Fluent Essays

Read the materials and answer the questions given by the professor. Please answer in detail. Examples can be used as appropriate. _questions.docx de_graaf_et_al.__2012.pdf green_brock_role_of_transportation_2000.pdf moyer_guse___nabi.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview 1. How does narrative persuade? Consider the different variables that you read about across the readings - transportation, identification, etc. 2. How might narrative influence our beliefs about social norms? Particularly fiction? And how long might we expect any narrative effects to last? 3. Why might narrative be more persuasive than other kinds of persuasive messaging? e.g what types of resistance does it get around? 4. In messages or persuasive campaigns how could we design messages to induce the following... greater transportation? greater identification? 5. In what context beyond a text-based story might we see narrative effects? For example, the Moyer-Guse & Nabi article examined educational television... CRX40859 4 CRXXXX10.1177/0093650211408594De Graaf et al.Communication Research © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Identification as a Mechanism of Narrative Persuasion Communication Research 39(6) 802­–823 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0093650211408594 http://crx.sagepub.com Anneke de Graaf1, Hans Hoeken2, José Sanders2, and Johannes W. J. Beentjes1 Abstract To provide a causal test of identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion, this study uses the perspective from which a story is told to manipulate identification experimentally and test effects on attitudes. In experiment 1, 120 participants read a story that was told either from the perspective of one character or another character, with both characters having opposing goals. Results showed that perspective influenced identification and story consistency of attitudes. Moreover, identification with one of the characters mediated the effect of perspective on attitudes. In experiment 2, 200 participants read a different story that was told from one of two perspectives, with both characters having opposing opinions. Results showed that identification with both characters mediated the effect of perspective on attitudes. The results of these experiments indicate that identification can be a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Keywords narrative persuasion, identification, narrative engagement, transportation, perspective Identification as a Mechanism of Narrative Persuasion It is by now well-established that narratives can have effects on readers’ real-world beliefs and attitudes (e.g., Appel & Richter, 2007; Diekman, McDonald, & Gardner, 2000; Strange & Leung, 1999). This phenomenon has been termed “narrative persuasion” and has attracted research interest from various disciplines such as health communication (Green, 2006), entertainment-education (Morgan, Movius, & Cody, 2009; Moyer-Gusé & Nabi, 2010), 1 University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands 2 Corresponding Author: Anneke de Graaf, Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands Email: a.m.degraaf@uva.nl De Graaf et al. 803 and cultivation research (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008). However, the exact mechanisms through which narratives exert persuasive influence are not clearly established. Generally, there is a consensus that the extent to which a reader is engrossed in a story or transported into a story world plays a role in generating narrative effects (see, for example, Green & Brock, 2000; Moyer-Gusé, 2008). Some research has shown that this narrative experience can indeed influence persuasive outcomes (Green, 2004; Green & Brock, 2000). However, recent research has shown that the experience of a narrative is multidimensional. (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009). Some dimensions may be more important for persuasive effects to occur than others. Busselle and Bilandzic (2009), for instance, showed that their dimension of emotional engagement was correlated more strongly to story-consistent attitudes than the dimension of attentional focus. Establishing which dimensions of the narrative experience actually lead to persuasive effects will further expand our understanding of the mechanisms of narrative persuasion (see Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009; Green, 2006, p. 165). In this article, we focus on the dimension of identification with story characters. Several scholars put forward the idea that identification is a mechanism through which narratives exert persuasive influence (e.g., Green, 2006; Slater & Rouner, 2002). Also, some associations have been found between identification and story-consistent attitudes (De Graaf, Hoeken, Sanders, & Beentjes, 2009; Iguarta, 2010). However, a causal test of the effect of identification on attitudes has not yet been provided. The correlational results found so far may also indicate that readers who already share attitudes with a character identify more with this character. To rule out this explanation, this article reports on two studies that manipulate identification experimentally and examine the mediating role of identification in narrative persuasion. Narrative Engagement Scholars have given different names to the experience that narratives typically generate. Green and Brock (2000) adopt the term transportation from Gerrig (1993), which refers to the experience of going into a narrative world. Green and Brock (2000, p. 701) define transportation as the focus of attention, emotion, and imagery on a story. Slater and Rouner (2002, p. 178) employ the label absorption which they define as “vicariously experiencing the characters’ emotions and personality.” Although there is some overlap between these definitions, they differ in important respects. On the one hand, Slater and Rouner’s (2002) definition focuses specifically on characters and shows correspondence to identification, which has been defined as adopting the perspective of a character and consequently experiencing empathic emotions (Cohen, 2001, p. 251). On the other hand, both Gerrig’s (1993) and Green and Brock’s (2000) definition of transportation does not refer to characters. Green and Brock (2000) do include emotion in transportation, but it is not specified whether this needs to be related to characters. Moyer-Gusé (2008) acknowledges this point when she notes that identification with characters goes beyond involvement with the narrative itself, or transportation. However, she also notes the overlap between identification and transportation (Moyer-Gusé, 2008, p. 410). In sum, it is hard to draw a clear line between transportation and identification. 