Graduate School of Communication’ Master’s programme Communication Science
Master’s Thesis
Narrative Persuasion in the Domain of Efficacy Beliefs
The Effect of Transportation, Narrative Reflection and Entertainment-Use Motivation on Four Types of Efficacy Beliefs
Kseniia Tikhonova 12071242
Supervisor: dr. Barbara Schouten 28 June 2019
Abstract
The present study attempts to reconcile a largely fragmented research on narrative persuasion in the domain of efficacy beliefs. Specifically, the study investigates the link between narrative transportation and four types of efficacy beliefs drawing insights from widely applied transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion by Green and Brock (2002) and recently developed conceptual framework by Hamby, Brinberg, and Jaccard (2018). Furthermore, the study aims to examine the role of entertainment-use motivations in the process of narrative persuasion. It is proposed that transportation may have a direct and indirect effect on efficacy beliefs via narrative persuasion. Entertainment-use motivations are suggested to moderate the effect of transportation on narrative reflection. In an online experiment, the level of transportation was manipulated by providing additional task besides reading a story to one of the two groups. Against the expectations, the two groups did not differ significantly in self-reported level of transportation. Furthermore, no effects of experimental condition on narrative reflection and efficacy beliefs were found. However, alternative analysis with self-reported transportation as dependent variable revealed that transportation may have a direct effect on response efficacy beliefs and indirect effect on self-efficacy belief. No moderation effect of entertainment-use motivations on transportation –narrative reflection was found. The study demonstrates that transporting narratives have the potential to promote pro-environmental behavior given that efficacy beliefs are considered to be major determinants of pro-environmental behavioral intention.
Keywords: narrative persuasion, transportation, narrative reflection, hedonic motivation, eudaimonic motivation, efficacy beliefs.
Narrative Persuasion in the Domain of Efficacy Beliefs
The Effect of Transportation, Narrative Reflection and Entertainment-Use Motivation on Four Types of Efficacy Beliefs
“The most serious long-term threat facing the world is the danger that human actions are producing irreversible harmful changes in the environmental conditions that support life on earth. If this problem is not overcome, there may be no viable world for our descendants to inhibit.” (Oskamp, 2002,p. 174)
In order to attain the goal of environmental sustainability, significant transformations of individuals’ lifestyles are vital (2002). Accordingly, policymakers are faced with the challenge of finding ways to encourage the uptake of pro-environmental behaviors at the individual level (Gifford, 2015; Stern 2011). Pro-environmental behavior refers to “the sort of behavior that consistently seeks to minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural and built world” (p. 240, Kollmuss, & Agyeman, 2002). Considering tremendously negative consequences of waste generation on our planet, such as marine plastic pollution and generation of greenhouse gas emissions, and its unprecedented growth (by 70% by 2050, Kaza et al., 2018), the focus of this study is specific pro-environmental behaviors aimed at minimizing solid waste, namely, zero-waste practice (Zaman, 2016).
It has been suggested that narratives – an age-old persuasive communication strategy used to transform individuals’ attitudes, beliefs and behaviors (Gottschall, 2012), are
effective in overcoming inaction and resistance to environmental problems
(Bieniek-Tobascoet al., 2019; Morris et al., 2019; Munro, 2017; Seelig, 2019). Specifically, narratives could be potent means to influence efficacy beliefs (Green, 2006), which constitute one of the major determinants of sustainable behaviors (Bandura, 2000a; Sawitri, Hadiyanto, & Hadi, 2015). Kreuter et al. (2007) define narratives as “a representation of connected events and characters that has an identifiable structure, is bounded in space and time, and contains
implicit or explicit messages about the topic being addressed” (p. 222). The persuasive power of narratives is supported by meta-analyses and found to be “on par with other types of persuasive messages” (p. 461, Braddock 2016; de Graaf, Sanders, & Hoeken, 2016; Shen, Sheer, & Li, 2015). However, the underlying mechanism of narrative persuasion is said to differ significantly from other nonnarrative forms of communication (Green & Brock, 2002) and remains to be further investigated as the scientific field is still missing order and
consistency on the question of narrative influence in general (Hamby, Brinberg, & Jaccard, 2018) and the effect on efficacy beliefs in particular (Gebbers, de Wit, & Appel, 2017; van Laer, de Ruyter, Visconti, & Wetzels, 2014)
It was originally assumed that the sole mechanism accountable for narrative
persuasion is transportation – a form of narrative involvement, characterized by loss of self-awareness and reduced counterarguing (Green & Brock, 2002; Slater & Rouner, 2002). Accordingly, stories were considered as magic bullets that persuade via affective, largely non-conscious pathways. However, recent studies point out the need to consider other more cognitively oriented mechanisms that may mediate the effect of transportation on persuasive outcomes (Escalas, 2007; Igartua, Cheng, & Lope, 2003). For instance, Hamby et al. (2018) proposed the concept of narrative reflection, which refers to the process of corroborating the story world with the reader’s personal memories. However, as Hoeken and Fikkers (2014) found, not every recipient is inclined to elaborate on the story they read. Indeed, research on entertainment-use motivation as an individual trait suggests that one may distinguish between hedonically and eudaimonically motivated people (Oliver & Raney, 2011). While the former may consume stories for pure enjoyment, the latter may be interested to elaborate on stories they encounter (Igartua & Barrios, 2013). Moreover, identifying both affective and cognitive effects, scholars began to argue for dual-pathways of narrative persuasion (Banerjee & Green, 2012; Dunlop, Wakefield, & Kashima, 2010).
Van Laer et al. (2014) have identified the effect of transportation on efficacy beliefs as one of the major areas for future research. The studies examining efficacy beliefs as dependent variable seem to focus more on behavior change models (e.g. Gebbers et al., 2017) and miss the important discussion on the mechanisms of narrative persuasion presented above. This could be the reason that such questions as whether and how transportation may influence efficacy beliefs are still lacking definitive answers. Moreover, the studies tend to focus on personal efficacy beliefs, while it has been suggested that pro-environmental behavior is predicted by four distinct types of efficacy beliefs: self-efficacy, response efficacy, collective efficacy, and collective response efficacy (Koletsou & Mancy, 2011). Overlooking this empirical distinction might render theoretical models less nuanced
(Dohertly & Webler, 2016) and therefore less valuable given that precision is vital to develop effective persuasive messages. Thus, to advance existing theoretical models of narrative persuasion it seems desirable to further investigate the link between transportation and efficacy beliefs by reconciling a largely fragment research presented above. Accordingly, the present study sets the following research question:
How do transportation, narrative reflection and entertainment-use motivation influence four types of efficacy beliefs?
Answering this question is beneficial for three main reasons. On the theoretical level, it could advance one’s understanding of the mechanisms underlying narrative persuasion in the domain of efficacy beliefs related to pro-environmental behavior. It could also contribute to the existing body of knowledge by incorporating the construct of entertainment-use motivation into the field of narrative persuasion. At the same time, focusing on efficacy beliefs, the study has a high practical value as practitioners are actively searching for effective and affordable tools to promote sustainable behaviors to protect our environment.
