When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias
Traci H. Freling,
Omar Itani and
Ryan Rashad Abualsamh
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2020, vol. 160, issue C, 51-67
The objective of this paper is to resolve mixed findings about which type of evidence is more persuasive—statistical or anecdotal information. In a meta-analysis of 61 papers exploring the persuasive impact of evidence type, we establish that, in situations where emotional engagement is high (e.g., an issue associated with a severe threat, involving a health issue, or affecting oneself), statistical evidence is less influential than anecdotal evidence. However, in situations where emotional engagement is relatively low (e.g., an issue associated with low threat severity, involving a non-health issue, or affecting others), statistical evidence is more persuasive than anecdotal evidence. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, and how to improve persuasive messaging by considering the contextual effectiveness of both anecdotes and statistics.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:160:y:2020:i:c:p:51-67
Access Statistics for this article
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes is currently edited by John M. Schaubroeck
More articles in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Haili He ().