Narrative vs.informational advertising : familiarity with the story topic and the affective and cognitive consequences of narrative transportation on intention

(1)

Narrative vs. Informational advertising: familiarity with the story topic and the affective and cognitive consequences of narrative transportation on intention

Author: Thijs van Twisk Student number: 10499423 Thesis coach: Ed Peelen

Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam Master program: Marketing

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Thijs van Twisk who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Preface

Once upon a time...

when I was a five-year-old boy, my uncle came over from Australia to see his family after a long

time. He saw me playing with a ball day in and day out, so my uncle gave me fifty Australian Dollar and I (well, my father did with me) bought my first pair of Quick football boots. On a cold

Saturday morning, a couple of weeks later, I stood up early. That day I would play my first game on

a real pitch. My mother gave me a glass of milk and a sandwich with cheese. ’That will do to score

a goal’, she said. And while having breakfast I asked her: ’mom, in which stadium are we playing today?’ ’It’s nearby, in Schagen’, she said, without showing a laugh and not ruining a young man’s

dream. ’Let’s go, we are running late’, my father called out as I gave my mother a kiss, ran out of

the house and jumped into the Volvo. I had a dream that day: I would become a professional soccer player like Marco van Basten.

Well, a couple of years later, that dream was over, and that wasn’t because of being a lefty while Marco was a right-footed striker. I just wasn’t good enough and I would never made it to ’The

Theatre of Dreams’. Still have my first pair of football boots though and I am still playing the

lovely game of soccer. Around that year I found out I wouldn’t become a professional soccer player,

I became interested in media and advertising. I was probably about 10 years old when my aunt told me she was helping to produce a television commercial for Chocomel. I remember the commercial

so good (that is impact). I had a crush on the girl in the commercial, I guess. I also fell in love for

my aunt’s profession and her story. And now, 28 years later, I’m doing what I love to do in a field

close to the one my aunt was in: I’m working as a Social Media Manager at a publisher.

I love to tell stories, I love to listen to stories. Ever since my mother and father brought me to the

(4)

about stories. These 17.000 year old wall paintings are astonishing, talking about impact. Why do

we tell stories for such a long time? How does the process of storytelling works? How does

advertising works? And consumer behaviour? And how does narrative transportation works in a field of content marketing and advertising? A lot of questions, I hoped to find answers and that’s

why I started the Master program at the University of Amsterdam.

I want to thank the University of Amsterdam, and especially Ed Peelen, my research supervisor, for

helping me find the answers to above questions.

Thanks to my mom and dad for telling me bedtime stories, bringing me to the Grotte de Lascaux

(II), and letting me learn, listen, read, and write stories at school. And above all, they let me dream!

Thanks to my girlfriend Jolijn for giving me time and motivation while raising our baby Mia. I am grateful that it is now my time to read my daughter a bedtime story and to let her dream the most

beautiful dreams.

I hope one day everybody in the world will be able to learn, listen, read, and write and everybody

could chase the dream they had when they were young. Because I belief, that will make the world a

better place!

Thijs van Twisk

(5)

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION 1

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES 5

Narrative Transportation, Rival Models, and Narrative Persuasion 5

Narrative transportation 5

Rival models of Persuasion 6

Narrative Persuasion 7

Stories and Storytellers, Narratives and Story Receivers 7

Stories and Storytellers 8

Narratives and Story Receivers 8

Narrative and Informational Advertising 9

Story Receiver Antecedent: Familiarity 9

Consequences of Narrative Transportation 10

Affective and Cognitive Responses due to Narrative Transportation 10

Intention 11

METHODS 12

Procedure, research design, and stimulus development 12

Participants 13 Measures 14 Transportation 14 Affective responses 15 Cognitive responses 15 Intention 15 RESULTS 16 Descriptive statistics 16 Narrative transportation 16 Familiarity 16

Consequences of Narrative Transportation 18

Intention 19

Discussion and Conclusion 20

REFERENCE LIST 25

Appendix A: Theoretical model 28

Appendix B: Questionnaire 29

Appendix C: Treatments - News Feed - Narrative Ad (A) & Informational Ad (B) 36

Appendix D: Descriptive statistics 37

Appendix E: Moderation Analysis 38

Appendix F: Univariate Analysis of Variance 39

(6)

ABSTRACT

The main purpose of this study is to find the effects of narrative transportation on consequences as

affective and cognitive responses and, in the end, the intention to conduct a certain behaviour.

Narrative transportation theory proposes that when consumers lose themselves in a story, their

attitudes and intentions change to reflect that story (Green, 2008). Narrative transportation and it’s persuasive effect have been drawing attention among academics and practitioners. It’s persuasive

effect manifests itself in the story receiver’s affective and cognitive responses and intensions.

Previous studies showed that narrative ads resulted in higher levels of transportation opposed to

informational ads, and higher levels of transportation have a positive effect on consequences as affective and cognitive responses and intention. This study will investigate the influence of

narrative transportation on Facebook.

The results of an online experiment (N = 249) indicated that transportation of a person has a

positive effect on people’s intentions. No significant difference was found, in levels of

transportation, between people consuming the narrative ad, opposed to the informational ad. The study also measured the effect for people (un)familiar with the story topic on transportation

moderated by ad form, namely narrative and informational, but no significant difference was

revealed. The study did show a significant effect for familiarity, as for people more familiar with the

story higher levels of transportation was measured. Last, the study measured for an indirect effect between narrative transportation and intention through affective and cognitive responses.

Although not all results were in line with the expected outcomes, some of them were and gave valuable insights to the growing research of narrative transportation and online advertising. Results

were discussed in line with previous research on narrative transportation (Van Laer et al., 2014) and

recommendations are discussed for future research.

(7)

INTRODUCTION

A research about stories, brands producing stories and their audiences consuming these stories. To

be exact: a research about narrative transportation in the context of Facebook advertising.

People always have expressed themselves by telling stories, from the prehistoric cave graffiti to the

wall graffiti we see in cities right now (Visconti et al., 2010). Nowadays, we tell stories and read or

listen to stories as we talk to our family on the telephone, as we listen to a song on the radio, as we

write an email at work or if we watch television. But it is not only you and I who tell stories. Companies can tell stories about their products and services for example. Companies are telling

their stories on the internet, in emails, through advertising on billboards, magazines and television.

Probably everyone can imagine him or herself losing themselves in a story. Remember the times your parents were telling you a bedtime story, and that you got carried away as a princess in the

most beautiful castle or as captain on a pirate ship. Are you there already? It can happen all the

time, while reading Harry Potter or when you are consuming an advertisement on Facebook or

video content on YouTube.

