Ultimately, narrative persuasion can be defined as any influence on beliefs, attitudes, or actions brought about by a narrative message through processes associated with narrative comprehension or engagement. With this broad definition in mind, we turn to the differences between rhetoric and narrative persuasion.
Narrative Versus Non-narrative Persuasion
* * *
A primary question among persuasion scholars has focused on the relative effectiveness of messages presented in a narrative form compared to those taking a non-narrative form. This is a complex question because non-narrative messages intended to persuade can use different strategies, such as presenting statistical evidence, reasoned arguments, or non-narrative, celebrity endorsements. Similarly, potentially persuasive narratives can vary in many ways, as previously described, as well as with respect to the mere quality of the story (Green & Brock, 2002).
A number of studies have compared narrative to non-narrative persuasive messages. Kreuter et al. (2010) found that a narrative about the importance of mammography in breast cancer detection and survival told by survivors was more effective than a comparable informational video with respect to recall and behavioral intention, but not actual behavior. However, Kreuter et al. (2010) note that the non-narrative message was relatively ineffective in its persuasive influence, generally, as well as in comparison to the narrative version. Similarly, while de Wit, Das, and Vet (2008) found a narrative message superior to statistical evidence in increasing perceived risk and severity of contracting hepatitis B virus, they note that the statistical evidence message was no different from a control message that contained no evidence. Ricketts, Shanteau, McSpadden, & Fernandez-Medina, (2010) found that participants who read swing-set assembly instructions containing brief stories of playground injuries exhibited more safety behaviors than participants who read instructions without stories. Braverman (2008) found that narrative testimonials about drinking water in order to lose weight (Studies 1 and 3) and about alcohol abuse (Study 2) were more persuasive than statistical evidence about these topics. However, the difference was present only among participants who were less involved in the issue, implicating a heuristic process. Niederdeppe, Shapiro, and Porticella (2011) found a narrative about the causes of obesity to be more effective in prompting external attributions than a non-narrative summary explanation containing similar information. However, the effect was found only among politically liberal participants.
A number of studies also have found narrative messages to be equal or inferior to messages taking a narrative form. Kopfman, Smith, Ah Yun, and Hodges, (1998) found that statistical evidence messages about organ donation were evaluated more positively (e.g., credibility, appropriateness) and lead to more positive attitudes about signing an organ donor card than a similar narrative message. However, the organ donation narrative produced greater anxiety among participants than the non-narrative regarding the need for an organ transplant. Dunlop, Wakefield, and Kashima (2010) recently found no advantage of a narrative over an advocacy format in storyboards for advertisements about smoking cessation or the importance of protecting oneself from sunburn. Similarly, Baesler and Burgoon (1994) found statistical evidence to be no more effective than narratives in influencing beliefs about juvenile delinquency. Greene and Brinn (2003) found statistical evidence to be more effective than narrative message in reducing tanning bed usage, and that difference was greater one month later.
A meta-analysis (Allen & Preiss, 1997) suggested that statistical evidence is more persuasive than narrative evidence, while a more recent meta-analysis did not reveal any significant differences between statistical and narrative messages when all outcome measures were pooled, and a stronger effect of narratives compared to statistical evidence when attitudes as outcome measures were singled out (Reinhart & Feeley, 2007).
At present, results about the effectiveness of narratives versus non-narrative formats are somewhat contradictory. However, as with most communication issues, the most effective message form likely depends on a number of situational factors, such as ideology (Niederdeppe, Shapiro, & Porticella, 2011), involvement in the message or the topic (Braverman, 2008), the nature of the non-narrative evidence to which the narrative is being compared (Greene & Brinn, 2003), whether the message is congruent or incongruent with the individual’s existing attitude (Slater & Rouner, 1996), as well as the temporal distance between exposure and outcome measurement (e.g., Appel & Richter, 2007; Cody & Lee, 1990; Kreuter et al., 2010). Studies that compare narrative to non-narrative messages suggest that progress lies in asking when and under what conditions narrative messages are appropriate and what makes them more and less effective. We now turn to these issues.
The Integration of Narrative and Persuasive Content
* * *
We suggested earlier that strictly distinguishing between arguments and narratives does not account for the variety of ways the two formats can be intertwined. A closer look is required to identify typical combinations, which may have different implications for effects.
Probably the purest form is the story that is created with the intention of persuading. For example, in traditionally designed entertainment-education (E-E) narratives, the story is proscriptively designed to include a transitional character who initially exhibits negative behavior and then is rewarded for positive behavior change (Bandura, 2004; Sabido, 2004). It is the entire story that is thought to have persuasive power, rather than any individual fact or facts. Advertisements and public service announcements also may take a narrative form. Such ads have been formally recognized by the advertising industry as “drama” or “narrative” ads (Escalas, 1998; Wentzel, Tomczak, & Herrmann, 2010).
Second, stories may have been created for entertainment purposes, but are recognized as having persuasive potential, even though its intended purpose was to attract and entertain an audience (e.g., Slater, Rouner, & Long, 2006). For example, Moyer-Gusé, Chung, and Jain (2011) recently demonstrated the ability of an episode of Sex and the City to increase discussions about sexually transmitted infections.