Theoretical framework Transportation
Narratives are suggested to evoke a distinct type of intense message involvement as they create a sense of engrossment in alternative reality. Being first conceptualized by Gerrig (1993), who compared the process of reading to the one of travelling, the notion of narrative involvement acquired different labels, such as absorption (Graesser, 1981), immersion (Lombard & Ditton, 1997), and transportation (Green & Brock 2000). The present study revolves around the construct of transportation, as it represents a rather systematically defined and measured concept (Tuckachinsky, 2014) that is commonly incorporated in theoretical frameworks and extensively studied in experiments (Moyer-Guse, 2008).
Transportation is defined as “a distinct mental process, an integrative melding of attention, imagery and feelings” (Green & Brock, 2000, p. 701). The state narrative transportation is often compared to the notion of flow – a complete absorption by a certain activity (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009). Transported individuals are said to experience a loss of self-awareness, time and surroundings around them (Green, 2004). However, besides being completely focused on the activity of story comprehension, by actively constructing a mental image as a narrative unfolds, transported individuals also enter an alternative reality of that story (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009). In other words, readers experience the feeling of being present in the narrative world.
The deictic shift theory may help to explain this abstract notion of relocating into a story world (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008). Individual’s comprehension of everyday life events requires referencing to a certain vantage point that is normally the person him or herself (Segal, 1995). This vantage point, termed deictic center, is a cognitive structure consisting of specific time, location, and person (1995). According to deictic shift theory, narrative comprehension requires a shift from an individual’s deictic center to a new orienting point
within a narrative (Duchan, Bruder, & Hewitt, 1995). This deictic shift allows readers to grasp such words as “I”, “now”, and “here” (Galbraith, 1995), and provides them with a vicarious experience of a story or the feeling of “narrative presence” (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009). Accordingly, transported individuals perceive a story as a real-life experience. Another important aspect of transportation is emotional engagement. Transported individuals are expected to produce strong emotional responses towards the story events as if they were unfolding in real life (Green & Brock, 2000). Finally, transportation entails a suspense of disbelief: being cognitively invested in a mental construction of the narrative world, readers have to suspend their critical thinking, which is a highly effortful cognitive activity, and regard the alternative reality as true (Slater & Rouner, 2002).
The notion of transportation received widespread attention in empirical research. Transportation was shown to be a distinct holistic concept with cognitive, emotional, (attentional), and imaginative facets (Appel, Gnambs, Richter, & Green, 2015; Tal-Or & Cohen, 2010; Tukachinsky, 2014). Numerous studies demonstrated a positive relationship between self-reported levels of transportation and affective (LaMarre & Landreville, 2009) and cognitive responses (Chang, 2009), as well as persuasive outcomes (Banerjee & Greene, 2012; Green, 2004; Escalas, 2007).
Transportation and efficacy beliefs
Being first conceptually developed by Bandura (2004), efficacy beliefs refer to the core beliefs that constitute “the foundation of human motivation and accomplishments” (p. 79). A large body of research suggests that efficacy beliefs are one of the key factors determining initiation and maintenance of a certain behavior, including pro-environmental behaviors (Robertson, 1996; Thφgersen, 1999, Truelove 2009). Usually research on narrative persuasion distinguishes two types of efficacy beliefs, predominantly focusing on the former: self-efficacy (SE) – a belief that one is capable of performing a certain action, and response
efficacy (RE) –a belief that an action may produce desired outcomes (Sood, Mendard, & Witte, 2004). However, recent studies on pro-environmental behavior also underscore the importance of another type of efficacy beliefs, which are collective efficacy beliefs (Barth, Jugert, & Fritsche, 2016; Chen, 2015; Homburg & Stolberg, 2006). Extending the concept of personal agency to collective agency, Bandura (2004) defines collective efficacy as people’s belief in “their collective power to realize the futures they seek” (p. 80). According to Dohertly and Webler (2016), one should discern two types of collective efficacy beliefs: collective efficacy (CE) – the belief that a certain group is able to act collectively to perform a certain task, and collective response efficacy (CRE) – the belief that a collective action may produce desired results. Empirical studies further demonstrate that the four constructs can be empirically separated (Doherty & Webler, 2016; Truelove, 2009). Since combining four empirically distinct concepts will result in a less nuanced model reducing its practical value (Doherty & Webler, 2016), the present study employs four distinct types of efficacy beliefs.
Narrative transportation is proposed to influence individuals’ efficacy beliefs in the following ways. Firstly, transportation is proposed to distance readers from reality and their own beliefs making them more open to transformations (Green, 2005). At the same time, transporting narratives are likely to create a strong emotional experience through emotional arousal and feelings towards the story characters (Benerjee & Greene, 2012; Dunlop et al., 2010; Green, 2006; Nabi & Green, 2015), which may further stimulate a (mental) merge between these characters and the reader (Cohen, 2001; Green, 2006). Scholars especially highlight a strong potential of emotions in fostering efficacy beliefs, as people typically make heuristic evaluations of their capabilities based on emotional arousal (Bandura, 1997; Bieniek-Tobasco et al., 2019; Lu, Baranowski, Thompson, & Buday, 2012). Finally, transportation makes stories function as real-life events (Green & Brock, 2000; van Laer et al., 2014). It has been suggested that transportation generates “mental simulation of new
situations” that may function as a practice session to enhance efficacy belief (Green, 2006, p. 171; Lu et al., 2012). The role of vicarious experience in fostering personal efficacy belief is also highlighted in social cognitive theory as observing (similar) others performing and/or succeeding in a certain behavior provides a sense of confidence in readers’ own ability to enact that behavior (Bandura, 1997, 2004; Maibach, & Flora, 1993).
Studies on health communication demonstrate that narratives in the form of testimonials and video interviews were more effective in improving SE scores compared to factual information (Campbell, Dunt, Fitzgerald, & Gordon, 2015; Falzon, Radel, Cantor, & d’Arripe-Longueville, 2015). In another study, the level of self-reported narrative immersion was positively associated with RE (Frank, Murphy, Chatterjee, Moran & Baezconde-Garbanati, 2015). However, experimentally manipulating transportation, Gibbers et al., (2017) did not find a direct effect of transportation on SE and RE. It is important to note that this study employed a narrative with a fatal ending and no induced efficacy messages, meaning negative emotions such as fear could impede the positive effect of transportation on efficacy beliefs (Bieniek-Tobasco et al., 2019). Applying the experimental manipulation from the previous study (Gibbers et al., 2017), Isberner et al. (2018) found that transportation into empowering stories influenced recipients’ internal control beliefs – a construct that blends in both RE and SE (Kollmuss, & Agyeman, 2002), but did not influence general SE belief. Here one should emphasize that stories seem to be more effective in inducing behavior-specific rather than general efficacy belief (de Graaf, 2014). Finally, audience involvement with a soap opera, which can be viewed as a less extreme case of narrative engagement than transportation, was positively associated with SE and CE beliefs (Sood, 2002). Answering the call for further examination of the relationship between transportation and efficacy beliefs (Gibbers et al., 2017; van Laer, 2014), the study sets the following hypothesis:
H1: Participants in a high transportation condition have higher levels of efficacy beliefs compared to participants in a low transportation condition.