804 Communication Research 39(6) Empirical research by Busselle and Bilandzic (2009) provides insight into the relations between these concepts. They use the term narrative engagement to refer to the experience of a narrative. Their studies show that distinct dimensions of this experience can be discerned. For instance, their factor analyses yielded a dimension of emotional engagement, which consisted of both items about emotion evoked by the narrative and items about empathic emotions for the characters. This dimension thus includes both the emotion aspect of transportation and the empathy aspect of identification, which shows that these two concepts overlap. Other aspects of transportation, such as attentional focus on the story, loaded on a different dimension, revealing that the attention aspect can be distinguished from identification. This study adopts the approach of Busselle and Bilandzic (2009) to see narrative engagement as a complex concept in which multiple dimensions can be discerned. Identification As mentioned above, identification is an experience in which readers adopt the perspective of a character and see the narrative events through the character’s eyes (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008; Cohen, 2001). Oatley (1994, 1999) conceptualizes this experience as a reader adopting the character’s goals and plans. The reader then simulates or imagines the events that happen to the character and experiences empathy or emotions which are in consonance with the success or failure of these plans (Oatley, 1994, p. 69; Zillmann, 2006). In other words, readers imagine what it is like to be a character and can have the illusion of being a character (Cohen, 2001; Tan, 1994, p. 25). Identification is proposed to be one of the mechanisms through which narratives can change attitudes (Green, 2006; Slater & Rouner, 2002). Through the connections forged by identification, implications of experiences and assertions of the character may shift a reader’s beliefs (Green, 2006). When readers simulate or imagine the events that happen to a character in their imagination, they may come to understand what it is like to experience the described events and thus their attitudes may become more consistent with this vicarious experience (Mar & Oatley, 2008, p. 182). Similarly, Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986, 2002) posits that identification with role models facilitates observational learning, such that individuals acquire new ways of thinking and behaving by observing a model. Although this theory is not limited to narratives or the media, characters in the media can also function as role models for observational learning (Bandura, 2002). There is some empirical evidence for the role of identification in narrative persuasion. For instance, Busselle and Bilandzic (2009) showed that their scale of emotional engagement which consisted for a large part of items about empathic emotions was correlated to story-consistent attitudes. Similarly, De Graaf et al. (2009) showed that a scale that included items about taking the perspective of a character as well as items about empathizing with the character was related significantly to story-consistent attitudes. However, in both these studies, it is unclear whether identification was the cause of the effects on the attitude. The opposite relation may hold as well; if participants hold similar attitudes as the character, this similarity in attitudes may cause them to identify with this character rather than the other way around. Several studies have shown that perceived similarity of a reader to a De Graaf et al. 805 character can increase identification with the character (e.g., Andsager, Bemker, Choi, & Torwel, 2006; Eyal & Rubin, 2003). Therefore, correlations between identification and attitudes are not enough to conclude that identification leads to attitude change. Instead, a causal test of the effect of identification on persuasive outcomes is needed to establish whether identification can indeed function as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. The Manipulation of Identification: The Role of Perspective To establish a causal effect of identification on attitudes, identification needs to be manipulated. The definition of identification as adopting the perspective of a character (Cohen, 2001) suggests that the perspective from which a narrative is told may be a suitable means to manipulate identification. Adopting the perspective of a character on the narrative events in one’s imagination is a reader experience, whereas the perspective from which a narrative is told is a text characteristic. Perspective as a text characteristic refers to the physical and psychological point of perception which is presented in a story (Bal, 1997, p. 143). So, when the perspective of a story is positioned with a particular character—who will be referred to as the “perspectivizing character” in this article—this character’s vision on the events and his or her reactions, such as thoughts, are presented. The most clear-cut example of a perspectivizing character is the first-person narrator. In first-person narratives, readers have access to the perception and thoughts of a particular character, referred to with “I,” which likely facilitates readers to take the perspective of this character in their imagination (Oatley, 1999; Sanders & Redeker, 1996). Although several authors posit that story perspective can influence identification (Cohen, 2001; Oatley, 1999), this has not yet been empirically established. However, there is some empirical evidence for the effect of perspective on related concepts. Andringa (1986) reported that participants who read a first-person narrative about a court session from the judge’s perspective reported more understanding for the judge than participants who read a first-person narrative from the defendant’s perspective. Likewise, Van Peer and Pander Maat (1996) found that participants reading a story about a marital disagreement, in which the perceptions and thoughts of the wife were presented, sympathized more with her than participants reading the same story told from the perspective of the husband. As sympathy and understanding for a character are closely related to identification (Cohen, 2001), these studies suggest that the perspective from which a story is told is a suitable means to manipulate identification. Therefore, the first hypothesis of this study is: Hypothesis 1: Readers of a story told from the perspective of a given character will identify more with that character than readers of the same story told from the perspective of another character. The next step