Fish Tales: How Narrative Modality,Emotion,and Transportation Influence Support for Sustainable Aquaculture

Abstract

Considerable research suggests narrative persuasion’s attitudinal and behavioral effects in health and environmental contexts. Whether the format of narrative presentation influences these effects, however, remains unclear. We use an online experiment (N = 2,225), comparing text and video conditions, to evaluate how exposure to narrative influences transportation, emotions, and risk-benefit perceptions and, in turn, how such perceptions affect attitudes and behavioral intentions toward sustainable aquaculture. Consistent with prior research, the text condition was more transporting than the video. Further, a serial mediation model shows transportation as leading to lower risk perception, higher benefit perception, and higher aquaculture support.

Keywords

narrative persuasion transportation emotion experiment aquaculture

Introduction

We tell stories for many reasons: to convey information, to build relationships, to persuade others—or sometimes, a combination of all three. Whatever the motivation, our innate sensitivity to narrative presents a question that social scientists have long considered: (How) Can stories be harnessed to achieve attitudinal and behavioral change? (Dahlstrom et al., 2017). To date, much narrative persuasion research has focused on human health, showcasing stories functioning as persuasive tools to encourage support for policy or prosocial behavior (e.g., Kreuter et al., 2007; Shen et al., 2015; Zebregs et al., 2015). Similarly, emerging research examines how narrative may influence attitudes, perceptions, and behavioral intentions with respect to environmental issues, such as climate change (e.g., Cooper & Nisbet, 2016). Whereas much research concludes that narrative works by “transporting” audiences through cognitive and emotional pathways (Green & Brock, 2000, 2002), how narrative medium (i.e., text or video) influences message effectiveness is less clear (Braddock & Dillard, 2016; Zebregs et al., 2015).

The present study addresses the impact of narrative persuasion by considering a contemporary science communication issue in which both human health and environmental risks are salient—namely, sustainable aquaculture production in the United States. While unfamiliar to many Americans (Rickard et al., 2018; Rickard et al., 2020; Witzling et al., 2020), aquaculture is on the rise and is increasingly touted as a way to reduce our reliance on imported seafood (and its related greenhouse gas emissions), while safeguarding wild fisheries. Like its land-based analogue, sustainable aquaculture practices broadly consider both ecological and social “carrying capacity” (Smaal & Van Duren, 2019); for instance, salmon farmers not only attempt to limit the chemical inputs (e.g., antibiotics) given to their fish but also consider how their farming operation may affect the “lived experience” (e.g., sights and smells) of surrounding coastal communities (e.g., D’Anna & Murray, 2015). As is the case with sustainable agriculture, sustainable aquaculture celebrates the local (e.g., a particular farm), while recognizing its role in the global (e.g., global food security and reduction of carbon emissions).

As calls to increase marine (i.e., ocean-based) aquaculture production (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2016; The White House, 2020) increase, Americans may find themselves increasingly faced with choices to purchase aquaculture products or support local aquaculture policies. Yet limited familiarity with the industry, and exposure to media coverage that has historically emphasized its environmental risks (Rickard & Feldpausch-Parker, 2016), may make many Americans at least initially hesitant about expressing their support. In the present study, through an experiment among U.S. residents, we examine how a narrative emphasizing the benefits of sustainable aquaculture may persuade individuals to support aquaculture development, how emotion and transportation may mediate these effects, and whether communication medium makes a difference. We present implications for narrative theory, as well as application to science communication messaging and avenues for future research.

Literature Review

Narrative Transportation

Whether a moralistic fairy tale, or a grisly crime report, stories captivate our attention; drawn into these imagined worlds, we root for the hapless knight, or fear the hardened criminal, at times oblivious to the passage of time or our physical surroundings. Such responses to stories have intrigued communication researchers for decades and motivated a substantial literature in the persuasive potential of narrative (Green & Brock, 2002). Differences in context (e.g., daily life vs. academic study), format (e.g., fictional book vs. news report), and medium (e.g., text vs. video) mean that a “story” can appear in myriad ways. For the purpose of this study, however, we define narrative as, “a representation of connected events and characters that has an identifiable structure, is bounded in space and time, and contains implicit or explicit messages about the topic being addressed” (Kreuter et al., 2007, p. 222).

Much narrative persuasion research has focused on human health (e.g., disease prevention) and provided evidence of attitudinal (e.g., supporting a policy) and behavioral (e.g., quitting smoking) effects (Braddock & Dillard, 2016; Kreuter et al., 2007; Shen et al., 2015; Zebregs et al., 2015). Analogous to the health context, emerging research has also begun to explore the role of narrative in communicating about environmental issues to inspire attitudinal or behavioral change (Bilandzic & Sukalla, 2019; Cooper & Nisbet, 2016; Rhodes et al., 2016). Several studies have found that narratives have the potential to increase motivation to engage in environmentally friendly actions, either by reducing message resistance (Moyer-Gusé et al., 2019), tapping into personal norms (Bilandzic & Sukalla, 2019), or accessing preexisting pro-environmental attitudes (Rhodes et al., 2016).

In addition to documenting persuasive effects of narrative, researchers have also focused on how narratives work—that is, identifying the mechanism(s) by which a story can bring about the anticipated effects in a reader. To this end, the concept of transportation, or absorption into a story (Green & Brock, 2000), has been widely applied. Proposed by Green and Brock (2002), the transportation-imagery model seeks to analyze the sensation of being “lost in a book,” or so engulfed in a story that the surrounding physical world seems to fade away. This experience is referred to as being “transported,” a process that brings about high cognitive and emotional involvement and, in turn, helps achieve persuasive effects by either augmenting story-consistent beliefs (Green & Brock, 2000, 2002) or reducing counterarguing (Dal Cin et al., 2004; Moyer-Gusé & Nabi, 2010). The ideal transportation experience is facilitated by highly involving, descriptive, and imagery-rich narratives (Green & Brock, 2000). When highly transported, individuals tend to report increased attitude change, empathy toward major characters, and an overall greater acceptance of story content (Green & Brock, 2002).

