<p>Oftentimes, people preferably select information confirming their prior beliefs—they show the&#xa0;congeniality bias. Here, we investigate two possibilities about how narrativity relates to&#xa0;the congeniality bias: Narratives might either relate negatively (since they may lack a comprehensive account of reality) or positively (since they may evoke emotions) to the&#xa0;congeniality bias. In two preregistered experiments, participants self-reported on their attitude towards refugees, after which they selected either a fictional narrative, nonfictional narrative, or expository text, with all texts addressing migration. Results of Experiment 1 (<i>n</i> = 548) supported the second possibility, whereas those of Experiment 2 (<i>n</i> = 1,023) did not support either possibility. When effects of both experiments were pooled, results showed that narrativity was linked positively to the congeniality bias. Fictionality was consistently unrelated to the congeniality bias. Neither need for cognitive closure nor need for affect (assessed in Experiment 2 only) moderated the relation between narrativity and the congeniality bias. However, a positive association between the need for closure and a preference for fictional narratives emerged. In Experiment 3 (<i>n</i> = 220), participants selected either a nonfictional narrative or an expository text, after which they reported reasons for their textual choice. When the expository text was chosen, comprehensive information obtained greater approval as the selection reason than emotional experience. The opposite pattern emerged when the nonfictional narrative was selected. In sum, when audiences are to consider written content challenging their prior beliefs, providing the content in an expository rather than a narrative format may be helpful.</p>