Narrative Transportation: How Stories Influence Beliefs and Behavior

Contributions

Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.

1. 5 August 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   A claim-level review found that this article surrounded genuine narrative-persuasion research with misattributed studies, a chronologically impossible citation, and several experiments that could not be located. The clearest error concerned the 1977 miniseries Roots: the article credited a study of it to Richard Vidmar and Milton Rokeach, reported a survey of 570 viewers showing prejudice reduction among highly transported white viewers, and dated the publication to the Journal of Communication in 1974, three years before the broadcast. The real 1974 Journal of Communication paper is Neil Vidmar and Milton Rokeach on All in the Family, a different programme, and the reported result does not belong to it. The article also described a randomized Slater and Rouner alcohol-narrative experiment with a one-week counter-persuasion measure, though the cited 2002 paper is a theoretical article on entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood; attributed to Jorge Moll an experimental comparison of moral narratives against abstract moral arguments, citing a review that was absent from the bibliography; described a 2009 Green and Donahue overdose experiment with no traceable source; asserted that transported readers show reduced heart-rate variability with no physiological citation; called Mar and Oatley's 2008 theoretical review a brain-imaging study; dated the speaker-listener neural coupling work to 2008 and described it as scanning live conversation; and misdated and misdescribed Lisa Libby's voting research, which concerns visual perspective in mental imagery rather than transportation into a story about a protagonist, with a bibliography entry giving the wrong year, volume and pages.

   What the page claimed

   The article stated: 'Sociologists Richard Vidmar and Milton Rokeach studied audience responses to the ABC miniseries Roots... In a survey of 570 viewers, they found that white viewers who rated themselves as highly transported by the narrative showed significant decreases in racial prejudice... Published in the Journal of Communication in 1974', a date three years before the 1977 broadcast. It described 'A 2009 study by Melanie Green and John Donahue' comparing an overdose story with a statistical report. It said 'Slater and Rouner randomly assigned college students to read either narrative stories or expository essays containing identical arguments' with resistance measured one week later. It said 'Jorge Moll... found that morally charged narratives activated both cognitive and emotional systems simultaneously, while abstract moral arguments activated primarily cognitive regions', published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience in 2005. It claimed 'Highly transported readers show reduced heart rate variability, suggesting reduced vigilance' and that 'Brain imaging studies (Mar & Oatley, 2008) show that reading fiction activates brain regions associated with social cognition... in ways that nonfiction reading does not'. It titled a section 'Uri Hasson's neural coupling during storytelling (2008)', said he measured 'storytellers and listeners during real conversation', and concluded the work 'established that understanding a story... corresponds to genuinely synchronized neural processing between minds'. It described a 2012 Libby study in which subjects imagining being a voting protagonist were more likely to vote, with the reference listed as Psychological Science 23(9), 1048-1054. It said transportation 'appeared to temporarily suspend the critical evaluation processes', allowing beliefs to 'install themselves', that claims 'slip through the critical filter', and that narrative produces change 'frequently more durable, more resistant to counterargument, and more behaviorally influential than equivalent evidence-based persuasion'. It attributed roughly 300,000 prevented smoking initiations to the Truth campaign's 'explicitly narrative structure', claimed Hum Log raised clinic attendance '20% above comparable regions', and opened with a 'Native American saying, widely attributed'.

   What was corrected

   The Roots passage was deleted in full. The real 1974 Journal of Communication paper is Neil Vidmar and Milton Rokeach on All in the Family, and neither the programme nor the reported 570-viewer prejudice result belongs to the citation the article used. Also deleted: the Green and Donahue overdose experiment, the Slater and Rouner experimental account (their 2002 paper is theoretical and is now cited only as a model), the Jorge Moll section, the heart-rate-variability claim, the Libby voting example and its incorrect bibliography entry (the real paper is Libby et al. 2007, Psychological Science 18, 199-203, on visual perspective in mental imagery), the unsourced inoculation section, the Tylenol and brand examples, and the Native American saying. Mar and Oatley 2008 is now described as a theoretical proposal that fiction simulates social experience rather than an imaging study, and fiction and social cognition is framed as correlational with uncertain causality. The coupling research is corrected to Stephens, Silbert and Hasson 2010, with its actual design stated: a recorded speaker, listeners scanned separately, greater anticipatory coupling associated with better comprehension, and an explicit note that time-locked activity can reflect shared processing of the same stimulus rather than literal synchronisation between minds. Transportation is now described as possibly reducing attention to counterarguing without deactivating scepticism, with argument quality still mattering inside narratives. The van Laer et al. 2014 meta-analysis of 76 studies and 132 effects replaces the claim that narratives generally outperform equivalent evidence-based persuasion. Transportation and identification are distinguished, the Appel and Richter result is bounded to its single 81-participant experiment with the generalised sleeper effect removed, and the Truth campaign is described as associated with reduced initiation without isolating narrative structure as the cause. A new section covers anecdotal bias and representativeness, the FAQ no longer asks why stories are more persuasive than facts, and the article went from about 3,540 to about 1,990 words.

   Why: The underlying topic and its foundational research are sound, but the article had attached to them a set of studies that either say something different or could not be found at all. The most serious was a citation dating a study of a 1977 television broadcast to 1974, where the real paper of that year concerns an entirely different programme. Several other named researchers were credited with specific experimental designs and results that their cited works do not report. Corrections remove what cannot be verified, restore the actual designs and dates of the real studies, add a genuine meta-analysis in place of an unsupported general claim, and replace the stories-versus-facts framing with the distinction that matters practically, which is that narrative illustrates while representative data establishes prevalence.

   View the full record →

Contributors In This Page