In a rapidly changing information landscape, science communicators need to find new ways to engage audiences, make their information memorable and increase attitudes towards scientists. Evidence suggests that stories could be an effective tool for these goals, but few studies tested experimentally whether they are advantageous to non-stories in the context of science communication. The current study aimed to fill that gap. Participants fluent in German (n = 151) were randomly assigned to either read a scientific text written as a story or written in classic abstract format. It was hypothesized that participants reading the story would score higher on reading enjoyment, attention focus, emotional engagement, topic interest, perceived authenticity of the author, identification and information recall than participants reading the non-story. Results showed that participants who read a story felt a higher sense of connection towards the author, a subconstruct of authenticity, while other variables remained insignificant. Reasons why this study could only find limited proof for the effectiveness of stories in science communication and methodological implications for future research are discussed.