GRAFF Et Al Identification in Narratives

http://crx.sagepub.
com/
Communication Research
http://crx.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/13/0093650211408594
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0093650211408594
published online 16 May 2011 Communication Research
Anneke de Graaf, Hans Hoeken, Jos Sanders and Johannes W. J. Beentjes
Identification as a Mechanism of Narrative Persuasion
- Oct 29, 2012 version of this article was published on more recent A
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Communication Research Additional services and information for
http://crx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://crx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
What is This?
- May 16, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
- Oct 29, 2012 Version of Record

at University of Bristol Library on April 13, 2014 crx.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Bristol Library on April 13, 2014 crx.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Communication Research
XX(X) 1 22
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0093650211408594
http://crx.sagepub.com
CRX40859
4CRXXXX10.1177/0093650211408594De Graaf et al.Communication Research
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1
University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Anneke de Graaf, Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam,
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Email: a.m.degraaf@uva.nl
Identification as a
Mechanism of
Narrative Persuasion
Anneke de Graaf
1
, Hans Hoeken
2
, Jos Sanders
2
,
and Johannes W. J. Beentjes
1
Abstract
To provide a causal test of identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion, this study
uses the perspective from which a story is told to manipulate identification experimentally
and test effects on attitudes. In experiment 1, 120 participants read a story that was told
either from the perspective of one character or another character, with both characters
having opposing goals. Results showed that perspective influenced identification and story
consistency of attitudes. Moreover, identification with one of the characters mediated
the effect of perspective on attitudes. In experiment 2, 200 participants read a different
story that was told from one of two perspectives, with both characters having opposing
opinions. Results showed that identification with both characters mediated the effect of
perspective on attitudes. The results of these experiments indicate that identification can
be a mechanism of narrative persuasion.
Keywords
narrative persuasion, identification, narrative engagement, transportation, perspective
Identification as a Mechanism of Narrative Persuasion
It is by now well-established that narratives can have effects on readers real-world beliefs
and attitudes (e.g., Appel & Richter, 2007; Diekman, McDonald, & Gardner, 2000; Strange
& Leung, 1999). This phenomenon has been termed narrative persuasion and has attracted
research interest from various disciplines such as health communication (Green, 2006),
entertainment-education (Morgan, Movius, & Cody, 2009; Moyer-Gus & Nabi, 2010),
at University of Bristol Library on April 13, 2014 crx.sagepub.com Downloaded from
2 Communication Research XX(X)
and cultivation research (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008). However, the exact mechanisms
through which narratives exert persuasive influence are not clearly established. Generally,
there is a consensus that the extent to which a reader is engrossed in a story or transported
into a story world plays a role in generating narrative effects (see, for example, Green &
Brock, 2000; Moyer-Gus, 2008). Some research has shown that this narrative experience
can indeed influence persuasive outcomes (Green, 2004; Green & Brock, 2000). However,
recent research has shown that the experience of a narrative is multidimensional. (Busselle
& Bilandzic, 2009). Some dimensions may be more important for persuasive effects to
occur than others. Busselle and Bilandzic (2009), for instance, showed that their dimen-
sion of emotional engagement was correlated more strongly to story-consistent attitudes
than the dimension of attentional focus. Establishing which dimensions of the narrative
experience actually lead to persuasive effects will further expand our understanding of
the mechanisms of narrative persuasion (see Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009; Green, 2006,
p. 165).
In this article, we focus on the dimension of identification with story characters. Several
scholars put forward the idea that identification is a mechanism through which narratives exert
persuasive influence (e.g., Green, 2006; Slater & Rouner, 2002). Also, some associations have
been found between identification and story-consistent attitudes (De Graaf, Hoeken, Sanders,
& Beentjes, 2009; Iguarta, 2010). However, a causal test of the effect of identification on atti-
tudes has not yet been provided. The correlational results found so far may also indicate that
readers who already share attitudes with a character identify more with this character. To rule
out this explanation, this article reports on two studies that manipulate identification experi-
mentally and examine the mediating role of identification in narrative persuasion.
Narrative Engagement
Scholars have given different names to the experience that narratives typically generate.
Green and Brock (2000) adopt the term transportation from Gerrig (1993), which refers to
the experience of going into a narrative world. Green and Brock (2000, p. 701) define trans-
portation as the focus of attention, emotion, and imagery on a story. Slater and Rouner
(2002, p. 178) employ the label absorption which they define as vicariously experiencing
the characters emotions and personality. Although there is some overlap between these
definitions, they differ in important respects. On the one hand, Slater and Rouners (2002)
definition focuses specifically on characters and shows correspondence to identification,
which has been defined as adopting the perspective of a character and consequently expe-
riencing empathic emotions (Cohen, 2001, p. 251). On the other hand, both Gerrigs
(1993) and Green and Brocks (2000) definition of transportation does not refer to charac-
ters. Green and Brock (2000) do include emotion in transportation, but it is not specified
whether this needs to be related to characters. Moyer-Gus (2008) acknowledges this point
when she notes that identification with characters goes beyond involvement with the nar-
rative itself, or transportation. However, she also notes the overlap between identification
and transportation (Moyer-Gus, 2008, p. 410). In sum, it is hard to draw a clear line
between transportation and identification.
De Graaf et al. 3
Empirical research by Busselle and Bilandzic (2009) provides insight into the relations
between these concepts. They use the term narrative engagement to refer to the experience
of a narrative. Their studies show that distinct dimensions of this experience can be discerned.
For instance, their factor analyses yielded a dimension of emotional engagement, which
consisted of both items about emotion evoked by the narrative and items about empathic
emotions for the characters. This dimension thus includes both the emotion aspect of trans-
portation and the empathy aspect of identification, which shows that these two concepts
overlap. Other aspects of transportation, such as attentional focus on the story, loaded on a
different dimension, revealing that the attention aspect can be distinguished from identifica-
tion. This study adopts the approach of Busselle and Bilandzic (2009) to see narrative
engagement as a complex concept in which multiple dimensions can be discerned.
Identification
As mentioned above, identification is an experience in which readers adopt the perspective
of a character and see the narrative events through the characters eyes (Busselle &
Bilandzic, 2008; Cohen, 2001). Oatley (1994, 1999) conceptualizes this experience as a
reader adopting the characters goals and plans. The reader then simulates or imagines the
events that happen to the character and experiences empathy or emotions which are in
consonance with the success or failure of these plans (Oatley, 1994, p. 69; Zillmann, 2006).