Narrative transportation theory proposes that when consumers lose themselves in a story,

their attitudes and intentions change to reflect that story (Green 2008). The mental state of

narrative transportation can explain the persuasive effect of stories on consumers (Gerrig 1993), who may experience narrative transportation when certain contextual and personal

preconditions are met, as Green and Brock (2002) postulate for the transportation-imagery

model. As we elaborate further subsequently, narrative transportation occurs

whenever the consumer experiences a feeling of entering a world evoked by the narrative because of empathy for the story characters and imagination of the plot. (Van Laer et al.,

(8)

In the real world at a market level a marketer uses billboards, TV-commercials, the internet, email,

social media, and more, for advertising, branding, and communications. The story receiver is the

consumer and the marketer is the storyteller, or by all means organised it to have the story told. Companies-as-storytellers want to persuade their customer by telling stories and they benefit by

telling stories which are more persuasive. A marketer wants current and prospective customers to

consume brand’s stories, products and services. When stories transport story receivers, not only do

they present a narrative world but, by reframing the story receiver’s language, they also durably change the world to which the story receiver returns after the transportation experience (Van Laer et

al., 2014). Van Laer et al. (2014) define narrative persuasion as the effect of narrative transportation,

which manifests itself in story receivers’ affective and cognitive responses, beliefs, attitudes, and intentions from being swept away by a story and transported into a narrative world that modifies

their perception in their world of origin.

Certainly not all consumers experience transportation all the time or to the same degree, but most of

us experience transportation to some extent with some kinds of media as for example magazines, television, movies, and theatre (Wang and Calder, 2006). Although Green and Brock (2000) argues

that advertisements are rhetorical materials and therefor are less likely to transport consumers, a lot

of research is done about narrative transportation in combination with advertising and different

media. Evidence is found that narrative transportation takes place while consuming advertisements in magazines (Chang 2009), on radio (Zheng, 2014), and television (Escalas, Moore, and Edell

2004).

Van Laer et al. (2014) Extended Transportation-Imagery Model consists of the storyteller, the story

receiver, narrative transportation by the story receiver and the consequences mediated by the transportation scale. Storyteller antecedents are identifiable character(s), imaginable plot, and

verisimilitude. Story-receiver antecedents are familiarity, attention, transportability, education and

(9)

and intention. This research will focus on the antecedent familiarity, and consequences of narrative

transportation, namely affective and cognitive responses, and intention. Familiarity refers to the

degree to which a story receiver has prior knowledge about, or personal experience with, the story topic (Green 2004) and there is a positive effect between prior knowledge about the topic and

narrative transportation (Van Laer et al., 2014). An intentional action is a function to accomplish a

desired goal and is based on the belief that the course of action will satisfy a desire (Malle and

Knobe, 1997). Dunlop, Wakefield, and Kashima (2010) find evidence that higher levels of narrative transportation leads to greater intention.

Advertising can have a narrative or informational form (Boller and Olson 1991). This research

focusses on narrative and informational advertisements on Facebook and which of these two will persuade consumers more in certain conditions. Processing narrative ads demand more cognitive

capacity then processing informational ads (Peracchio and Meyers-Levy 1997). Chang (2009) find

evidence that when reading narrative editorial magazine articles, subsequent narrative ads didn’t

have the superior effectiveness in terms of creating more favourable cognitive responses or warm feelings.

Going through Facebook Facebook News Feed, reading posts from friends, family, brands’

advertisements, and subsequent articles demand cognitive capacity. The snack size content we see

on Facebook and other social media are less likely to transport people cause they often do not, or less, exist of aspects needed to transport the consumer, even when told in a narrative way. Next to

that, narrative transportation requires that consumers process stories - the acts of receiving and

interpreting (Van Laer et al., 2014). Because of the volatile way we consume content on Facebook,

one probably will not totally process the story before skipping it to the next piece of content.

Previous research regarding the topic approached this issue mostly within a frame of other, more

traditional, media channels. Since there has not been enough research within a social media frame,

(10)

effect when using narrative advertising opposed to informational advertising on Facebook.

Especially since Facebook plays an increasing role as a platform for marketing communication with

more than 2 billion active monthly users. Moreover, Van Laer et al. (2014), suggested research directions included medium to investigate further as it comes to narrative transportation. The

Extended Transportation-Imagery Model doesn’t include a specific medium.

Hence, the following research question: what are the effects on narrative transportation, affective

and cognitive responses and intentions for people (un)familiar with a story when consuming a narrative ad, opposed to an informational ad, on Facebook?

(11)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Literature review of narrative transportation, narrative persuasion, and narrative and informational

advertising has been done. To be clear about what narrative transportation and its persuasive effect is, one needs to know what narrative transportation is, and therefore the difference between a story,

a narrative, a storyteller and story receiver. Van Laer et al. (2014) Extended Transportation-Imagery

Model consists of the storyteller, the story receiver, narrative transportation by the story receiver

and the consequences mediated by the transportation scale. They made this model up out of the meta-analysis they did, analysing over 100 of published and non-published articles and books. The

theoretical model of this research can be found in Appendix A.

Narrative Transportation, Rival Models, and Narrative Persuasion

Van Laer et al. (2014) argue that a story and a narrative are distinctive elements: a story is the storyteller’s production and a narrative is the story receiver’s consumption of the story. The

following chapters will elaborate on these topics and will give an overview of two well-known rival

models of persuasion to define, in the end, what narrative persuasion is.

Narrative transportation

Green and Brock (2000) state that narrative persuasion occurs when the reader is transported into

the world of the narrative, following their transportation-imagery model. Van Laer et al. (2014)

proposed an extended model for the transportation-imagery model which this research will follow.

Van Laer et al. (2014) argue that scholars in the field constantly reaffirm the relevance of

three features that are required for narrative transportation. First, narrative transportation

requires that consumers process stories - the acts of receiving and interpreting. Second, story receivers become transported through two main components: empathy (Slater and Rouner

(12)

2002) and mental imagery (Green and Brock 2002). Empathy implies that story receivers try

to understand the experience of a story character, that is, to know and feel the world in the

same way. Thus, empathy offers an explanation for the state of detachment from the world of origin that is narrative transportation. In mental imagery, story receivers generate vivid

images of the story plot, such that they feel as they are experiencing the events themselves.

Third, when transported, story receivers lose track of reality in a physiological sense. In

accordance to these features, Van Laer et al. (2014) define narrative transportation as the extent to which (1) a consumer empathises with the story and (2) the story plot activates his

or her imagination, which leads him or her to experience suspended reality during story

reception.

