Attributions of Responsibility for Obesity: Narrative Communication Reduces Reactive Counterarguing Among Liberals

Informed by theory and research on attributions and narrative persuasion, we compared the effectiveness of narrative and nonnarrative messages in changing attributions of responsibility for causes and solutions related to obesity in the United States. We randomly assigned 500 adults to view one of three messages (narrative, evidence, and a hybrid of the two) emphasizing environmental causes of obesity, or a no‐exposure control condition. The narrative condition increased the belief that societal actors (government, employers) are responsible for addressing obesity, but only among liberals. This pattern of results was partially explained by the success of the narrative condition in reducing reactive counterarguing, relative to the evidence condition, among liberals. We conclude with theoretical and practical implications.     

When a Lot of Knowledge Is a Dangerous Thing The Debilitating Effects of Plan Complexity on Verbal Fluency

Three experiments examined the relationships among plan complexity, access to planned actions, and verbal fluency while pursuing a persuasion goal. Consistent with theoretical expectations, complex planners were less fluent than less complex planners under high access conditions. Persons whose access was raised were less fluent than those whose access was not raised. A second experiment showed that reduced fluency was not induced by lowering of self-confidence. The third experiment replicated the findings of the second experiment and demonstrated that the questioning procedure used to raise access in the first two experiments produced increases in plan complexity as suggested by theory. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for the study of strategic communication.