English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Societal organizations aim at challenging online extremist messages by counterposing with different narratives such as alternative narratives (one-sided narrative) and counter-narratives (two-sided narratives). The current study examined which type of narrative is more efficient in changing attitudes accounting for narrative involvement and reactance regarding the narrative. We employed a 2(one-sided vs. two-sided narrative) × 2 (ease of identification vs. no ease of identification) between-subjects design (N = 405) using a controversial topic: the ongoing debate about how to deal with the number of refugees in Germany. We found an indirect effect of the narrative on attitude change. People who read the two-sided narrative showed less reactance. The smaller the reactance, the more they felt involved in the narrative, which, in turn led to more positive attitudes towards refugees. We discuss these findings regarding their theoretical contribution to create customized narratives challenging extremist messages.

Two sides of the same coin? The persuasiveness of one-sided vs. two-sided narratives in the context of radicalization prevention