In other words, readers imagine what it is like to be a character and can have the illusion
of being a character (Cohen, 2001; Tan, 1994, p. 25).
Identification is proposed to be one of the mechanisms through which narratives can
change attitudes (Green, 2006; Slater & Rouner, 2002). Through the connections forged by
identification, implications of experiences and assertions of the character may shift a readers
beliefs (Green, 2006). When readers simulate or imagine the events that happen to a char-
acter in their imagination, they may come to understand what it is like to experience the
described events and thus their attitudes may become more consistent with this vicarious
experience (Mar & Oatley, 2008, p. 182). Similarly, Banduras social cognitive theory (1986,
2002) posits that identification with role models facilitates observational learning, such that
individuals acquire new ways of thinking and behaving by observing a model. Although this
theory is not limited to narratives or the media, characters in the media can also function as
role models for observational learning (Bandura, 2002).
There is some empirical evidence for the role of identification in narrative persuasion.
For instance, Busselle and Bilandzic (2009) showed that their scale of emotional engage-
ment which consisted for a large part of items about empathic emotions was correlated to
story-consistent attitudes. Similarly, De Graaf et al. (2009) showed that a scale that included
items about taking the perspective of a character as well as items about empathizing with
the character was related significantly to story-consistent attitudes. However, in both these
studies, it is unclear whether identification was the cause of the effects on the attitude. The
opposite relation may hold as well; if participants hold similar attitudes as the character,
this similarity in attitudes may cause them to identify with this character rather than the
other way around. Several studies have shown that perceived similarity of a reader to a
character can increase identification with the character (e.g., Andsager, Bemker, Choi, &
Torwel, 2006; Eyal & Rubin, 2003). Therefore, correlations between identification and
attitudes are not enough to conclude that identification leads to attitude change. Instead, a
causal test of the effect of identification on persuasive outcomes is needed to establish
whether identification can indeed function as a mechanism of narrative persuasion.
The Manipulation of Identification: The Role of Perspective
To establish a causal effect of identification on attitudes, identification needs to be manip-
ulated. The definition of identification as adopting the perspective of a character (Cohen,
2001) suggests that the perspective from which a narrative is told may be a suitable means
to manipulate identification. Adopting the perspective of a character on the narrative
events in ones imagination is a reader experience, whereas the perspective from which a
narrative is told is a text characteristic. Perspective as a text characteristic refers to the
physical and psychological point of perception which is presented in a story (Bal, 1997,
p. 143). So, when the perspective of a story is positioned with a particular characterwho
will be referred to as the perspectivizing character in this articlethis characters vision
on the events and his or her reactions, such as thoughts, are presented. The most clear-cut
example of a perspectivizing character is the first-person narrator. In first-person narra-
tives, readers have access to the perception and thoughts of a particular character, referred
to with I, which likely facilitates readers to take the perspective of this character in their
imagination (Oatley, 1999; Sanders & Redeker, 1996).
Although several authors posit that story perspective can influence identification (Cohen,
2001; Oatley, 1999), this has not yet been empirically established. However, there is some
empirical evidence for the effect of perspective on related concepts. Andringa (1986)
reported that participants who read a first-person narrative about a court session from the
judges perspective reported more understanding for the judge than participants who read
a first-person narrative from the defendants perspective. Likewise, Van Peer and Pander
Maat (1996) found that participants reading a story about a marital disagreement, in which
the perceptions and thoughts of the wife were presented, sympathized more with her than
participants reading the same story told from the perspective of the husband. As sympathy
and understanding for a character are closely related to identification (Cohen, 2001), these
studies suggest that the perspective from which a story is told is a suitable means to manip-
ulate identification. Therefore, the first hypothesis of this study is:
Hypothesis 1: Readers of a story told from the perspective of a given character will
identify more with that character than readers of the same story told from the
perspective of another character.
The next step is to look at persuasive outcomes. Because identification is specifically
related to characters, attitudes will be assessed that are consistent with individual charac-
ters. This means that the attitude is related to a character in the story, for instance because
a character states his or her opinion on an issue, or because the attitude is implied by the
De Graaf et al. 5
experience of the character (e.g., when a character pursues a goal). Following from the
idea that the perspective of a character leads to identification with that character, it is also
expected that perspective influences character-related attitudes. Thus, the second hypoth-
esis of this study is:
Hypothesis 2: Readers of a story told from the perspective of a given character will
have posttest attitudes more consistent with the attitudes related to that character
than will readers of the same story told from the perspective of another character.
Finally, to investigate whether identification with a character functions as a mechanism
of narrative persuasion, the third hypothesis of this study is:
Hypothesis 3: Identification with characters will mediate the effect of the perspec-
tive manipulation on posttest attitudes.
Experiment 1
Method
Materials. Two versions of a story were written about a job interview for a position of
web designer. One version of the story is told from the perspective of the applicant, a young
man in a wheelchair, the other from the perspective of a member of the selection committee,
a young programmer. This topic was chosen because the characters imply different sides on
issues related to disabled persons on the job market, such as positive discrimination. The
story ends when the applicant leaves the interview. It remains unclear whether he gets
the job or not. The manipulation of perspective is intended to increase identification with the
character from whose perspective the story is told. Participants who read the story from the
perspective of the applicant should identify more with the applicant than participants who
read the story from the perspective of the programmer and vice versa.
Perspective was established by several means (see Table 1 for examples of the manipu-
lation). First, the perspectivizing character is referred to with I, whereas other characters
are referred to with the third-person pronoun (he) or a full noun phrase (e.g., the man).
Second, perceptions and thoughts of the perspectivizing character are presented. Thoughts
could not be inserted in exactly the same place of the story for both characters, because this
would have resulted in unnatural stories, but there are an equal number of thoughts in both
versions. Finally, a short sequence of events experienced by the perspectivizing character
before the actual job interview are included in both versions to enable readers to identify
with this character. The applicant is described as talking to his physiotherapist about his
preparation for the interview, whereas the programmer is described as talking to the man-
ager about which candidates to invite for an interview.
1
The two versions of the story were pretested to ensure that they were considered natural
and suitable by the target participants. Five students were instructed to read both versions
of the story critically and mark all elements in the story that they thought were unnatural or
wrong, either stylistically or in content. With their suggestions, the two versions of the
story were improved and adapted to the target group. The final versions of the story both
consist of approximately 3,700 words. Readability was kept the same for both versions
(Gunning Fog indexes: applicant: 8.55, programmer: 8.59).
