Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 536

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Narrative versus Nonnarrative: The Role of Identification, Transportation, and Emotion in Reducing Health Disparities: Narrative vs. Nonnarrative

Open access
Murphy, Sheila T., Frank, Lauren B., Chatterjee, Joyee S., Baezconde-Garbanati, Lourdes·2013·Journal of Communication
DOI 10.1111/jcom.12007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This research empirically tests whether using a fictional narrative produces greater impact on health-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intention than presenting the identical information in a more traditional, nonfiction, nonnarrative format. European American, Mexican American, and African American women (N = 758) were surveyed before and after viewing either a narrative or nonnarrative cervical cancer-related film. The narrative was more effective in increasing cervical cancer-related knowledge and attitudes. Moreover, in response to the narrative featuring Latinas, Mexican Americans were most transported, identified most with the characters, and experienced the strongest emotions. Regressions revealed that transportation, identification with specific characters, and emotion contributed to shifts in knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Thus, narrative formats may provide a valuable tool in reducing health disparities.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcom.12007

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 536

Metadata

Authors
Murphy, S. T., Frank, L. B., Chatterjee, J. S., & Baezconde-Garbanati, L.
Venue
Journal of Communication
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2013-01-07
Volume
63
Issue
1
Pages
116-137
ISSN
0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/jcom.12007
OpenAlex
W2164295975
Cited by
536
References
47
FWCI
423.59
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

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.