Abstract
Stories have been shown to be engaging and aid the comprehension and retention of information. However, the persuasive power of storytelling is well-recognized. Is this an inherent property? Can a narrative be constructed that helps people engage with information but does not persuade them? We presented participants (n = 1309) with information about a fictional new drug and asked them whether they would license it on the basis of this. All saw the same information, in either a bullet-pointed list or as a 'process narrative'-a journalist's 'journey of discovery', designed to avoid persuasive language. Participants rated the narrative format a little more engaging than the non-narrative (p = 0.033, d = 0.12) and remembered the information in it slightly better (p = 0.040, d = 0.11). They did not rate the narrative version as more persuasive, but those reading it were on average more opposed to licensing the drug than those reading the non-narrative (p < 0.001, d = 0.18). Based on participants' responses to other questions, we speculate this may be owing to the increased salience of risks of the drug, arising from subtle differences in wording. Thus, while narratives may have useful properties, they must be carefully constructed to avoid unintentional effects.