Ripping Yarn: Experiments on Storytelling by Partisan Elites
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
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?
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.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [291]
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
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
A Framework for the Study of Persuasion
Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-110428 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gooch, A.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gooch, Andrew
- ORCID
- Gooch, Andrew
- Venue
- Political Communication
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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