Van Laer et al. (2014) state that the more stories have characters with whom story receivers can

identify and have a plot that story receivers can imagine the more narrative transportation increases.

Narrative transportation can be measured by both the Transportation (Green & Brock, 2000) and

Being Hooked (Escalas et al., 2004) scale. Scales provide data on empathy, mental imagery, and

suspended reality from a consumer perspective.

Rival models of Persuasion

Van Laer et al. (2014) find that before 2000, dual-process models of persuasion, especially the

elaboration likelihood model and the heuristic-systematic model innate persuasion research. Petty and Cacioppo (1983) have outlined two basic routes to persuasion in their elaboration likelihood

model. One route based on the thoughtful consideration of arguments central to the issue, whereas

the other is based on affective associations or simple inferences tied to peripheral cues in the

persuasion context. When variables in the preseason situation render the elaboration likelihood low, the second kind of persuasion occurs (peripheral route). There are different consequences of the two

(13)

routes of persuasion. Attitude changes via the central route appear to be more persistent, resistant,

and predictive of behaviour than changes induces via the peripheral route. Chaiken (1980) outlined

the heuristic-systematic model. The model states that people process messages heuristically or systematically. According to a systematic view, recipients exert considerable cognitive effort in

performing this task: They actively attempt to comprehend and evaluate the message’s arguments as

well as to assess their validity in relation to the message’s conclusion. In contrast, according to a

heuristic view of persuasion, recipients exert comparatively little effort in judging message validity: Rather than processing argumentation, recipients may rely on more accessible information such as

source’s identity or other non-content cues in deciding to accept a message’s conclusion.

Narrative Persuasion

When it comes to narrative persuasion, it is narrative transportation that achieves persuasion of the story receiver (Van Laer et al., 2014). And while the processing pattern of narrative transportation is

different than that from the above dual process models of persuasion, important variables as

empathy, familiarity, and cognitive thoughts are included for all these models. Van Laer et al.

(2014) define narrative persuasion as the effect of narrative transportation, which manifests itself in story receivers’ affective and cognitive responses, beliefs, attitudes, and intentions from being swept

away by a story and transported into a narrative world that modifies their perception in their world

of origin.

Stories and Storytellers, Narratives and Story Receivers

There are three different levels, functions, actions, and discourses, which makes the processes of story creation (the storyteller’s side) and story interpretation (the story receiver’s side) plausible,

(14)

Both people and brands tell stories and this research tries to explain the differences between both

storytellers and their capability of transportation effect and in the end narrative persuasion. Scholars

in the field of storytelling and narrative transportation largely agree that telling stories is a valuable exercise for the storytellers at the individual level and at the market level.

A story is a powerful tool to frame the experience of a storyteller while companies can benefit from telling stories (Van Laer et al., 2014).

Stories and Storytellers

Van Laer et al. (2014) argue that storytellers must include 4 essential elements in their production: ”(1) the plot, which frames the temporal sequence of the events; (2) the characters playing a role in

the plot; (3) the climax, which results from the modulation of the dramatic intensity along the plot;

and (4) the outcome, or the end state of the plot commonly derived from the characters’ resolution of a misfortunate event” (p.798). The storyteller antecedents from The Extended

Transportation-Imagery Model are: identifiable characters, imaginable plot, and verisimilitude (Van Laer et al.,

2014).

Narratives and Story Receivers

Van Laer et al. (2014) define ”narrative” as the story receiver’s consumption of the story through

which he or she does not just read the story but also makes it readable in the first place.

Furthermore they state: ”In short, a narrative is a story the consumer interprets in accordance with his or her prior knowledge, attention, personality, demographics, and significant others” (2014, p.

799). The story receiver antecedents from The Extended Transportation-Imagery Model are:

(15)

Narrative and Informational Advertising

Advertising is about influencing people’s behaviour, for example to convince a person to purchase a

product (Petty and Cacioppo, 1983). As this research is about narrative advertisement versus

informational advertisement on Facebook we have to take three aspects into account: (1) According

to Deighton, Romer, and McQueen (1989), informational or argument advertising differs from narrative advertising in that it has no plots or characters and that a narrative has got a narrator.

Escalas (1998) defines a narrative advertisement as an advertisement that tells a story; (2) We have

to see Facebook’s News Feed as a collection of stories told by friends, family, colleagues, brands,

etc. Chang (2009) find evidence that exposure to a narrative ad will induce lower levels of narrative transportation after reading a narrative editorial than after reading a informational editorial. There

will be reduced cognitive and affective involvement with the ad because reading a narrative will

involve participants cognitively and affectively, thus consuming their cognitive capacity, which will decrease their ability to attend to a subsequent ad (Chang, 2009). As Facebook is a timeline full of

stories with organic and paid posts people will be less likely to get transported; (3) Stories travel

fast through social media. To get the consumers attention a story on Facebook has to be attractive in

the first moment and exciting after. A Facebook advertisement can be a story but it is impossible to tell a complete story in a Facebook advertisement between all other stories, so there will probably

be a minimal level of transportation as the advertisement will be a snapshot of the complete story.

Therefore, I hypothesised:

H1: A narrative Facebook advertisement in Facebook's News Feed will lead to higher levels of narrative transportation than an informational Facebook advertisement

Story Receiver Antecedent: Familiarity

”Familiarity refers to the degree to which a story receiver has prior knowledge about or personal

(16)

crucial for narrative transportation to occur because the interpretation of a story requires the ability

to process and understand the information contained in the story plot. It could be because of their

intrinsic interest or because they find it easier to imagine the story plot, a consumer will be more transported if they have more knowledge about the topic (Slater, Rouner, and Long 2006).

Especially when it is a snapshot of a story, which is often the case on Facebook, a higher degree of

familiarity of the story topic could have a positive effect on levels of transportation.

It would be good to know if there is a difference in levels of narrative transportation of a story

receiver when consuming a narrative or an informational advertisement on Facebook if it comes to

being a consumer familiar, with the story told, or not. An informational advertisement has no plot at all while a narrative advertisement has a plot, which is why people more unfamiliar with the brand

or story could be transported so the influence of a narrative advertisement on transportation is

bigger. Thus:

H2: The degree of familiarity of the story topic weakens the influence of narrative advertising on transportation. For more unfamiliar stories the influence of narrative advertising on transportation is bigger than for familiar stories.

Consequences of Narrative Transportation

Affective and cognitive responses, belief, attitude, and intention are all potential consequences of narrative transportation, following Van Laer et al. (2014). The following sections will elaborate on

affective and cognitive responses, and intention in the context of Facebook advertising.

