Abstract
Previous studies have shown that identification and self-referencing can both function as mechanisms of narrative persuasion. However, it is not yet clear whether they are compatible and can work together in bringing about persuasive effects of narratives, or not. Therefore, this study examines both identification and self-referencing and studies their relation and effects. A 2x2 between-subjects experiment was conducted among 185 student participants, with the factors ‘perspective’ (1st vs. 3rd person) to influence identification and ‘similarity’ (young student protagonist vs. older working protagonist) to influence self-referencing. Results showed that identification mediated indirect effects of perspective on story-consistent belief and self-referencing mediated indirect effects of similarity on story-consistent belief. Moreover, identification and self-referencing serially mediated indirect effects on story-consistent belief. These results indicate that identification and self-referencing are compatible processes which can work together as mechanisms of narrative persuasion.
1 Introduction
In the past years, multiple studies have demonstrated persuasive effects of narratives by showing that narratives can change readers’ real-world beliefs and attitudes (e. g., Green and Brock, 2000; Igartua and Barrios, 2012; Lewis and Sznitman, 2017; Wojcieszak and Kim, 2016). Many of these studies have addressed the mechanisms through which narratives have persuasive effects, providing insight into the processes that underlie narrative persuasion. One of the processes that has been identified as a mechanism of narrative persuasion is identification with narrative characters (Cohen, Tal-Or, and Mazor-Tregerman, 2015; De Graaf, Hoeken, Sanders, and Beentjes, 2012; Moyer-Gusé, Chung, and Jain, 2011). To the extent that readers identify more with a narrative character, they show beliefs and attitudes more in line with the narrative. Recently, self-referencing has also been identified as a mechanism of narrative persuasion in addition to identification (De Graaf, 2014; Dunlop, Wakefield, and Kashima, 2010). The more readers relate a narrative to themselves, the more they adopt the beliefs and attitudes embedded in the narrative.
Several questions remain about the relationship between the mechanisms ‘identification’ and ‘self-referencing’, because of the differences between these processes. More specifically, identification involves a main focus of attention on the character, whereas self-referencing implies a dual focus on the character and the self, suggesting that these processes might be incompatible (De Graaf and Van Leeuwen, 2017). However, some studies show positive relationships between these processes (Chen, Bell and Taylor, 2016; Kim and Lee, 2018), and several authors posit that in identification readers maintain their sense of self (Cohen, Appel, and Slater, 2019; Coplan, 2004), suggesting that identification and self-referencing could occur together. Therefore, it is not yet clear whether identification and self-referencing are compatible or incompatible with each other. Could they work together with one another, or do they work as separate mechanisms that function in different contexts? The present study aims to contribute to answering these questions by examining both identification and self-referencing in one study. This study uses factors that influence both processes to study their effects and test their relations to one another. In this way, the study will provide insight into identification and self-referencing as mechanisms of narrative persuasion.
Identification
Identification with a narrative character refers to a process in which a reader takes the perspective of the character and experiences the narrative through the character’s eyes (Cohen, 2001; Cohen et al., 2019). A reader who identifies with a character imagines what it is like for the character to go through the events that take place in the narrative and experiences emotions that are associated with these events, also called empathy (Coplan, 2004; Tal-Or and Cohen, 2016). When good things happen to a character, the reader feels positive emotions, and when bad things happen to a character, the reader feels negative emotions (Cohen, 2001; Cohen and Tal-Or, 2017). This entails that readers who identify with the character take over his or her goals and plans so that they desire what the character wants to achieve and fear what the character wants to avoid (Cohen and Tal-Or, 2017; Oatley, 1999). Thus, when identifying with a character, readers imaginatively take the point of view of the character to simulate going through what the character is going through.
In this process of simulating the character’s experience, the reader’s attention and emotion is focused on the character (De Graaf and Van Leeuwen, 2017; Moyer-Gusé, 2008). In other words, when a reader imagines experiencing the events the character is going through, the reader’s mental capacities are preoccupied with the character and the events happening to the character. The extent to which a reader identifies can vary from mild to intense, but the reader never completely loses his or her sense of self (Cohen et al., 2019; Cohen and Tal-Or, 2017). In seeing the narrative events through the character’s perspective, the reader maintains his or her sense of self while gaining a close understanding of the character (Coplan, 2004, 2011). Identification entails a merging of character and reader and is characterized by intimacy, not distance (Cohen et al., 2019; Tal-Or and Cohen, 2016). Thus, although a reader never forgets he or she is not the character, the character is a main focus of the attention of a reader who identifies.
