Affective Responses to Counter-Attitudinal Testimonials Drive Persuasive Effects: The Case of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Abstract

Overtly persuasive narratives such as testimonials pose significant challenges for theories of narrative persuasion. Such theories argue that overt persuasive intent diminishes entertainment and entertaining narratives reduce counterarguing. We propose that testimonial narratives instead have persuasive advantages through their ability to arouse message-consistent emotions and reduce affective reactance to the messages. Participants (n = 1478) were randomly assigned to read a testimonial narrative or a non-narrative article about physician-assisted suicide. Articles were perceived as highly persuasive and low in entertainment intent; the testimonial was higher than the non-narrative in perceived eudaimonic intent. As predicted, testimonials reduced counterarguing via increased meaningful affect and decreased affective reactance to the message. Interaction tests showed that these effects were stronger in counterattitudinal participants. Theoretical implications for understanding the effects of testimonial narratives, particularly when the narratives are eudaimonic, are discussed, as are innovations for measuring counterarguing and perceived message intent.