Affective and Cognitive Responses due to Narrative Transportation

Affective responses are emotional in nature and represent expressions of feelings. Cognitive

responses are critical or narrative in nature and reflects expressions of thoughts (Van Laer et al.,

(17)

(advertisement) and attitude (Holbrook and Batra, 1987) and are therefore mediating the

relationship between narrative transportation and intention. The more narrative transportation

increases, the more story-consistent affective responses increase (Chang, 2009; Escalas et al., 2004), critical thoughts decrease (Green and Brock, 2000), and narrative thoughts increase (Chang,

2009).

We have to take in consideration that both advertisements in this research, the narrative and the

informational, are about a positive story. Therefore, affective and cognitive responses will already

be more positive. In summary, I hypothesised:

H3: An increase in story consistent affective responses (a) and narrative thoughts (b) will result in a positive effect of narrative transportation on story-consistent intentions.

Intention

According to Bratman (1987) intention is a mental state that represents a commitment to carrying

out an action or actions in the future. Intention involves mental activities such as planning and forethought. Intention is, for example, to have the intention to walk into a shop after seeing a

billboard, the intention of a purchase in an online shop, or the intention to click on a Facebook

advertisement.

Van Laer et al. (2014) argue that transported story receivers are more willing to perform an action.

Schlosser (2003) finds that consumers exhibit increased purchase intentions when they experience

great narrative transportation and Dunlop et al. (2010) shows that narrative transportation leads to willingness to perform a certain action. In this research it is about the intention to click on the link

of the advertisement in Facebook’s Timeline. Thus:

H4: The more narrative transportation increases the higher the intention to click on a Facebook advertisement.

(18)

METHODS Procedure, research design, and stimulus development

To measure if narrative transportation, in certain conditions, has got a superior effect on intention

when using narrative advertising opposed to informational advertising on Facebook procedures and

stimulus development are described, and following research design gives answer on the research question.

To test the hypotheses, an experiment with between subjects design was chosen. The independent variable is the type of advertisement, namely narrative versus informational (Figure 1). Both type of

ads were shown in a recreated Facebook News Feed (Appendix C). The advertisements used in the

experiment are with a call to action for buying tickets for the musical The Bodyguard. Using these materials made it possible to have access to copy and images and to contact participants who were

more likely to be familiar with the story topic which was necessary to test (at least) one of the

hypotheses. On the other hand, when using the story of The Bodyguard on Facebook, only a

snapshot of the story can be told which has to be taken into account.

Non-probability sampling was used to contact participants through personal social media and the

Facebook pages of Libelle and Theaterclub. A Facebook and LinkedIn message was distributed across the platforms asking people to fill in the questionnaire. To test the hypotheses,

cross-sectional data was collected through an online survey in a period of 4 weeks, and to perform the

statistical analysis SPSS was used. Participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire (Appendix B),

with a total of 36 items, after they were exposed to the narrative or informational Facebook advertisement which was randomly assigned to the participants.

Both, the narrative and informational advertisement, were especially constructed for the use of this experiment. A pre-test was conducted to test if the treatments were measuring the correct

information type. A total of 19 participants were shown the advertisements. The narrative was

(19)

on a seven-point Likert scale (anchored not at all and very much), were asked about the four

elements (a plot, characters, a climax, an outcome) a story must have. One of the questions was i.e.

does the advertisement has a plot. An independent samples T-test was conducted to compare the

means and it revealed that the narrative treatment (M =18,50, SD=1,78) significantly differs on

story elements from the informational advertisement (M=14,22, SD=1,64), t(17)=5,43, p=.000.

Figure 1. Treatments - Narrative Ad (A) & Informational Ad (B)

A B

Participants

After checking for missing values and outliers 249 participants (77 men and 172 women) completed the survey. 60.2% of the respondents were between 25 and 44 years old, followed by the four

(20)

Educational level was distributed as followed: HBO (47.8%), MBO (22.9%), University (17.3%),

MAVO (5.2%), HAVO/VWO (4.8%), and LBO/VMBO (2.0%).

Measures

A total of 4 different scales were used to measure transportation, cognitive and affective responses

and intention. Also questions were asked about musicals and The Bodyguard in general as control

variables. Translation and back-translation procedure suggested by Brislin (1987) was used to translate the questions to Dutch, because all scales used in this research were adopted from English

publications. For the Transportation, Affective, and Cognitive scale, all Cronbach’s Alpha were >

0.7 in earlier research (Green and Brock, 2000; Banerjee and Greene, 2012; Dillard, Shen, and Vail 2007) but this study also produced reliable scales. Familiarity was measured on a seven-point Likert

scale, anchored not at all and very much (Biswas, 1992).

Transportation

To measure the level of transportation of the respondents the Transportation Scale (Green and

Brock, 2000) was used. Sub scales of the Transportation scale are: the cognitive (items 1,3 and 4,

α=0.87), affective (item 5 and 7), and imagery (items 11 and 12). Eleven of twelve items from the

original transportation scale were used. One was left out because this item wasn’t relevant in the context of the advertisement in combination with the strong affective outcome. All questionnaire

items were measured by a seven-point Likert scale anchored not at all and very much. Larger scores

indicated greater transportation. Reverse-coded items are indicated by an R. Cronbach’s alpha

statistics were calculated across all items and the value (α=0.88) indicated that the data collected from the survey were reliable and suitable for further analysis. Dropping an item wouldn’t

(21)

Affective responses

The scale, used by Dillard et al. (2007), was used to measure story consistent affective responses.

The corresponding items were surprise, anger, fear, sadness, guilt, and happiness. All items, were

measured by a four-point Likert scale anchored none of this feeling and a great deal of this feeling.

Statements such as did you feel sad after reading the advertisement, were asked. Cronbach’s alpha (α=0.71) was calculated and for all items and gives enough reliability for further analysis. Deleting

an item wouldn’t have improve the data.

Cognitive responses

Cognitive responses were measured with 3 items (α=0.81), using a five-point Likert scale ranging

from not at all to a great deal. Higher scores indicated greater cognitive processing. Participants

were asked for example how much did the advertisement made you think about buying a musical

ticket. All three items were adapted from earlier research by Banerjee and Greene (2012).