Third, instead of the story itself being the persuasive message, information intended to influence the audience may be embedded in a story (Dahlstrom, 2010; Greenberg, Salmon, Patel, Beck, & Cole, 2004; Hoeken & Hustinx, 2009). This sometimes takes the form of a highly integrated, complex storyline focusing on a topic, such as breast cancer (Hether, Huang, Beck, Murphy, & Valente, 2008) or organ donation (e.g., Morgan, King, Smith, & Ivic, 2010; Morgan, Movius, & Cody, 2009) imbedded in an entertainment program. However, the persuasive message also may be less central or even tangential to the overall plot (Valente et al., 2007), or take the form of nothing more than the insertion of a brand name or product image into a story (e.g., de Gregorio & Sung, 2010) or a piece of information related to a social issue or topic, such as the failure rate of condoms (Collins, Elliott, Berry, Kanouse, & Hunter, 2003).
Finally, a narrative example or testimonial may be inserted into a message that is not necessarily narrative in its overall form. Zillmann and colleagues (Gibson & Zillmann, 1994; Zillmann & Brosius, 2000) have demonstrated that the insertion of a narrative example into a news report can increase the report’s influence on perceptions of the report’s topic. Similarly, testimonials in which an individual shares an anecdote or experience often take a narrative form (Braverman, 2008; Brosius & Bathelt, 1994; Slater, 2002).
For two reasons, it is important to consider how narrative and persuasive content are combined. First, research has recognized that the extent to which the persuasive information is integrated into the story is important, with greater integration positively related to the magnitude of influence (e.g., Cowley & Barron, 2008; Dahlstrom, 2010; Fisch, 2000; Russell, 2002). However, the extent of integration is to some extent dependent on the type of persuasion outcome under consideration. For example, from a failed condom storyline in the sitcom Friends (Collins et al., 2003), audience members may have learned the simple fact that condoms have a nontrivial failu
re rate. But they also may have gained insight into the complications of unintended pregnancy on the lives of sexual partners. That is, the fact of the condom failure rate may be integrated superficially (e.g., mentioned in a conversion between two minor characters) or deeply (e.g., motivating the central plot line of several episodes). Regardless, of that particular fact, insight about the complications of unintended pregnancy may be integrated deeply into the plot and available to the audience, independent of specific facts that are or are not stated.
Second, in argumentation, it matters whether audience members are forced to draw their own conclusions or conclusions are drawn for them (Hovland & Mandell, 1952). Similarly, it matters whether the persuasive message associated with a narrative is expressed implicitly or explicitly. Explicit statements represent everything that belongs to the story proper, such as, events, characters, settings; all of these can be elaborated or counterargued. The same is true for explicit facts in the story, such as the existence of a rare disease or the causes of lung cancer. They may even be explicitly verbalized positions, such as when a mother warns her son against using alcohol. Implicit statements, on the other hand, are expressed by the whole story, its facts, events, and character developments. Here, the story provides grounds for inferences about the story’s overall message (e.g., by simply showing the consequences of an accident in which four friends of the drunk driver have been killed), but does not state the position explicitly. Explicit messages can be argued against—implicit messages need to be inferred before counterarguing can occur. Thus, messages that are implicitly contained in the story may be somewhat insulated from counterarguing, a topic to which we will return in detail in the following. Explicit messages also have greater potential for being perceived as controlling or manipulative by audience members. Awareness of persuasive intent, in turn, is an important determinant of resistance.
Awareness of Persuasive Intent and Resistance
* * *
Some persuasive narratives come from sources openly committed to changing the audience’s view to match their own. Explicit persuasive intent is present in communicative forms, such as narrative advertisements or public service announcements. Implicit persuasive intent is present in formats such as entertainment-education programs. Narratives with no explicit or implicit persuasive intent, such as House, MD, or CSI, also may influence audience’s views, as suggested by cultivation research (Morgan & Shanahan, 2010).
When audience members detect persuasive intent, issues of resistance (Knowles & Linn, 2004), reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Dillard & Shen, 2005), and counterarguing (Petty & Cacioppo, 1979; Petty, Tormala, & Rucker, 2004) become relevant. Resistance is a reaction against change, and more specifically, both the motivation to withstand pressures to change, as well as the actual outcome of not having been changed by a pressure (Knowles & Linn, 2004). Resistance is articulated in several ways (Knowles & Linn, 2004): (1) as heightened scrutiny, where people become more alert when confronted with a persuasive message and carefully consider it in a more critical way than usual; as (2) distrust, where people meet a message with caution when it comes from a source perceived to be persuasive and, apart from negative affect, also generate disbelief in the message; and (3) as reactance, which is negative affect against the perception of persuasive influence and the motivation to counteract that pressure. A slightly different articulation comes from Dillard and Shen (2005; see also Shen & Dillard, 2005) who describe reactance as an “intermingling” of negative cognition (counterarguing) and emotion (anger).