Narrative reflection
While transportation is predominantly seen as the sole mechanism of narrative persuasion, which has a rather passive, affective, and largely non-conscious nature; some scholars argue that the transportation – persuasive outcome relationship is less straightforward and may have a cognitive dimension in it (de Graaf & van Leeuwen, 2017; Escalas, 2007; Igartua et al., 2003). For example, van Laer et al. (2014) highlight the role of a story receiver as “an active interpreter” (p. 799). Agency of receivers is also emphasized by Fisher (1984), who states that readers consider story coherence and its fidelity before integrating information into their own life.
Having the aforementioned in mind, one should turn to the concept of narrative reflection (NR), which represents an attempt by Hamby et al. (2018) to capture the cognitive element within the process of narrative persuasion. NR is defined as “the recall of self or other-relevant memories evoked by transportation into a story, which validate and extend story-implied beliefs into the reader's world” (Hamby, Brinberg, & Danilovski, 2017, p. 12). In other words, NR is an amalgam of two subprocesses: decoding and externalizing story content based on one’s own experience evoked by that story (2017). It is important to underscore that NR goes beyond a simple process of understanding a narrative, as it also implies corroborating a message by matching a story world with an individual’s own reality (2017).
According to the conceptual framework by Hamby et al. (2018), deictic shift is an antecedent of NR, which is viewed as a deictic return from a narrative. It is proposed that the deeper an individual is transported into a narrative world, the higher his or her level of reflection on that experience should be. As the higher level of transportation implies a further
shift from one’s actual deictic center and generation of a more comprehensive image of the story reality, it should result in a higher need for reflection to create meaning and incorporate this image/experience into the reader’s real world (2018). Although the number of empirical studies on this topic is limited, it is possible to argue that NR and transportation constitute distinct processes, which independence was robust across various narrative studies (Das, Nobbe, & Oliver, 2017; Hamby et al., 2017). Furthermore, Frischlich, Rieger, Morten, and Bente (2018) detected a positive association between identification – a character-specific type of narrative involvement, with cognitive inducement, which refers to activation of semantic memory. At the same time, transportation was found to influence reflection on message credibility and its informativeness (Hamby, Danilovski, & Brinberg, 2015), which indicates that narrative transportation may stimulate a cognitive elaboration process.
The two studies, which examined the relationship between transportation and NR by experimentally manipulating the former, report conflicting findings. While the study by Hamby et al. (2017) showed a direct effect of transportation on NR, the study by Das et al. (2017) did not find any significant relationship. However, one needs to underscore that not every reader is inclined to think (Hoeken & Fikkers, 2014) and not every story may induce cognitive elaboration (Oliver & Raney, 2011; Schwarz & Clore, 2003). Indeed, the two studies utilized different stimuli. While the former used a personal story on melanoma, which can be seen as a rather serious and meaningful narrative, the latter relied on a humorous video, which is less likely to stimulate elaboration. Given a moderately serious topic of the stimulus used in the present study and the prevalence of research that supports a positive relationship between transportation and cognitive elaboration, the following relationship between transportation and NR is expected:
H2: Participants in a high-transportation condition will have higher level of NR, compared to participants in a low-transportation condition.
Narrative reflection and efficacy beliefs
Adhering to the conceptual framework by Hamby et al. (2018), one needs to examine the relationship between NR and efficacy beliefs as the former is suggested to be a consequence of narrative transportation and a precursor of persuasive outcomes. As was discussed above, reflection is a process of matching the story world to the reader’s real world/memories. Hamby et al. (2018) argue that readers’ acceptance of narrative beliefs goes through the process of reconciling the narrative claims with the consistent memories evoked by the transportation experience. It is important to note the emphasis on generation of confirmatory, story-consistent memories during NR. As was previously mentioned, transportation implies suspension of critical thinking. According to Gilbert (1991), individuals tend to accept the claims they encounter, unless there is strong motivation and/or ability to dispute these assertions. Since transported individuals devote their cognitive resources to construct a mental image of the story world and tend to enjoy the state of being absorbed by the story, transportation should diminish individual’s capacity and motivation to counterargue (Green 2006; Moyer-Guse, 2008; Slater & Rouner, 2002;). Consistent findings demonstrate that a higher level of transportation reduces counterarguing (Lee & Leets, 2002; Slater 1997) and negative cognitive thinking (Green & Brock, 2000), which accordingly leads to more favorable cognitive responses (Banerjee & Greene, 2012; Chang, 2009; Dunlop et al., 2010; Escalas, 2004). Hence, NR should generate memories in accordance with the story, which consequently should validate the story claims. Story beliefs, which resonate with the recipient, are more likely to be accepted and they should induce further acceptance of other story-conveyed beliefs (Bruner 1986; Fisher, 1989; Larsen & László, 1990). In fact, it was found that retrospective (global) reflection had a positive effect on story-consistent beliefs (Hamby et al., 2017; Hamby & Brinberg, 2016). At the same time, de Graaf (2014) found that the process of relating narrative messages to the self, which is comparable to the
process of NR, had a positive effect on readers’ efficacy beliefs. Hence, the following relationship between NR and efficacy beliefs is hypothesized:
H3: Participants with a higher level of narrative reflection will have higher levels of efficacy beliefs, compared to participants with a lower level of narrative reflection.
Based on the discussion above leading to hypothesis 2 and 3 the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: NR mediates the effect of transportation on efficacy beliefs. Entertainment-use motivation as an individual trait
Most research on narrative persuasion asserts that individuals have unique goals for consuming narratives. Specifically, hedonic motives, such as enjoyment of escaping everyday life and/or the self, seem to dominate the scientific field (Green 2004; Slater, 1997).
