arbiter
JournalsAccount

Verbal persuasion in marketing: A multimethod meta-analysis of analytical and narrative processing

Davide C. Orazi et al.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science2025https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-025-01095-4article
FT50AJG 4*ABDC A*
Weight
0.53

Abstract

Customers process persuasive verbal messages through analytical or narrative routes. Extant marketing research offers limited findings regarding the relative effectiveness of different communication antecedents to these routes; neither does it sufficiently specify if and how communication modalities (written vs. audio) and product/service type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) moderate their impact. To address this gap, the current article presents the results of a multimethod investigation. With a meta-analysis, Study 1 establishes the differential effects of antecedents on analytical and narrative processing and the moderating roles of both modality and product/service type. Study 2 gathers the expectations of marketing professionals to provide a comparison with the meta-analytic findings, highlighting areas of misalignment and a relevant managerial question pertaining to the effects of blended analytical–narrative messages. Study 3 addresses this relevant question with an experimental approach. The combined results offer novel insights into verbal persuasion and suggest several directions for research.

8 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-025-01095-4

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{davide2025,
  title        = {{Verbal persuasion in marketing: A multimethod meta-analysis of analytical and narrative processing}},
  author       = {Davide C. Orazi et al.},
  journal      = {Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-025-01095-4},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Verbal persuasion in marketing: A multimethod meta-analysis of analytical and narrative processing

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.53

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.70 × 0.15 = 0.10
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.