Measuring narrative believability: Development and validation of the narrative believability scale (NBS-12)

Journal of Communication

Volumn 63, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 578-599

  Yale, Robert N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; PSYCHOLOGY; RESEARCH;

EID: 84878712955     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12035     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Adaval, R., Isbell, L. M., & Wyer, R. S. (2007). The impact of pictures on narrative- and list-based impression formation: A process interference model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 352-364. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.005
2. Bennett, W. L. & Feldman, M. S. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
3. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
4. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
5. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23(1), 75-91. doi: 10.1023/A:1022326807441
6. Busselle, R. & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and perceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory, 18(2), 255-280. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x
7. Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321-347. doi: 10.1080/15213260903287259
8. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302. doi: 10.1037/h0040957
9. Dahlstrom, M. F. (2010). The role of causality in information acceptance in narratives: An example from science communication. Communication Research, 37(6), 857-875. doi: 10.1177/0093650210362683
10. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Diamond, S. S., & Rose, M. R. (2005). Real juries. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 255-284. doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.120002
12. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1986). Judging probable cause. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 3-19. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.99.1.3
13. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 56. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540119
14. Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (1991). The representation of fictional information. Psychological Science, 2(5), 336-340. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00162.x
15. de Graaf, A., Hoeken, H., Sanders, J., & Beentjes, J. W. J. (2011). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research. doi: 10.1177/0093650211408594
16. Green, M. C. (2002). Narrative worlds, real impact: How stories affect beliefs. IGEL 2002 Proceedings. Retrieved from http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/igel/IGEL2002/Proceedings.htm
17. Green, M. C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, S163-S183. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00288.x
18. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701-721. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
19. Hannaford, P. L., Hans, V. P., Mott, N. L., & Munsterman, G. T. (2000). The timing of opinion formation by jurors in civil cases: An empirical examination. Tennessee Law Review, 67, 627-652.
20. Hayes, A. F. (2005, November). A computational tool for survey shortening applicable to composite attitude, opinion, and personality measurement scales. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Midwestern Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, IL.
21. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
22. Huntley, J. E., & Costanzo, M. (2003). Sexual harassment stories: Testing a story-mediated model of juror decision-making in civil litigation. Law and Human Behavior, 27(1), 29-51. doi: 10.1023/A:1021674811225
23. Jensen, J. D., Bernat, J. K., Wilson, K. M., & Goonewardene, J. (2011). The delay hypothesis: The manifestation of media effects over time. Human Communication Research, 37(4), 509-528. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01415.x
24. McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90-103. doi: 10.1080/03637759909376464
25. Moyer-Gusé, E., Chung, A. H., & Jain, P. (2011). Identification with characters and discussion of taboo topics after exposure to an entertainment narrative about sexual health. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 387-406. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01551.x
26. Murphy, S. T., Frank, L. B., Moran, M. B., & Patnoe-Woodley, P. (2011). Involved, transported, or emotional? Exploring the determinants of change in knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in entertainment-education. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 407-431. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01554.x
27. Nevitt, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2000). Improving the root mean square error of approximation for nonnormal conditions in structural equation modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68(3), 251-268. doi: 10.1080/00220970009600095
28. Nuland, S. B. (1994). How we die. New York, NY: Knopf.
29. Peck, M. J. (2004). Construction of the corporate litigation bias scale (CLBS): Measuring civil juror attitudes toward corporate defendants and individual plaintiffs. Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. AAT3153978.
30. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 521-533. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.521
31. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519-557.
32. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 189-206. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189
33. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). Reasoning in explanation-based decision making. Cognition, 49(1-2), 123-163. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(93)90038-w
34. Rideout, J. C. (2008). Storytelling, narrative rationality, and legal persuasion. The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute, 14, 53-86.
35. Rothschild, F. D., Siemer, D. C., & Bocchino, A. J. (2004). State v. Lawrence (2nd ed.). Louisville, CO: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.
36. Sande, I. G. (1982). Imputation in surveys: Coping with reality. The American Statistician, 36(3), 145-152.
37. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243-248. doi: 10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y
38. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
39. Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173-191. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x
40. Studenmund, A. H. (2010). Using econometrics: A practical guide (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
41. Tal-Or, N., Boninger, D. S., Poran, A., & Gleicher, F. (2004). Counterfactual thinking as a mechanism in narrative persuasion. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 301-328. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00734.x
42. Weinstock, M. (2011). Knowledge-telling and knowledge-transforming arguments in mock jurors' verdict justifications. Thinking and Reasoning, 17(3), 282-314. doi: 10.1080/13546783.2011.575191
43. Weinstock, M., & Cronin, M. A. (2003). The everyday production of knowledge: Individual differences in epistemological understanding and juror-reasoning skill. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(2), 161-181. doi: 10.1002/acp.860
44. Weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (2004). Evidence coverage and argument skills: Cognitive factors in a juror's verdict choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 191-212. doi: 10.1002/bdm.470