Multiple studies have provided evidence that identification with a character is an underlying process in narrative persuasion (De Graaf et al., 2012; Igartua, 2010; Moyer-Gusé et al., 2011). Igartua (2010) showed an association between identification and beliefs implied by the narrative. In his third study, the more participants identified with the characters, the more story-consistent beliefs they endorsed. Similarly, the results of Moyer-Gusé et al. (2011) indicated that identification was positively related to persuasive outcomes of the narrative. Moreover, De Graaf et al. (2012) used perspective to influence identification and found effects on story-consistent attitudes. In their studies, a narrative was told either from the perspective of one character or of another character, with both characters having opposing interests and opinions. This factor increased identification with the character from whose perspective the narrative was told, which in turn mediated effects of the narrative on story-consistent attitudes, providing a rigorous test of identification as a mediating process of narrative persuasion. Taken together, these studies demonstrate that identification can function as a mechanism of narrative persuasion.
Thus, through the focus of attention and emotion on the character and what he or she is going through, identification is expected to exert persuasive influence. When readers imaginatively experience the events that happen to a character, this vicarious experience may change readers’ beliefs towards topics implied by the narrative. As mentioned above, perspective can be used to influence identification (De Graaf et al., 2012). Therefore, the first hypothesis of this study tests whether identification is a mechanism of persuasive effects:
H1: Identification mediates effects of perspective on story-consistent belief.
Self-referencing
Self-referencing refers to a process in which readers relate incoming information to information about the self which is stored in memory (Debevec and Romeo, 1992; Ku, Huang, and Shen, 2019). Thus, self-referencing readers associate what is described in the message to aspects of themselves and their own lives (Burnkrant and Unnava, 1995; Lee and Mackert, 2017). When self-referencing occurs in response to narratives, it refers to the thoughts called up by the narrative which relate the events and characters described in the narrative to the reader him or herself (Dunlop et al., 2010; Escalas, 2007). For example, when reading a narrative, readers can connect the events that happen to what they have experienced themselves (Larsen and Seilman, 1988). Also, characters and their choices may remind readers of themselves and how they would do things (Escalas, 2007). Thus, memories that are called up by the narrative as well as comparisons between information in the narrative and information from readers’ lives are part of self-referencing. In short, self-referencing readers make a connection between the narrative and their self.
From this definition it becomes clear that in self-referencing, the reader does not have one main focus of attention but rather a dual focus of attention. In order to make a connection between the narrative and the self, attention for both the narrative and the self is necessary in self-referencing (De Graaf and Van Leeuwen, 2017). The more a reader links elements of the narrative to his or her self, for instance, by thinking of similar occurrences in their lives, the more self-referencing occurs.
Some studies have examined the relation between self-referencing and narrative persuasion, with some also including identification. Dunlop et al. (2010) report two studies that examined narratives in which a health risk was portrayed. In these studies, self-referencing was positively related to risk beliefs and intentions to carry out the behavior that was advocated in the narrative. The more participants related the narrative to the self, the more story-consistent beliefs and intentions they had. Chen, Bell, and Taylor (2016, 2017) similarly carried out two studies using risk narratives and showed that self-referencing was positively related to beliefs about the susceptibility to the risk and perceived persuasiveness of the narrative. Also, both studies found an association between identification with the protagonist and self-referencing, indicating that more identification was related to more self-referencing.
De Graaf (2014) varied similarity of the protagonist to the reader and established effects on self-referencing and persuasive outcomes. Readers who were similar to the protagonist reported higher levels of self-referencing and more story-consistent beliefs than readers who were dissimilar to the protagonist. A mediation analysis showed that self-referencing mediated the effect of similarity on beliefs. In this study, identification was also measured, but no effect of similarity on identification was found, thus making it impossible to test a mediating role for this factor (see De Graaf, 2014, p. 84). Finally, Kim and Lee (2018) studied self-referent thoughts in response to a narrative about the illicit use of study drugs. These thoughts were coded as either intended or unintended in relation to the persuasive message. The results showed that a first-person narrative elicited more intended self-referent thoughts than a third-person narrative. These self-referent thoughts also mediated an indirect effect of perspective on negative anticipated affect, or the expectation of negative emotions after taking illicit study drugs. In this study, identification was positively related to self-referent thoughts.
These studies show that self-referencing can function as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. The more readers connect the narrative to aspects of their self, the more they are likely to endorse story-consistent beliefs and intentions. As mentioned above, reader-character similarity can be used to influence self-referencing (De Graaf, 2014). Thus, to test whether self-referencing is a mechanism of persuasive effects, the second hypothesis of this study is:
H2: Self-referencing mediates effects of reader-character similarity on story-consistent belief.