Intention

Participants responded to three items on a five-point Likert scale, regarding their intentions and

found to be highly reliable. (α=0.96). Responses varied from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Participants were asked i.e. would you click on the advertisement, after reading it, to go to the

website. The intention scale was adapted from Banerjee and Greene (2012) and made applicable for

(22)

RESULTS Descriptive statistics

The model (Appendix A) is tested in 2 parts. The main effect of narrative transportation will be

discussed first, followed by a moderator of narrative transportation, namely familiarity (part 1), and

consequences of narrative transportation, namely affective and cognitive responses, and intention (part 2). The results of the tests of all dependent variables are reported (Appendix D). Means from

all depended variables did not differ much in relation to the narrative and informational

advertisement. These outcomes follows the idea that the Facebook News Feed, in isolation, is a too

volatile way of consuming content to process a story in order to get transported. Furthermore, the descriptive statistics show that both, the test group and the control group, were divided equal in

terms of means for age, sex and education.

Narrative transportation

Hypothesis 1 suggested that a narrative Facebook advertisement will lead to higher levels of transportation than an informational advertisement. An independent samples t-test was used and

revealed that respondents exposed to the narrative advertisement did not significantly differ in

transportation (M = 41,89, SD = 13,59) from those exposed to the informational advertisement (M =

43,09, SD = 12,40), t(247 ) = -7,22, p = .471. Thus, hypothesis 1 was rejected.

Familiarity

Hypothesis 2 proposed that the degree of familiarity of the story topic weakens the influence of

narrative advertising on transportation, so that for more unfamiliar stories the influence of narrative advertising on transportation is higher than for familiar stories.

A moderation analysis using Hayes’ (2013) process macro was conducted to test the model (outcomes: Appendix E). The two predictors, familiarity and advertising form, were entered into a

(23)

simultaneous regression model. Results indicated that the degree of familiarity does have a positive

significant effect on transportation (Table 1).

Table 1. Linear model of predictors of transportation

R2 _{= 0,2106}

To test if the degree of familiarity of the story topic weakens the influence of narrative advertising

on transportation an univariate analysis of variance test was conducted (Outcomes: Appendix F).

Therefore, the variable familiarity was recoded into two variables, namely unfamiliar and familiar.

Looking at the descriptive statistics (Appendix F) it appears that, the degree of familiarity of the

story topic does not significantly weakens the influence of narrative advertising on transportation. As shown in Figure 2, people who were shown the informational ad scored higher levels of

transportation no matter if they were familiar or unfamiliar with the story topic. Therefore,

hypothesis 2 is rejected. b SE B t P Constant 41.31 1.07 38.49 P < .001 Familiarity 3.60 .68 5.28 P < .001 Ad Form 2.43 1.49 1.63 P = .1037 Ad Form x Familiarity -.08 .89 -.09 P = .9249

(24)

Figure 2. Estimated Marginal Means of Transportation

Consequences of Narrative Transportation

Hypothesis 3 suggested that an increase in story consistent affective responses (a) and narrative

thoughts (b) will result in a positive effect of narrative transportation on story-consistent intentions.

A mediation analysis using Hayes’ (2013) process macro was conducted to test the hypothesis. Overall results can be found in Appendix G, while general results are shown in Figure 3. Narrative

transportation significantly predicts story consistent affective response scores, b = 0.09, t(247) =

11.64, p < .001. Narrative transportation explained a significant proportion of variance in story

consistent affective response scores R2 _{= 0.35, F(1, 247) = 135.42, p < .001.}

Narrative transportation also significantly predicts narrative thought scores, b = 0.16, t(247) =

16.81, p < .001. And as with the story consistent affective response scores, narrative transportation

also explained a significant proportion of variance in narrative thought scores R2 _{= 0.53, F(1, 247) =}

(25)

Narrative Transportation significantly predicts intension scores with both mediators in the model, b

= 0.06, t(247) = 3.53, p < .001; story consistent affective responses does not finds significant

support for predicting intention scores, b = 0.09, t(247) = -0.97, p = .3327. Thus, hypothesis 3a is rejected. Narrative thoughts predicts intention scores significantly, b = 0.88, t(247) = 12.15, p < .

001, therefore hypothesis 3b is supported; The model explained a significant proportion of variance

in intention scores, R2 _{= 0.66, F(1, 247) = 160.15, p < .001.}

Figure 3. Mediation effect of consequences of narrative transportation on intention

Intention

Hypothesis 4 proposed that the more narrative transportation increases the higher the intention to

click on a Facebook advertisement. As predicted, when story consistent affective response and

cognitive thoughts scores are not in model, narrative transportation significantly predicts intension

scores, b = 0.20, t(247) = 14.29, p < .001. Narrative transportation also explained a significant proportion of variance in intention scores, R2_{=0.45, F(1, 247) = 204.35, p < .001. Therefore,}

hypothesis 4 is supported. Story consistent affective responses Intentions Narrative thoughts Narrative transportation b = 0.09, p < .001. b = 0.16, p < .001. b = 0.88, p < .001. b = -.09, p < .3327. Indirect effect b = -0,15, 95% [-.19, -.12 Direct effect b = 0.06, p < 0.001.

(26)

Discussion and Conclusion

The goal of this study was to bridge the gap between narrative transportation theory and advertising

on Facebook. As such that several hypothesis were tested on ad form (narrative versus informational), familiarity of the story topic and consequences of narrative transportation as

affective and cognitive responses and intention. The persuasive effect of narrative transportation

manifests itself in those story receivers’s consequences. Former research showed that consuming a

narrative ad leads to higher levels of transportation opposed to consuming an informational ad (Van Laer et al., 2014). Slater, Rouner, and Long (2006) find that familiarity with the story topic

generates higher levels of transportation. Both findings are interesting when investigating the

significantly supported persuasive effects of narrative transportation on intention (Schlosser, 2003; Dunlop et al., 2010) through affective responses (Chang, 2009; Escalas et al., 2004), and cognitive

responses (Green and Brock, 2000; Chang, 2009).

Advertising is becoming more and more important on social media like Facebook, as more than 2

billion people using it on a monthly basis. It is a, and sometimes, the way for marketers to reach out to people as watching television, listening to the radio, and reading magazines are become extinct in

certain demographic generations. While there is still a lot to investigate regarding the role of

narrative transportation and advertising on social media, this study is another step and it provides

insights for further discussion.

The study was designed for understanding the effects of narrative transportation in the social media

world, to be exact, the effects of narrative transportation on intention through advertising on

Facebook. Although significant outcomes were found, results must be interpreted with care because

of the form of advertising on social media. Advertising on social media, and moreover Facebook, lends itself best with visual short text, brief and to the point, ad forms. Van Laer et al., (2014) state

(27)

(4) the outcome. Those are hard to include in an ad on Facebook to be interpret as a narrative for the

story receiver to be transported.