Emotion and Complex Thinking

As suggested above, narratives often elicit strong affective responses as compared to nonnarrative content (Cooper & Nisbet, 2016; Dunlop et al., 2010; Murphy et al., 2013)—responses that can mediate the relationship between narrative exposure and attitudinal or behavior change (Bilandzic & Sukalla; 2019; Cooper & Nisbet; 2016; Dunlop et al., 2010). Through two experiments examining the interplay between narrative involvement, affect, risk perceptions, and environmental policy preference, Cooper and Nisbet (2016) determined that narrative involvement in a negatively valenced environmental film increased the likelihood of negative affective response, which, in turn, increased risk perceptions and policy support (i.e., stricter regulation) related to hydrofracking, a controversial and timely environmental issue. Similarly, Bilandzic and Sukalla (2019) found that guilt (measured as a discrete emotion) mediated the relationship between exposure to a fictional film about climate change and pro-environmental behavioral intentions, with intentions strengthening as guilt increased.

In addition to activating affective response, narratives may also spur more nuanced thinking about a given issue—particularly important in the case of emergent, and sometimes controversial, environmental issues. Notably, in a mixed method, quasi-experimental study in which participants received an informational, persuasive (two-sided, refutational argument), or a narrative text about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Dinsmore et al. (2017) found that exposure to the narrative increased the complexity with which the undergraduate participants answered two stimuli-related questions about GMOs (e.g., “Do you think farmers should use GMOs, why or why not?”). Positing the application of their results, the authors conclude,

If the goal is to change individuals’ views about a contentious scientific issue, persuasive text might well play a role in changing those views. However, if the goal is helping individuals understand the complexity of the problem at hand (GMOs in this case), narrative text may actually be more helpful—one interpretation being that narrative (or informational) text may not make the reader resistant to further processing and use of evidence (Dinsmore et al., 2017, p. 808).

As Dinsmore et al. (2017) suggest, whether GMOs, hydrofracking, or sustainable aquaculture (as will be discussed below), many contemporary environmental issues elude a simple categorization of “good” or “bad,” “right” or “wrong.” Instead, these socio-ecological issues pose both potential benefits (e.g., job creation, food sources) and risks (e.g., pollution, health effects) to landscapes, wildlife, and people alike; identifying—and weighing—these risks and benefits may be particularly critical as citizens are asked to make decisions at the individual and community levels.

Medium

As the previous review has suggested, from streaming video to print novel, narratives appear in many contexts and are increasingly delivered in a variety of formats. Whereas a narrative film provides access to copious (and often fast-paced) visual stimuli, a print text asks the reader to envision characters and settings at their own pace—all of which may affect the degree of transportation (Green & Brock, 2002) and/or the effectiveness of the narrative more generally. Yet whether the medium (or communication “channel”) of the narrative influences its effects on audiences remains unclear (e.g., Braddock & Dillard, 2007). For instance, in a recent meta-analysis examining the persuasive effects of health-related narratives, Shen et al. (2015) found narratives delivered through audio or video (considered as a single category) to be more effective, as measured by changes in attitudes, intentions, and behaviors, than those delivered through textual format. In contrast, other meta-analyses did not find format to be a significant moderator in determining persuasive effects (Braddock & Dillard, 2016; Zebregs et al., 2015). While the aforementioned meta-analyses failed to detect main effects via modality, importantly, modality may play an indirect role in affecting audiences. For instance, in an experimental study exposing participants to a popular fictional book and its movie counterpart, Green et al. (2008) found that individuals with high need for cognition (i.e., those who tend to enjoy effortful cognitive activity—see Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) experienced more transportation when reading the book, while individuals with low need for cognition experienced more transportation when watching the film.

While the effect (direct or indirect) of medium on narrative effectiveness remains an open question in the literature, its answer remains central to enhancing the utility of narrative as a communication strategy in applied contexts. For science communicators, understanding these differences is a critical component to crafting messages to encourage pro-social environmental behaviors.

Context: Aquaculture

While unfamiliar to many Americans (Rickard et al., 2020; Runge et al., 2021), aquaculture, or the production of finfish, shellfish, and sea vegetables in water environments, contributes more than 50% of all seafood consumed globally (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020). Because the United States relies heavily on importing seafood, aquaculture advocates suggest that increasing domestic production can both minimize the “seafood trade deficit” (NOAA, 2016) and reduce pressure on wild fisheries (Hixon, 2014); however, certain types of aquaculture production, such as raising salmon in ocean net pens, have raised environmental and human health concerns, including elevated levels of pesticides and heavy metals in effluent runoff and harvested fish (Diana, 2009; Hites et al., 2004; Schlag, 2010). As the United States pledges to increase aquaculture production (NOAA, 2016; The White House, 2020)—and as calls to safeguard domestic seafood production intensify during the COVID-19 pandemic (NOAA, 2020)—aquaculture operations will increasingly enter our communities. Thus, securing public support for aquaculture policies and products becomes a timely and critical endeavor. In the present study, we examine the extent to which narratives about sustainable aquaculture—that is, aquaculture practices intended to limit environmental impact by accounting for both biophysical and social impacts—might persuade the U.S. public to support aquaculture development and whether the communication medium makes a difference.

In addition to exploring potential effects of narrative medium, the present study also integrates recent applied social science research highlighting risk-benefit perceptions as particularly important to explaining public support for aquaculture products and policies, at least in a Western cultural context. Though the topic may be unfamiliar to many audiences, North American (D’Anna & Murray, 2015; Hall & Amberg, 2013; Rickard, et al., 2018; Rickard et al., 2020; Witzling et al., 2020) and European (Feucht & Zander, 2015; Schlag & Ystgaard, 2013) audiences appear to harbor at least some concern for possible negative impacts of aquaculture, but they also recognize possible environmental and economic benefits at the community and national levels posed by the industry. These risk-benefit perceptions, in turn, account for a considerable amount of variance in general support for aquaculture (Rickard et al., 2020).