Linking identification and self-referencing
Although it has been shown that identification and self-referencing can function as mechanisms of narrative persuasion separately (Dunlop et al., 2010; De Graaf, 2014; Igartua, 2010), it is not yet clear whether they can also work together in bringing about persuasive effects. Because a main focus of attention is on the character in identification, while self-referencing entails a dual focus on both the narrative and the self in order to link these two, it is unclear whether identification and self-referencing are compatible. However, several of the studies described above show a positive relationship between identification and self-referencing (Chen et al., 2016, 2017; Kim and Lee, 2018), indicating that a higher level of identification is associated with a higher level of self-referencing.
A potential explanation of a positive relationship between identification and self-referencing is that when a reader imagines the events that happen to a character, it is more likely this will trigger memories from his or her own life (Larsen and Seilman, 1988; McDonald, Sarge, Lin, Collier, and Potocki, 2015). For instance, McDonald et al. (2015) showed that narrative video clips triggered autobiographical memories, especially when viewers were more involved in the narrative. It is also plausible that when a character has thoughts about him or herself, the reader can imagine more vividly what it is like for the character, and memories of emotions the reader had in a similar situation can evoke emotions in response to the events happening to the character in the narrative (Dixon and Bortolussi, 2017; Mar and Oatley, 2008). Dixon and Bortolussi (2017) found that personal memories predicted emotional responses, which were operationalized similarly to identification as feeling with the characters. These findings suggest that the focus on the character in identification leaves room for linking the narrative to the self in self-referencing and that they can indeed work together.
However, previous research has used measures of identification that were not in line with the conceptualization of identification as imaginatively experiencing what the character is going through. For instance, Chen et al. (2016, 2017) used items about similarity and liking for the character in their scale for identification, even though Cohen (2001) and Cohen and Tal-Or (2017) argue that these perceptions of characters may be antecedents of identification, but they are not the same as the imaginative experience of identification. Therefore, more studies which measure identification only as an experience are needed to clearly establish the relation between identification and self-referencing. In addition, more studies should combine factors to influence both identification and self-referencing. Only when both processes are combined in one study can it be established whether they are independent mechanisms or whether they influence each other. It is possible that they are not related and operate distinctly, but it is also possible that they are related and operate serially, such that both identification and self-referencing work together in narrative persuasion. The results so far do not give enough evidence on these topics. Therefore, a research question is posed:
RQ1: What is the relation between identification and self-referencing in functioning as mechanisms of narrative persuasion?
2 Method
Materials
To test the hypotheses and research question of this study, four versions of a story were created. The story was adapted from a short story about a woman battling skin cancer, from a collection of short stories about cancer survivors (Bosscha-Thomasson, 2000). The story started with a short description of the daily life of the protagonist, which was disrupted completely when she went to her GP because of a mole that started to bleed. When the GP had inspected the mole, he sent her to see the dermatologist with urgency. The dermatologist was also worried and scheduled an operation for her within a week. After the operation, she was told that it was a malignant melanoma and that it needed to be checked whether it had spread. She went through multiple tests and needed to have another operation because the cancer had spread to her lymph nodes. When she was admitted to the hospital, she had an intake with a nurse, who asked her whether she wore sunscreen when she was out in the sun. She answered that she often did not think about it when she was out in the sun going about her daily activities. The nurse indicated that the sun posed a risk then as well, and the protagonist expressed regret that she had not protected herself more often. After the operation, the recovery was quite hard on her, but in the end she was told by the doctors that she was clean from cancer, and she gradually started her normal life again. These events were the same in all four story versions and conveyed a message of susceptibility to skin cancer.
To influence identification, the perspective of the story was varied. The story was either told from an internal or an external perspective, as several studies have found effects of perspective on identification (Chen et al., 2017; De Graaf et al., 2012). These perspectives were realized in two ways, both by using a first-person (I) or a third-person pronoun (she) to refer to the protagonist, and by including thoughts of the protagonist in the first-person perspective or omitting these thoughts in the third-person perspective. The thoughts in the first-person perspective did not give additional information but reinforced information that was already given (see example in Table 1). In this way, a strong realization of first-person internal perspective presenting the story from the point of view of the protagonist versus third-person external perspective presenting the story from a point of view outside of the protagonist was established (see Sanford and Emmot, 2012) in order to overcome the difficulties in finding effects of perspective on identification when it is only realized through pronouns (Banerjee and Greene, 2012; Kim and Lee, 2018).
