Gretchen Gauvreau, Alex Haines, Eric Hartman, Emily Murray, & Spencer Peterson

Controversial topics are a part of our everyday lives

Billboards, broadcast news, magazines, web

How often do we see something for the first time and have altering views afterwards?

Study measuring effects of fictional framing on attitudes of 194 students Participants in experimental group watched Cider House

Rules regarding abortion & filled out questionnaire afterwards

Participants in control group solely filled out questionnaire

Results Viewers of Cider House were more likely to take a pro-choice

stance after viewing than were the participants of the control group who did not watch the video

Gerrig & Prentice- study measuring judgments and beliefs after being presented with fictional information

Fictional information either consistent with context or inconsistent with context

Participants- Yale undergraduate students

Participants read one of two fictional stories (one control group, one experimental group)

Results- information from fiction used to update real world belief

In an article produced by Blankenship & Craig 2011, language styles prove to be successfully used in persuading

“He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument, but in the right word”

-Joseph Conrad

Hypothesis: When provided with information, whether the information is true or not, the opinion of the individual will be altered on that specific topic

Participants

Recruited by being asked to participate in the study

43 participants, 27 female and 16 male

Age ranged from 18-57 years old

Materials

List of five questions

Scenario (true/condition 2 or false facts/condition 1)

Quarter

Writing utensil to record answers

Procedure

A coin was flipped before giving the pre-test to participants to assign them to one of two conditions

Participants were given the first sheet of paper with five questions, which was used as their pre-test

A Likert scale was used to assess the participants responses to the questions

After the participants filled out the first sheet of questions and read the scenario they were assigned, the same sheet of paper was given again as a post-test

Participants filled out the post-test and were then debriefed and told if they were given the true or false facts

We used a repeated measure ANOVA and t-test to interpret our data

Condition 1 (False Facts)• No significant differences were found in the pre-post test F (1,41) =

.001, p n.s. • The mean response for the pre-test was M = 2.714 SD = 1.309 and

for the post-test M = 2.857, SD = 1.108.

Condition 2 (True Facts)• No significant differences were found in the pre-post test F (1,41) =

1.178, p n.s. • The mean response for for the pre-test was M = 2.773, SD = 1.110

and for the post-test M = 2.636, SD = 1.136.

Independent T – Test• The Levine’s test was not significant F (1,41)= .211, p n.s. • There were no significant differences found t(41) = .645, p n.s.

Condition 1

• No significant differences were found in the pre-post test F (1,41) = .044 p n.s.

• The mean response for the pre-test was M = 3.238, SD = .995 and for the post-test M = 3.191, SD = .981.

Condition 2

The mean response for the pre-test was M = 3.273 SD = 1.120 and for the post-test M = 3.364, SD = 1.136.

There were no significant differences found with the pre-post test by condition F (1,41) = .450, p n.s.

Independent T – Test

The Levine’s test was not significant F (1,41) = 1.1, p n.s. and

There were no significant differences found t(41) = -.534, p n.s.

We omitted question 3 because it asked how often were you spanked as a child and that answer won’t change regardless if you read true or false facts

Condition 1 No significant differences were found in the pre-post test F (1,41) = .941, p

n.s. The mean response for the pre-test was M = 2.857, SD = 1.101 and for the

post-test M = 3.048, SD = 1.203.

Condition 2 . There were no significant differences found with the pre-post test F

(1,41) = .941, p n.s. The mean response for the pre-test was M = 2.136, SD = 1.246 and for the

post-test M = 2.227, SD = 1.066.

Independent T – Test The Levine’s test was not significant F (1,41) = .085, p n.s. A significant difference was found when we used a t-test t(41) = 2.369, p =

.023. Condition 1 M = 3.048 SD = 1.203 Condition 2 M = 2.227 SD = 1.066

Condition 1 No significant differences were found in the pre-post test F (1,41) = 3.728, p n.s. The mean response for the pre-test was M = 2.571, SD = 1.207 and for the post-

test M = 3.286, SD = 1.056.

Condition 2 There was also no significant differences found with the pre-post test by

condition F (1,41) = 3.728, p n.s. The mean response for condition two for the pre-test was M = 2.500, SD = 1.185

and for the post-test M = 2.500, SD = 1.371. There was also no significant differences found with the pre-post test by condition F (1,41) = 3.728, p n.s.

Independent T – Test The Levine’s test was not significant F (1,41) = 2.471, p n.s. A significant difference was found for the responses for question five when we

used a t-test t(41) = 2.098, p = .042. Condition 1 M = 3.286 SD = 1.056 Condition 2 M = 2.500 SD = 1.371

No significance found between pre and post in questions 1, 2, 4, or 5

Eliminated question 3

Not consistent with findings of similar studies:

Mulligan & Habel – experimental group more likely to take a pro-choice stance after control group who did not watch the video

Gerrig & Prentice – info from fiction (stories read) is used to update real world beliefs

Why?

Visual representation

Source specification

Strength of scenarios

Phrasing of questions

Threats to validity

Limitations:

Limited demographic

Timeframe

Not optimal testing method

Visual vs. written

Limited questionnaire

Future Research

Non-controversial topic

Setting

Cohort effect?

Gender specific?

Education

Blankenship, K. L., & Craig, T. Y. (2011). Language use and persuasion: Multiple roles for linguistic styles. Social And Personality Psychology Compass, 5(4), 194-205.

Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (1991). The representation of fictional information. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 2(5), 336-340.

Mulligan, K., & Habel, P. (2011). An Experimental Test of the Effects of Fictional Framing on Attitudes. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 92(1), 79-99.