Comparing mediational pathways for narrative- and argument-based messages: Believability, counterarguing, and emotional reaction

Melinda M. Krakow, Robert N. Yale, Jakob D. Jensen, Nick Carcioppolo, Chelsea L. Ratcliff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Narratives may outperform argument-based messages in certain situations, notably because they are thought to exert unique influence via particular mediational pathways. The present study tested three sets of potential mediators (believability, counterarguing, emotional reaction) of the relationship between message modality (narrative- vs. argument-based) and the outcome of purchase intentions. Participants (N = 214) were randomly assigned to view one of four advertisements from two brands featuring narrative- or argument-based messages and completed measures of purchase intentions, believability, counterarguing, and emotional reactions to the ad. As hypothesized, narratives increased intentions compared to non narratives. Single moderated mediation models supported the mediating contribution of the completeness dimension of believability, counterarguing, negative and positive affective reaction. A combined moderated mediation model provided further support for positive affect as a mediator. Results provide evidence for several theorized mechanisms of narrative persuasion and illustrate an approach to evaluating multiple mediators in comparative message research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)299-321
Number of pages23
JournalHuman Communication Research
Volume44
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2018

Fingerprint

narrative
Persuasive Communication
mediation
purchase
persuasion
Research
evidence

Keywords

  • Believability
  • Comparative
  • Counterarguing
  • Emotion
  • Mediation
  • Narrative
  • Persuasion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Anthropology
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Comparing mediational pathways for narrative- and argument-based messages : Believability, counterarguing, and emotional reaction. / Krakow, Melinda M.; Yale, Robert N.; Jensen, Jakob D.; Carcioppolo, Nick; Ratcliff, Chelsea L.

In: Human Communication Research, Vol. 44, No. 3, 01.07.2018, p. 299-321.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Krakow, Melinda M. ; Yale, Robert N. ; Jensen, Jakob D. ; Carcioppolo, Nick ; Ratcliff, Chelsea L. / Comparing mediational pathways for narrative- and argument-based messages : Believability, counterarguing, and emotional reaction. In: Human Communication Research. 2018 ; Vol. 44, No. 3. pp. 299-321.
@article{4cbcb0ad6bdd454e933e619b3ff56b29,
title = "Comparing mediational pathways for narrative- and argument-based messages: Believability, counterarguing, and emotional reaction",
abstract = "Narratives may outperform argument-based messages in certain situations, notably because they are thought to exert unique influence via particular mediational pathways. The present study tested three sets of potential mediators (believability, counterarguing, emotional reaction) of the relationship between message modality (narrative- vs. argument-based) and the outcome of purchase intentions. Participants (N = 214) were randomly assigned to view one of four advertisements from two brands featuring narrative- or argument-based messages and completed measures of purchase intentions, believability, counterarguing, and emotional reactions to the ad. As hypothesized, narratives increased intentions compared to non narratives. Single moderated mediation models supported the mediating contribution of the completeness dimension of believability, counterarguing, negative and positive affective reaction. A combined moderated mediation model provided further support for positive affect as a mediator. Results provide evidence for several theorized mechanisms of narrative persuasion and illustrate an approach to evaluating multiple mediators in comparative message research.",
keywords = "Believability, Comparative, Counterarguing, Emotion, Mediation, Narrative, Persuasion",
author = "Krakow, {Melinda M.} and Yale, {Robert N.} and Jensen, {Jakob D.} and Nick Carcioppolo and Ratcliff, {Chelsea L.}",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/hcr/hqy002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "299--321",
journal = "Human Communication Research",
issn = "0360-3989",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing mediational pathways for narrative- and argument-based messages

T2 - Believability, counterarguing, and emotional reaction

AU - Krakow, Melinda M.

AU - Yale, Robert N.

AU - Jensen, Jakob D.

AU - Carcioppolo, Nick

AU - Ratcliff, Chelsea L.

PY - 2018/7/1

Y1 - 2018/7/1

N2 - Narratives may outperform argument-based messages in certain situations, notably because they are thought to exert unique influence via particular mediational pathways. The present study tested three sets of potential mediators (believability, counterarguing, emotional reaction) of the relationship between message modality (narrative- vs. argument-based) and the outcome of purchase intentions. Participants (N = 214) were randomly assigned to view one of four advertisements from two brands featuring narrative- or argument-based messages and completed measures of purchase intentions, believability, counterarguing, and emotional reactions to the ad. As hypothesized, narratives increased intentions compared to non narratives. Single moderated mediation models supported the mediating contribution of the completeness dimension of believability, counterarguing, negative and positive affective reaction. A combined moderated mediation model provided further support for positive affect as a mediator. Results provide evidence for several theorized mechanisms of narrative persuasion and illustrate an approach to evaluating multiple mediators in comparative message research.

AB - Narratives may outperform argument-based messages in certain situations, notably because they are thought to exert unique influence via particular mediational pathways. The present study tested three sets of potential mediators (believability, counterarguing, emotional reaction) of the relationship between message modality (narrative- vs. argument-based) and the outcome of purchase intentions. Participants (N = 214) were randomly assigned to view one of four advertisements from two brands featuring narrative- or argument-based messages and completed measures of purchase intentions, believability, counterarguing, and emotional reactions to the ad. As hypothesized, narratives increased intentions compared to non narratives. Single moderated mediation models supported the mediating contribution of the completeness dimension of believability, counterarguing, negative and positive affective reaction. A combined moderated mediation model provided further support for positive affect as a mediator. Results provide evidence for several theorized mechanisms of narrative persuasion and illustrate an approach to evaluating multiple mediators in comparative message research.

KW - Believability

KW - Comparative

KW - Counterarguing

KW - Emotion

KW - Mediation

KW - Narrative

KW - Persuasion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062641950&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062641950&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/hcr/hqy002

DO - 10.1093/hcr/hqy002

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85062641950

VL - 44

SP - 299

EP - 321

JO - Human Communication Research

JF - Human Communication Research

SN - 0360-3989

IS - 3

ER -