Participants and procedure. The sample consisted of 120 students (79.8% female, 20.2%
male) from a Dutch university who were recruited in several first-year classes. The majority
studied at the Faculty of Arts (55.8%), whereas the rest were either law students (22.5%) or
social sciences students (21.6 %). Age varied between 18 and 28, with an average of 19. The
experiment was administered to groups with a maximum of 10 participants in a classroom
setting. In every group, the conditions were randomly assigned. The experiment took 20 to
25 minutes to complete. After everyone in a group was finished, participants were debriefed
and paid 5 for participation. One participant in the control group was excluded from the
analysis because he missed an entire page of items. Other participants did not miss any items.
Design. The study used a between-subjects design with three conditions. One group (n = 40)
read the version of the story told from the applicants perspective and a second group
(n = 40) read the version of the story told from the programmers perspective. Both groups
answered all questions after reading the story. A third group (n = 40) acted as a control
group and answered the questions about attitudes before reading the story in order to estab-
lish a baseline of attitudes.
Questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of questions about personal characteristics
(gender, age), attitudes toward issues related to disabled persons on the job market, identi-
fication, additional aspects of narrative engagement, and perceived realism.
Table 1. Example of Perspective Manipulation: A Part of the Job Interview in Both Versions
Perspectivizing character = applicant Perspectivizing character = programmer
Lets move on to talk about the position.
Why did you apply for this job? the older
man asks.
[Thought 1] Again a question that is listed
on every website about job application.
I applied because the job description fits
well to my education and work experience.
(. . .) That is why the job seems very suitable
for me.
Can you say what you like so much about
website design? the younger man asks.
[Thought 2] That is a question I did not
prepare for. After thinking about it shortly,
I say:
The creative part. I like making something
completely new.
Theo [the manager of the company] continues:
Lets move on to talk about the position. Why
did you apply for this job?
I applied because the job description fits well to
my education and work experience. (. . .) That is
why the job seems very suitable for me.
[Thought 1] Again such a rehearsed answer. I
try to ask more to get a more original answer.
Can you say what you like so much about
website design?
The man looks at the wall shortly.
The creative part. I like making something
completely new.
[Thought 2] Ok, so he can also give an answer
that he did not prepare beforehand.
Note: Insertions (e.g., [Thought 1]) and blank lines were not present in the original versions.
De Graaf et al. 7
Attitudes were measured with eight 7-point rating scale items, ranging from completely
disagree to completely agree. Five items were about affirmative action for disabled appli-
cants (Cronbachs = .82), such as: When candidates are equally suitable, disabled appli-
cants should get preference over others. Three items were about the autonomy of employers
to reject disabled applicants, such as: I think an employer should be able to reject an appli-
cant because he or she is disabled (Cronbachs = .73). These attitudes represent posi-
tions that are more in line with either the interest of the disabled applicant or that of the
programmer.
Identification was measured with eight 7-point rating scale items for each character.
Three items were about imagining events from the position of each character, for example,
During reading, I imagined what it would be like to be in the position of the applicant/
programmer. Two items were about experiencing empathy with each character, for example,
I empathized with the applicant/programmer. And three items were about the illusion of
being each character, for example, In my imagination it was as if I was the applicant/
programmer. These items were formulated based on the conceptualization of identification
given in the introduction; because existing scales do not capture all aspects (most notably
illusion of being) and confound other concepts (see Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009, p. 342).
To be able to check whether other aspects of narrative engagement were (unintentionally)
influenced by perspective, these aspects were measured as well. Eight 7-point Likert-type
scales were about attention for the story, for example, During reading I was fully concen-
trated on the story, there were four items about imagery of the story, for example, I had
a vivid image of the events in the story; four items were about emotion evoked by the
story, for example, The story affected me; and seven items were about the feeling of
going into the narrative world, for example, When I was reading the story, it seemed as if
I was there in my thoughts. Some items were selected from scales to measure transporta-
tion (Green & Brock, 2000) or telepresence (Kim & Biocca, 1997).
An exploratory principal components factor analysis with oblimin rotation was run on
all items (see appendix). Data of the control group were not included in this analysis
because the attitude questions that were answered before reading the story may have made
participants suspicious of the storys persuasive intent. The eigenvalue rule indicated seven
factors, but the scree plot showed that a five-factor solution was more appropriate.
Factor 1, Being in Narrative World, contained all items about imagery of the story
and four items about the sensation of going into a narrative world (eight items, Cronbachs
= .92). Factor 2, Identification with Programmer, contained all items about imagining
events from the position of the programmer as well as empathy with the programmer and
the illusion of being the programmer (eight items, Cronbachs = .92). Factor 3 contained
all items about Emotion evoked by the story (four items, Cronbachs = .91). Factor 4
contained six items about Attentional Focus (six items, Cronbachs = .88). Factor 5
contained all items about Identification with Applicant (eight items, Cronbachs = .91).
The remaining items were not included in any factor because they loaded too low on their
primary factor or cross-loaded on a secondary factor.
Finally, perceived realism was measured, because several researchers assign an impor-
tant role to perceived realism in narrative persuasion (e.g., Busselle, Ryabovolova &
Wilson, 2004; Green, 2004). To assess whether the two story versions were perceived
equally realistic, three 7-point Likert-type scales were used (Cronbachs = .79), such as
It is possible the events in the story really happened.
Results
Effects of manipulation. With regard to Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, it was tested
whether perspective had the intended effect of increasing identification with the perspec-
tivizing character and whether attitudes were more consistent with the perspective of the
story version. Additionally, it was checked whether the manipulation had unintentionally
influenced perceived realism, or the engagement dimensions Attentional Focus, Being in
Narrative World, and Emotion. Table 2 contains the mean scores and standard deviations
for identification with both characters and attitudes that were implied by the story.
t tests revealed a significant effect of perspective on both Identification with Applicant
(t(78) = 3.65, p < .001,
2
= .15) and Identification with Programmer (t(78) = 2.61, p < .05,
2
= .08). As expected, participants who had read the story from the applicants perspective
identified more with the applicant than participants who had read the version from the pro-
grammers perspective, and vice versa for identification with the programmer. However,
inspection of the means suggested an inequality between the characters. Therefore, we did
a post-hoc paired-samples t test which showed that overall, Identification with Applicant
(M = 4.61, SD = 1.18) was higher than Identification with Programmer (M = 3.79, SD =
1.26); (t(79) = 4.17, p < .001,
2
= .18). In a 2 2 mixed ANOVA with perspective as
between-subjects factor and character as within-subjects factor, the interaction was also
significant (F (1,78) = 20.72, p < .001,
2
= .21). Subsequent simple effects analysis showed
that participants who had read the perspective of the applicant identified more with the appli-
cant than with the programmer (p < .001), whereas participants who had read the perspective
of the programmer identified equally with the applicant and the programmer (p = .94).
