196 – Better fire story – Michigan Uni

Michigan University researchers sought to understand the ‘stickiness’ of stories – does factual or emotionally charged information provided ‘after the fact’ change how a story is told or re-told?

Shawn and Mark discuss how a ‘better story’ might usurp an prevailing story (sometimes regardless of the truth).

Welcome back to a new Anecdotally Speaking episode.

For your story bank

Tags: Michigan University, Fire story, Danger, Survival, Misinformation, Sticky stories

This story starts at 02:38

Michigan Uni

A better story beats a story – better facts alone don’t count

Fire story experiment

Grp 1 and Grp 2 both told: Short circuit near storage room with flammable materials, gas bottle, oil paints caused fire

Grp 1 then told “Mistake, cancel that, please disregard, storage room wasn’t the fire cause”

Grp 2 then told “We also found petrol soaked rags in an oil drum” (suggesting arson, maybe?)

Both groups were asked about fire cause…

Grp 1 cited the cause they were instructed to disregard

Grp 2 cited the cause as the second (more contraversial) oil drum explanation

So,

1. A story is better than no story

2. Facts are sometimes quickly disregarded

3. Suspicion of malicious intent versus accident might be ‘stickier’ on the story grapevine

Convincing and exciting over factually accountable – stories are sticky (especially danger and survival stories)

The better and the more compelling – it then becomes the anecdotal truth

‘Similar enough to be listened to, different enough to be heard’

An anti-story can be ‘easy pickings’ for a better one (admit the failure and emphasise new approach)

Better stories overturn misinformation (or reinforce it)