Yan Huang

Two experiments examined whether emphasizing a common ingroup identity with racially different characters, operationalized as university affiliation with an African American character (Study 1) and parent identity with an Asian American character (Study 2), enhanced the impact of victim narratives. Findings indicate that emphasizing a common ingroup identity increased perceived similarity and identification with the character and reduced perceived social distance, which then fostered greater support toward anti-racism movements and stronger intentions to intervene. Common-identity narratives were particularly effective among participants with higher prior prejudice, and the moderation effect was mediated by reduced social distance.

This experimental study examines how character type and misinformation exposure influence narrative effects on promoting COVID-19 vaccination for children on social media. A 2 (misinformation exposure: present vs. absent) × 2 (character type: positive vs. transitional) between-subjects experiment was conducted with 374 parents of children aged 5–11. Results showed that the transitional character elicited greater identification overall but had no main effect on persuasion outcomes. Its persuasive advantage was conditional. Among participants with recent misinformation exposure, the transitional character elicited more favorable vaccine attitudes. When misinformation exposure was absent, character type did not significantly influence persuasion outcomes. This conditional advantage was associated with self-persuasion and positive affect generated during narrative exposure. Theoretical implications for narrative and misinformation correction research as well as practical implications are discussed.

People tend to support social initiatives when they feel a psychological connection to the beneficiaries. This tendency often leads hospitality firms to prioritize social initiatives that appeal to customers over those that address the most urgent needs. While previous research has explored situations where people have pre-existing connections to beneficiaries, few studies have examined whether intentionally creating perceived closeness can achieve similar effects. This study explores whether linguistic framing using personal pronouns (“they” vs. “we”) can increase perceived closeness toward beneficiaries and, in turn, boost customers’ willingness to engage in social initiatives. Across two experiments, Study 1 found that using inclusive pronouns (“we”) enhanced perceived closeness to beneficiaries, which subsequently increased engagement intentions. Furthermore, Study 2 demonstrated that this pronoun framing effect was moderated by an individual’s power distance beliefs, the extent to which they perceive hierarchy when services are framed as exclusive. The pronoun framing effect was significant only among those with low power distance beliefs. These findings advance our theoretical understanding of how psychological distance can be strategically reduced through language used in campaign messages. They also offer practical guidance for hospitality managers seeking to design communication strategies that foster more meaningful and sustained customer engagement in social initiatives.

This study investigates the impact of narratives, message sidedness, and psychological uncertainty on promoting updated COVID-19 vaccination. A 2 (narrative vs. non-narrative) × 2 (one-sided vs. two-sided) × 2 (high vs. low uncertainty) between-subjects online experiment ( N = 600) revealed significant three-way interaction effects between narratives, sidedness, and uncertainty on vaccination attitudes and intentions. Specifically, when participants were primed to experience high uncertainty, the one-sided narrative was more persuasive than both the two-sided narrative and the one-sided nonnarrative message. Yet, under conditions of low uncertainty, distinct message types did not show differential persuasive effects. Moreover, the three-way interaction effects were mediated by emotional responses and counterarguing. Theoretical implications for narrative persuasion and practical implications for campaign message design are discussed.

A 2 (jargon vs. no jargon) × 3 (motive: control vs. accuracy vs. impression) between-subjects experiment examined the impact of jargon and processing motive in correcting climate change misinformation and promoting policy support. The results revealed a positive effect of jargon use when participants were asked to focus on accuracy during information processing. This effect was mediated by reduced anger, increased systematic processing, and enhanced perceptions of message credibility. However, jargon had a negative effect when no specific motive was induced, and it did not make a difference in correction outcomes when participants were asked to focus on making positive social impressions. These findings provide theoretical implications for information processing and practical insights for addressing misinformation in the context of climate change.

The study examines whether adding a refutational ending to narrative messages improves correction effectiveness and how the effect differs depending on whether the correction message is presented before or after exposure to misinformation. A 2 (narrative format: simple vs refutational narrative) × 2 (correction placement: prebunking vs debunking) between-subjects online experiment ( N = 281) with US participants was conducted to correct misinformation about human papilloma virus vaccines. The results suggested that the refutational narrative was more effective in reducing misbeliefs in prebunking, whereas the simple narrative was more effective in debunking. This interaction was further moderated by issue involvement. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

The literature has identified many challenges of misinformation correction. Scholars have proposed that the success of misinformation correction relies on the provision of a coherent and compelling alternative explanation that replaces the mental model established by misinformation. Narratives are considered a promising tool due to their unique way of portraying a complete course of events suggesting causal relationships between characters’ actions and outcomes, and their abilities to elicit engagement and reduce counterarguing. However, the accumulated empirical evidence has suggested that the effects of narrative correction are conditioned by other contextual or message factors. In this study, we evaluate how correction placement moderates the effects of narrative correctives in correcting anti-vaccine misinformation. An online experiment with a 2 (correction message format: narrative vs. nonnarrative) × 2 (correction placement: prebunking vs. debunking) between-subjects factorial design was conducted. The results reveal that when used as a prebunking strategy, a nonnarrative message was more effective than a narrative message in resisting the influence of subsequent misinformation exposure; by comparison, when used as a debunking strategy, a narrative message was more effective than a nonnarrative message in correcting the influence of misinformation that participants viewed earlier. The findings confirm the conditional benefits of narratives in misinformation correction. Theoretical implications for narrative persuasion and misinformation research and practical implications for health campaign design are discussed.

Native advertising has grown in popularity in recent years, and advertisers continue to look for ways to increase its effectiveness. Beyond the emphases of prior research on ad disclosure and format relevancy of native advertising, the current research contributes to the literature by first testing the relationship between the native ad and social media content by varying the thematic content relevancy of the ad (irrelevant vs. relevant) and second, adding media context effects to the equation by changing the thematic media content consistency (low vs. high) of the surrounding social media posts in the feed. Across three experiments, the ad relevancy effect was significant. The ad relevant to the surrounding content posts decreased ad intrusiveness and increased positive ad or brand attitude compared to an irrelevant ad in high media content consistency settings. In low media content consistency settings, the ad’s relevancy did not matter as much. Moderated mediation found that higher ad intrusiveness drove lower ad attitude and brand attitude for the irrelevant ad only in the high content consistency condition. This relationship did not occur for the low content consistency condition. The findings highlight the importance of testing thematic ad-content relevancy in digital media settings that present novel content presentation formats. Theoretical implications are provided regarding the psychological appeal of relevancy and the different media contexts where schema theory can be more or less applicable. Practical implications on how to place ‘in-feed’ native ads and how social media platforms may facilitate contextual ad targeting, given the different media content consistency backdrop, are discussed.