Sustainable aquaculture is also an interesting case to consider because it is less overtly controversial or politicized than topics examined in past environmental narrative research (e.g., GMOs, climate change, hydrofracking; see Cooper & Nisbet, 2016; Dinsmore et al., 2017) and, thus, may produce different effects. Yet the topic of aquaculture is nonetheless political. That is, decisions about how and where to grow seafood (and which kind(s) of seafood) inherently involve value-laden decisions at the individual, community, and societal levels (Hanes, 2018; Johnson & Hanes, 2017). At the same time, the topic is novel to many Americans, suggesting that perceptions of its risks and benefits may stem more from evaluation of information sources, rather than knowledge of “objective” risk (Rickard et al., 2020; Runge et al., 2021). For these reasons, we see a unique opportunity to examine narrative effects in this context.

Finally, this project represents a small piece of a large, federally funded, transdisciplinary effort related to supporting sustainable marine aquaculture development in a coastal U.S. state (Johnson et al., 2019). While our goal in this study was to answer questions about the effects of narrative format on attitudinal and behavior change, other work has highlighted how support for local aquaculture development may hinge on, for instance, how communities value historic and present uses of the coast (Johnson & Hanes, 2019), or the effects of trust or social license (Runge et al., 2021). Whether sustainable aquaculture should be pursued by such communities as a solution for improving environmental and food security issues is a critical question worthy of community deliberation but is beyond the scope of this article.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The present study considers how exposure to a narrative emphasizing the advantages of sustainable aquaculture may influence risk-benefit perceptions and, in turn, how such perceptions affect subsequent attitude and behavioral intentions. Given inconsistent findings in the literature regarding the effect of narrative medium on transportation, we first ask,

Research Question 1 (RQ1): Does a narrative video lead to higher level of transportation than a narrative text?

Further, because the study will employ stimuli with a positive valence (described below), compared to the no-message control, and because the process of transportation has been linked to emotional response, we predict,

Hypothseis 1 (H1): Exposure to the experimental conditions (narrative video and narrative text) will decrease negative emotions (H1a) and increase positive emotions (H1b).

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Transportation will be positively related to both negative (H2a) and positive emotions (H2b).

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Exposure to the experimental conditions (narrative video and narrative text) will decrease risk perception (H3a) and increase benefit perception (H4b) related to sustainable aquaculture, as compared to the control condition.

We also predict that those in the experimental conditions will express greater support for aquaculture (e.g., acceptance of policy—see below). Stated formally,

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Participants in the experimental groups will report higher support for sustainable aquaculture than those in the control group.

Finally, to assess direct and indirect effects on aquaculture policy support, and following Cooper and Nisbet (2016), we test a serial mediation model as illustrated in Figure 1. Specifically, we examine the indirect effect of the experimental condition on support for aquaculture, as mediated through narrative transportation, positive (and/or negative) emotion, risk perception, and benefit perception.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model with hypotheses.

Method

To recruit participants, we contracted with the survey firm Qualtrics, who fielded the online survey between October 11 and November 7, 2019. Qualtrics provided a sample of U.S. residents recruited through a “proprietary blend” of online channels. The sample matched U.S. census data on three “quota variables” (i.e., age, income, and political ideology). In addition, the study sample included an approximately even split of individuals residing in urban/suburban metropolitan areas and rural areas. Finally, we oversampled 19 coastal U.S. states¹ to ensure that the sample included adequate numbers of individuals who live in states where finfish, shellfish, and/or sea vegetable marine aquaculture currently takes place, and/or may take place in the future (overall N = 3,600).

While the overall experiment contained two other conditions, given our focus on narrative in the present analysis, we excluded participants assigned to the conditions unrelated to narrative (i.e., a text-only information condition and an infographic video condition). Thus, in this study, we included participants who were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: the narrative video (n = 684), the narrative text (n = 636), and the no-message control group (n = 905). The resulting sample size was 2,225.

The narrative video, which we produced in collaboration with celebrity seafood chef and author Barton Seaver (Liu, 2019), featured the chef in his home kitchen where he discusses gathering seafood as a child growing up in the Chesapeake Bay to sourcing sustainable aquaculture products in his restaurants. Throughout the video, he discusses changing sentiments about the aquaculture industry, prompted in large part by a “watershed moment” he experiences as a young chef:

I was putting together my first menu, a very personal narrative about what of my past I wanted to share with my guests, and I called up my fish purveyor and said, “Send me bluefish, striped bass, blue crabs, oysters. I want all the things I loved when I was a kid.” And he said to me, “Kid, what are you talking about? We ate all of those. What else do you want?” And I realized right then and there, that the way that we eat largely determines how this world is used. And that the choices that I make as a chef—have a responsibility for that—to make sure that I’m not harming the environments that sustain us.

From here, Seaver describes a transformation from viewing aquaculture as “farmed and dangerous” (in his early career) to his present status as an aquaculture supporter. In his words: “[Aquaculture] is no longer an impediment to environmental sustainability—rather, I see it as a gateway to it” (Liu, 2019). The narrative text condition featured a transcript of the video, introduced to participants as a segment from a documentary about marine aquaculture in the United States. Two sets of attention checks were included: (1) a recall question regarding the topic discussed in the stimuli and (2) a simple attention check that required participants to mark a specific response option for a multiple-choice question. Participants who failed the attention checks were automatically screened out. Median survey completion time was about 11 minutes.

Measures

Transportation

We used 11 items from the 12-item transportation scale (Green & Brock, 2000), measured on a scale from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much. We modified the wording slightly so the items were applicable to either the reading or the viewing experience. On reliability check, these items were averaged into an index for transportation (M = 4.17, SD = 1.20, α = .85).