In line of theory, we expected that a narrative Facebook ad would generate higher levels of

transportation, opposed to consuming an informational Facebook ad but, due to the volatile use of

Facebook and the form (snapshot) of the ad, not as much as former research showed. This research did not find significant support. Affective and cognitive responses mediate the relationship between

the message (advertisement) and attitude (Holbrook and Batra, 1987) and, are therefor mediating

the relationship between narrative transportation and intention. Next to that, Chang (2009) find that

cognitive capacity will decrease while reading editorial content which will result in reduced levels of transportation in subsequent ads. Further, Escalas (1998) states that consumers are aware of that

narrative advertising differs from other content in that it has persuasive intentions. These findings

exactly point out an ad in Facebook’s News Feed: a snapshot of a brand’s story between all other organic content. As said, no significant effect was found between a narrative ad opposed to an

informational ad on levels of transportation, while Chang (2009) did find a significant effect as that

study tested it on advertising in a magazine. This could be (1) the difference in reading a magazine

and going through Facebook’s News Feed and (2) the possibility of using all necessary elements extensively to conduct a story. The first part could be found in the fact of how we consume stories

and ads: more elaborate or not. The second part is about convincing and persuading a consumers to

take action to influence their behaviour. As the ad being a snapshot of a bigger story, hardly having

the necessary elements of being a story, this study revealed it is difficult to transport the receiver with the narrative.

Hypothesis 2 suggested that the degree of familiarity of the story topic weakens the influence of narrative advertising on transportation, in that for more unfamiliar stories the influence of narrative

(28)

hypothesis, but did find support that for people more familiar with the story, levels of transportation

were higher. This is in line with Green and Brock (2004).

This research didn’t find support for the suggested hypothesis 3a, in that an increase in story

consistent affective responses would result in a positive effect of narrative transportation on

intention. Stories elicit emotion and feelings and people consume them to be entertained (Van Laer et al., 2014). No affective associations (or simple inferences) tied to peripheral cues did this ad

elicit. As the treatments weren’t used for entertaining it could be that the stimuli didn’t elicit

(enough) affective responses. Or, in line with Chaiken (1980), that according to a heuristic view of

persuasion, recipients exert comparatively little effort in judging message validity: Rather than processing argumentation, recipients may rely on more accessible information such as source’s

identity or other non-content cues in deciding to accept a message’s conclusion. People conducting

the test knew it was for research, which could make them not even process non-content cues. Or it could be because a decrease of cognitive capacity will decrease affective (and cognitive) responses.

On the other hand it did find support for hypothesis 3b, that an increase of narrative thoughts would result in a positive effect of narrative transportations which is in line with former studies (Green and

Brock, 2000; Chang, 2009). As said before, Chang (2009) also find that cognitive capacity will

decrease while reading editorial content which will result in reduced levels of transportation in

subsequent ads and therefore will reduce affective and cognitive responses. This study shows that, although cognitive capacity is decreased, a Facebook ad (as a story) can have a persuasive effect on

intentions. This could be the effect of people more familiar with the story topic, where this research

did find a significant effect, have more narrative thoughts.

In less need of cognition, because of the decrease of cognitive capacity due to the consuming of

editorial content in Facebook’s News Feed, consumers will be less focused on the ad and therefore,

following Petty and Cacioppo (1983), the peripheral route will be used as the message recipient has little or no interest in the ad and/or has less ability to process the message. This is in contrast of our

(29)

findings as that this study found a significant effect of narrative thoughts as a mediator of narrative

transportation on intention (hypothesis 3b). With the peripheral route, consumers are more likely to

rely on general impressions, early parts of the message, and positive and negative cues. A factor of ability is familiarity with the story topic (Petty and Cacioppo, 1983). People more familiar with the

story, effects people more to think to think about the story. In line with familiarity, Green et al.

(2008) find that people who watched a movie after reading the novel were transported more than

people who didn’t read the narrative and even more after the narrative was experienced a second time.

To elicit more affective and cognitive responses from advertising on Facebook, further research should focus on the principles of the narrative transportation theory rather than the elaboration

likelihood model as familiarity is a factor of ability to process the ad in the first place. Not being

familiar with the story topic, lower levels of transportation will be generated, but it would also make consumers less likely to process it in the first place. One needs storytelling to become familiar

with the story topic in the first place. More research must be done to find out if Facebook is the

right place for storytelling, because of the content being a snapshot of the bigger picture, and in the

end to get consumers of the story transported to persuade them. Further research, and for practical implications, research could than focus on elements as for example creatives (text, photo, video), ad

message (i.e. a product with or without a discount) ad form (i.e. number of arguments), the narrator

(i.e. expertise), medium (i.e. smartphone versus laptop) ability (time pressure or distraction) for

doing research on narrative persuasion in the context of advertising on Facebook. And in line with our research about the familiarity of the story topic, research should be done about narrative

transportation for people who’ve been shown the ad for a second, third, etc. time. Recommended

not only for theoretical implications but also for practical implications as ads are served several

times across Facebook’s News Feed and more than once in a campaign across different (social) media. Is their a relationship between narrative persuasion and ad fatigue. The ad fatigue

(30)

phenomenon means that people who have seen the same ad more than ones, tend to get less

receptive to the ad over time.

Hypothesis 4 suggested that the more narrative transportation increases, the higher the intention to

click on a Facebook advertisement. Support was found and this was in line with previous research.

In line with the other proposals for further research, intention as a consequence of narrative transportation in the context of Facebook, can be included in the model when testing for theoretical

implications shown above. For example, would intention scores differ after people were shown an

ad for a second, third, etc. time and does familiarity have an effect on story-consistent intentions

(31)

REFERENCE LIST

Banerjee, Smita C., and Kathryn Greene (2012b), “Role of Transportation in the Persuasion

Process: Cognitive and Affective Responses to Antidrug Narratives,” Journal of Health

Communication, 17 (5), 564–81.

Biswas, A. (1992), The moderating role of brand familiarity in reference price perceptions. Journal

of Business Research, 25, 251–262.

Boller, Gregory and Olson, Jerry (1991), Experiencing Ad Meanings: Crucial Aspects of Narrative

Drama Processing, Advances in Consumer Research, 18 (1), 172-75.

Bratman, M. E. (1987), Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.

Press.

Brislin, Richard W. (1987), “The Wording of Translation of Research Instruments,” in Field

Methods in Cross Cultural Research, Walter J. Lonner and John W. Berry, eds., Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage, 137–64.

Chaiken, Shelly (1980), Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source

Versus Message Cues in Persuasion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (5), 752-66.