Excerpts from all four versions of the story.
|
First-person – similar |
Third person – similar |
|
I had planned the appointment with my GP in the morning so that I could attend the lecture I had at the university in the afternoon. In the waiting room I was still reading a chapter that would be discussed. But when the GP had examined the mole, he said he was going to send me to a specialist urgently and phoned the hospital at that moment. I got scared and thought ‘that is not a good sign’. |
Sara had planned the appointment with her GP in the morning so that she could attend the lecture she had at the university in the afternoon. In the waiting room she was still reading a chapter that would be discussed. But when the GP had examined the mole, he said he was going to send her to a specialist urgently and phoned the hospital at that moment. Sara got scared. |
|
First-person – dissimilar |
Third-person – dissimilar |
|
I had planned the appointment with my GP in the morning so that I could attend the meeting I had at work in the afternoon. In the waiting room I was still reading memos that were on the agenda. But when the GP had examined the mole, he said he was going to send me to a specialist urgently and phoned the hospital at that moment. I got scared and thought ‘that is not a good sign’. |
Sara had planned the appointment with her GP in the morning so that she could attend the meeting she had at work in the afternoon. In the waiting room she was still reading memos that were on the agenda. But when the GP had examined the mole, he said he was going to send her to a specialist urgently and phoned the hospital at that moment. Sara got scared. |
Note: These excerpts are translated from the original Dutch versions of the story.
To influence self-referencing, the similarity of the protagonist to the participants was varied. The protagonist was either a young woman who was a student, similar to the young student participants in this study, or an older woman who was working, unlike the participants in this study. De Graaf (2014) has shown that similarity between characters and readers increases self-referencing. This is in line with the idea that when the story is more like your own life, you will be reminded of your own life more, thus increasing self-referencing. Therefore, it is expected that the story versions with the younger, more similar protagonist evoke more self-referencing than the story versions with the older, less similar protagonist. The two factors of perspective and similarity were crossed to create four versions of the story: a first-person perspective – similar version, a first-person perspective – dissimilar version, a third-person perspective – similar version, and a third-person perspective – dissimilar version. Examples of all versions can be found in Table 1.
Participants and procedure
Participants were 185 students at a Dutch university and a college (63.8 % female, 35.7 % male, and 1 person unwilling to disclose). Their mean age was 20.75 (SD = 2.04). They were recruited by two research assistants at different locations across campus, thus representing a range of study backgrounds from law students to arts students. One of the research assistants asked students to participate in the study and brought them to the study location, while the other was at the location to oversee the data collection. Before starting the study, all participants completed an informed consent form which stated that they could stop their participation at any time. No participant stopped. The study took approximately 15–20 minutes to complete, and students were compensated with € 5 for their participation. Each participant read one of the four versions of the story. This resulted in an equal distribution of gender (χ2 (3) = 1.99, p = .58) and age (F (3,181) = 1.08, p = .36) over the conditions.
Design
This study used a between-subject design with two independent variables: perspective and similarity. Perspective varied between first-person and third-person perspective and similarity between a similar protagonist (a student) and a dissimilar protagonist (an older, working person), resulting in four conditions. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of these conditions.
Instrumentation
As a check of whether the variation of similarity was perceived by participants, perceived similarity was measured using five questions based on the homophily scale by McCroskey, McCroskey, and Richmond (2006), such as “The background of the protagonist is similar to mine”. The reliability of this scale was good (Cronbach’s α = .86). Identification was measured using De Graaf et al.’s (2012) scale that captures the experience of imaginatively taking the point of view of the character in the narrative, such as “While I was reading, I imagined what it would be like to be in the position of the protagonist”. The reliability of this scale was very good (Cronbach’s α = .91). Self-referencing was measured using six items based on Dunlop et al. (2010) and De Graaf’s (2014) scales, such as “While reading, I made connections between the story and my own life”. The reliability of this scale was good (Cronbach’s α = .87).
As persuasive outcome, story-consistent belief was measured. More specifically, based on the message of the story being focused on the risk of getting skin cancer (see materials), we measured perceived susceptibility[1] or the likelihood participants perceived of getting skin cancer (Rimal and Real, 2003). Perceived susceptibility was measured using three items, such as “The chance that I will get skin cancer within 5 years is minimal” (reverse scored). The reliability of this scale was moderate (Cronbach’s α = .62).[2]
Analysis
First, univariate analyses were carried out to establish the effects of perspective and similarity on the potential underlying processes and persuasive outcome. Subsequently, simple mediation models were performed to test Hypotheses 1 and 2. To answer Research question 1, the correlation between identification and self-referencing was established, and finally, serial multiple mediator models were tested.