Emotions

We measured the extent to which participants experienced five negative emotions (anxious, angry, worried, guilty, and sad) and four positive emotions (hopeful, inspired, encouraged, optimistic) when thinking about aquaculture (0 = not at all; 6 = very much). These emotions are frequently used to assess discrete emotions (see, e.g., Nabi et al., 2018). Exploratory factor analysis indicated that these items loaded onto two factors (KMO [Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin] = .86, p < .001; eigenvalue for negative emotion: 4.12, eigenvalue for positive emotion: 2.93). Both scales had high reliability, so these items were averaged together to create an index for negative emotion (M = 1.64, SD = 1.54, α = .90) and an index for positive emotion (M = 3.27, SD = 1.76, α = .95).

Risk and Benefit Perception

We measured respondents’ perceived risk and benefit of aquaculture products and processes with 10 items measured using a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), adapted from Hall and Amberg (2013). Exploratory factor analysis indicated that these items loaded onto two factors (KMO = .84, p < .001; eigenvalue for benefit factor: 3.44, eigenvalue for risk factor: 2.32). Therefore, five items were averaged into an index for risk perception (M = 4.05, SD = 0.92, α = .76), and five items were averaged into an index for benefit perception (M = 5.07, SD = 0.96, α = .84).

Support for Aquaculture

Using a scale from 1 = extremely unlikely to 7 = extremely likely, we used five items to measure participants’ support for marine aquaculture research, support for operations in the United States and operations outside of the United States, as well as intention to purchase aquaculture products (Rickard et al., 2020). Due to high reliability and unidimensionality, these items were averaged into an index for support (M = 4.74, SD = 1.29, α = .91).

Control Variables

In addition to demographic variables, we also measured participants’ political ideology related to social issues and economic issues (1 = very liberal; 7 = very conservative). These three items were averaged into an index for political ideology due to high reliability (α = .97). In addition, we measured environmental attitude using the 15-item New Ecological Paradigm (Dunlap et al., 2000) on a 7-point scale (α = .84).² To gauge participants’ general evaluation of the stimuli, we used four items to measure whether they thought the information was credible, interesting, informative, and relevant to their lives (M = 5.14, SD = 1.20, α = .87, 7-point scale). We also measured whether participants owned or rented a house within 50 miles of a coast and how frequently they visited coastal areas (1 = daily; 6 = never). Finally, we measured how often they consumed seafood (0 = never; 4 = daily). Table 1 shows demographic and individual characteristics of the sample.

Table 1.

Sample Demographic and Individual Characteristics.

Variables	Sample percentage or M (SD)	Test for differences by condition, χ²/p or F/p
Age, years	46.08 (16.06)	F(2, 2222) = 2.61, p = .07
Female	81.7%	χ²₍₂₎ = 0.72, p = .70
White	79.9%	χ²₍₂₎ = 7.10, p = .03
Education		F(2, 2222) = 1.03, p = .36
Less than high school	1.1%
High school/GED	20.2%
Some college	25.2%
2-year college degree	12.8%
4-year college degree	26.9%
Master’s degree	11.9%
Doctoral degree or beyond	2.0%
Household income		F(2, 2222) = 2.80, p = .06
Less than $10,000	5.8%
$10,000-$14,999	4.0%
$15,000-$24,999	8.7%
$25,000-$34,999	11.8%
$35,000-$49,999	13.5%
$50,000-$74,999	24.4%
$75,000-$99,999	13.3%
$100,000-$149,999	12%
$150,000-$199,999	3.6%
More than $200,000	2.7%
Political ideology	3.84 (2.12)	F(2, 2222) = 0.82, p = .44
Environmental attitude	6.41 (1.09)	F(2, 2222) = 2.09, p = .13
Rent or own a house within 50 miles of a coast	25.8%	χ²₍₂₎ = 1.20, p = .55
Frequency of vising coastal areas		F(2, 2222) = 0.61, p = .54
Daily	4.6%
Weekly	5.7%
Monthly	8.4%
A few times per year	28.3%
At least once per year	29.5%
Never	23.5%
Frequency of seafood consumption		F(2, 2222) = 0.43, p = .65
Never	10.4%
Rarely	15.9%
Once a month	32.3%
Weekly	39.1%
Daily	2.3%

Results

A series of ANOVA (analysis of variance) and chi-square tests indicated that random assignment was successful based on all individual characteristics except for race. White participants were overly represented in the control group. Participants also evaluated the narrative video more positively (M = 5.22, SD = 1.21) than the narrative text (M = 5.05, SD = 1.19), F(1, 1318) = 6.61, p < .05.

With regard to RQ1, the narrative text (M = 4.24, SD = 1.17) generated a higher level of transportation than the narrative video (M = 4.10, SD = 1.22), F(1, 1318) = 4.86, p < .05. Message evaluation (r = .78, p < .001), seafood consumption (r = .29, p < .001), environmental attitude (r = .26, p < .001), age (r = .11, p < .001), frequency of visits to coastal areas (r = −.18, p < .001), and political ideology (r = −.06, p < .05) were significantly correlated with transportation. Participants who rented or owned property near the ocean were more transported than those who did not (t = 7.28, p < .001).

