The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Differential Impact of Statistical and Narrative Evidence on Beliefs, Attitude, and Intention: A Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Although "evidence" is often used as an important argument in persuasive health campaigns, it remains unclear what type of evidence has the strongest impact on particular outcome variables. We conducted a meta-analysis in which the effects of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention were separately compared. Statistical evidence was found to have a stronger influence than narrative evidence on beliefs and attitude, whereas narrative evidence had a stronger influence on intention. We explain these findings in terms of the match between the specific characteristics of the two types of evidence and those of the outcome variables. Statistical evidence, beliefs, and attitude all relate primarily to cognitive responses, whereas both narrative evidence and intention relate more specifically to affective responses. We conclude that communication professionals developing health campaigns should match the type of evidence to the main communication objectives.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 25,810
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957) · Cited by 9,433
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701 · Cited by 4,861
How Emotion Shapes Behavior: Feedback, Anticipation, and Reflection, Rather Than Direct Causation
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Nathan DeWall, C., & Zhang, L. (2007) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868307301033 · Cited by 1,743
Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature
Kraus, S. J. (1995) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167295211007 · Cited by 1,613
Health Message Framing Effects on Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: A Meta-analytic Review
Gallagher, K. M., & Updegraff, J. A. (2012) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7 · Cited by 1,147
The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion.
Anderson, C. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.129.1.139 · Cited by 1,065
Cited by
Why Narrative Ads Work: An Integrated Process Explanation
Kim, E. (., Ratneshwar, S., & Thorson, E. (2017) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1268984 · Cited by 202
Overcoming Resistance Through Narratives: Findings from a Meta-Analytic Review
Ratcliff, C. L., & Sun, Y. (2020) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/hqz017 · Cited by 170
Metadata
- Authors
- Zebregs, S., van den Putte, B., Neijens, P., & de Graaf, A.
- Venue
- Health Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-05-16
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 282-289
- ISSN
- 1041-0236 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7027
- OpenAlex
- W1985787611
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 82.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Differential Impact of Statistical and Narrative Evidence on Beliefs, Attitude, and Intention: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10410236.2013.842528
- The paper
- Zebregs, S., van den Putte, B., Neijens, P., & de Graaf, A. (2015). The Differential Impact of Statistical and Narrative Evidence on Beliefs, Attitude, and Intention: A Meta-Analysis. Health Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.842528
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