However, recent studies revealed that audiences might have a different type of motivation as well. Oliver and Raney (2011) argue that individuals may consume entertainment/narratives for two goals: hedonic motivation (HM), which refers to the pursuit of pleasure and
enjoyment, and eudaimonic motivation (EM), which refers to the search for “life’s meaning, truths, and purposes” (p. 985). The scholars conceptualize these two types of entertainment-use motivations as a rather stable individual trait. The validity of the two constructs and their orthogonal relationship was further demonstrated empirically (Igartua & Barrios, 2013; Oliver & Raney, 2011). Acknowledging that NR is not an integral part of narrative
processing and that it might be lower or absent at all under certain conditions, Hamby et al. (2018) suggest that entertainment-use motivations may moderate the relationship between transportation and NR. While the first phase of narrative engagement – transportation, might remain unaffected by individuals’ entertainment-use motivations, these motivations may influence the experience of the second phase – NR (2018). Specifically, individuals seeking enjoyment or pleasure may consider engagement with a story as an ultimate goal of reading a
narrative, while individuals seeking poignancy or meaningfulness could be motivated to reflect on a narrative that they read (2018). Empirical studies demonstrate that entertainment-use motivations are associated with various individual traits. For instance, need for cognition – “an individual’s tendency to engage and enjoy effortful cognitive endeavors” (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996, p. 197), was positively associated with EM and negatively associated with HM (Igartua & Barrios, 2013; Oliver & Raney, 2011). Individuals with higher need for cognition tend to invest more cognitive effort to process information they encounter, meaning they are more likely to elaborate on a given message (Cacioppo et al., 1996). The tendency to process information systematically in its turn should increase the likelihood readers will reflect on a narrative experience, as they are more inclined to invest cognitive resources compared to the individuals with a lower need for cognition. Indeed, Igartua and Barrios (2013) demonstrated that eudaimonic motivation was significantly, positively associated with cognitive elaboration while watching a (dramatic) movie. Based on the logic above, the following hypothesis is developed:
H5: The entertainment-use motivations will moderate the hypothesized effect of transportation on narrative reflection in the following ways: (a) the hypothesized effect will be weaker for participants with lower eudaimonic motivation, compared to participants with higher eudaimonic motivation; and (b) the hypothesized effect will be weaker for participants with higher hedonic motivation, compared to participants with lower hedonic motivation.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Method Design
The present study is an online experiment conducted in May 2019 using Qualtrics. The study has a randomized between subjects design with one experimental factor, with two levels (high versus low-transportation) and one quasi-experimental factor, with two
subfactors (hedonic and eduimonic motivations). Sample
The study employs convenience sampling – recruiting participants through the personal network of the experimenter via Facebook. As the target population of the experiment is the general population, the only selection criteria are the accessibility to the Internet and fluency in the English language. It is important to acknowledge that being a non-probability sampling technique, convenience sampling is limited in its representativeness of the entire population (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). However, it is an affordable technique (2016), choice of which can be justified by limited resources of the researcher.
Transportation Hedonic Motivation Efficacy Beliefs Narrative Reflection Eudaimonic Motivations
A total of 285 individuals participated in the experiment. 69 participants were excluded as they did not complete the survey and/or were under the age of 18. The final sample consisted of 216 respondents (65.3% female). Their average age was 25.36 (SD = 8.14) years, ranging from 18 to 67. Most participants came from Russia (47.2%), 14.4 % from the Netherlands, and 4.6% from Germany. Most participants possessed at least a bachelor's degree (44.4 %).
Procedure
The data collection technique used in the study is an online self-administered survey. A Facebook message containing the experiment URL was sent out to the participants within a one-week period. Participation was voluntary, no incentive was provided. Once participants clicked on the link, they were directed to the Qualtrics page. The first page contained general information regarding the study procedure and its topic (which did not explicitly state the specific goal of the study) and asked for informed consent. The next page contained
demographic questions and questions measuring moderator variable. Having answered those questions, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions and forwarded to the page with experimental instructions. Afterwards, participants were
presented with a short story, which was followed by a list of questions measuring mediator and outcome variables, manipulation check, and control variables. Finally, participants were thanked for their participation and provided with an explanation of the study goal (the full survey is available in Appendix D). In total, the study lasted around 13 minutes.
Stimulus Material
The experimental stimulus was a textual narrative in the form of a short blog post. To ensure the stimulus material seemed real and to secure its external validity, the story was developed using an existing blog post about a sustainable lifestyle (“Going Zero Waste”, n.d.). The post was adjusted in several ways. The author's name was changed and the text was
shortened. At the same time, examples of specific zero-waste behaviors, which were selected based on the results of the pre-test 1 (for the pre-test 1, see Appendix A), and explicit
statements on four types of efficacy were added. The narrative message conveyed a story about a young female trying to achieve a zero-waste lifestyle after experiencing health problems and being shocked by the amount of plastic waste. Based on the results of the pre-test 2, which goal was to check the quality of the developed stimulus (for the pre-pre-test 2, see Appendix A), the story was shortened up to 520 words to secure a high rate of completed surveys and a picture was added to increase vividness of the stimulus material (for the stimulus material, see Appendix A).
Manipulation
The level of transportation was manipulated by providing different instructions to participants prior to reading the story. Specifically, the low-transportation group was requested to select 3 sentences that could be omitted from the story while maintaining the plot1 (de Graaf, Hoeken, Sanders, & Beentjes, 2009). No task was provided to the high-transportation group (2009). An additional cognitive task besides reading should decrease cognitive resources available for creating the narrative world, consequently, participants should experience a lower level of transportation compared to the participants without a task (Green & Brock, 2000). De Graaf et al. (2009) demonstrated that the selection task
significantly decreased participants' feeling of being in a story world, which is the key
component of the transportation experience according to the theoretical framework applied in this study. A meta-analysis revealed that this manipulation method produced the highest effect (d = 2,42, SD = .14; Tukachinsky, 2014).
Measures
1 To make the selection task convenient for the participants, the sentences were numbered in the low-transportation condition.
Manipulation check.
Manipulation check was operationalized with the Transportation Scale–Short Form, which reliability and validity were found on par with the original scale (a = .78; Appel et al., 2015). The scale consists of six items measuring participants’ degree of transportation (e.g. “I was mentally involved in the narrative while reading it”) on a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = not at all; 7 = very much). One item focusing on the general facet of transportation was adjusted into “I wanted to learn more about the narrative” and one item focusing on a second important character was excluded as it was considered to be redundant for a rather short story. Reliability of the scale in the present study was good (a= .82).
Mediator.
The scale on retrospective reflection (Hamby et al., 2017) was used to measure the concept of NR. The scale consists of four questions (e.g. “The story reminded me of some of my personal experiences”) measured on a 7-point Likert-scale (1 = completely agree; 7 = completely disagree). Studies showed a good reliability of the scale (a = .88; Das et al., 2017) as did the present study (a = .74).
Moderator variable.
Oliver and Raney’s (2011) 12-item scale of entertainment consumption motivations was employed to measure participants’ entertainment-use motivation. Previous studies showed the two subscales to be reliable (HM, a = .81; EM, a =. 86; Oliver & Raney, 2011). As the original items refer to movies, they were rephrased replacing the word “movies” by the word “stories” to match the study context. Six questions focus on EM (e.g. “I seek out media that make me more reflective”), and the other six on HM (e.g. “For me, the best movies are ones that are entertaining”). The items are measured with a 7-point Likert-scale (1= strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Reliability of the HM (a= .75) and EM scales (a = .75) in the present study was good.
Dependent variables.
Each type of efficacy belief was measured by three-part question derived from the study by Truelove (2009), who developed the items based on Bandura’s definition of efficacy beliefs (1997, 2000a, 2000b), with a distinction between SE and RE at both personal and collective levels. Participants were asked to rate their perception of each type of efficacy in relation to three specific pro-environmental behaviors on a 7-point Likert-scale (1 =
extremely incapable/ineffective; 7 = extremely capable/effective). Truelove’s study (2009) demonstrated good reliability of the items (SE: a = .92, RE: α = .99, CE: α = .98, & CRE: α = .98). The items were adjusted to the study topic by replacing the phrase “global warming” with “global waste” and changing the list of specific behaviors. Reliability of the items measuring SE (a = .77), RE (a= .93), CE (a= .86), and CRE (a= .90) was good.