Negative emotion did not differ across the conditions, but the narrative video generated higher positive emotion than the control group, F(2, 2222) = 4.04, p < .05. Thus, H1a was not supported, but H1b was partially supported. Message evaluation was positively related to both negative emotion (r = .15, p < .001) and positive emotion (r = .58, p < .001). Environmental attitude was also significantly related to both negative emotion (r = .24, p < .001) and positive emotion (r = .19, p < .001). Participants who consumed more seafood reported more negative emotion (r = .06, p < .05) and more positive emotion (r = .29, p < .001). In contrast, participants who visited coastal areas more frequently reported less negative emotion (r = −.14, p < .001) and less positive emotion (r = −.18, p < .001). Coastal homeowners/renters also reported more negative emotion (t = 4.63, p < .001) and more positive emotion (t = 6.55, p < .001). Interestingly, non-White participants reported more positive emotion than White participants, t = 2.96, p < .01. Male participants also reported more positive emotion than females, t = 3.21, p < .01. Older participants reported lower negative emotion (r = −.15, p < .001), but higher positive emotion (r = .12, p < .001). Transportation was positively related to both negative emotion (r = .27, p < .001) and positive emotion (r = .66, p < .001), supporting H2.

Compared to the control condition, both experimental groups reported lower risk perception, F(2, 2222) = 22.57, p < .001; and higher benefit perception, F(2, 2222) = 14.60, p < .001. Thus, H3 was supported. Specifically, the narrative video led to lower risk perception (M = 3.88, SD = 0.92) than the narrative text (M = 4.02, SD = 0.86), but the two groups did not differ in benefit perception. Environmental attitude was positively related to both risk perception (r = .17, p < .001) and benefit perception (r = .23, p < .001). Participants who consumed more seafood reported more risk perception (r = .04, p < .05) and more benefit perception (r = .21, p < .001), while those who visited coastal areas more frequently reported less risk perception (r = −.12, p < .001) and more benefit perception (r = −.09, p < .001). Coastal homeowners/renters also reported more risk perception (t = 3.36, p < .01) and more benefit perception (t = 2.66, p < .01). Participants with higher education reported more risk perception (r = .08, p < .001) and more benefit perception (r = .07, p < .001). Income was positively related to benefit perception (r = .07, p < .01), but it was not significantly related to risk perception. Political ideology was negatively related to risk perception (r = −.08, p < .001), but it was not significantly related to benefit perception. Minorities also reported significantly higher risk perception than White participants, t = 4.08, p < .001. Males reported higher benefit perception than females, t = 2.48, p < .05. Message evaluation was also positively related to benefit perception (r = .59, p < .001), but it was not significantly related to risk perception.

In terms of support, the narrative video (M = 4.87, SD = 1.33) led to higher support than both the control condition (M = 4.69, SD = 1.26) and the narrative text (M = 4.69, SD = 1.29), but there was no significant difference between the two latter groups, F(2, 2222) = 4.61, p < .05. Thus, H4 was partially supported. All control variables were significantly related to support for aquaculture. In particular, message evaluation (r = .64, p < .001), seafood consumption (r = .36, p < .001), environmental attitude (r = .26, p < .001), education (r = .06, p < .01), income (r = .05, p < .05), and age (r = .05, p < .05) were positively related to support; frequency of visitation to coastal areas (r = −.19, p < .001) and political ideology (r = −.09, p < .001) were negatively correlated with support. Coastal homeowners/renters also reported more support (t = 6.42, p < .001).

Using Model 6 with the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) in SPSS, which tested the serial mediation model using sequential regression analyses, controlling for all covariates, we found several significant indirect effects based on 5,000 bootstrap samples, which are shown in Figures 2 and 3. We also employed PROCESS Model 8 to test whether political ideology or environmental attitude moderated the serial mediation (Figures 2 and 3). Results indicated that there were no significant moderation effects.

Figure 2.

Serial mediation model results with negative emotions and risk perception.

Figure 3.

Serial mediation model results with positive emotions and benefit perception.

Discussion

Over the past two decades, social scientists have amassed considerable evidence to suggest the power of narrative to shift attitudes and behaviors. While the persuasiveness of a story may rest in its ability to “transport” us to other times and places, it remains unclear whether (and how) the medium matters. Previous research illuminates the relationship between narrative exposure and affect (or emotion), but more recent work (e.g., Cooper & Nisbet, 2016) suggests a need to apply process-driven approaches to uncover indirect narrative effects, and to control for individual differences that may also play a role in message effects. With this in mind, the current study investigated the effectiveness of an environmental narrative on support for sustainable aquaculture policies and products. Further, the experimental approach allowed us to examine whether medium (i.e., text vs. video) mattered in determining message effectiveness, and how the generation of emotion, risk and benefit perceptions, and transportation served as possible mediators in an indirect relationship between narrative exposure and support, while controlling for key individual differences, such as seafood consumption and environmental attitude. In the following section, we reflect on how our results inform communication theory, as well as possible practical applications, and next steps of this research.

Results indicate that the narrative text was more transporting than the narrative video conveying the same content, which is consistent with previous research (Green et al., 2008). This result suggests that reading, as opposed to watching, a narrative may leave more room for imagination, which allows participants to be more absorbed into the story. As illustrated in the serial mediation model, transportation is also an important mental process that leads to lower risk perception, higher benefit perception, and higher support for sustainable aquaculture. Of course, as Green et al. (2008) point out, differences in transportation by medium may be linked to individual differences, such as need for cognition, which was not measured in this study; we encourage future research in environmental narrative to incorporate this and other important variables (e.g., transportability, numeracy), especially if the narrative features technical, scientific content. In this study, although the narrative text was more transporting, the narrative video did lead to lower risk perception than the narrative text, which suggests that psychological processes other than transportation are at work in influencing participants’ reactions to the narrative video, which we detail below.

Results also support the effectiveness of narrative as a communication strategy to facilitate public understanding of sustainable aquaculture. In particular, the narrative video, which featured a chef describing his evolving opinion about selecting aquaculture ingredients, reduced risk perception, increased benefit perception, and elicited more positive emotion. As has recently been demonstrated in the context of other complex environmental issues, such as GMOs (Dinsmore et al., 2017), our results suggest the potential to use narrative persuasion strategically to influence perceived risks and benefits of sustainable aquaculture. Specifically, the narrative format may make the reader less resistant to further processing of relevant evidence (Dinsmore et al., 2017, p. 808)—in some sense, serving as a “foot in the door” tactic to encourage further, more effortful deliberation of the issue. Although we did not measure deliberation directly, it is possible that mental elaboration was involved in influencing participants’ risk and benefit perception, in addition to emotional processes. Such systematic (or “central route”) information processing could, in turn, enable more lasting attitude change and behavioral intention (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). We encourage future research on narrative persuasion in the context of aquaculture to include direct measures of information processing.