is to look at persuasive outcomes. Because identification is specifically related to characters, attitudes will be assessed that are consistent with individual characters. This means that the attitude is related to a character in the story, for instance because a character states his or her opinion on an issue, or because the attitude is implied by the 806 Communication Research 39(6) experience of the character (e.g., when a character pursues a goal). Following from the idea that the perspective of a character leads to identification with that character, it is also expected that perspective influences character-related attitudes. Thus, the second hypothesis of this study is: Hypothesis 2: Readers of a story told from the perspective of a given character will have posttest attitudes more consistent with the attitudes related to that character than will readers of the same story told from the perspective of another character. Finally, to investigate whether identification with a character functions as a mechanism of narrative persuasion, the third hypothesis of this study is: Hypothesis 3: Identification with characters will mediate the effect of the perspective manipulation on posttest attitudes. Experiment 1 Method Materials. Two versions of a story were written about a job interview for a position of web designer. One version of the story is told from the perspective of the applicant, a young man in a wheelchair, the other from the perspective of a member of the selection committee, a young programmer. This topic was chosen because the characters imply different sides on issues related to disabled persons on the job market, such as positive discrimination. The story ends when the applicant leaves the interview. It remains unclear whether he gets the job or not. The manipulation of perspective is intended to increase identification with the character from whose perspective the story is told. Participants who read the story from the perspective of the applicant should identify more with the applicant than participants who read the story from the perspective of the programmer and vice versa. Perspective was established by several means (see Table 1 for examples of the manipulation). First, the perspectivizing character is referred to with I, whereas other characters are referred to with the third-person pronoun (he) or a full noun phrase (e.g., the man). Second, perceptions and thoughts of the perspectivizing character are presented. Thoughts could not be inserted in exactly the same place of the story for both characters, because this would have resulted in unnatural stories, but there are an equal number of thoughts in both versions. Finally, a short sequence of events experienced by the perspectivizing character before the actual job interview are included in both versions to enable readers to identify with this character. The applicant is described as talking to his physiotherapist about his preparation for the interview, whereas the programmer is described as talking to the manager about which candidates to invite for an interview.1 The two versions of the story were pretested to ensure that they were considered natural and suitable by the target participants. Five students were instructed to read both versions of the story critically and mark all elements in the story that they thought were unnatural or 807 De Graaf et al. Table 1. Example of Perspective Manipulation: A Part of the Job Interview in Both Versions Perspectivizing character = applicant Perspectivizing character = programmer “Let’s move on to talk about the position. Why did you apply for this job?” the older man asks. [Thought 1] Again a question that is listed on every website about job application. “I applied because the job description fits well to my education and work experience. (. . .) That is why the job seems very suitable for me.” “Can you say what you like so much about website design?’ the younger man asks. [Thought 2] That is a question I did not prepare for. After thinking about it shortly, I say: “The creative part. I like making something completely new.” Theo [the manager of the company] continues: “Let’s move on to talk about the position. Why did you apply for this job?” “I applied because the job description fits well to my education and work experience. (. . .) That is why the job seems very suitable for me.” [Thought 1] Again such a rehearsed answer. I try to ask more to get a more original answer. “Can you say what you like so much about website design?” The man looks at the wall shortly. “The creative part. I like making something completely new.” [Thought 2] Ok, so he can also give an answer that he did not prepare beforehand. Note: Insertions (e.g., [Thought 1]) and blank lines were not present in the original versions. wrong, either stylistically or in content. With their suggestions, the two versions of the story were improved and adapted to the target group. The final versions of the story both consist of approximately 3,700 words. Readability was kept the same for both versions (Gunning Fog indexes: applicant: 8.55, programmer: 8.59). Participants and procedure. The sample consisted of 120 students (79.8\% female, 20.2\% male) from a Dutch university who were recruited in several first-year classes. The majority studied at the Faculty of Arts (55.8\%), whereas the rest were either law students (22.5\%) or social sciences students (21.6 \%). Age varied between 18 and 28, with an average of 19. The experiment was administered to groups with a maximum of 10 participants in a classroom setting. In every group, the conditions were randomly assigned. The experiment took 20 to 25 minutes to complete. After everyone in a group was finished, participants were debriefed and paid €5 for participation. One participant in the control group was excluded from the analysis because he missed an entire page of items. Other participants did not miss any items. Design. The study used a between-subjects design with three conditions. One group (n = 40) read the version of the story told from the applicant’s perspective and a second group (n = 40) read the version of the story told from the programmer’s perspective. Both groups answered all questions after reading the story. A third group (n = 40) acted as a control group and answered the questions about attitudes before reading the story in order to establish a baseline of attitudes. Questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of questions about personal characteristics (gender, age), attitudes toward issues related to disabled persons on the job market, identification, additional aspects of narrative engagement, and perceived ... Purchase answer to see full attachment