3 Results
Effects of perspective and similarity
First, it was checked whether the variation of similarity was perceived by the participants as intended. Univariate analysis showed that the similarity of the protagonist influenced perceived similarity (F (1,181) = 118.87, p < .001, η2 = .39). The young student participants in this study indeed perceived the young student protagonist (M = 3.89, SD = 1.18) as more similar to themselves than the older working protagonist (M = 2.20, SD = 0.91). Both perspective (F (1,181) = 2.39, p = .12) and the interaction between perspective and similarity (F (1,181) = 2.05, p = .15) did not affect perceived similarity.
Related to Hypotheses 1 and 2, it was examined whether perspective and similarity affected identification and self-referencing. Means and standard deviations by condition are presented in Table 2. For identification, univariate analysis showed a main effect of perspective (F (1,181) = 5.22, p < .01, η2 = .028). Participants who read the story from the first-person perspective (M = 4.99, SD = 0.98) identified more with the protagonist than participants who read the story from the third-person perspective (M = 4.60, SD = 1.31). There was no main effect of similarity on identification (F (1,181) = 0.18, p = .67) and no interaction between perspective and similarity (F (1,181) = 0.61, p = .44). For self-referencing, univariate analysis showed no main effect of perspective (F (1,181) = 0.65, p = .80), but as expected, there was a main effect of similarity on self-referencing (F (1,181) = 6.71, p = .01, η2 = .036). Participants who read the story with the similar protagonist (M = 3.75, SD = 1.42) engaged in more self-referencing than participants who read the story with the dissimilar protagonist (M = 3.21, SD = 1.41). No interaction effect was found (F (1,181) = 0.004, p = .95).
Means and standard deviations (between brackets) for identification, self-referencing, and perceived susceptibility by condition (on a scale from 1 to 7).
|
1st person perspective |
3rd person perspective |
|||
|
Similar |
Dissimilar |
Similar |
Dissimilar |
|
|
Identification |
5.10 (.93) |
4.89 (1.03) |
4.57 (1.40) |
4.63 (1.22) |
|
Self-referencing |
3.72 (1.37) |
3.19 (1.41) |
3.79 (1.48) |
3.23 (1.42) |
|
Perceived susceptibility |
4.05 (0.93) |
3.33 (1.37) |
3.60 (1.27) |
3.55 (1.24) |
Note: Bold script indicates a main effect of perspective, italics indicate a main effect of similarity.
Subsequently, it was tested whether perspective and similarity affected the story-consistent belief of perceived susceptibility. Means and standard deviations by condition are presented in Table 2. Univariate analysis showed no main effect of perspective on perceived susceptibility (F (1,181) = 0.39, p = .53). There was a main effect of similarity (F (1,181) = 4.70, p < .05, η2 = .025). Participants who read the story with the similar protagonist (M = 3.83, SD = 1.13) perceived higher susceptibility than participants who read the story with the dissimilar protagonist (M = 3.44, SD = 1.30). There was no interaction effect (F (1,181) = 3.55, p = .061).
Mediation effects
To test Hypothesis 1, simple mediation analysis using a bootstrapping procedure (Hayes, 2018, model 4) was carried out to establish whether there was an indirect effect of perspective on perceived susceptibility through identification. If identification indeed plays this mediating role, this indicates that identification is a mechanism of narrative persuasion. This analysis showed that identification mediated the indirect effect on perceived susceptibility (b = .11, SE = .055, 95 %CI = [.0217 to .2377]).
To test Hypothesis 2, simple mediation analysis was carried out to establish whether self-referencing mediated indirect effects of similarity on perceived susceptibility. This analysis showed that self-referencing mediated the indirect effect on perceived susceptibility (b = .12, SE = .058, 95 %CI = [.0278 to .2619]).
Relation between identification and self-referencing in narrative persuasion
First, the relation between identification and self-referencing was established. A correlation analysis showed a positive relationship between identification and self-referencing (r (185) = .48, p < .001). The more participants identified with the protagonist, the more they engaged in self-referencing, and the other way around.
To answer Research question 1 about the relation between identification and self-referencing in functioning as a mechanism of narrative persuasion, serial multiple mediator models were tested (Hayes, 2018, model 6). It was tested whether perspective had an indirect effect on narrative persuasion through identification and self-referencing, and whether similarity had an indirect effect through self-referencing and identification. The results of these analyses will give an indication of whether these processes can work together. The analysis for perspective showed that identification and self-referencing serially mediated the indirect effect of perspective on perceived susceptibility (b = .037, SE = .024, 95 %CI = [.0045 to .1071]). The analysis for similarity showed that self-referencing and identification serially mediated the indirect effects of similarity on perceived susceptibility (b = .045, SE = .026, 95 %CI = [.0087 to .1154]).
