Effects of Postinoculation Talk on Resistance to Influence

Abstract

Contemporary inoculation scholarship has focused on the process of resistance to persuasion, and recently begun to examine various incidental effects that may accompany inoculation treatments. This study considers how talk fits within both of these areas, not only as a byproduct of inoculation, but also as a potentially important contributor to the process of resistance. Results indicate inoculation not only enhances talk about the target issue, but such talk appears to bolsters resistance to subsequent counterattitudinal messages.

The General Content of Postinoculation Talk: Recalled Issue-Specific Conversations Following Inoculation Treatments

“…This experiment has built upon earlier, limited evidence concerning how inoculation motivates talk (Compton & Pfau, 2004;Lin & Pfau, 2007), and confirmed some of the theorizing Pfau (2009) andIvanov et al (2012) have advanced regarding the presence of PIT. The results reported here take us one step closer to a clearer understanding of the nature and quality of PIT, and how it may function in multiple ways within the process of inoculation-conferred resistance.…”

“…On the other hand, if inoculated individuals use PIT as advocacy-which according to the present results is primarily what they do-and they encounter challenges, those subsequent challenges might actually serve to strengthen their own resistance (Anderson & McGuire, 1965;Quereshi & Strauss, 1980; and see Ivanov et al, 2012) through the process of PIT. Indeed, a regression analysis of the number of arguments made by the conversational partner on strength=certainty of attitude lends support to this idea, b ¼ À.37, t(219) ¼ 5.85, p < .01, R 2 ¼ .13, F(1, 218) ¼ 34.14, p < .01, as these results are consistent with the manipulation check findings showing the conversation frequency and the number of conversation partners to also influence resistance.…”

“…Because follow-up analyses indicated effective manipulation of inoculation as well as PIT (additional manipulation check and result details are reported in Ivanov et al [2012] and Miller et al [2013]), all subsequent analyses pertain to the content of recalled conversations.…”

“…Some research has shown that inoculation treatments can lead to greater confidence in held positions-at least in terms of attitude certainty (Pfau et al, 2004) and attitude strength (Pfau et al, 2003). However, threat, conceptualized as an acknowledgement that a held position is vulnerable, is antithetical to confidence (e.g., Ivanov et al, 2012). In early inoculation research, reassurance was treated much like the opposite of threat (e.g., Anderson & McGuire, 1965), and it was assumed that refutational preemption helped alleviate some of this threat, reassuring individuals there are confutations capable of protecting held positions (Compton, 2009;McGuire, 1964).…”

“…To address the six hypotheses, a coding scheme of 11 measures was developed with the categories of all measures designed to be exhaustive and mutually exclusive (Kaid & Wadsworth, 1989;Krippendorff, 1980), including 1) relevance categorized as relevant=irrelevant (the details of the talk were clearly connected to the investigation and applicable to the participants' assigned issue); 2) primary focus of talk (the details of the talk indicated the participant was seeking a) support, affirmation, and reassurance, or b) to share his or her thoughts, rationale, and reasons) categorized as either reassurance, advocacy, both, or can't tell=no indication; 3) position of conversational partner (the details of the talk indicated the other(s) engaged in the conversation had an a) differing or b) similar viewpoint) categorized as opposite, same, or can't tell=no indication, based on comparing conversation content associated with the conversation partner to the position of the participant as indicated on the file; 4) presence of attack (the details of the talk indicated the participant a) was, or b) was not challenged on his or her position) categorized as presence=absence of attack, or can't tell=no indication (e.g., Pfau et al, 1997Pfau et al, , 2005Pfau et al, , 2009; 5) tone of the talk (the details of the talk indicated a) positive and favorable, or b) negative and unfavorable thoughts or arguments) categorized as positive, negative, or can't tell=no indication (Compton & Pfau, 2004;Pfau et al, 2005); 6) issue referenced in talk (the details of the talk contained mentions of the participants' a) assigned issue, or b) a related issue) categorized as talk on assigned issue, talk on related issue, both, or can't tell=no indication (McGuire, 1964;Parker et al, 2012); 7) number of arguments in talk attributed to the conversational partner; 8) number of arguments in talk attributed to the participant; 9) inoculation message material (the details of the talk contained information and arguments from the inoculation message associated with the participants' assigned issue and stance) categorized as repetition of inoculation message, new arguments not in inoculation message, both, or can't tell=no indication based on comparing conversation content to a list of arguments contained in the original inoculation message associated with the participant's assigned issue; 10) certainty or confidence expressed in talk (the details of the talk used language that was a) certain, firm, and strong, b) expressive, but neither firm nor certain, or c) hesitant, ambivalent, and uncertain) categorized as high, moderate, low, or can't tell=no indication (e.g., Pfau et al, 2004Pfau et al, , 2005; and 11) combativeness expressed in talk (the details of the talk contained a) conflicting viewpoints and arguments, b) were mildly conflicting, or c) were one-sided) categorized as high, moderate, low, or can't tell=no indication (e.g., Ivanov et al, 2012;Lumsdaine & Janis, 1953).…”