The Effect of Procedural Rhetoric and Narrative Content in a Narrative Game-Based Fear Appeal

Game-based health interventions for alcohol addiction among young adults rely on the interplay between procedural rhetoric—mechanics that simulate real-world cause-and-effect—and narrative framing. By utilizing a 2x2 experimental design with 149 participants, researchers examined whether these elements could effectively increase perceived susceptibility to health risks and alter behavioral intentions. The study sought to determine if the simulation of social, health, and educational stressors through game mechanics could serve as a potent tool for persuasion in public health contexts.

The findings indicate that neither procedural rhetoric nor narrative content, when treated as independent variables, significantly influences behavioral intentions or perceived susceptibility. While narrative elements successfully foster player identification and procedural mechanics facilitate a sense of agency, these factors do not directly translate into the intended persuasive outcomes. The research suggests that the abstract nature of game mechanics often fails to communicate health risks effectively on its own, and the disconnect between narrative storytelling and mechanical decision-making can undermine overall immersion.

Ultimately, the study challenges the prevailing assumption that high player agency is inherently optimal for persuasive communication. Instead, the results suggest that intentionally restricting agency may prove more effective when conveying future threats. Future interventions should move away from treating mechanics and narrative as separate components, focusing instead on the synergy between the two. A more integrated approach is necessary to bridge the gap between game-based engagement and the actual modification of health-related behaviors, as current models of procedural rhetoric appear insufficient to drive behavioral change in isolation.