The control variables inluded gender, age, country of origin, education level, frequency of reading stories in English (1 – once a year; 5 – daily) and frequency of performing specific zero-waste behaviors in past six months (1 – never; 5 – always). For complete scales for each of the variable, see Appendix D.
Data analysis
To test the hypotheses two independent samples t-tests and three regression analyses were conducted. The independent t-test was chosen as it allows examining the difference between two experimental groups in their mean scores on continuous variables. The linear regression analysis was chosen as it is suitable for the analysis of a relationship between two continuous variables as well as moderation effect. To address the mediation hypothesis and to evaluate the full model presented in Fig. 1 PROCESS SPSS macro developed by Hayes (2013) was used, as it allows examining the indirect effect of the independent variable on dependent variable through both mediation (Model 4) and moderated mediation (Model 9), as well as the direct effect of the mediator on the dependent variable.
Results Randomization check
No significant differences between the two conditions were found for gender, χ2 (1, N = 216) = 1.21, p = .271, country of origin, χ2 (1, N = 216) = .64, p = .422, age, t (297.12)= 1.53, p = .128, 95%CI [-0.49; 3.85], education level, χ2 (2, N = 216) = 3.88, p = .144, frequency of reading stories in English2, χ2 (1, N = 216) = 0.431, p = .512, and frequency of performing three specific pro-environmental behaviors: χ2 (4, N = 216) = 1.08, p = .897, χ2 (4, N = 216) = 4.67, p = .323, χ2 (4, N = 216) = 7.81, p = .099. Thus, randomization was successful.
Manipulation check
No significant difference in the level of self-reported transportation was found between the high-transportation (M = 4.34, SD = 1.20) and low-transportation (M = 4.25, SD = 1.15) groups, t (214) = 0.52, p = .602, 95%CI [- 0.23; 0.40], meaning manipulation was unsuccessful. An attempt was made to form alternative groups by excluding participants, who potentially did not treat the study seriously (for the precise procedure, see Appendix B). As the test did not reveal a significant difference between the high-transportation (M = 4.09, SD = 1.24) and low-transportation (M = 4.18, SD = 1.27) groups, t (90) = - 0.34, p = .732, 95%CI [- 0.61; 0.43], after applying a filter, the complete sample (N = 216) was used for the
analysis. Main analysis Table 1.
Descriptive statistics per condition and total
2 Country of origin was reduced to two categories: Russia versus other; education level was reduced to three categories: low, middle, and high; frequency of reading stories in English was reduced to two categories: daily versus less than daily.
Low transportation M (SD) High transportation Total Narrative reflection 4.45 (1.24) 4.51 (1.23) 4.48 (1.24) Hedonic motivation 4. 73 (0.94) 4.86 (0.91) 4.80 (0.93) Eudaimonic motivation 5.59 (0.77) 5.73 (0.63) 5.66 (0.70) Self-efficacy 5.58 (1.18) 5.49 (1.56) 5.53 (1.33) Response efficacy 5.34 (1.66) 5.05 (1.49) 5.19 (1.58) Collective efficacy 5.05 (1.50) 4.94 (1.51) 5.00 (1.50) Collective response efficacy 6.08 (1.20) 5.97 (0.96) 6.03 (1.08) Note. N = 216
See table 1 for an overview of means and standard deviations of the key variables per condition and total.
To address the hypothesis 1 regarding the effect of transportation on efficacy beliefs, four independent samples t-tests were performed with experimental condition as independent variable and each type of efficacy beliefs as dependent variable. No significant difference in SE was found between the high-transportation (M = 5.49, SD = 1.46) and low-transportation (M = 5.58, SD = 1.18) groups, t (214) = - 0.49, p =.628, 95%CI [- 0.44; 0.27], d = - 0.1. No significant difference in CE was found between the high-transportation (M = 4.95, SD = 1.51) and low-transportation (M = 5.05, SD = 1.50) groups, t (214) = - 0.48, p =.629, 95%CI [-0.50; 0.30], d = -0.1. No significant difference in RE was found between the
high-transportation (M = 5.05, SD = 1.49) and low-high-transportation (M = 5.34, SD = 1.66) groups, t (214) = - 1.39, p =.167, 95%CI [-0.72; 0.13], d = - 0.2. No significant difference in CRE was found between the high-transportation (M = 5.97, SD = 0.96) and low-transportation (M =
6.09, SD = 1.20) groups, t (214) = - 0.82, p =.412, 95%CI [- 0.41; 0.17], d = -0.1. Thus, the hypothesis 1 should be rejected.
To address the hypothesis 2 on the relation between transportation and NR, an independent samples t-test with experimental condition as independent variable and NR as dependent variable was carried out. The test indicated that the high-transportation (M = 4.51, SD = 1.23) and the low-transportation (M = 4.45, SD = 1.24) groups did not differ
significantly in their level of NR, t (214) = 0.35, p = .729, 95%CI [- 0.27; 0.39], d = 0.04. Hence, the hypothesis 2 should be rejected.
To test the hypothesis 3 regarding the effect of NR on four types of efficacy beliefs, four distinct linear regression models with NR as independent variable and each type of efficacy beliefs as depended variable were performed. The model with SE as dependent variable was significant, F(1, 214) = 4.67, p = .032. One could predict 2 % of the variation in SE based on the level of NR (R² = 0.02). NR had a significant, weak association with SE, b* = 0.15, t =2.16, p = .032. The model with RE as dependent variable was also significant, F (1, 214) = 4.10, p = .044, and weak (R² = 0.01). NR had a significant, weak association with RE, b* = 0.14, t = 2.02, p = .044. The models with CE, F (1, 214) = 0.94, p = .333, and CRE, F (1, 214) = 2.13, p = .146, as dependent variables were non-significant. Thus, the hypothesis 3 is partially supported: while participants with higher level of NR hold significantly higher SE and RE beliefs, no influence on CE and CRE beliefs was found.
To test the hypothesis 4 on mediation of the transportation – efficacy beliefs relations by NR, model 4 in PROCESS, based on 5000 bootstrapped samples, was performed four times with experimental condition as independent variable, NR as mediator and four types of efficacy beliefs as dependent variables. The analyses indicated that none of the indirect effects of NR was significant (for the indirect and direct effect values, see Table 2). Based on these results the hypothesis 4 must be rejected.
Table 2.
Direct effect (DE) of transportation and indirect effect (IE) of narrative reflection on efficacy beliefs Transportation DE Effect (SE) [95%BCBCI] Narrative Reflection IE SE - 0.10 (0.18) [- 0.45; 0.26] 0.01 (0.03) [- 0.06; 0.07] CE - 0.09 (0.20) [-0.50; 0.31] > - 0.01 (0.02) [-0.05; 0.03] RE - 0.31(0.21) [-0.73; 0.11] 0.01 (0.03) . [- 0.05; 0.09] CRE 0.13 (0.15) [- 0.42; 0.16] 0.01 (0.02) [- 0.03; 0.04] Note. N = 216.
