The results of this year's election are swiftly nearing. Yet, the impact of the psychology of communications on the way people voted is yet to be determined.

At an event last week, at creative agency Grey London, experts dissected the campaigning process and the way in which media and messaging is consumed. The event, called 'Greymatter: The choice is (not) yours," brought together a neuroscientist, a public affairs consultant, a policymaker and a digital content expert. The panel examined the way in which preconceptions of parties and candidates influences voting practices, as does the success of their communications.

"The basic brand perception of a political brand doesn't really change over time. There are entrenched views of a party that we are very different to shift," says founder of Portland Communications Tim Allan. He says parties have to ensure that they keep their brand current and relevant to the electorate. He points to Labour's efforts to rid the brand of its "musty" image in the pre-Blair era as an example of a party that defined what exactly it was and wasn't in advance of an election.

Stephen Adams, a policymaker and partner at Global Counsel, however, says that while disruption has been facilitated by digital technology, there is no impetus for political brands to innovate or change – based on the political economy. Following his discussion of the communications between businesses and politics – which can suffer from over-confidence on the part of business communicators – Eli Pariser, CEO of Upworthy discussed content. "If you want to stand out then you have to stand for something," he says. This forms the core ethos of Upworthy, a content platform that promotes socially-relevant stories to stand out from the masses of information available online. He says people want to see content that speaks to their interests. Neuroscience expert Heather Andrews proved this in her research around political advertisements. Labour's advert starring Martin Freeman achieved markedly higher scores than the Conservative's plain spot, because of the interest level in Freeman himself. Yet, messaging wins out in the end, she says, as the ratings reversed once viewers understood what was being communicated.

While it is tempting, the panellists acknowledge, to then find one thing that works, and say only that, throughout the election, it is an ineffective communications strategy. "It's like going to a dinner party, reading a script and then leaving," Allan says.