Characters matter: How narratives shape affective responses to risk communication

Abstract

IntroductionWhereas scientists depend on the language of probability to relay information about hazards, risk communication may be more effective when embedding scientific information in narratives. The persuasive power of narratives is theorized to reside, in part, in narrative transportation.PurposeThis study seeks to advance the science of stories in risk communication by measuring real-time affective responses as a proxy indicator for narrative transportation during science messages that present scientific information in the context of narrative.MethodsThis study employed a within-subjects design in which participants (n = 90) were exposed to eight science messages regarding flood risk. Conventional science messages using probability and certainty language represented two conditions. The remaining six conditions were narrative science messages that embedded the two conventional science messages within three story forms that manipulated the narrative mechanism of character selection. Informed by the Narrative Policy Framework, the characters portrayed in the narrative science messages were hero, victim, and victim-to-hero. Natural language processing techniques were applied to identify and rank hero and victim vocabularies from 45 resident interviews conducted in the study area; the resulting classified vocabulary was used to build each of the three story types. Affective response data were collected over 12 group sessions across three flood-prone communities in Montana. Dial response technology was used to capture continuous, second-by-second recording of participants’ affective responses while listening to each of the eight science messages. Message order was randomized across sessions. ANOVA and three linear mixed-effects models were estimated to test our predictions.ResultsFirst, both probabilistic and certainty science language evoked negative affective responses with no statistical differences between them. Second, narrative science messages were associated with greater variance in affective responses than conventional science messages. Third, when characters are in action, variation in the narrative mechanism of character selection leads to significantly different affective responses. Hero and victim-to-hero characters elicit positive affective responses, while victim characters produce a slightly negative response.ConclusionsIn risk communication, characters matter in audience experience of narrative transportation as measured by affective responses.

The devil we know and the angel that did not fly: An examination of devil/angel shift in twitter fracking “debates” in NY 2008–2018

“…Media scholars have noted that simple, highly polarized, and intensely affective Tweets are more likely to go viral than those that are purely rational/informational (Papacharissi, 2015). While affective strategies are part of the policy process writ large and are linked to the concept of narrative transportation in the NPF (Shanahan et al, 2019), social media expands the range of individuals that can offer narrative strategies. The effects of this expansion turbo‐charge the existing attention economy (Simon, 1971) such that incentives to frame affect‐laden arguments are even stronger than before.…”

Quantifying scientific jargon

“…Further, there is more to understanding information than just comprehending jargon. Shanahan et al (Shanahan et al 2019) determine that narrative also plays a part in the understanding of risk communication. When participants listened to narratives about flood risks, they reported a more positive affective response when there was a clear "victim to hero" narrative, and that the response was less positive when actors were portrayed as merely "heroes" or "victims" with no narrative arc.…”

“…They should ensure that the message does not contain excessive jargon (Nation 2006 includes a story arc to catch and keep the attention of the audience (Shanahan et al 2019), and considers the cognitive load of the audience (Bullock et al 2019).…”

“…If scientists want to communicate their findings or their research to an audience outside their sub-discipline, there are a number of techniques for improving reader cognition. They should ensure that the message does not contain excessive jargon (Nation, 2006), includes a story arc to catch and keep the attention of the audience (Shanahan et al, 2019), and considers the cognitive load of the audience (Bullock et al, 2019).…”

Communicating risk in human-wildlife interactions: How stories and images move minds

“…Regarding the former, HWCC management often includes educational messaging [30] to encourage certain behaviors. Additionally, a vibrant area in risk communication studies not only finds that narrative-based risk communication is generally persuasive [31], but that stories influence affective responses and risk perceptions across multiple risk domains: natural hazards [32], health [33], climate change [34], and HWCC [35,36]. Furthermore, explorations of risk communication in HWCC largely rely on printed communication materials such as brochures, newsletters, and media accounts [37].…”