4 Conclusion and discussion
The aim of this study was to gain insight into the role of identification and self-referencing in narrative persuasion. With regard to Hypothesis 1, results revealed a mediating effect of identification on perceived susceptibility, confirming that identification is a mechanism of narrative persuasion. With regard to Hypothesis 2, results showed a mediating effect of self-referencing on perceived susceptibility, indicating that self-referencing also plays a role in narrative persuasion. However, the most significant contribution is the combination of identification and self-referencing. With regard to Research question 1, results indicated that identification and self-referencing work together in mediating narrative persuasion. This combined mechanism was shown by both factors; identification (induced by perspective) was related to self-referencing, which in turn was related to perceived susceptibility, and self-referencing (induced by similarity) was related to identification, which in turn was related to perceived susceptibility. These results suggest that identification and self-referencing can influence each other in both ways and likely mutually reinforce each other in working as mechanisms of narrative persuasion.
The finding that identification and self-referencing can work together indicates that they are compatible processes. This may be explained by a reader who imagines the events that happen to a character from his or her perspective triggering memories from the reader’s own life. Like McDonald et al. (2015) and Larsen and Seilman (1988) found for video and literary narratives respectively, processing narratives can trigger memories. Also, readers’ thoughts relating the narrative to themselves may facilitate imagining what it is like for the character. Just as Dixon and Bortolussi (2017) showed that personal memories predicted emotional responses similar to those in identification, self-referential thoughts linking the narrative to the self may increase identification, for instance, when readers are reminded of a similar event they went through. Mar and Oatley (2008, p. 178) similarly argue that memories can be used to fill in experiences suggested by the narrative. This compatibility of identification and self-referencing means that the focus of attention on the character in identification leaves room for attention for the self in self-referencing. This supports the notion of identification as a merging of reader and character, with the reader maintaining their own sense of self (Cohen et al., 2019; Coplan, 2004).
In order to test the effects of identification and self-referencing, the study also provided evidence for textual characteristics that affect these processes. Although a first-person perspective only realized by pronouns does not always lead to increased identification (Banerjee and Greene, 2012; Kim and Lee, 2018), this study indicates that an internal perspective that uses first-person pronouns and includes thoughts of the protagonist does increase identification. In addition, the effect of similarity between the protagonist in a story and the participants, which has been shown in previous research (De Graaf, 2014), was confirmed by using different characteristics of the age and occupation (being a student) of the protagonist. These variations were necessary to influence identification and self-referencing and made it possible to test the mutual relations between these processes. Because perspective increased identification, which in turn was related to self-referencing and ultimately to story-consistent beliefs, and similarity increased self-referencing, which was related to identification and story-consistent beliefs, the bi-directional nature of their relation and role in narrative persuasion could be revealed.
Limitations of the present study include the participants that were used. The inclusion of young student participants allowed us to study whether similarity to a young student protagonist had effects. However, inclusion of older working participants would have made the design stronger by making it possible to study whether effects would be reversed for them, as they would be more similar to the older, working protagonist. In addition, the use of one single story limited the design. Specific findings could be the result of characteristics of the story, such as its vividness. The story used a vivid style, as the original story had been written that way. For instance, the mole that needed to be removed was described quite vividly. This may have increased imagery which could interact with identification and self-referencing, as the effects of these processes may not be as pronounced in less vividly described narratives (cf. Green and Brock, 2002). Additionally, not all measures used were optimal. The reliability of the scale for perceived susceptibility was moderate. However, the pattern of results was similar for the individual items. Nonetheless, further research should use more reliable measures for story-consistent belief.
Although the measure used for the persuasive outcome, perceived susceptibility, was similar to measures used in previous research for narrative persuasion (e. g., Chen et al., 2016; De Graaf, 2014; Dunlop et al., 2010), it remains unexplored as to what extent this measure ultimately captures persuasiveness in the sense of a persistent change in beliefs and attitudes. It may be the case that the results found in these studies are more indicative of short-term effects in which existing beliefs are temporarily strengthened. Future research should include longer-term measures to examine whether these effects remain over time.
Besides overcoming the limitations of the present study, future research should also expand on this study. Now that we know that identification and self-referencing can work jointly in bringing about persuasive effects, research should examine the conditions under which their combination functions in this way. For instance, it is possible that in certain contexts, such as the health context used in this study, identification and self-referencing work together, whereas in other contexts, such as immigration attitudes (cf. Wojcieszak and Kim, 2016), these processes may function separately. Also, there may be differences for readers who have ample experience with certain occurrences (e. g., falling seriously ill) compared to readers who have hardly ever experienced similar events. In addition, an interesting avenue for further research is to link narrative persuasion to research in literary studies that addresses similar issues (Hakemulder, 2000; Koopman and Hakemulder, 2015). These scholars show that empathy allows readers to experiment with taking the position of a character different from themselves and thus broadens their consciousness so that it encompasses fellow human beings. Studies that combine these insights with narrative persuasion research may examine effects of empathy on pro-social behavior.