Among the most convincing arguments for using stories to achieve persuasive goals is their ability to communicate a persuasive message while minimizing reactance, resistance, or counterarguing in audience members. For example, stories may be perceived as lacking a persuasive intent altogether (Moyer-Gusé, 2008), or provide a compelling diversion from the persuasive message (Slater & Rouner, 2002). If an explicit persuasive message is absent, or is not perceived, and the frame that is available is an entertaining one, unfavorable reactions like reactance, distrust, or scrutiny are less likely (Dal Cin, Zanna, & Fong, 2004). Readers or viewers do not expect to be influenced by these stories, and are thought to lower their guard. Dal Cin, Zanna, and Fong (2004) suggest that narrative messages fly “under the radar.”
Which type of resistance occurs and how much it jeopardizes the potential for influence appears to depend on the extent to which persuasive intent is evident within the story (Slater & Rouner, 2002). Moyer-Gusé (2008) and Moyer-Gusé and Nabi (2010) have developed a model that explains how entertainment-education messages overcome resistance. Reactance is lowered (1) by disguising the persuasive intent within the narrative structure, (2) through parasocial interaction with sympathetic characters who make the persuasive message seem less authoritative, less controlling, and more acceptable for the target group, and, for the same reasons, (3) through the audience’s liking or identifying with a central character. In this model, selective avoidance is overridden by transportation into the narrative and identifying with characters. Also, perceived similarity and identification reduce the perception of invulnerability, which is another form of resistance. Similar to Slater and Rouner (2002) and Green and Brock (2000), Moyer-Gusé (2008) sees transportation and identification as phenomena that reduce counterarguing (for a detailed discussion of counterarguing, see the next section).
Mechanisms of Narrative Persuasion
* * *
The key to investigating the influence of narratives is to understand the mechanisms that lead to the adoption of narrative assertions. The potential of stories to educate has been supported by the fact that stories are more easily remembered than abstract principles (Schank & Abelson, 2005). Story events and characters are linked with each other through personal, causal, temporal, and spatial associations, which facilitate retrieval of more complex sequences; one need only remember a single story rather than a litany of unrelated facts (Green & Brock, 2005). In a similar vein, narrative can be considered as a basic mode of communication (Bruner, 1986) that best suits the way humans think and remember.
Apart from this general advantage of stories, most models of narrative persuasion assume that some sort of activity on the part of the reader or viewer mediates the persuasive effect of stories: Readers or viewers of narrative counterargue less, elaborate more, make use of imagery, and vicariously experience the characters’ fates. While these four mechanisms of narrative persuasion are plausible, they are generally not discussed in conjunction or within a unified theoretical framework; also, they have received different amounts of scholarly attention, which is reflected in our synthesis that follows.
Counterarguing
* * *
The most prevalent explanation for a narrative’s persuasive potential is the premise that narrative forms of persuasion inhibit counterarguing. This premise warrants consideration because the relationship between a narrative and a counterargument depends on awareness of persuasive intent, the availability of a target for counterarguing, the nature of involvement in a narrative context, and how counterarguing is measured.
Counterarguing typically is defined as the generation of direct rebuttals toward an overtly persuasive message or in response to a counterattitudinal statement (e.g., Jacks & Cameron, 2003; Wellins & McGinnies, 1977). Cacioppo (1979, Experiment 2) defined counterarguments as “statements directed against the advocated position that mentioned specific unfavorable consequences … alternative methods, challenges to the validity of arguments in the message, and statements of affect opposing the advocated position …” (p. 494, fn. 7). Bohner, Ruder, and Erb (2002) defined counterarguing as thoughts relevant to a persuasive message and unfavorable with respect to an issue.
Counterarguing in the context of narratives has been operationalized in two ways. First, one method uses a thought-listing task to directly document audience members’ thoughts—including counterarguments—about a narrative. Kopfman et al. (1998) found that, while narrative messages were no more
effective than statistical arguments in garnering behavioral intention about organ donation, participants who read a persuasive narrative listed fewer thoughts of all types (negative, neutral, and positive) about the topic than those who read a statistical argument. However, the prevalence of negative thoughts, indicating counterarguing was not statistically different between participants who read the two different message forms.
Slater, Rouner, and Long (2006) had participants list thoughts about the main themes of television drama programs (gay marriage and capital punishment) after viewing. They found little evidence that participants counterargued with these themes, suggesting either an absence of counterarguments or that counterarguments were focused elsewhere. Green and Brock (2000) asked participants to list thoughts about a narrative in which a young girl is murdered at a shopping mall. They concluded that, “[a]lthough participants were clearly thinking about and reacting to the story, it was impossible to code these thoughts as favorable or unfavorable toward the focal belief items” (2000, p. 707). Niederdeppe, Shapiro, and Porticella (2011) distinguished between cognitive and emotional counterarguments and found that political liberals were both less likely to produce cognitive counterarguments to a narrative about the societal causes of obesity and were more supportive than conservatives of the argument that societal factors influence obesity.
The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion Page 41
