叙述的
心理学
荟萃分析
社会心理学
经验证据
论证(复杂分析)
结果(博弈论)
认知
健康传播
叙述性探究
统计分析
统计证据
发展心理学
医学
哲学
语言学
统计
数学
无效假设
数理经济学
认识论
沟通
神经科学
内科学
作者
Simon Zebregs,Bas van den Putte,Peter Neijens,Anneke de Graaf
标识
DOI:10.1080/10410236.2013.842528
摘要
AbstractAlthough “evidence” is often used as an important argument in persuasive health campaigns, it remains unclear what type of evidence has the strongest impact on particular outcome variables. We conducted a meta-analysis in which the effects of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention were separately compared. Statistical evidence was found to have a stronger influence than narrative evidence on beliefs and attitude, whereas narrative evidence had a stronger influence on intention. We explain these findings in terms of the match between the specific characteristics of the two types of evidence and those of the outcome variables. Statistical evidence, beliefs, and attitude all relate primarily to cognitive responses, whereas both narrative evidence and intention relate more specifically to affective responses. We conclude that communication professionals developing health campaigns should match the type of evidence to the main communication objectives.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI