Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542 · see citing works
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023 · see citing works
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00156 · Cited by 833 · see citing works
The Transportation Scale–Short Form (TS–SF)
Appel, M., Gnambs, T., Richter, T., & Green, M. C. (2015) · Media Psychology · doi:10.1080/15213269.2014.987400 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
Identification with characters and narrative persuasion through fictional feature films
Igartua, J.-J. (2010) · Communications · doi:10.1515/comm.2010.019 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
(Escaping) the paradox of scientific storytelling
Dahlstrom, M. F., & Scheufele, D. A. (2018) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2006720 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Pragmatics lost? Overview, synthesis and proposition in defining online hate speech
Baider, F. (2020) · Pragmatics and Society · doi:10.1075/ps.20004.bai · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Walsh, J., Vaida, N., Coman, A., & Fiske, S. T. (2022) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/15291006231161337 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
“20 There is a long-standing literature on narrative per-suasion not just in social psychology but also in fields related to policy: communication (Braddock & Dillard, 2016; de Graaf et al., 2016; Moyer-Gusé, 2008; Moyer-Gusé & Nabi, 2010) and public health (Hinyard & Kreuter, 2007; Orozco-Olvera et…”
Background
- Authors
- Braddock, K., & Dillard, J. P.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Braddock, Kurt
- Venue
- Communication Monographs
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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