Cited by 568Media Influence and HealthNarrative Theory and AnalysisBehavioral Health and Interventions

Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors

Braddock, Kurt, Dillard, James Price·2016·Communication Monographs

Abstract

Although narratives are often credited with the capacity to change opinions, empirical tests of this prediction have produced mixed results. To provide a more precise test of narrative's effect on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors, we performed meta-analyses on studies that evaluated narrative's persuasive influence on these outcomes. Results suggested positive relationships between exposure to a narrative and narrative-consistent beliefs (k = 37; N = 7,376; r = .17), attitudes (k = 40; N = 7,132; r = .19), intentions (k = 28; N = 5,211; r = .17), and behaviors (k = 5; N = 978; r = .23). Moderator analyses on the effect of fictionality yielded mixed results. Neither medium of presentation nor research design influenced the magnitude of the narrative-persuasion relationship. However, results suggested the presence of unidentified moderators.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A meta-analysis of 76 studies conducted between 1983 and 2013 found that narrative interventions have a significant effect on attitudes and beliefs.

    “The best holistic assessment of the effect of narrative persuasion comes from a meta-analysis of 76 studies conducted between 1983 and 2013, which found that narrative interventions have a significant effect on attitudes and beliefs (Braddock & Dillard, 2016).”

    From Stories in Action. (2022) · cites this paper as Braddock & Dillard, 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Braddock, K., & Dillard, J. P.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Braddock, Kurt
Venue
Communication Monographs
Published
2016-02-25
Volume
83
Issue
4
Pages
446-467
ISSN
  • 0363-7751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1479-5787
OpenAlex
W2293452863
Cited by
568
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 4
FWCI
365.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Communication Monographs (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
narrative persuasion, narrative effects, belief revision, attitude change, behavior change, fictionality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review