With regard to the additional engagement dimensions and perceived realism, t tests
showed that, as intended, there were no effects of perspective on Attentional Focus (M
appl
=
4.95, SD = 1.01; M
progr
= 4.83, SD = 1.18; t(78) = 0.49. p = .62), on Being in Narrative
World (M
appl
= 5.58, SD = .62; M
progr
= 5.36, SD = 1.02; t(78) = 1.21, p = .23), or on
Perceived realism (M
appl
= 6.25, SD = 0.63; M
progr
= 6.07, SD = 0.72; t(78) = 1.21. p = .23).
However, there was an unexpected effect of perspective on Emotion (t(78) = 2.38, p < .05,
2
= .068). Readers of the applicant perspective (M = 4.15, SD = 1.26) reported more emo-
tion than readers of the programmer perspective (M = 3.47, SD = 1.30).
No difference was obtained between perspectives for the attitude toward affirmative
action for disabled people in job applications, t(78) = 0.89, p = .38. However, there was a
difference for the attitude toward employers autonomy to reject disabled people in job
applications, t(78) = 4.67, p < .05,
2
= .057. Participants who had read the applicant per-
spective reported more negative attitudes than readers of the programmer perspective.
Mediation analysis. With regard to Hypothesis 3, mediation analyses using a bootstrap-
ping procedure (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) were carried out to establish whether Identifica-
tion with Applicant and Identification with Programmer were responsible for the effect of
De Graaf et al. 9
perspective on the attitude toward employers autonomy. Also, it was checked whether this
effect should be ascribed to the unintentionally affected engagement dimension of Emotion.
All mediation analyses used 5,000 bootstrap samples, as recommended by Hayes (2009).
Preacher and Hayes (2008) bootstrapping procedure estimates a 95% confidence inter-
val for whether the indirect effect is significant. If this interval does not include 0, the
indirect effect is significant. These analyses showed that the indirect effect of Identification
with Applicant is significant (B = .19, SE = .10, 95% CI = [.0580, .4400]). Figure 1 pro-
vides descriptive information concerning the relations between perspective, Identification
with Applicant, and the attitude toward employers autonomy. The indirect effects of
Identification with Programmer (B = .03, SE = .08, 95% CI = [.0928, .2027]) and Emotion
(B = .03, SE = .07, 95% CI = [.0966, .2140]) were not significant.
Control group. Finally, the attitude scores of the control group were employed to assess the
direction of the persuasive influence. Did the applicant version make attitudes more negative
or did the programmer version make attitudes more positive compared to baseline attitudes?
t tests with Bonferroni adjustments for multiple comparisons showed that the attitude toward
affirmative action of the control group (M = 3.60, SD = 1.07) did not differ from both per-
spective versions (both ps > .76). However, with respect to the attitude toward employers
autonomy, participants in the control group held less negative attitudes (M = 3.23, SD = 1.20)
compared to the participants in the applicants perspective (t(77) = 3.27, p < .01,
2
= .097).
The control group did not differ from the programmer perspective (p = .72)
Discussion
The results confirm Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. The characters perspective from
which the story was told led to more identification with this character and to a posttest
attitude more consistent with the character. The applicant perspective made the attitude
toward employers autonomy more negative, which is consistent with the applicants goal.
Hypothesis 3 can be confirmed for identification with one of the characters in the story.
The mediation analysis showed that identification with the applicant mediated the effect of
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations (Between Brackets) for Identification
a
and Attitudes
b
by Condition
Perspectivizing
character = applicant
Perspectivizing
character = programmer
Identification with applicant 5.06 (1.10)
c
4.17 (1.09)
c
Identification with programmer 3.44 (1.23)
c
4.15 (1.20)
c
Attitude toward affirmative action for
disabled people
3.54 (1.12) 3.33 (.91)
Attitude toward employers
autonomy to reject disabled people
2.51 (1.02)
c
2.96 (.83)
c
a. 1 = very low identification, 7 = very high identification.
b. 1 = very negative attitude, 7 = very positive attitude.
c. Indicates significant differences.
perspective on attitudes. However, identification with the programmer did not affect the atti-
tude toward employers autonomy. This difference in impact may be explained by several
differences between the characters, which are also reflected in the result that participants
identified more with the applicant overall than with the programmer and that even partici-
pants who read the story from the programmers perspective identified equally with the appli-
cant and the programmer. First, the position of the applicant is probably more familiar for
the participants than the position of the programmer, because the participating students are
more likely to have applied for a job in their lives, than to have been in a position of hiring
someone. Also, being physically disabled, the applicant was in a position of greater depen-
dence and vulnerability than the programmer: depending on the programmers power to
decide about his application and vulnerable to potential prejudice about disabled applicants.
To be able to strengthen conclusions about identification as a mechanism of narrative persua-
sion, a follow-up experiment was conducted that used a story in which the background and
position of two opposing characters are more similar in position and mutual dependence.
Experiment 2
Method
Materials. A new story was written about two sisters whose mother has been in an irre-
versible coma for over a month. In the story, there is only one difference between the sis-
ters, namely their opinion on what to do next. Both women want to do what is in their
mothers best interest, but they disagree about what this best interest is. One of the sisters
thinks it may be best to consider euthanasia in this situation without any prospects, whereas
the other sister does not want to consider euthanasia and thinks it is best to search for a
good nursing home. They argue about what should be done, but the argument is not
resolved in the story.
Applicant
perspective
Identification
with applicant
Attitude tow.
employers
autonomy
= .38, p < .001 = .33, p < .01
= .13, p = .27
b

= .24, p < .05
a

a
regression of perspective on attitude
when identification is not entered
b
regression of perspective on attitude
when identification is entered
Figure 1. Descriptive results of the relations between perspective, identification with applicant and the
attitude toward employers autonomy to reject disabled applicants
De Graaf et al. 11
To manipulate identification, two versions of the first-person narrative were written.
