A meta-analysis of the impact of point of view on narrative processing and persuasion in health messaging

Abstract

Objective

To synthesize experimental research on the impact of narrative point of view (POV) on message processing and persuasion outcomes in health promotion. Moderators examined included characteristics of study design, participants, and experimental stimuli.

Design and Main Outcome Measures

Random effects model meta-analysis of 16 health promotion experiments, using the metafor package in R. Studies included compared the effects of first- and third-person POV on risk perceptions, attitudes, behavioral intention, identification and transportation.

Results

There was no evidence of publication bias. Narratives told in the first-person POV led to higher levels of perceived susceptibility (d = 0.10, 95% CI [0.01, 0.20]) and identification feelings (d = 0.10, 95% CI [0.10, 0.21]) than third-person narratives. The effects of first-person POV narratives were significantly stronger for stories that were written in the past-tense and that depicted the protagonist as being similar to message recipients.

Conclusion

Findings support a theoretical model of POV impact in which a first-person perspective increases identification with the character, thereby leading to higher levels of perceived susceptibility to the health threat. The practical implication is that the effectiveness of narrative persuasion is enhanced by using the first-person point of view, emphasizing target audience-protagonist similarities, and telling stories in the past tense.

Keywords:

• Narrative persuasion
• meta-analysis
• point of view
• health promotion
• risk perceptions

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the study authors who provided us with information necessary for the meta-analysis. We also thank Dr. Jeanette R. Ruiz for her comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Notes

1 References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.