To address the hypothesis 5 regarding the moderation effect of HM and EM, two linear regression models were constructed. The model with the experimental condition and interaction term between experimental condition and HM as independent variables, and NR as dependent variable was not significant, F (2, 213) = 0.08, p = .924. The same model, but with the interaction term between experimental condition and EM was also not significant, F (2, 213) = 0.42, p = .658. Hence, the hypothesis 5 must be rejected.
To test the conceptual model as a whole, model 9 in PROCESS, based on 5000 bootstrapped samples, was performed four times with experimental condition as independent variable, NR as mediator, HM and EM as two distinct moderators, and four types of efficacy beliefs as dependent variable. The models with SE, F (2, 213) = 2.47, p = .087, CE, F(2, 213)
= 0.58, p =.536, CRE, F(2, 213) = 1.43, p = .241 as outcome variables were non-significant. The model with RE as outcome variable was significant, F(2, 213) = 3.10, p =.047, R² = 0.03. However, the only significant relationship within the model was between NR and RE, b = 0.18, SE = 0.09, 95% [0.01; 0.35]. For each additional point on the scale of NR, which runs from 1 to 7, RE belief increased by 0.18 (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Mediated moderation model with response efficacy as outcome variable Note. *p < 0.05
Alternative analysis
As the experimental manipulation was unsuccessful, additional tests were performed. Alternative groups were formed by dividing participants into two groups based on median split of self-reported transportation scores (Mdn = 4.40). Additional tests for randomization check were carried out to eliminate possible covariance (the tests are available in Appendix C). The results indicated that country of origin and frequency of reading stories in English had to be included in the analyses as covariates.
b = -0.31 Transportation Hedonic Motivation Response Efficacy Belief Narrative Reflection Eudaimonic Motivations b = - 0.14 b = -0.09 b = 1.21 b = 0.18*
Firstly, to examine the relation between self-reported transportation and four types of efficacy beliefs, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the level of self-reported transportation as independent variable and each type of efficacy belief as dependent variable, controlling for two variables, was performed four times. No significant effects were found on SE, F ( 1, 212) = 1.97, p = .162, and CE, F (1, 212) = 0.35, p = .552. However, the effect on RE was significant and weak F (1, 212) = 8.37, p = .004, η2 < 0.01. The high self-reported transportation group hold significantly stronger RE beliefs (M = 5.57, SD = 1.33), compared to the low self-reported transportation group (M = 4.85, SD = 1.71). Similarly, the effect on CRE was significant and weak, F (1, 212) = 7.70, p = .006, η2< 0.01. The high self-reported transportation group hold significantly stronger CRE beliefs (M = 6.26, SD = 0.81),
compared the low reported transportation group (M = 5.81, SD = 1.25). Thus, while self-reported transportation had a significant effect on RE and CRE, it did not affect SE and CE. Secondly, to assess the relation between self-reported transportation and NR one-way analysis of variance was carried out with the level of self-reported transportation as
independent variable and NR as dependent variable, controlling for two variables. The test found a significant, but weak effect, F (1, 212) = 37.19, p < .001, η2< 0.01. Participants in the high self-reported transportation group (M = 4.99, SD = 1.12) had higher NR, compared to the participants in the low self-reported transportation group (M = 4.02, SD = 1.16).
To examine the mediation effect, the model 4 in PROCESS, based on 5000 bootstrapped samples, was constructed four times with the level of self-reported
transportation as independent variable, NR as mediator and four types of efficacy beliefs as dependent variable, one at a time, while controlling for two variables. The analyses indicated that the indirect effect of NR was significant only on SE (for the indirect and direct effect values, see Table 3). Thus, NR mediated only the effect of self-reported transportation on SE (see Figure 3).
Table 3.
Direct effect (DE) of transportation and indirect effect (IE) of narrative reflection on efficacy beliefs (alternative analysis)
Transportation DE Effect (SE) [95%BCBCI] Narrative Reflection IE SE 0.07 (0.19) [- 0.30;0.45] 0.18 (0.09) [0.01; 0.39] CE 0.21(0.23) [- 0.23; 0.66] - 0.09 (0.09) [-0.26; 0.09] RE 0.53 (0.23) [0.08; 0.98]* 0.08 (0.09) [- 0.09; 0.27] CRE 0.40 (0.16) [0.08; 0.71]* 0.02 (0.06) [- 0.10; 0.14] Notes. N = 216 *p< 0.05
Figure 3. The Mediating role of narrative reflection in the effect of transportation on self-efficacy belief Self-reported transportation Narrative reflection Self-efficacy belief b = 0.97 p < .001 b = 0.18 p = .018 Direct effect, b = 0.07, p = .700
To analyze the moderation effect of HM and EM, two linear regression models were constructed. The model with the level of self-reported transportation and interaction term between the level of self-reported transportation and HM as independent variables, and NR as dependent variable controlling for two variables was significant, F (4, 211) = 10.38, p <.001, R²=0.15. However, the interaction term did not predict NR, b* = 0.22, t = 0.86, p= .391, 95%CI [- 0.14; 0.36]. The same model but with the interaction term between the level of self-reported transportation and EM was also significant, F (4, 211) = 10.85, p <.001, R²=0.16. However, the interaction term did not predict NR, b*= 0.61, t =1.52, p = .130, 95%CI [- 0.08; 0.60]. Thus, neither HM nor EM moderated the effect of self-reported transportation on NR.
Discussion
This study aimed to examine the influence of transportation, NR and entertainment-use motivation on four types of efficacy beliefs.
Firstly, in contrast to expectations (Green, 2006), the level of transportation did not affect participants’ efficacy beliefs. A possible explanation for the null finding could be unsuccessful manipulation of transportation. When a median split was applied to distinguish between the participants who experienced high-transportation and those who experienced low-transportation, the former were found to hold significantly higher RE and CRE, but not SE and CE, compared to the latter. This finding contradicts the study by Gibbers et al. (2017), which did not detect a direct effect of transportation on RE. The inconsistency could arise due to an explicit statement on RE in the present stimulus story, which seems to be necessary for persuasion to occur (Frank et al., 2015). One may also note that efficacy beliefs, which reflect confidence in one’s capability to perform a certain behavior, are affected differently, compared to the response efficacy beliefs, which reflect the belief regarding the effectiveness of certain behavior. Given that SE and CE are rather stable, experience-based beliefs (Fishbein, von Haeften, & Appleyard, 2001), they are less likely to
be seriously modified with a single short transportation experience. Accordingly, it is
possible that multiple exposures would be more effective at altering these beliefs (van Laer et al., 2014).