2
In
one version, the perspectivizing character is in favor of considering euthanasia for her
permanently comatose mother, whereas the nonperspectivizing sister is against consider-
ing euthanasia. In the other version, these roles are reversed; the perspectivizing character
is against considering euthanasia for her mother, whereas the other sister is in favor. This
manipulation is intended to increase identification with the perspectivizing character, so
that it can be tested whether identification leads to persuasion. Participants who read the
story in which the perspectivizing character is in favor of considering euthanasia should
identify more with this character than participants who read the story in which the perspec-
tivizing character is against considering euthanasia and vice versa. Perspective was estab-
lished as in Experiment 1 (see Table 3 for examples of the manipulations); that is, the
perspectivizing character is referred to with I, so that the events are described from her
point of view and her perceptions and thoughts are presented. Nevertheless, the same argu-
ments for both positions were given in both versions. The rest of the two versions were also
held constant; the perspectivizing character as well as the nonperspectivizing character
performed the same actions irrespective of their opinion.
1
As in Experiment 1, the two versions of the story were pretested with members of the
target population. Each version was read by seven students. With their suggestions, the
two versions of the story were improved and adapted to the target group. After these
Table 3. Example of Perspective Manipulation: Some Parts of the Story in Both Versions
Perspectivizing character = in favor of
considering euthanasia
Perspectivizing character = against
[Part 1] Miriam [= name of sister]
immediately concluded we should look for
a nursing home, but could we really do
that to our mother? Shouldnt we consider
whether she would want that herself?
[Part 2] I started: Every time I look at her,
I feel so extremely sorry for her, that she
just has to lie there. And if I think that this
would go on for years and years . . . It just
seems to me so terrible for her.
But she is still our mother. She has always
taken care of us and now she needs our
care. We should search for the best
nursing home there is.
[Part 3] That afternoon at work I could not
concentrate. I had to verify data that had
already been entered, but my thoughts
strayed again and again.
[Part 1] I thought it was clear we had to
start looking for a nursing home, but
incomprehensibly, Miriam did not agree.
She said we should consider whether she
would want that herself.
[Part 2] Miriam started: Every time I look
at her, I feel so extremely sorry for her,
that she just has to lie there. And if I think
that this would go on for years and years .
. . It just seems to me so terrible for her.
But she is still our mother. She has always
taken care of us and now she needs our
care. We should search for the best
nursing home there is.
[Part 3] That afternoon at work I could not
concentrate. I had to verify data that had
already been entered, but my thoughts
strayed again and again.
Note: Insertions (e.g., [Part 1]) and blank lines were not present in the original versions.
adaptations, both versions of the story consisted of approximately 1,800 words. Readability
was the same for both versions (Gunning Fog index: 7.54).
Participants and procedure. The sample consisted of 200 students (81.7% female, 19.3%
male) enrolled in a first-year communication class at a Dutch university, who participated
for course credit. Their ages varied between 17 and 28, with an average age of 20. The
experiment was administered to groups of 12-20 participants in a classroom setting. In
every group, the conditions were randomly assigned. The experiment took 15 to 20 min-
utes to complete. After everyone in a group was finished, participants were debriefed and
any remaining questions were answered. Three participants were excluded from the analy-
ses because they missed eight items or more. Other sporadic items that were not filled in,
were set to missing.
Design. The study used a between-subjects design with three conditions. One group
(n = 80) read the version of the story in which the perspectivizing character was in favor of
considering euthanasia. Another group read the version of the story in which the perspec-
tivizing character was against considering euthanasia (n = 79). Participants in these groups
answered all questions after reading the story. Participants in the control group (n = 41)
answered the questions about attitudes before reading the story in order to establish a base-
line of attitudes.
Questionnaire. The questionnaire was similar to the one used in the first experiment, includ-
ing questions about personal characteristics, attitudes toward issues implicated in the story,
dimensions of narrative engagement, and perceived realism.
Attitudes were measured with six 7-point Likert-type scales. Three items were about
considering euthanasia for a loved one who is in a permanent coma (Cronbachs = .72),
for example, If a loved one is in a coma he or she will never wake up from, I think it is
good to consider euthanasia. One item was about considering admission to a nursing
home: If a loved one is in a coma he or she will never wake up from, I think it is good to
consider care in a nursing home. Two items were about the importance of feelings in mak-
ing decisions for a permanently comatose patient (Cronbachs = .72), for example, If a
loved one is in a coma he or she will never wake up from, I think you should predominantly
follow your feelings when making decisions for that person. These attitudes represented
the different positions taken by the characters in the story.
To measure identification and the remaining dimensions of narrative engagement, a
selection of items from Experiment 1 was used. To reduce the burden on participants, fewer
items were used than in Experiment 1. Identification was measured with six 7-point rating
scale items for both the character that was in favor of considering euthanasia (character
FCE) and the character that was against considering euthanasia (character ACE). Attentional
focus was also measured with six items. The experience of going into a narrative world,
imagery of the story, and emotion evoked by the story were measured with four items each.
To increase consistency, an indication of time such as during reading was added to every
item about narrative engagement.
Factor analysis of the narrative engagement items resulted in the same clusters as in
Experiment 1, with some items falling out because of double loading on attention and
imagery. Scales were made for Identification with Character FCE (six items, Cronbachs
De Graaf et al. 13
= .91), Identification with Character ACE (six items, Cronbachs = .92), Attentional
Focus (five items, Cronbachs = .80), Being in Narrative World (six items, Cronbachs
= .88), and Emotion (four items, Cronbachs = .86). Finally, the items to measure
perceived realism were the same as in Experiment 1 (three items, Cronbachs = .68).
Results
Effects of manipulation. With regard to Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, it was tested
whether perspective increased identification with the perspectivizing character and whether
the consistency of attitudes was likewise affected. Also, it was checked whether the manip-
ulations had unintentionally influenced the remaining dimensions of narrative engagement
and perceived realism. Table 4 contains the mean scores and standard deviations for iden-
tification with both characters and attitudes.
t tests showed that there was a main effect of perspective on both Identification with
Character FCE (t(154) = 4.10, p < .001,
2
= .10) and Identification with Character ACE
(t(154) = 6.08, p < .001,
2
= .20). As expected, participants who had read the version of
the story in which the perspectivizing character is in favor of considering euthanasia identi-
fied more with this character than participants who had read the version of the story in
which the perspectivizing character is against considering euthanasia, and vice versa for
Identification with Character ACE. Additionally, a paired-samples t test showed that Iden-
tification with Character FCE (M = 4.51, SD = 1.26) was higher overall than Identification
with Character ACE (M = 4.03, SD = 1.34; t(155) = 3.51, p =.001,
2
= .074). In a 2 2
mixed ANOVA with perspective as between-subjects factor and character as within-
subjects factor, the interaction was also significant (F(1,154) = 77.85, p < .001,
2
= .34).
