits of the mindfulness practices. With over 70 million users and a 4.8-star rating on the Apple App Store, Headspace demonstrates that simplification doesn’t mean dumbing down content. Instead, it’s about a strategic user experience.
Reveri, founded by Stanford psychiatrist Dr. David Spiegel, applies the same logic. Users are not required to understand hypnotic theory or neurological pathways. Instead, they are gently guided into a receptive state where positive behaviour change is facilitated effortlessly. Sessions targeting cravings, sleep issues and anxiety are addressed via an intuitive entry over intellectual effort.
These brands are not just health tools. They are communication systems built on an understanding of how people actually make decisions. And they work because they remove friction, not add more information.
A new mandate for health brands
The implications for health leaders are clear. In today’s saturated landscape, clarity is a competitive advantage. Cognitive simplicity is not a creative constraint but a strategic imperative.
To influence behaviour at scale, brands must shift from the role of educator to that of facilitator. This does not mean abandoning scientific rigour, but rather presenting the information in ways that resonate with how the human brain processes it.
This means leading with one clear call to action, prioritising narrative over technical jargon and structuring content to support intuitive, low-effort decision-making.
Research consistently shows that focused, singular messages outperform campaigns built around multiple competing priorities. In health communication, less is not just more but vital.
Reframing expertise as accessibility
This shift requires more than just content design. It demands a shift in mindset. Demonstrating expertise is no longer about showcasing knowledge and depth; it's about translating that proficiency into usable, human-centred insight.
This is where the opportunity lies for forward-thinking health leaders. It’s about creating systems that respect human cognition. It’s about building trust through clarity, relevance and precision, not volume.
References:
Arnold, M., Goldschmitt, M., & Rigotti, T. (2023). Dealing with information overload: a comprehensive review. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1122200
Banerjee, D., & Rao, T. S. (2020). Psychology of misinformation and the media: Insights from the COVID-19 pandemic. Indian Journal of Social Psychiatry, 36(5), 131.https://doi.org/10.4103/ijsp.ijsp_112_20
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. (2013). Dual process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Khaleel, I., Wimmer, B. C., Peterson, G. M., Zaidi, S. T. R., Roehrer, E., Cummings, E., & Lee, K. (2019). Health information overload among health consumers: A scoping review. Patient Education and Counseling, 103(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.08.008
Klerings, I., Weinhandl, A. S., & Thaler, K. J. (2015). Information overload in healthcare: too much of a good thing? Zeitschrift Für Evidenz Fortbildung Und Qualität Im Gesundheitswesen, 109(4–5), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2015.06.005
Milte, R., Ratcliffe, J., Chen, G., Lancsar, E., Miller, M., & Crotty, M. (2014). Cognitive Overload? An Exploration of the Potential Impact of Cognitive Functioning in Discrete Choice Experiments with Older People in Health Care. Value in Health, 17(5), 655–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.05.005
Rand, D. Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015). Everyday Consequences of Analytic Thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 425–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415604610
