IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0226713.html

Narrative warmth and quantitative competence: Message type affects impressions of a speaker

Author

Listed:
  • Jenna L Clark
  • Melanie C Green
  • Joseph J P Simons

Abstract

Persuasion research often focuses on how source characteristics affect attitude change in response to a message; however, message characteristics may also alter perceptions of the source. The Message-Based Impression Formation effect (M-BIF) suggests that perceivers use features of messages to infer characteristics of the source, and that such inferences may have a variety of consequential outcomes. In particular, the choice of narrative versus statistical evidence may have implications for the perceived warmth and competence of a source. In five experiments, narrative arguments led to greater perceptions of source warmth and statistical arguments led to greater perceptions of source competence. Across the two behavioral studies, a matching effect emerged: participants preferred to work on cooperative tasks with partners who had provided narratives, and competitive tasks with partners who had provided statistical evidence. These results suggest that the evidence type chosen for everyday communications may affect person perception and interpersonal interaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Jenna L Clark & Melanie C Green & Joseph J P Simons, 2019. "Narrative warmth and quantitative competence: Message type affects impressions of a speaker," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226713
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226713
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226713&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0226713?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Peter A. Ubel & Aleksandra Jankovic & Holly A. Derry & Dylan M. Smith, 2007. "Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 672-680, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chin, Alycia & VanEpps, Eric M. & Scholl, Brian & Nash, Steven, 2025. "How should I know? Lack of confidence biases stock market expectations toward zero," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    2. Yaniv Hanoch & Talya Miron-Shatz & Mary Himmelstein, 2010. "Genetic testing and risk interpretation: How do women understand lifetime risk results?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(2), pages 116-123, April.
    3. Jessica R. Carré & Shelby R. Curtis & Daniel N. Jones, 2023. "Making decisions affecting oneself versus others: The effect of interpersonal closeness and Dark Triad traits," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(1), pages 328-340, January.
    4. Nida Gizem Yılmaz & Arwen H. Pieterse & Danielle R. M. Timmermans & Annemarie Becker & Birgit Witte-Lissenberg & Olga C. Damman, 2025. "Use of Adaptive Conjoint Analysis–Based Values Clarification in a Patient Decision Aid Is Not Associated with Better Perceived Values Clarity or Reduced Decisional Conflict but Enhances Values Congruence," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(1), pages 109-123, January.
    5. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    6. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., "undated". "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274040, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Carina Oedingen & Raf Gestel & Samare P. I. Huls & Georg Granic & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Jorien Veldwijk, 2025. "Association of medication adherence with treatment preferences: incentivizing truthful self-reporting," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 26(7), pages 1219-1232, September.
    8. Stortz, Laura & Lee, Yu Na & Von Massow, Michael, 2020. "Do Front-of-Package Warning Labels Reduce Demand for Foods ‘High In’ Saturated Fat, Sugar, or Sodium?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304581, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Laura D. Scherer & Krithika Suresh & Carmen L. Lewis & Kirsten J. McCaffery & Jolyn Hersch & Joseph N. Cappella & Brad Morse & Channing E. Tate & Bridget S. Mosley & Sarah Schmiege & Marilyn M. Schapi, 2023. "Assessing and Understanding Reactance, Self-Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation and Information Conflict in Reaction to Overdiagnosis in Mammography Screening: Scale Development and Preliminary Validation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(7-8), pages 789-802, October.
    10. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    11. Aseervatham, Vijay & Jaspersen, Johannes G. & Richter, Andreas, 2015. "The affection effect in an incentive compatible insurance demand experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 34-37.
    12. Gignac, Gilles E. & Stevens, Elizabeth M., 2024. "Attitude toward numbers: A better predictor of financial literacy and intelligence than need for cognition," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    13. Ellen Peters & Brittany Shoots-Reinhard, 2022. "Numeracy and the Motivational Mind: The Power of Numeric Self-efficacy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(6), pages 729-740, August.
    14. Yaniv Hanoch & Jonathan Rolison & Alexandra M. Freund, 2019. "Reaping the Benefits and Avoiding the Risks: Unrealistic Optimism in the Health Domain," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 792-804, April.
    15. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    16. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Paul Slovic, 2021. "Low numeracy is associated with poor financial well-being around the world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-15, November.
    17. Peter H. Schwartz & Kieran C. O’Doherty & Colene Bentley & Karen K. Schmidt & Michael M. Burgess, 2021. "Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(5), pages 527-539, July.
    18. Kelsie Raspin & Daisy Nowakowski & Joanne L. Dickinson & Jessica Roydhouse, 2026. "A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Measures for Individuals Who Underwent Genetic Testing for Heritable Cancer," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 19(2), pages 197-220, March.
    19. Talya Miron-Shatz & Yaniv Hanoch & Benjamin A. Katz & Glen M. Doniger & Elissa M. Ozanne, 2015. "Willingness to test for BRCA1/2 in high risk women: Influenced by risk perception and family experience, rather than by objective or subjective numeracy?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 386-399, July.
    20. Andrea Kampmann & Burkhard Pedell, 2022. "Using Storytelling to Promote Organizational Resilience: An Experimental Study of Different Forms of Risk Communication," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 695-725, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226713. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.