Subsequent simple effects analysis showed that participants who had read the perspective
of the character in favor of considering euthanasia identified more with this character FCE
than with the character ACE that was the antagonist in this version (p < .001). This effect
was reversed for the other perspective; participants who had read the perspective of the
character against considering euthanasia identified more with this character ACE than with
the character FCE that was the antagonist in this version (p < .01). Thus, participants iden-
tified more with the perspectivizing character than with the antagonizing character, regard-
less of the opinion of the characters.
With regard to the remaining dimensions of narrative engagement and perceived real-
ism, t tests showed that there were no effects of perspective on Attentional Focus, Being in
Narrative World, and Emotion (all ps > .65). There was also no effect of perspective on
perceived realism (t(154) = 1.21, p = .23).
With regard to attitudes, t tests showed that there was an effect of perspective on both
the attitude toward considering euthanasia (t(154) = 2.52, p < .05,
2
= .040) and the
attitude toward considering admission to a nursing home if a loved one is in a permanent
coma (t(154) = 1.99, p < .05,
2
= .025). As expected, participants who had read the per-
spective of the sister who is in favor of considering euthanasia held a more positive attitude
toward considering euthanasia and a more negative attitude toward considering admission
to a nursing home than participants who had read the perspective of the sister who is
against considering euthanasia and wants to consider admission to a nursing home. For the
attitude toward the prevalence of feeling over reason in making decisions for chronically
comatose loved ones, there was no main effect of perspective (p = .61).
Mediation analysis. With regard to Hypothesis 3, it was established by mediation analy-
ses using a bootstrapping procedure (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) whether Identification with
Character FCE and Identification with Character ACE were responsible for the effects of
perspective on attitudes. All mediation analyses used 5,000 bootstrap samples, as recom-
mended by Hayes (2009). Results showed that the indirect effect of Identification with
Character FCE on the attitude toward considering euthanasia was significant (B = . 17,
SE = .08, 95% CI = [.3632, .0447]). The indirect effect of Identification with Character
FCE on the attitude toward considering a nursing home was not significant (B = . 10, SE =
.11, 95% CI = [.0976, .3287]). For Identification with Character ACE, the indirect effect
on both the attitude toward considering euthanasia (B = .29, SE = .10, 95% CI = [.5270,
.1321]), and the attitude toward considering a nursing home (B = . 46, SE = .18, 95%
CI = [.1504, .8431]) were significant. Relevant descriptive results are given in Figure 2.
Control group. Finally, the control group was taken into account to examine the direction
of the persuasive impact. t tests with Bonferroni adjustments were carried out to compare
the control group to both perspectives. t tests showed that the control group did not differ
from any of the perspective conditions on any of the attitudes (all ps > .089).
3
Discussion
The results show that all hypotheses are confirmed. Participants, who read the story that
was told from the perspective of the character in favor of considering euthanasia, identi-
fied more strongly with that character and held a more favorable posttest attitude toward
considering euthanasia. Participants who read the story that was told from the perspective
of the character against considering euthanasia, identified more strongly with that character
and held both a more negative posttest attitude toward considering euthanasia and a more
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations (Between Brackets) for Identification
a
and Attitudes
b

by Condition
Perspectivizing
character = in favor of
Perspectivizing
character = against
Identification with character FCE 4.90 (1.09)
c
4.12 (1.30)
c
Identification with character ACE 3.45 (1,22)
c
4.62 (1.18)
c
Attitude toward considering euthanasia 5.75 (.81)
c
5.32 (1.28)
c
Attitude toward considering nursing home 3.96 (1.66)
c
4.49 (1.63)
c
Attitude toward prevalence of feeling 3.94 (1.39) 4.05 (1.30)
a. 1 = very low identification, 7 = very high identification.
b. I = very negative attitude, 7 = very positive attitude.
c. Indicates significant differences.
De Graaf et al. 15
favorable attitude toward considering a nursing home. In both cases, identification medi-
ated the effects of perspective on attitude.
Identification with the character that is in favor of considering euthanasia did not
mediate the attitude toward considering a nursing home. This is probably due to the fact
that this character did not oppose considering a nursing home, but rather thought they
should consider euthanasia as well. The other character did strongly oppose considering
euthanasia and thought a nursing home was the best option. This explains why identifica-
tion with the character that was against considering euthanasia made the attitude toward
considering euthanasia more negative as well as the attitude toward considering a nursing
home more positive.
Perspective
of Char. FCE
Identification
with Char. FCE
Attitude tow.
considering
euthanasia
= .31, p < .001 = .20, p < .05
Perspective
of Char. ACE
Attitude tow.
considering
nursing home
= .44, p < .001 = .30, p < .001
Identification
with Char. ACE
Perspective
of Char. ACE
Identification
with Char. ACE
Attitude tow.
considering
euthanasia
= .44, p < .001 = .26, p < .01
a
regression of perspective on attitude when
identification is not entered
b
regression of perspective on attitude when
identification is entered
= .04, p = .41
b

= .10, p = .23
b

= .15, p = .068
b

= .16, p < .05
a
= .20, p < .05
a
= .20, p < .05
a
Figure 2. Descriptive results of the relations between perspective, identification with both characters
and the attitude toward considering euthanasia and the attitude toward considering admission to a
nursing home when a loved one is in a permanent coma
General Discussion
The Role of Identification in Narrative Persuasion
The main aim of this study was to investigate the role of identification with story charac-
ters in narrative persuasion. The results of the studies show that identification can indeed
be a mediating mechanism of narrative persuasion. Previous studies showed correlations
between the level of identification and persuasive outcomes. (e.g., Busselle & Bilandzic,
2009; De Graaf et al., 2009; Iguarta, 2010). However, these correlations could also be
explained by the fact that people are more likely to identify with characters holding atti-
tudes similar to their own. The results of the second experiment, in which the only differ-
ence between the characters was their opinion about considering euthanasia, show the
validity of this reasoning. The paired-samples t test showed that overall, participants level
of identification with the character in favor of considering euthanasia was higher. The
control groups scores on attitudes indicated that this characters attitude was more in line
with the participants prior attitude. However, the perspective manipulation proved to
override the impact of attitude similarity. Participants identified more strongly with the
perspectivizing character than with the antagonizing character regardless of the opinion of
the characters, and subsequently, participants adapted their attitudes accordingly. This
study thus provides evidence for the relation between attitude similarity and identification,
while at the same time establishing a causal relation between perspective, identification,
and narrative persuasion.
