arbiter
JournalsAccount

A meta-analysis of gain–loss framing effects in narrative persuasion

Hye Kyung Kim & Minyi Chen

Journal of Communication2025https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaf002article
ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This meta-analytic study synthesizes research on the persuasive impact of gain–loss framing in narrative guided by the social cognitive theory. A combined analysis of 47 experimental studies (N = 16,361) shows an overall persuasive efficacy of gain-framed narratives (vs. loss-framed) at enhancing self-efficacy (d = 0.17, p = .009). The results also indicated that gain-framed narratives produce less counterarguing (d = −0.57, p = .042) and more positive message evaluation (d = 0.25, p = .006) while inducing less transportation (d = −0.07, p = .039) compared to loss-framed narratives. Moderation analyses further revealed loss-framed narratives’ (vs. gain-framed) relative efficacy in improving behavioral intention when the story is written in the third-person perspective or promoting donation behaviors. Study findings illuminate some important boundary conditions and mechanisms of gain–loss framing effects specific to narrative persuasion.

6 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaf002

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{hye2025,
  title        = {{A meta-analysis of gain–loss framing effects in narrative persuasion}},
  author       = {Hye Kyung Kim & Minyi Chen},
  journal      = {Journal of Communication},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaf002},
}

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

Flag this paper

A meta-analysis of gain–loss framing effects in narrative persuasion

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

Evidence weight

0.50

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

F · citation impact0.44 × 0.4 = 0.18
M · momentum0.65 × 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.