In conclusion, the present study shows that identification and self-referencing can work together in narrative persuasion. This is a step forward in uncovering the processes that underlie persuasive effects of narratives. Future research should continue this effort of elucidating the mechanisms of narrative persuasion.
Research transparency statement
The authors are willing to share their data, analytic methods, and study materials with other researchers. The material will be available upon request.
References
Banerjee, S. C., & Greene, K. (2012). Role of transportation in the persuasion process: Cognitive and affective responses to antidrug narratives. Journal of Health Communication, 17(5), 564–581. doi:10.1080/10810730.2011.63577910.1080/10810730.2011.635779Search in Google Scholar
Bosscha-Thomasson, R. (2000). Als kanker je op de huid zit: Confrontaties met huidkanker [If cancer is on your skin: Confrontations with skin cancer]. Papendrecht, The Netherlands: Stichting Melanoom.Search in Google Scholar
Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (1995). Effects of self-referencing on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 17–26. doi:10.1086/20943210.1086/209432Search in Google Scholar
Chen, M., Bell, R. A., & Taylor, L. D. (2016). Narrator point of view and persuasion in health narratives: The role of protagonist–reader similarity, identification, and self-referencing. Journal of Health Communication, 21(8), 908–918. doi:10.1080/10810730.2016.117714710.1080/10810730.2016.1177147Search in Google Scholar
Chen, M., Bell, R. A., & Taylor, L. D. (2017). Persuasive effects of point of view, protagonist competence, and similarity in a health narrative about type 2 diabetes. Journal of Health Communication, 22(8), 702–712. doi:10.1080/10810730.2017.134156810.1080/10810730.2017.1341568Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication & Society, 4(3), 245–264. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_0110.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Appel, M., & Slater, M. D. (2019). Media, identity, and the self. In M. B. Oliver, A. A. Raney, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (4th ed., pp. 179–194). New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780429491146-12Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, J., & Tal-Or, N. (2017). Antecedents of identification: Character, text, and audiences. In F. Hakemulder, M. M. Kuipers, E. S. Tan, K. Balint, & M. Doicaru (Eds.), Narrative absorption (pp 133–155). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. doi:10.1075/lal.27.08coh10.1075/lal.27.08cohSearch in Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Tal-Or, N., & Mazor-Tregerman, M. (2015). The tempering effect of transportation: Exploring the effects of transportation and identification during exposure to controversial two-sided narratives. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 237–258. doi:10.1111/jcom.1214410.1111/jcom.12144Search in Google Scholar
Coplan, A. (2004). Empathic engagement with narrative fictions. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 62(2), 141–152. doi:10.1111/j.1540-594X.2004.00147.x10.1111/j.1540-594X.2004.00147.xSearch in Google Scholar
Coplan, A. (2011). Will the real empathy please stand up? A case for a narrow conceptualization. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 49, 40–65. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2011.00056.x10.1111/j.2041-6962.2011.00056.xSearch in Google Scholar
Debevec, K., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Self-referent processing in perceptions of verbal and visual commercial information. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(1), 83–102. doi:10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80046-010.1016/S1057-7408(08)80046-0Search in Google Scholar
De Graaf, A. (2014). The effectiveness of adaptation of the protagonist in narrative impact: Similarity influences health beliefs through self-referencing. Human Communication Research, 40(1), 73–90. doi:10.1111/hcre.1201510.1111/hcre.12015Search in Google Scholar
De Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, J. W. J. (2012). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 39, 802–823. doi:10.1177/009365021140859410.1177/0093650211408594Search in Google Scholar
De Graaf, A., & Van Leeuwen, L. (2017). The role of absorption processes in narrative health communication. In F. Hakemulder, M. M. Kuipers, E. S. Tan, K. Balint, & M. Doicaru (Eds.), Narrative absorption (pp 271–292). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. doi:10.1075/lal.27.14deg10.1075/lal.27.14degSearch in Google Scholar
Dixon, P., & Bortolussi, M. (2017). Elaboration, emotion and transportation: Implications for conceptual analysis and textual features. In F. Hakemulder, M. M. Kuipers, E. S. Tan, K. Balint, & M. Doicaru (Eds.), Narrative absorption (pp 199–215). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. doi:10.1075/lal.27.11dix10.1075/lal.27.11dixSearch in Google Scholar
Dunlop, S. M., Wakefield, M., & Kashima, Y. (2010). Pathways to persuasion: Cognitive and experiential responses to health-promoting mass media messages. Communication Research, 37(1), 133–164. doi:10.1177/009365020935191210.1177/0093650209351912Search in Google Scholar
Escalas, J. E. (2007). Self-referencing and persuasion: Narrative transportation versus analytical elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 421–429. doi:10.1086/51021610.1086/510216Search in Google Scholar