Furthermore, the results show that identification can both reinforce and attenuate
existing attitudes. In the first experiment, identification with the applicant made atti-
tudes that were already negative, and thus consistent with the applicant, even more
negative. This result indicates that identification with a character that shows attitude
consistency can make already existing attitudes stronger. In this experiment, identifi-
cation with the programmer, who had inconsistent attitudes, did not mediate persua-
sive effects. However, this may have been due to several differences in characteristics
of the applicant and programmer. Therefore, in the second experiment, highly similar
characters were used. In this experiment, again identification with the character that
had consistent attitudes (character in favor) mediated persuasive effects, showing rein-
forcement of attitudes. Additionally, identification with the character that had incon-
sistent attitudes (character against) mediated persuasive effects. When identifying with
this character, participants attitudes toward considering euthanasia become less posi-
tive, and thus shifted toward the attitude of the character. This result shows that identi-
fication with a character that shows attitude inconsistency can also attenuate readers
existing attitudes.
Comparisons of the experimental conditions to the control group showed that only one
of the story versions significantly changed attitudes from baseline. Even though the con-
sistent, significant differences between the two experimental conditions indicate that there
were effects on attitudes, the lack of differences from the control group indicates that these
effects were modest. In the second experiment, one perspective shifted the participants
De Graaf et al. 17
attitude somewhat in one direction and the other perspective shifted the attitude some-
what in the other direction. As the stories were quite short and not full books or movies,
it is unsurprising that the attitudinal effects were modest. Nonetheless, effects were
detectable even though short stories were used, which suggests that longer narratives
may even have stronger effects. Also, modest effects of single short stories may accumu-
late if individuals read or view several stories with the same message over time (see
Bilandzic & Busselle, 2008).
Although the effects were modest, the finding of this study that both experiments
showed persuasive effects of the stories mediated by identification is remarkable
because the stories differed in the way in which attitudes were implied. In the first
story, attitudes are implied by the characters goals. The fact that the applicant is disabled
and wants to get the job implies that he opposes policies which would inhibit this goal,
such as employers rights to reject applicants because they are disabled. This suggests
that identification can change attitudes when these are related to the characters goal,
which is in line with Oatleys (1994, 1999) conceptualization of identification. In the
second story, by contrast, the characters state their attitudes directly. The sisters tell
each other whether they are in favor of or against considering euthanasia and this posi-
tion becomes apparent in their thoughts as well. When opinions are stated this clearly,
readers who identify with a character can simply shift their own attitudes toward the
attitude of the character. The result that identification with story characters led to
attitudes more consistent with this character in both experiments thus indicates a
robust effect, as both experiments used stories in which attitudes were embedded
quite differently.
Limitations and Future Research
In this study, only two stories were used that both had an open ending, which may
have influenced persuasion as well. A positive or negative outcome of certain actions
can imply an attitude toward these actions. Possibly, identification with characters is
less influential when such an outcome is included in the story events. Even though an
open ending is a common feature of stories (see Bruner, 1991; Van Dijk, 1975), future
research should examine whether identification plays a similar role in persuasion by
stories with a specific outcome. Also, the majority of participants of the study were
female. Women may more readily identify with characters than men. However, prior
research has not found consistent gender differences in narrative persuasion (Green &
Brock, 2000, p. 704). It would be interesting for further research to systematically
investigate differences between men and women in identifying with characters and
being persuaded by narratives. Finally, the potential mediating role of dimensions of
narrative engagement that were not focused on in this study, such as the feeling of
being in a narrative world, should be addressed in future research. The results of this
study show that the dimension of identification with a character can be a mechanism of
narrative persuasion.
Appendix
Table A1. Principal Components Factor Analysis with Oblimin Rotation of Narrative
Engagement for Experiment 1 (n = 80)
1 2 3 4 5
I had a vivid image of the events in the story
(IMA, TS)
.883
I pictured the described events (IMA) .878
While I was reading the story, I visualized the
events that took place in it (IMA)
.772
During reading, I had the feeling as if I was present
at the events in the story (GNW)
.770
While I was reading the story, I was in the world of
the story in my imagination (GNW, TP)
.763
During reading, I saw before me what was
described in the story (IMA)
.756
During reading, it was as if I was present in the
spaces that were described (GNW)
.678
When I was reading the story, it seemed as if I was
there in my thoughts (GNW)
.621
My attention was focused on the events that were
described in the story (ATT)
.488 .394
During reading, it felt as if I made a journey to the
story world (GNW)
.406 .381
In my imagination the story created another world
that I visited (GNW, TP)
.395
As the story progressed, I had the feeling I was
being pulled into the story world more and
more (GNW)
.372 .303
I had the feeling I went through what the
programmer went through (AIP)
.839
In my imagination it was as if I was the
programmer (AIP)
.828
I put myself in the position of the programmer
(POP)
.817
When I had been reading for a while, it seemed as
if I had become the programmer in my thoughts
(AIP)
.800
During reading, I imagined what it would be like to
be in the position of the programmer (POP)
.795
I empathized with the programmer (EMP) .777
While I was reading, I pictured what it would be
like for the programmer to experience what was
described (POP)
.702
(continued)
De Graaf et al. 19
1 2 3 4 5
I felt for the programmer (EMP) .698
I found the story moving (EMO) .816
The story stirred emotions in me (EMO) .777
Because of the story, feelings arose in me (EMO) .760
The story affected me (EMO, TS) .690
While I was reading the story, I forgot my daily
affairs (ATT)
.882
During reading, I was fully concentrated on the
story (ATT)
.791
When I read the story, my thoughts were only with
the story (ATT)
.725
During reading, I was hardly aware of the space
around me (ATT, TS)
.707
I did not really notice things that happened around
me (ATT)
.677
During reading, I did not think for a while about the
things that had been on my mind lately (ATT)
.632
During reading, my attention was fully captured by
the story (ATT)
.354 .344 .465
When I had been reading for a while, it seemed
as if I had become the applicant in my thoughts
(AIA)
.845
I empathized with the applicant (EMA) .830
In my imagination, it was as if I was the applicant
(AIA)
.808
I had the feeling I went through what the applicant
went through (AIA)
.778
I put myself in the position of the applicant (POA) .729
During reading, I imagined what it would be like to
be in the position of the applicant (POA)
.719
While I was reading, I pictured what it would be
like for the applicant to experience what was
described (POA)
.676
I felt for the applicant (EMA) .648
% of variance explained (before rotation) 28.30 14.80 11.78 6.78 4.34
Sum of squared loadings 8.14 6.32 5.75 5.63 6.37
Note: Factor loadings <.30 are not reported. ATT = item about attention focused on the story, EMO =
item about emotional reactions evoked by the story, IMA = item about imagery of the story, GNW = item
about the sensation of going into a narrative world, EMA/EMP = item about empathy with the applicant/
programmer, AIA/AIP = item about the illusion of being the applicant/programmer, POA/POP = item about
experiencing the story from the position of the applicant/programmer, TS = item based on Transportation
Scale (Green & Brock, 2000), and TP = item based on Telepresence Scale (Kim & Biocca, 1997).
