This study examined the relationships between narrative involvement, affect, risk perceptions, and environmental policy preferences. Experiment 1 involved a 3 (news, documentary, entertainment) × 2 (hydraulic fracturing, genetically modified organisms) mixed between- and within-subjects experiment. Results indicated a serial mediation model in which narrative involvement increased the likelihood of a negative affective response, in turn increasing risk perceptions and policy preferences for stricter regulation of environmental hazards. In Experiment 2, the pathway was tested for positively valenced content. Narrative involvement with positively valenced media produced a significantly lower negative affective response than negatively valenced media, but no difference terms of positive affect.
Ball-RokeachS. J. (1985). The origins of media-system dependency. Communication Research, 21, 3-21.
2.
BaronR. S.LoganH.LillyJ.InmanM. L.BrennanM. (1994). Negative emotion and message processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 181-201.
3.
ChaikenS.TropeY. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford.
4.
CohenJ. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 245-264.
5.
DahlstromM. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13614-13620.
6.
DamasioA. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Putnam.
7.
DarkeP. R.ChaikenS. (2005). The pursuit of self-interest: Self-interest bias in attitude judgement and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 864-883.
8.
DhingraK. (2003). Thinking about television science: How students understand the nature of science from different program genres. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 234-256.
9.
DunlopS.WakefieldM.KashimaY. (2008). Can you feel it? Negative emotion, risk, and narrative in health communication. Media Psychology, 11, 52-75.
10.
EpsteinS. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
11.
FeinbergM.WillerR. (2011). Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychological Science, 22, 34-38.
12.
FinucaneM. L. (2008). Emotion, affect, and risk communication with older adults: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 983-997.
13.
FinucaneM. L.PetersE.SlovicP. (2003). Judgment and decisions making: The dance of affect and reason. In SchneiderS. L.ShanteuaJ. (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 327-364). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
14.
GreenM. C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, 163-183.
15.
GreenM. C.BrockT. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721.
16.
GreenM. C.BrockT. C. (2002). Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. In GreenM. C.StrangeJ. J.BrockT. C. (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 315-341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Ground Water Protection Council. (2009). Modern shale gas development in the United States: A primer. Tulsa, OK: Author.
18.
HayesA. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
19.
HendrickxL.VlekC.OppewalH. (1989). Relative importance of scenario information and frequency information in the judgment of risk. Acta Psychologica, 72, 41-63.
20.
IsbellL. M.LairE. C.RovenporD. R. (2013). Affect-as-information about processing styles: A cognitive malleability approach. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 93-114.
21.
KearnesM.Grove-WhiteR.MacnaghtenP.WilsdonJ.WynneB. (2006). From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Science as Culture, 15, 291-307.
22.
KellerC.SiergristM.GutscherH. (2006). The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 26, 631-639.
23.
KreuterM. W.GreenM. C.CappellaJ. N.SlaterM. D.WiseM. E.StoreD.. . . WoolleyS. (2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 221-235.
24.
KrupnikovY.LevineA. S. (2014). Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1, 59-80.
25.
Kunst-WilsonW. R.ZajoncR. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 557-558.
26.
LoewensteinG.WeberE. U.HseeC. K.WelchE. S. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286.
27.
Moyer-GuséE. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18, 407-425.
28.
National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators, 2010. NSB 08-01; NSB 10-01A. Arlington, VA: Author.
29.
Quintero JohnsonJ. M.HarrisonK.QuickB. L. (2013). Understanding the effectiveness of the entertainment-education strategy: An investigation of how audience involvement, message processing, and message design influence health information recall. Health Communication, 18, 160-178.
30.
ReinardJ. C. (1988). The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence: The status after fifty years of research. Human Communication Research, 15, 3-59.
31.
SadlerT. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
32.
SanfeyA.HastieR. (1998). Does evidence presentation format affect judgment? An experimental evaluation of displays of data for judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 99-103.
33.
SchultzW. P. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 327-339.
34.
ShapiroM. A. (2002). Generalizability in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 491-500.
35.
SlaterM. D. (1997). Persuasion processes across receiver goals and message genres. Communication Theory, 7, 125-148.
36.
SlaterM. D. (2002). Entertainment education and the persuasive impact of narratives. In GreenM. C.StrangeJ. J.BrockT. C. (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 157-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
SlaterM. D.RounerD. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12, 173-191.
38.
SlomanS. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
39.
SlovicP. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 24, 311-322.
40.
SlovicP.FinucaneM. L.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feeling: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311-322.
41.
StocklmayerS. M.RennieL. J.GilbertJ. K. (2010). The role of formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46, 1-44.
42.
StrangeJ. J.LeungC. C. (1999). How anecdotal accounts in news and in fiction can influence judgments of a social problem’s urgency, causes, and cures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 578-589.
43.
TukachinskyR. (2014). Experimental manipulation of psychological involvement with media. Communication Methods & Measures, 8, 1-33.
44.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
45.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
46.
WellsG. L.WindschitlP. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125.
47.
ZajoncR. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