Secondly, contrary to expectations (Hamby et al., 2018), the level of transportation did not influence participants’ NR. Here again, the null finding can be attributed to the unsuccessful manipulation of transportation. The alternative test showed that self-reported transportation had a positive effect on NR supporting the findings by Hambyet al. (2017), while opposing the ones by Das et al. (2017). Given the fact that the latter employed a humorous entertainment video, while the study by Hamby et al. (2017) used rather serious stimuli as did the present experiment, one may suggest that story valence could moderate the relationship between transportation and NR. Schwarz and Clore (2003) suggest that mood valence directs the process of allocating cognitive resources. A positive mood reassures us that everything is going well and heuristic processing is sufficient, while, negative mood alerts us to possible danger and requires more systematic processing. Accordingly, positively valenced content is less likely to induce elaboration and therefore, transportation may lead to lower or no NR.
Thirdly, in line with expectations (Hamby et al., 2018), NR had a significant positive effect on personal efficacy beliefs (SE, RE). Surprisingly, collective efficacy beliefs were unaffected by NR. It is possible that NR, being a cognitive element of narrative persuasion, is associated only with self-related beliefs as cognitive elaboration was shown to affect message acceptance only in the case of information relevant to the recipient; in other instances, beliefs are accepted by default (Prentice, Gerrig, & Bailis, 1997). Accordingly, it is possible that the amount of NR does not affect beliefs that are less relevant to a reader (e.g. CE, CRE).
In line with the findings by Hamby et al. (2017) results showed that the effect of self-reported transportation on persuasive outcome was mediated by NR, however, only in the
case of SE belief. The results lend support (1) to the conceptual framework by Hamby et al. (2018), which underscores the role of NR in narrative persuasion and (2) theoretical
propositions by Green (2006), who highlight the potential of transportation to influence SE. Given the lack of a direct effect of transportation on SE, NR could be the missing link that prevented previous studies (Gibbers et al., 2017; Isberner et al, 2018) from detecting a significant relationship between the two concepts.
Finally, in contrast the expectations (Hamby et al., 2018; Igartua & Barrious, 2013), no moderation effects of EM and HM on the effect of transportation on NR were found, meaning the effect of transportation of NR seem to be similar for participants with higher EM/HM and lower EM/HM. The null finding could be explained by low variation on HM (SD = 0.93) and EM (SD = 0.70) scales within the sample. Given that age was found to correlate with entertainment-use motivation (Igartua & Barrious, 2013), a sample consisting predominantly of students might be too homogenous to detect significant moderation. On the other hand, situational factors and/or content characteristics may affect individual
entertainment-use motivation (Barstch & Schneider, 2014). For example, as personal relevance moderates the effect of need for cognition on systematic processing by making individuals both high and low in need for cognition unmotivated to process a given message (Cacioppo et al., 1996), it is possible that low personal relevance of the stimulus topic could eliminate the difference between participants with higher eduaimonic/hedonic and lower eudaimonic/hedonic motivations. Furthermore, the motivations are subject to individual mood state (Oliver, 2008), meaning participants’ affective state could influence the extent to which they elaborated on the story. Finally, it might be possible that the presence of an explicit story take-home message on pro-environmental behavior efficacy eliminated the need to search for the story’s underling meaning, which is a vital component of the
eudaimonic experience (Oliver, 2008). Accordingly, eudaimonically driven participants might have been unmotivated to engage in higher cognitive elaboration.
In sum, while the manipulated level of transportation did not have any effect on NR and efficacy beliefs, which can be explained by the failed manipulation; self-reported level of transportation may have a direct positive effect on RE and CRE, is positively related to NR and also may indirectly influence SE. NR in turn is positively associated with SE and CE. However, entertainment-use motivations as an individual trait seem to be unrelated to the developed conceptual model.
Limitations and future research directions
Besides the general limitations on external generalizability of the findings due to a biased sampling technique and the focus on specific pro-environmental behaviors, one has to underscore the unsuccessful manipulation of transportation, which prevents from drawing any definitive conclusions. Despite the fact that half of the participants were given a selection task, which should decrease transportation, the two groups did not differ significantly on the level of self-reported transportation. One should acknowledge that narrative involvement manipulation constitutes one of the major challenges in the field of narrative research (Tuckachinsky, 2014). Several reasons may explain the failed manipulation. First of all, compared to the past experiments, there is a lack of a laboratory setting, which could ensure deep undisrupted transportation into a narrative. Transportation could be hindered by
participants’ environment, their non-serious behavior (e.g. multitasking), and notifications on the devices through which the story was presented (e.g. messages on iPhone). The fact that the story was not written in the participants’ native language could also have hindered the process of transportation. Although the study required participants to be fluent in English and the frequency of reading stories in English was a controlled variable, no language proficiency test was performed. It also might be the case that the size of the story and the difficulty of the
task were dissimilar enough from the study by Graaf et al. (2009), which used a story four-times longer and asked to select one in each of twenty sentences, to produce the effect. Finally, individual difference variables could be accountable for not detecting the difference between the two groups, such as imagery ability (Zheng, 2010).
A manipulation technique that future field experiments may use is providing positive versus negative story reviews prior to actual story exposure. As participants are given a passive role – they are “put” in the experimental condition without a need of completing a task themselves, this method should keep the manipulation outcome less dependent on participants’ behavior. The method was successfully applied in experiments on video
narratives (Isberner et al., 2018), however, it is still unclear how reviews should be crafted to influence transportation, while keeping identification – another important element of
narrative persuasion, unchanged. Accordingly, the obvious direction for future research is to find optimal ways in which transportation could be manipulated. Secondly, although previous studies assert that the probability of prior beliefs to affect transportation is low (Dal Cin, Zanna, & Fong, 2004; Hoeken & Fikkers, 2014), it is necessary to replicate the present experiment employing another manipulation technique, to establish a causal relationship and to explore whether multiple transportation experiences could be more effective in influencing SE. Given evidence for sleeper effects in narrative persuasion (Appel & Richter, 2007), it would be interesting to examine whether the effect of transportation on SE appears over time. Future research should further investigate the concept of NR, what conditions are necessary for reflection to occur (e.g. negatively versus positively valenced stories), and what types of persuasive outcome it may affect (e.g. beliefs related to the self versus general beliefs). Finally, it is desirable to further investigate whether entertainment-use motivation as an individual trait is a relevant moderator in a more heterogeneous sample and to examine
whether this motivation dichotomy as an affective state or a story type may moderate the effect of transportation on NR.
Scientific and societal implications
On a theoretical level, the study highlights the need to examine both direct (largely non-conscious) and indirect (more conscious and rather cognitive) pathways of narrative persuasion, as the process seems to be less straightforward than it has been traditionally assumed. The findings suggest incorporating the construct of NR into conceptual models explaining the process of narrative persuasion, as it seems to be the missing link between transportation and SE belief. Given that different mechanisms were accountable for the effect on distinct efficacy beliefs, the study also indicates the necessity to avoid any conflation of strongly related but empirically distinct concepts such as efficacy beliefs to produce more nuanced and valuable models.