Table A1. (continued)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Donna Rouner, Gisela Redeker, Jan van den Bulck and two
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. Also, the
authors would like to thank Christian Burgers for his help with translating the materials.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Notes
1. The story versions that were used are available on request from the first author.
2. There was also a manipulation of language errors that should disrupt engagement. This manipulation
neither had effects on persuasion nor were there any interactions with the perspective manipulation. For
clear and concise presentation, this manipulation will therefore not be included.
3. In the post hoc test, the control condition differed marginally from the perspective of the sister who is in
favor of considering euthanasia on the attitude toward considering euthanasia (p =.089).
References
Andringa, E. (1986). Perspektivierung und Perspektivenuebernahme [Perspectivization and taking over of
perspective]. Spiel, 5(1), 135-146.
Andsager, J. L., Bemker, V., Choi, H. L., & Torwel, V. (2006). Perceived similarity of exemplar traits and
behavior: Effects on message evaluation. Communication Research, 33(1), 3-18.
Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psy-
chology, 10(1), 113-134.
Bal, M. (1997). Narratology, introduction to the theory of narrative (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
University of Toronto Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.),
Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 121-153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bilandzic, H., & Busselle, R. (2008). Transportation and transportability in the cultivation of genre-consistent
attitudes and estimates. Journal of Communication, 58, 508-529.
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1-21.
Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of
narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18, 255-280.
Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12, 321-347.
De Graaf et al. 21
Busselle, R., Ryabovolova, A., & Wilson, B. (2004). Ruining a good story: Cultivation, perceived
realism and narrative. CommunicationsThe European Journal of Communication Research, 29,
365-378.
Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media
characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 245-264.
De Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, H. (2009). The role of dimensions of narrative engage-
ment in narrative persuasion. CommunicationsThe European Journal of Communication Research,
34, 385-405.
Diekman, A. B., McDonald, M., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). Love means never having to be careful: The
relationship between reading romance novels and safe sex behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
24, 179-188.
Eyal, K., & Rubin, A. M. (2003). Viewer aggression and homophily, identification, and parasocial relation-
ships with television characters. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 47, 77-98.
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Green, M. C. (2004). Transportation into narrative worlds: The role of prior knowledge and perceived real-
ism. Discourse Processes, 38, 247-266.
Green, M. C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, S163-S183.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721.
Hayes, A. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communi-
cation Monographs, 76, 408-420.
Iguarta, J. J. (2010). Identification with characters and narrative persuasion through fictional feature films.
CommunicationsThe European Journal of Communication Research, 35, 347-373.
Kim, T., & Biocca, F. (1997). Telepresence via television: Two dimensions of telepresence may have dif-
ferent connections to memory and persuasion. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2).
Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00073.x/full
Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experi-
ence. Perspectives on psychological science, 3, 173-192.
Morgan, S. E., Movius, L., & Cody, M. J. (2009). The power of narratives: The effect of entertainment tele-
vision organ donation storylines on the attitudes, knowledge, and behavior of donors and nondonors.
Journal of Communication, 59, 135-151.
Moyer-Gus, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of
entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18, 407-425.
Moyer-Gus, E. and Nabi, R. L. (2010), Explaining the Effects of Narrative in an Entertainment Television
Program: Overcoming Resistance to Persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36, 2652.
Oatley, K. (1994). A taxonomy of the emotions in literary response and a theory of identification in fictional
narrative. Poetics, 23(1), 53-74.
Oatley, K. (1999). Meeting of minds: Dialogue, sympathy and identification in reading fiction. Poetics, 26,
493-454.
Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indi-
rect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
Sanders, J., & Redeker, G. (1996). Speech and thought in narrative discourse. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser
(Eds.) Spaces, worlds and grammar (pp. 290-317). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the
processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12, 173-191.
Strange, J. J., & Leung, C. C. (1999). How anecdotal accounts in news and in fiction can influence judg-
ments of a social problems urgency, causes, and cures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
25, 436-449.
Tan, E. S. H. (1994). Film-induced affect as a witness emotion. Poetics, 23(1), 7-32.
van Dijk, T. A. (1975). Action, action description and narrative. New Literary History, 6, 273-294.
van Peer, W., & Pander Maat, H. (2001). Narrative perspective and the interpretation of characters motives.
Language and Literature, 10, 229-241.
Zillmann, D. (1994). Mechanisms of emotional involvement with drama. Poetics, 23(1), 33-51.
Zillmann, D. (2006). Empathy: Affective reactivity to others emotional experiences. In J. Bryant &
P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 151-181). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bios
Anneke de Graaf is an assistant professor at the Amsterdam School of Communication
Research (ASCoR) at the University of Amsterdam.
Hans Hoeken is a full professor at the Department of Business Communication at the Radboud
University Nijmegen.
Jos Sanders is an associate professor at the Department of Business Communication at the
Radboud University Nijmegen.
Johannes W. J. Beentjes is a full professor at the Amsterdam School of Communication
Research (ASCoR) at the University of Amsterdam.

GRAFF Et Al Identification in Narratives

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GRAFF Et Al Identification in Narratives

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://crx.sagepub.

http://crx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- May 16, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

- Oct 29, 2012 Version of Record

You might also like