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.70110.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701Search in Google Scholar
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2002). In the mind’s eye: Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. In T. C. Brock, J. J. Strange, & M. C. Green (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 315–341). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410606648Search in Google Scholar
Hakemulder, J. (2000). The moral laboratory: Experiments examining the effects of reading literature on social perception and moral self-concept. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/upal.34Search in Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Igartua, J. J. (2010). Identification with characters and narrative persuasion through fictional feature films. Communications: The European Journal of Communication Research, 35(4), 347–373. doi:10.1515/comm.2010.01910.1515/comm.2010.019Search in Google Scholar
Igartua, J. J., & Barrios, I. (2012). Changing real-world beliefs with controversial movies: Processes and mechanisms of narrative persuasion. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 514–531. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01640.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01640.xSearch in Google Scholar
Kim, H. K., & Lee, T. K. (2018). Curious or afraid of using study drugs? The effects of self-referent thoughts and identification on anticipated affect. International Journal of Communication, 12, 2421–2442. doi:1932–8036/20180005Search in Google Scholar
Koopman, E. M. E., & Hakemulder, F. (2015). Effects of literature on empathy and self-reflection: A theoretical-empirical framework. Journal of Literary Theory, 9(1), 79–111.10.1515/jlt-2015-0005Search in Google Scholar
Ku, H. H., Huang, C. Y., & Shen, Z. R. (2019). Problem versus benefit focus: Phrasing questions to enhance self-referencing and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(17–18), 1689–1709. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2019.166324110.1080/0267257X.2019.1663241Search in Google Scholar
Larsen, S. F., & Seilman, U. (1988). Personal remindings while reading literature. Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8(4), 411–430. doi:10.1515/text.1.1988.8.4.41110.1515/text.1.1988.8.4.411Search in Google Scholar
Lee, S., & Mackert, M. (2017). “People” can be better than “you”: The moderating role of regulatory focus on self-referencing messages in physical activity promotion campaigns among college students. Health marketing quarterly, 34(3), 157–174. doi:10.1080/07359683.2017.134642910.1080/07359683.2017.1346429Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, N., & Sznitman, S. R. (2017). You brought it on yourself: The joint effects of message type, stigma, and responsibility attribution on attitudes toward medical cannabis. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 181–202. doi:10.1111/jcom.1228710.1111/jcom.12287Search in Google Scholar
Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on psychological science, 3(3), 173–192. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.xSearch in Google Scholar
McCroskey, L. L., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 54, 1–31. doi:10.1080/0146337050027032210.1080/01463370500270322Search in Google Scholar
McDonald, D. G., Sarge, M. A., Lin, S. F., Collier, J. G., & Potocki, B. (2015). A role for the self: Media content as triggers for involuntary autobiographical memories. Communication Research, 42(1), 3–29. doi:10.1177/009365021246477110.1177/0093650212464771Search in Google Scholar
Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18, 407–425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.xSearch in Google Scholar
Moyer-Gusé, E., Chung, A. H., & Jain, P. (2011). Identification with characters and discussion of taboo topics after exposure to an entertainment narrative about sexual health. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 387–406. doi:10.1111/j.1460–2466.2011.01551.x10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01551.xSearch in Google Scholar
Oatley, K. (1999). Why fiction may be twice as true as fact: Fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation. Review of General Psychology, 3(2), 101–117. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.3.2.10110.1037/1089-2680.3.2.101Search in Google Scholar
Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change: Use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 370–399.10.1093/hcr/29.3.370Search in Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J., & Emmott, C. (2012). Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084321Search in Google Scholar
Tal-Or, N., & Cohen, J. (2016). Unpacking engagement: Convergence and divergence in transportation and identification. Annals of the International Communication Association, 40(1), 33–66.10.1080/23808985.2015.11735255Search in Google Scholar
Wojcieszak, M., & Kim, N. (2016). How to improve attitudes toward disliked groups: The effects of narrative versus numerical evidence on political persuasion. Communication Research, 43(6), 785–809. doi:10.1177/009365021561848010.1177/0093650215618480Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 de Graaf, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
