A Meta-Analysis Comparing the Effectiveness of Narrative vs. Statistical Evidence: Health vs. Non-Health Contexts

ABSTRACT

This study is a meta-analysis of primary studies that make a direct comparison between narrative and statistical evidence in both health- and non-health-related communication contexts. The meta-analysis included 50 studies with 65 experimental pairs (k = 65) based on 13,113 (20–1270) participants. We examined the overall persuasiveness of evidence type by computing the correlations (r’s) for all pairs, based on the random-effects model, which revealed an effect size of 0.016 (95% CI, −0.014 to 0.045, p = 0.296). Two types of evidence did not significantly differ in effectiveness under either communicative context. The moderation analysis indicated that narrative evidence had a significant advantage over statistical evidence for health messages advocating for prevention behaviors. Compared to non-student samples, the narrative evidence trumped statistical evidence for health-related issues. As communication research continues to investigate the implications for message persuasiveness derived by narrative and statistical appeals, our study suggests that the relative effectiveness is likely a complicated and nuanced matter. Practical implications and limitations have also been outlined.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.