Cited by 15Rhetoric and Communication StudiesElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationMedia Studies and Communication

Ripping Yarn: Experiments on Storytelling by Partisan Elites

Gooch, Andrew·2018·Political Communication

Abstract

This article explores the role of personalized storytelling by partisan elites using a content analysis and two experiments. By personalized storytelling, I mean a political message in the form of a narrative that includes a specific reference to an individual affected by an issue. Using a content analysis of party convention speeches, this article shows that presidential candidates tell an increasing amount of stories, particularly from 1980 onward. Through randomized Internet experiments and a general population sample, I demonstrate that personalized stories have a unique influence on the public by parsing out the independent causal effect of the storyteller’s partisanship, the personalization of the story, and the content of the story. Not only can stories change attitudes about issues, but personalized stories can also change how individuals evaluate the candidate telling the story. However, an impersonal story that only references a generic group, rather than a singular individual, does not improve the partisan storyteller’s favorability. Results suggest that modern presidential candidates might be motivated to tell more stories because personalizing an issue may improve their standing with the public.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10584609.2017.1336502

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Exposure to Joe Biden's storytelling increased support for social security among Democrats but not Republicans, thereby increasing issue polarization; however, the narrative did increase liking for Biden in all participants.

    “exposure to Joe Biden’s storytelling increased support for social security among Democrats but not Republicans, thereby increasing issue polarization. However, the narrative did increase liking for Biden in all participants291.”

Cites

  • The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice

    Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · cited 1× · see citing works

    “…(or group’s) experiences (Chong & Druckman, 2010; Druckman, 2004; Druckman, Fein, & Leeper, 2012; Druckman & Nelson, 2003; Druckman, Peterson, & Slothuus, 2013; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989; Hopkins, 2014; Iyengar, 1991; Jacoby, 2000; Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).”

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gooch, A.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Gooch, Andrew
Venue
Political Communication
Published
2017-09-26
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
220-238
ISSN
  • 1058-4609 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-7675
OpenAlex
W2759766857
Cited by
15
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Political Communication (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Rhetoric and Communication Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
Keywords
personalized storytelling, political narratives, presidential candidates, candidate favorability, issue attitudes

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