On a practical level, the study demonstrates that transporting narratives may have the potential to influence efficacy beliefs. However, it also shows how difficult it is to transport readers in a field setting, where individuals lack motivation/ability to focus on a message. More work is needed to provide practitioners with tools necessary to create transportation experience. The study also highlights the importance of NR in narrative persuasion, as it may affect SE, which is a direct determinant of pro-environmental behavior. Accordingly,
practitioners should encourage readers to reflect on stories to ensure the effectiveness of interventions aimed to promote sustainable lifestyles. Practitioners may enhance NR by increasing personal relevance of a message (e.g. by adjusting a narrative to a familiar setting, Hamby et al., 2017; Prentice et al., 1997).
References
Appel, M., Gnambs, T., Richter, T., & Green, M. (2015). The transportation scale–short form (TS–SF). Media Psychology, 18(2), 1–24. doi:10.1080/15213269.2014.987400
Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 10(1), 113–134. doi:10.1080/15213260701301194
Bandura A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (2000a). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064 Bandura, A. (2000b). Self-efficacy: The foundation of agency. In W. J. Perrig, & A. Grob
(Eds.), Control of human behaviour, mental processes and consciousness (pp. 17-33). Mahwak, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura. F. (2004). Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling media. In A. Singhal, M. J. Cody, E. M. Rogers, & M. Sabido (Eds.), Entertainment-education and social change: History, research, and practice (pp. 117–145). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Banerjee, S., & 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:10.1080/10810730.2011.635779
Barth, M., Jugert, P., & Fritsche, I. (2016). Still underdetected – social norms and collective efficacy predict the acceptance of electric vehicles in Germany. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 37, 64–77. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.11.011
Bartsch, A., & Schneider, F. (2014). Entertainment and politics revisited: How non-escapist forms of entertainment can stimulate political interest and information seeking. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 369–396. doi:10.1111/jcom.12095
Bieniek-Tobasco, A., McCormick, S., Rimal, R., Harrington, C., Shafer, M., & Shaikh, H. (2019). Communicating climate change through documentary film: Imagery, emotion, and efficacy. Climatic Change, 154(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02408-7 Braddock, K., & Dillard, J. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of
narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 446–467. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347. doi:10.1080/15213260903287259
Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18(2), 255–280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x
Cacioppo, J., Petty, R., Feinstein, J., & Jarvis, W. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for
cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 Campbell, T., Dunt, D., Fitzgerald, J., & Gordon, I. (2015). The impact of patient narratives
on self-efficacy and self-care in Australians with type 2 diabetes: stage 1 results of a randomized trial. Health Promotion International, 30(3), 438–448.
doi:10.1093/heapro/dat058
Chang, C. (2009). “Being hooked” by editorial content: The implications for processing narrative advertising. Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 21–34. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367380102
Chen, M. (2015). Self-efficacy or collective efficacy within the cognitive theory of stress model: Which more effectively explains people’s self-reported proenvironmental
behavior? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42(C), 66–75. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.02.002
Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245–264.
doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01
Dal Cin, S., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2004). Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 175– 191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Das, E., Nobbe, T., & Oliver, M. B. (2017). Health Communication| Moved to Act: Examining the Role of Mixed Affect and Cognitive Elaboration in “Accidental” Narrative Persuasion. International Journal of Communication, 11, 17. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/download/7213/2204
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.12015
De Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, H. (2009). The role of dimensions of narrative engagement in narrative persuasion. Communications, 34, 385–405. doi:10.1515/COMM.2009.024
De Graaf, A., Sanders, J., & Hoeken, J. (2016). Characteristics of narrative interventions and health effects: A review of the content, form, and context of narratives in health-related narrative persuasion research. Review of Communication Research, 4, 88–4165. doi: 10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2016.04.01.011
De Graaf, A., & van Leeuwen, L. (2017). The role of absorption processes in narrative health communication. In F. Hakemulder, M. M. Kuijpers, E. S. Tan, K. Bálint, & M. M. Doicaru (Eds.), Narrative Absorption (pp. 271–292). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Doherty, K., & Webler, T. (2016). Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the Alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 879–884. doi:10.1038/nclimate3025
Duchan, J. F., Bruder, G. A., & Hewitt, L. E. (Eds.). (1995). Deixis in narrative. A cognitive science perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dunlop, S., 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:10.1177/0093650209351912
Escalas, J. (2007). Self-referencing and persuasion: Narrative transportation versus analytical elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 421–429. doi:10.1086/510216
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4. doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Falzon, C., Radel, R., Cantor, A., & d’Arripe-Longueville, F. (2015). Understanding narrative effects in physical activity promotion: the influence of breast cancer survivor testimony on exercise beliefs, self-efficacy, and intention in breast cancer
patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 23(3), 761–768. doi:10.1007/s00520-014-2422-x Fisher, W. R. (1989). Human communication as narration: toward a philosophy of reason,
value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Fisher, W. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/03637758409390180 Frank, L., Murphy, S., Chatterjee, J., Moran, M., & Baezconde-Garbanati, L. (2015). Telling stories, saving lives: Creating narrative health messages. Health Communication, 30(2), 154–163. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.974126
Frischlich, L., Rieger, D., Morten, A., Bente, G. (2018). The Power of a Good Story:
Narrative Persua- sion in Extremist Propaganda and Videos against Violent Extremism, 2018. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 12, 1-16.
doi:10.4119/UNIBI/ijcv.644
Galbraith, M. (1995). Deictic shift theory and the poetics of involvement in narrative. In J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder, & L. E. Hewitt (Eds.), Deixis in narrative. A cognitive science perspective (pp. 19–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gifford, R. (2015). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 541–579. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048
Gilbert, D. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.2.107
Gebbers, T., de Wit, J., & Appel, M. (2017). Transportation into narrative worlds and the motivation to change health-related behavior. International Journal of
Communication, 11, 4886–4906–8036. Retrieved from https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/6977/2203
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Going Zero Waste. (n.d.). About me. Retrieved from:
https://www.goingzerowaste.com/page-me
Graesser, A. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2002). In the mind’s eye. Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 315–341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: the role of prior knowledge and perceived realism. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 38(2), 247–266. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp3802_5
Green, M. C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, S163–S183. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00288.x
Green, M. C. (2005). Transportation into narrative worlds: Implications for the self. In A. Tesser, D. A. Stapel, & J. W. Wood (Eds.), On building, defending and regulating the self: A psychological perspective (pp. 53–75). New York, NY: Psychology Press Gottschall, J. (2012). The storytelling animal: How stories make us human. New York, NY:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Hamby, A., & Brinberg, D. (2016). Happily ever after: How ending valence influences narrative persuasion in cautionary stories. Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 498–508. doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1262302
Hamby, A., Brinberg, D., & Daniloski, K. (2017). Reflecting on the journey: Mechanisms in narrative persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 11–22.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2016.06.005
Hamby, A., Brinberg, D., & Jaccard, J. (2018). A conceptual framework of narrative
persuasion. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 30(3), 113–124. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000187
Hamby, A., Daniloski, K., & Brinberg, D. (2015). How consumer reviews persuade through narratives. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1242–1250.
