tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post5060814007769411987..comments2009-12-01T17:35:31.729-05:00Maja Djikichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16522265542660035768noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-60651944334646321852009-12-01T17:35:31.729-05:002009-12-01T17:35:31.729-05:00Hi Prof. Holland,<br />Thank you for this comment. You are correct in noting that the study does not test whether fictionality is a key component of the intervention, since the control program was also a fictional drama. Thus, it is entirely possible that the presentation of facts might have had the same effect. Of note is that in this context such an approach would have been impossible. Direct mention of the two ethnic groups in question (Hutus and Tutsis) would have been censored by the Rwandan government, according to the paper. Also, Sonya Dal Cin wrote quite a nice chapter a while back arguing that persuasive arguments are more likely to be effective when embedded in fiction, because readers and listeners are not as accustomed to engaging in counterarguing as they are with an explicit persuasion attempt. To my knowledge, however, there hasn&#39;t been a direct test of this. The key finding of interest for this study is that these changes in perceived norms and behavior were witnessed in a very real-world context, with personal experience and powerful emotions all in the mix.Raymond A. Marhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07521492403638340957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-76611507343734862102009-12-01T16:42:11.682-05:002009-12-01T16:42:11.682-05:00I&#39;ve not read the paper, so perhaps should not comment. But, since both conditions used drama, does the experiment show that fictionality causes the reduction in prejudice? Might not a succession of true stories have the same result?<br /><br />Norm Holland<br />Emeritus, University of FloridaNorm Hollandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01102294228149436591noreply@blogger.com