The serial mediation model provided insights on indirect effects of the experimental stimuli on support for sustainable aquaculture. Importantly, results indicate that negative emotions reduced support for sustainable aquaculture through risk perception, while positive emotions increased benefit perception and support directly. Taken together, these findings complement and extend recent public opinion research, which has documented a relationship between positive emotion and public support for land-based aquaculture policy in Wisconsin (Witzling et al., 2020), as well as between benefit perceptions and general aquaculture support in the United States (Rickard et al., 2020). These results also support risk communication theories such as the affect heuristic in that people’s emotional reactions to risky topics influence their judgment of risks and benefits, which subsequently inform their support for policy issues (Finucane et al., 2000). To this end, our results suggest that negative emotions prompt people to more carefully evaluate the potential risk of sustainable aquaculture, whereas positive emotions are more likely to readily elicit support for sustainable aquaculture, perhaps because of the general good feelings people experience when thinking about this issue.

Finally, results indicate that certain individual characteristics may matter when determining support for sustainable aquaculture, suggesting implications for audience segmentation approaches. Although we failed to find a moderating effect of environmental attitude or political ideology in the serial mediation model described, we did find significant, positive correlations between these variables (specifically, with more pro-environmental attitudes and identifying as liberal) and support for aquaculture. These findings support recent public opinion surveys on aquaculture in the United States (Rickard et al., 2020; Witzling et al., 2020). In particular, the relationship between environmentalism and support for aquaculture suggests that an industry once widely dismissed by green activists may be garnering more favorable attention (see also Rickard & Feldpausch-Parker, 2016). Those who consume more seafood also tend to view aquaculture more favorably (Rickard et al., 2020), as well as those who are older, more educated, and report higher incomes. In addition, individuals with stronger place-based ties to coastal areas, such as through frequent visitation or living near the shore, experienced more negative emotion as well as positive emotions, perceived more risks as well as benefits, while at the same time, indicated stronger support for aquaculture. Whether such reactions stem from personal experience with nearby aquaculture operations, or from a more general “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) reaction to the aquaculture industry are critical questions that may be better explored through qualitative and/or mixed method approaches (e.g., D’Anna & Murray, 2015). Possibly, as previous research has suggested, those more directly familiar with aquaculture may be more likely to acknowledge both benefits and drawbacks to this complex environmental issue (e.g., Rickard et al., 2018).

In discussing our results, we also acknowledge this study’s limitations. First, although the Qualtrics sample matched census data on age, household income, and political ideology, our sample cannot be considered wholly representative of the U.S. population. In particular, we had a disproportionally high percentage of female participants and, in hindsight, should have included gender as a quota variable. Second, it is possible that the findings described may vary by other individual characteristics not controlled for in the current study, such as need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) and transportability (Mazzocco et al., 2010). Third, and perhaps most important, with the type of one-shot message testing employed in this study, we do not have evidence of any long-term effects. Future research should explore whether such narratives can lead to support for aquaculture in the long run—that is, beyond the constraints of a short online survey. Fourth, we included just a single narrative text and narrative video in this research, but much of the success of narrative persuasion, especially in the context of entertainment education, has historically been linked to other mass media platforms, such as radio, and formats, such as serial dramas (Sood et al., 2017). Thus, future research should consider exploring the utility of audio narrative as well. Last, similar to other survey-based research, the self-report data we collected in this study offer limited ecological validity to guide environmental communication practice. Future research should incorporate qualitative methodology such as in-depth interviews and focus groups to further untangle the cognitive and emotional processes that may influence public perceptions of sustainable aquaculture.

Practical Implications and Future Research

Narrative is a complex communicative structure, with broad application and no standard form (Dahlstrom et al., 2017). As a result, Dahlstrom et al. (2017) suggest that researchers seeking to explore generalizable effects on audiences should focus on advancing the external validity of the narrative experimental stimuli used. To this end, the video narrative developed for this study mirrored content already widely available online, suggesting promising results for the communication messaging already in use by the aquaculture sector. A visit to the website of the National Aquaculture Association, for instance, showcases a series of informational videos, including a 5-minute segment featuring Chef Barton Seaver making the case for sourcing U.S. farm-raised seafood (National Aquaculture Association, n.d.). Similarly, the website of the Maine Aquaculture Association provides several video testimonials, such as a story narrated by a local oyster grower describing his pride in preserving his familial heritage (Maine Aquaculture Association, 2020).

Importantly, while we designed this study to allow us to generalize to settings and circumstances beyond Maine, we also created the experimental stimuli through conversation with our stakeholders, including Sea Grant extension agents, growers, and Chef Barton Seaver, and a review of their current communication products. For these individuals, support for sustainable aquaculture is a normative goal—in the same way that lowering smoking incidence or increasing vaccination rates might be for a medical practitioner or health educator. Thus, our findings may speak to a normative desire to encourage greater support for sustainable aquaculture products and processes.

While these and other examples support the applied importance and ecological validity of our study, they also provide useful fodder for future research, including how attributes of the ascribed narrative source (e.g., nonprofit professional association) and the speaker (e.g., chef vs. aquaculturist) may influence aspects of narrative persuasion (Chaiken, 1980). Importantly, responses to aquaculture narratives may also depend on context-specific variables not measured in the current study, including one’s relationship with a physical location highlighted in a story (i.e., place attachment or sense of place; see, e.g., Lewicka, 2011), or emphasizing the role of (or effects on) the aquaculture industry during a global pandemic (NOAA, 2020; van Senten et al., 2020). Future research should account for these and other individual characteristics and contextual differences when evaluating effects of aquaculture messaging.