Chang, Chingching (2009), "Being Hooked" By Editorial Content: The Implications for Processing

Narrative Advertising, Journal of Advertising, 38:1, 21-34.

Deighton, John, Romer, Daniel, and McQueen, Josh (1989), Using Drama to Persuade, Journal of Consumer Research,16 (3), 335-43.

Dillard, J. P., Shen, L., & Vail, R. G. (2007), Does perceived message effectiveness cause

persuasion or vice versa? 17 consistent answers. Human Communication Research, 33,

467-88.

Dunlop, Sally M., Melanie Wakefield, and Yoshihisa Kashima (2010), “Pathways to Persuasion:

(32)

Communication Research, 37 (1), 133–64.

Escalas, Jennifer Edson (1998), “Advertising Narratives: What Are They and How Do They Work?”

in Representing Consumers: Voices, Views, and Visions, ed. Barbara B. Stern, London: Routledge 267-89.

Escalas, Jennifer Edson (2004), “Imagine Yourself in the Product: Mental Simulation, Narrative

Transportation, and Persuasion,” Journal of Advertising, 33 (2), 37–48.

Escalas, Jennifer Edson, Marian Chapman Moore, and Julie A. Edell (2004), “Fishing for Feelings Hooking Viewers Helps!” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1&2), 105–14.

Green, Melanie C., and Timothy C. Brock (2000), “The Role of Transportation in the

Persuasiveness of Public Narratives,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (5), 701–21.

Green, Melanie C., Strange, Jeffrey J., Brock, Timothy C. (2002), Narrative Impact: Social

and Cognitive Foundations, United Kingdom: Psychology Press

Green, Melanie C. (2004), “Transportation into NarrativeWorlds: The Role of Prior Knowledge and Perceived Realism,” Discourse Processes, 38 (2), 247–67.

Green, Melanie C., Sheryl Kass, Jana Carrey, Benjamin Herzig, Ryan Feeney, and John Sabini

(2008), “Transportation across Media: Repeated Exposure to Print and Film,” Media

Psychology, 11 (4), 512–39.

Hayes, A. F. (2013), Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Holbrook, Morris B., and Rajeev Batra (1987), “Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of

Consumer Responses to Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (3), 404–20. Malle, Bertram F., and Knobe, Joshua (1997), The Folk Concept of Intentionality, Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 101-21.

(33)

from a Resource-Matching Perspective, Journal of Consumer Research 24 (2), 178-91.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: Application to

advertising. In L. Percy & A. Woodside (Eds.), Advertising and consumer psychology (pp

3-23).

Slater, Michael D., Donna Rouner, and Marilee Long (2006), “Television Dramas and Support for Controversial Public Policies: Effects and Mechanisms,” Journal of Communication, 56 (2),

235–52.

Schlosser, Ann E. (2003), “Experiencing Products in the Virtual World: The Role of Goal and

Imagery in Influencing Attitudes versus Purchase Intentions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 184–98.

Van Laer, Tom, Ko de Ruyter, Luca M. Visconti, and Martin Wetzels (2014), The Extended

Transportation-Imagery Model: A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of

Consumers’ Narrative Transportation, Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (5), 797-817. Visconti, Luca M., John F. Sherry Jr., Stefania Borghini, and Laurel Anderson (2010), “Street Art,

Sweet Art? Reclaiming the ’Public’ in Public Place,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3),

511-29.

Wang, Jing, and Bobby J. Calder (2006), “Media Transportation and Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (2), 151–62.

Zheng, Lu (2014), Narrative Transportation in Radio Advertising: A Study of the Effects of

(34)

Appendix A: Theoretical model PART 1 PART 2 Narrative Advertisement vs. Informational Advertisement Narrative transportation H1 H2 Familiarity Affective responses Intentions Cognitive responses Narrative transportation H3a H3b H4

(35)

Appendix B: Questionnaire 1 Wat is je leeftijd? o Onder 18 (1) o 18 - 24 (2) o 25 - 34 (3) o 35 - 44 (4) o 45 - 54 (5) o 55 - 64 (6) o 65 - 74 (7) o 75 - 84 (8) o 85 of ouder (9) 2 Geslacht: o Man (1) o Vrouw (2)

3 Wat is je hoogst genoten opleiding?

▢ Basis onderwijs (1) ▢ LBO, VMBO (2) ▢ MAVO (3) ▢ MBO (4) ▢ HAVO, VWO (5) ▢ HBO (6) ▢ Universiteit (7)

4 Hoe bekend ben je met het verhaal van The Bodyguard?

o helemaal onbekend (1)

o onbekend (2)

o een beetje onbekend (3)

o niet bekend / niet onbekend (4)

o een beetje bekend (5)

o bekend (6)

o helemaal bekend (7)

Display This Question:

If Hoe bekend ben je met het verhaal van The Bodyguard? != helemaal onbekend

5 Vind je het verhaal van The Bodyguard leuk?

o helemaal niet leuk (1)

o niet leuk (2)

o enigszins niet leuk (3)

(36)

o enigszins leuk (5)

o leuk (6)

o helemaal leuk (7) 6 Hoe bekend ben je met musicals?

o helemaal onbekend (1)

o onbekend (2)

o een beetje onbekend (3)

o niet bekend / niet onbekend (4)

o een beetje bekend (5)

o bekend (6)

o helemaal bekend (7) 7 Vind je musicals leuk?

o helemaal niet leuk (1)

o niet leuk (2)

o enigszins niet leuk (3)

o neutraal (4)

o enigszins leuk (5)

o leuk (6)

o helemaal leuk (7)

8 Ben je wel eens bij een musical geweest?

o Ja (1)

o Nee (2)

If Ben je wel eens bij een musical geweest? = Ja

9 Hoeveel keer ben je bij een musical geweest?

o 1 (1)

o 2 (2)

o 3 (3)

o 4 keer of meer (4)

10 Ben je van plan om in de toekomst naar musicals te gaan?

o Ja (1)

(37)

If Ben je wel eens bij een musical geweest? = Ja

11 Ben je bij de Musical van The Bodyguard geweest?

o Ja (1)

o Nee (2)

If Ben je bij de Musical van The Bodyguard geweest? = Ja

12 Ben je in meerdere mate, omdat je liefhebber van de muziek van Whitney Housten bent, naar The Bodyguard (musical) geweest of in meerdere mate omdat je een liefhebber van musicals bent?

o In meerdere mate omdat ik een liefhebber van de muziek van Whitney Housten ben. (1)

o In meerdere mate omdat ik een liefhebber van musicals ben. (2)

o In meerdere mate omdat ik een liefhebber ben van de film The Bodyguard. (3)

o Geen van allen (4)