While the narrative stimuli developed for this study emphasized the positive attributes of aquaculture, future research might also explore how providing negatively valenced narratives (e.g., emphasizing the possible environmental risks of cultivating seafood, or alternatively, the possible losses associated with not cultivating seafood) might influence support for aquaculture. The inclusion of both positively and negatively (or, similarly, gain- or loss-) valenced narratives in a single study, or even in a single narrative (see, e.g., Robertson et al., 2002) would also allow for more direct comparison with recent research, which showed that positive narrative was less effective in reducing environmental risk perceptions (Cooper & Nisbet, 2016).

Finally, future research should consider how repeated exposure to a single narrative via multiple forms (e.g., reading a text, and then viewing a video) might influence message effectiveness over time. As Green et al. (2008) conclude, the combination of providing a narrative text, followed by a subsequent narrative video, may allow participants “the best of both worlds” in that they can “pace themselves and create an imagined narrative world, but on the second exposure . . . see that narrative world created for them on the screen” (p. 530). Whether this approach provokes transportation and attitudinal and behavioral effects for nonfiction content remains an important empirical question.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Portions of this research was presented at the 2020 Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) annual meeting.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by National Science Foundation award #1355457 to Maine EPSCoR at the University of Maine.

ORCID iDs

Laura N. Rickard

Janet Z. Yang

Sixiao Liu

Tabitha Boze

Notes

Author Biographies

Laura N. Rickard is an associate professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of Maine. She researches risk communication in the context of scientific, public health, and environmental issues. Presently, her research centers on two main applied contexts: (1) examining strategic messaging to influence climate change risk perceptions and behaviors and (2) understanding public perceptions of—and support for/opposition to—sustainable aquaculture development.

Janet Z. Yang is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. She studies communication issues related to a variety of risk, science, health, and environmental issues. In particular, her research examines cognitive and affective determinants of risk perceptions and their impact on information seeking, information sharing, and information processing.

Sixiao Liu is a doctoral candidate at the University at Buffalo. Her research focuses on the role of psychological distance and emotion in shaping people’s cognitive, affective, and behavioral response to narrative messages related to health and science issues.

Tabitha Boze is an MA student at the University of Maine. She studies environmental communication, with a special interest on green narratives.

References

Bilandzic

Sukalla

(2019). The role of fictional film exposure and narrative engagement for personal norms, guilt and intentions to protect the climate. Environmental Communication, 13, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1575259

Braddock

Dillard

J. P.

(2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83, 446-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555

Cacioppo

J. T.

Petty

R. E.

(1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116

Chaiken

(1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752

Cooper

K. E.

Nisbet

E. C.

(2016). Green narratives: How affective responses to media messages influence risk perceptions and policy preferences about environmental hazards. Science Communication, 38, 626-654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016666843

Dahlstrom

M. F.

Niederdeppe

Gao

Zhu

(2017). Operational and conceptual trends in narrative persuasion research: Comparing health-and non-health-related contexts. International Journal of Communication, 11, 4865-4885.

Dal Cin

Zanna

M. P.

Fong

G. T

. (2004). Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In Knowles

E. S.

Linn

J. A.

(Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 175-191). Lawrence Erlbaum.

D’Anna

L. M.

Murray

G. D.

(2015). Perceptions of shellfish aquaculture in British Columbia and implications for well-being in marine social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 20, 57. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07319-200157

Diana

D. S.

(2009). Aquaculture production and biodiversity conservation. BioScience, 59(1), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.1.7

10.

Dinsmore

D. L.

Zoellner

B. P.

Parkinson

M. M.

Rossi

A. M.

Monk

M. J.

Vinnachi

(2017). The effects of different types of text and individual differences on view complexity about genetically modified organisms. International Journal of Science Education, 39, 791-813. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1298871

11.

Dunlap

R. E.

Van Liere

K. D.

Mertig

A. G.

Jones

R. E.

(2000), New trends in measuring environmental attitudes. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176

12.

Dunlop

S. M.

Wakefield

Kashima

(2010). Pathways to persuasion: Cognitive and experiential responses to health-promoting mass media messages. Communication Research, 37, 133-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209351912

13.

Eagly

Chaiken

(1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.

14.

Feucht

Zander

(2015). Of earth ponds, flow-through and closed recirculation systems: German consumers’ understanding of sustainable aquaculture and its communication. Aquaculture, 438, 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.01.005

15.

Finucane

Alhakami

Slovic

Johnson

(2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S

16.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2020). Aquaculture. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/aquaculture/en/

17.

Green

M. C.

Brock

T. C.

(2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.701

18.

Green

M. C.

Brock

T. C.

(2002). In the mind’s eye: Transportation-imagery model of narrative persuasion. In Green

M. C.

Strange

J. J.

Brock

T. C.

(Eds.), Narrative impact (pp. 315–341). Erlbaum.

19.

Green

M. C.

Kass

Carrey

Herzig

Feeney

Sabini

(2008). Transportation across media: Repeated exposure to print and film. Media Psychology, 11, 512-539. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260802492000

20.

Hall

T. E.

Amberg

S. M.

(2013). Factors influencing consumption of farmed seafood products in the Pacific Northwest. Appetite, 66, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.02.012

21.

Hanes

S. P.

(2018). Aquaculture and the postproductive transition on the Maine coast. Geographical Review, 108(2), 185-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/gere.12247

22.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

23.

Hites

R. A.

Foran

J. A.

Carpenter

D. O.

Hamilton

M. C.

Knuth

B. A.

Schwager

S. J.

(2004). Global assessment of organic contaminants in farmed salmon. Science, 303(5655), 226-229. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091447

24.

Hixon

S. M.

(2014). Fish nutrition and current issues in aquaculture: The balance in providing safe and nutritious seafood, in an environmentally sustainable manner. Aquaculture Research & Development, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9546.1000234

25.

Johnson

T. R.

Beard

Brady

D. C.

Byron

C. J.

Cleaver

Duffy

Keeney

Kimble

Miller

Moeykens

Teisl

van Walsum

G. P.

Yuan

(2019). A social-ecological system framework for marine aquaculture research. Sustainability, 11(9), 2522. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092522

26.

Johnson

T. R.

Hanes

S. P.

(2017). Marine aquaculture in restructuring regions: Understanding a key coastal sustainability transition. Regions Magazine, 308, 13-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13673882.2017.11958670

27.

Johnson

T. R.

Hanes

S. P.

(2019). Considering social carrying capacity in the context of sustainable ecological aquaculture. In Heidkamp

C. P.

Morrissey

(Eds.), Towards coastal resilience and sustainability. Routledge.

28.

Kreuter

M. W.

Green

M. C.

Cappella

J. N.

Slater

M. D.

Wise

M. E.

Storey

Clark

E. M.

O’Keefe

D. J.

Erwin

D. O.

Holmes

Hinyard

L. J.

Houston

Woolley

(2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02879904

29.

Lewicka

(2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001

30.

Liu

(2019, July 24). Aquaculture [video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/5cJLPOScNPw

31.

Maine Aquaculture Association. (2020). Nate Perry on oyster, scallops and coexisting. Retrieved from https://maineaqua.org/video-gallery/

32.

Mazzocco

P. J.

Green

M. C.

Sasota

J. A.

Jones

N. W.

(2010). This story is not for everyone: Transportability and narrative persuasion. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 361-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610376600

33.

Moyer-Gusé

Nabi

R. L.

(2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36, 26-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x

34.

Moyer-Gusé

Tchernev

J. M.

Walther-Martin

(2019). The persuasiveness of a humorous environmental narrative combined with an explicit persuasive appeal. Science Communication, 41, 422-441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019862553

35.

Murphy

S. T.

Frank

L. B.

Chatterjee

J. S.

Baezconde-Garbanati

(2013). Narrative versus nonnarrative: The role of identification, transportation, and emotion in reducing health disparities. Journal of Communication, 63, 116-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12007

36.

Nabi

R. L.

Gustafson

Jensen

(2018). Framing climate change: Exploring the role of emotion in generating advocacy behavior. Science Communication, 40, 442-468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018776019

37.

National Aquaculture Association. (n.d.). Chef Barton Seaver talks about U.S. farm-raised seafood. Retrieved from http://thenaa.net/videos/chef-barton-seaver-talks-about-us-farm-raised-seafood

38.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. (2016). NOAA Fisheries Marine Aquaculture Strategic Plan. Retrieved from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaafisheries-marine-aquaculture-strategic-plan

39.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2020). NOAA Fisheries coronavirus update. Retrieved from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/noaa-fisheries-coronavirus-covid-19-update

40.

Rhodes

Toole

Arpan

L. M.

(2016). Persuasion as reinforcement: Strengthening the pro-environmental attitude-behavior relationship through ecotainment programming. Media Psychology, 19, 455-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1106322

41.

Rickard

L. N.

Britwum

Noblet

C. L.

Evans

K. S.

(2020). Factory-made or farm fresh? Measuring US support for aquaculture as a food technology. Marine Policy, 115, 103858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103858

42.

Rickard

L. N.

Feldpausch-Parker

A. M.

(2016). Of sea lice and superfood: A comparison of regional and national news media coverage of aquaculture. Frontiers in Communication: Science and Environmental Communication, 1, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2016.00014

43.

Rickard

L. N.

Noblet

C. L.

Duffy

Christian Brayden

(2018). Cultivating benefit and risk: Aquaculture representation and interpretation in New England. Society & Natural Resources, 31(12), 1358-1378. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1480821

44.

Robertson

R. A.

Carlsen

E. L.

Bright

(2002). Effect of information on attitudes towards offshore marine finfish aquaculture development in northern New England. Aquaculture Economics & Management, 6(1-2), 117-126.

45.

Runge

K. K.

Shaw

B. R.

Witzling

Hartleb

Yang

Peroff

D. M.

(2021). Social license and consumer perceptions of farm-raised fish. Aquaculture, 530, 735920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735920

46.

Schlag

A. K.

(2010). Aquaculture: An emerging issue for public concern. Journal of Risk Research, 13, 829-844. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669871003660742

47.

Schlag

A. K.

Ystgaard

(2013). Europeans and aquaculture: Perceived differences between wild and farmed fish. British Food Journal, 115(2), 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070701311302195

48.

Shen

Sheer

V. C.

(2015). Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 44, 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1018467

49.

Smaal

A. C.

Van Duren

L. A.

(2019). Bivalve aquaculture carrying capacity: Concepts and assessment tools. In Smaal

A. C.

Ferreira

J. G.

Grant

Petersen

J. K.

Strand

Ø.

(Eds.), Goods and services of marine bivalves (pp. 451-483). Springer Open.

50.

Sood

Riley

A. H.

Alarcon

K. C.

(2017). Entertainment-education and health and risk messaging. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.245

51.

The White House. (2020, May). Executive order on promoting American seafood competitiveness and economic growth. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-promoting-american-seafood-competitiveness-economic-growth/

52.

van Senten

Smith

M. A.

Engle

C. R

. (2020). Impacts of COVID-19 on US aquaculture, aquaponics, and allied businesses. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 51(3), 574-577. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12715

53.

Witzling

Shaw

B. R.

Yang

Runge

K. K.

Hartleb

C. F.

Peroff

D. M.

(2020). Predictors of environmental policy support: The case of inland aquaculture in Wisconsin. Environmental Communication, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1770308

54.

Zebregs

van den Putte

Neijens

de Graaf

(2015). The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 30, 282-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.842528