13 Terwijl ik de advertentie las en bekeek, kon ik mij de gebeurtenissen goed inbeelden.

o helemaal mee oneens (1)

o mee oneens (2)

o een beetje mee oneens (3)

o niet mee oneens/niet mee eens (4)

o een beetje mee eens (5)

o mee eens (6)

o helemaal mee eens (7)

14 Terwijl ik de advertentie las en bekeek, hield ik mij bezig met activiteiten (in de ruimte) om mij heen.

o mee oneens (2)

o mee eens (6)

15 Ik kon mijzelf inbeelden in de gebeurtenissen die beschreven waren in de advertentie.

o mee oneens (2)

o mee eens (6)

(38)

o mee oneens (2)

o mee eens (6)

17 Toen ik de advertentie gelezen had kon ik de advertentie makkelijk uit mijn hoofd zetten.

o mee oneens (2)

o mee eens (6)

18 Ik wilde weten hoe de advertentie eindigde.

o mee oneens (2)

o mee eens (6)

o helemaal mee eens (7) 19 De advertentie raakte mij emotioneel.

o mee oneens (2)

o mee eens (6)

20 Ik merkte dat ik aan het denken was hoe de advertentie anders had kunnen eindigen.

o mee oneens (2)

o mee eens (6)

(39)

o mee oneens (2)

o mee eens (6)

22 De gebeurtenissen in de advertentie zijn relevant met betrekking tot mijn dagelijks leven.

o mee oneens (2)

o mee eens (6)

23 Ik had een levendig beeld van Rachel Marron in het verhaal?

o mee oneens (2)

o mee eens (6)

24 Ik had een levendig beeld van Frank Farmer in het verhaal?

o mee oneens (2)

o mee eens (6)

o helemaal mee eens (7) 25 Over de advertentie: ben je verrast?

o niets van dit gevoel (1)

o een beetje van dit gevoel (2)

o veel van dit gevoel (3)

o heel veel van dit gevoel (4)

26 Over de advertentie: ben je boos?

(40)

o heel veel van dit gevoel (4) 27 Over de advertentie: voel je angst?

o heel veel van dit gevoel (4) 28 Over de advertentie: ben je verdrietig?

o heel veel van dit gevoel (4) 29 Over de advertentie: voel je je schuldig?

o heel veel van dit gevoel (4) 30 Over de advertentie: voel je je gelukkig?

o heel veel van dit gevoel (4)

31 Over het algemeen, zette het verhaal je aan het denken om een kaartje te kopen.

o Helemaal niet (1)

o Nauwelijks (2)

o In redelijke mate (3)

o In hoge mate (4)

o In zeer hoge mate (5)

32 Over het algemeen, dacht je meer na over het verhaal dan dat je het voelde.

o Helemaal niet (1)

o Nauwelijks (2)

o In hoge mate (4)

33 Over het algemeen, gingen je gedachten naar een avondje uit/musical

o Helemaal niet (1)

o Nauwelijks (2)

(41)

34 Zou je na het lezen van de advertentie, klikken op de advertentie om naar de betreffende website te gaan.

o zeer onwaarschijnlijk (1)

o onwaarschijnlijk (2)

o niet waarschijnlijk / niet onwaarschijnlijk (3)

o waarschijnlijk (4)

o zeer waarschijnlijk (5)

35 Zou je na het lezen van het verhaal, van plan zijn om iemand mee te vragen.

o zeer waarschijnlijk (5)

36 Zou je na het lezen van het verhaal, een kaartje kopen.

(42)

Appendix C: Treatments - News Feed - Narrative Ad (A) & Informational Ad (B)

(43)

Appendix D: Descriptive statistics DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS   Ad Form N Mean SD Transportation Narrative 134 41,89 13,60 Informational 115 43,09 12,40 Affective Narrative 134 7,31 2,01 Informational 115 7,30 1,86 Cognitive Narrative 134 7,40 2,96 Informational 115 7,39 2,90 Intention Narrative 134 7,84 3,77 Informational 115 8,44 3,81

(44)

Appendix E: Moderation Analysis

OUTCOME: TRANSPORTATION

MODEL SUMMARY

MODEL

R2_{increase due to interaction}

Conditional Effect of Familiarity in Groups Defined by the Moderator Variable

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95.00

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 P .46 .21 135.96 22.24 3.00 245.00 P < .001 b SE B t P Constant 41.31 1.07 38.49 P < .001 Familiarity 3.60 .68 5.28 P < .001 Ad Form 2.43 1.49 1.63 P = .1037 Ad Form x Familiarity -.08 .89 -.09 P = .9249 R-sq change F df1 df2 P .0000 .0089 1.0000 245.0000 .9294

Ad Form b SE B t p LLCI ULCI

Narrative 3,59 .68 5.28 P < .001 2.25 4.93

(45)

Appendix F: Univariate Analysis of Variance

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

a. R2 _{= 0,2106 (Adjusted R}2_{= 0,2106)}

Ad form Familiarity Mean Std. Deviation N

Narrative Familiar 32.81 11.63 21 Unfamiliar 43.58 13.30 113 Total 41.89 13.59 134 Informational Familiar 35.03 9.9 31 Unfamiliar 46.06 11.93 84 Total 43.09 12.40 115 Total Familiar 34.13 10.59 52 Unfamiliar 44.63 12.76 197 Total 42.44 13.04 249

Source Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 4894.887a 3 1631.629 10.716 P < .001 Intercept 246432,513 1 246432,513 1618.549 P < .001 Ad Form 220.172 1 220.172 1.446 P = .230 Familiarity 4719.532 1 4719.532 30.998 P < .001 Ad Form x Fam. .680 1 .680 .004 P = .947 Error 37302.519 245 152.255 Total 490722.000 249 Corrected Total _42197.406 ₂₄₈

(46)

Appendix G: Mediation Analysis OUTCOME: Cognitive MODEL SUMMARY MODEL OUTCOME: Affective MODEL SUMMARY MODEL OUTCOME: Intention MODEL SUMMARY R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 P .73 .53 4.01 282.64 1.00 247 P < .001 b SE B t p Constant .44 .43 1.02 P = .3078 Transportation .16 .01 16.81 P < .001 R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 P .60 .35 2.4 135.42 1.00 247 P < .001 b SE B t p Constant 3.55 .34 10.52 P < .001 Transportation .09 .00 11.64 P < .001 R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 P .81 .66 4.91 160.15 3.00 245.00 P < .001