Individual Differences and Inoculation against Persuasion

Stone, Vernon A.

doi:10.1177/107769906904600206

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings offer further support for the robustness of inoculation, irrespective of message approach (Pfau, 1997). Extant research indicates that inoculation confers resistance to persuasion, whether treatments are constructed as same or different (McGuire, 1961(McGuire, , 1962(McGuire, , 1966Pfau, 1992;Pfau & Burgoon, 1988;Pfau et al, 1990;Pfau et al, 1997a), central or peripheral (Pfau et al, 1997a), content or source oriented (Freedman & Sears, 1965;Stone, 1969), or affective-positive or negative (Lee & Pfau, 1998), and now, as cognitive, affective-anger, or affective-happiness. Practitioners should find the robust- NOTE: Threat, anger, and attitude toward persuasive attacks were measured using 7-point scales (threat and attitude toward persuasive attack scales ranged from 1 to 7; anger scales from 0 to 6).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whether researchers devise inoculation treatments that are cognitive or emotional, treatment messages feature similar threat components and should be capable of promoting resistance regardless of the message approach employed in the refutational preemption component of the messages. Indeed, research reveals that inoculation confers resistance to influence whether inoculation treatments are: same or different (see above), central or peripheral (Pfau et al, 1997b), content or source oriented (Freedman & Sears, 1965;Stone, 1969), or affective positive or affective negative (Lee & Pfau, 1998). Thus, this study predicts:…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Cognitive and Affective Inoculation Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This investigation dealt with the role and impact of affect in the process of resistance. A total of 597 participants took part in the study in 4 phases spanning 6 weeks. Initial results indicated that the cognitive, affective-anger, and affective-happiness inoculation treatments all conferred resistance to persuasive attacks. Structural equation analyses were conducted on the cognitive, affective-anger, and affective-happiness experimental inoculation conditions in order to examine the process of resistance. The results across all 3 conditions revealed a direct path in which inoculation treatments directly induced resistance to persuasive attacks. However, indirect paths to resistance varied across the 3 experimental conditions. Cognitive inoculation treatments contributed to receiver threat and counterarguing output, which, in turn, enhanced resistance. Thus, the cognitive inoculation treatments triggered a process that is consistent with McGuire's theoretical explanation for resistance. By contrast, both affective-anger and affective-happiness inoculation treatments relied more heavily on elicited emotional responses. Finally, the results indicated that greater receiver involvement was positively associated with experienced anger and, therefore, indirectly contributed to resistance, whereas greater receiver self-efficacy tended to dampen resistance. T he inoculation approach to promoting resistance to attitude change has been the focus of considerable theoretical and applied interest. However, many questions about inoculation remain unresolved and "deserve renewed study in the context of contemporary theory and Michael Pfau (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1987) is professor and director of graduate studies in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, and Erin

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effectiveness Of Cognitive and Affective Inoculation Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, one source of an attack message was described as ''incompetently staffed, riddled with political appointees, and generally not serving the public interest'' (Tannenbaum, Macaulay, & Norris, 1966, p. 234), while in another case the source was accused of ''unethical and unprofessional behavior'' (Tannenbaum & Norris, 1965, p. 150). Stone (1969) also tested the effectiveness of preemptive source derogation, comparing a source-derogation inoculation treatment condition with a messagederogation inoculation treatment. He posited that source-oriented individuals would be more influenced by source-derogation inoculation treatment messages and that message-oriented individuals would be more influenced by message-derogation inoculation treatment messages.…”

Section: Source Derogationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inoculating Against Pro-Plagiarism Justifications: Rational and Affective Strategies

Compton¹,

Pfau

2008

Journal of Applied Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student plagiarism continues to threaten academic integrity. This investigation assessed whether an inoculation message strategy could combat university plagiarism by protecting student attitudes against pro-plagiarism justification arguments. Additionally, we sought theoretical confirmation of previous findings on involvement and accessibility in inoculation, examined the effects on vested interest, and evaluated matching and mismatching strategies in terms of affect-and rationality-based inoculation treatment messages and subsequent attack messages. A total of 225 students participated in three sessions spanning six weeks. Results indicated that none of the inoculation treatments conferred resistance as measured in attitude toward plagiarism, but all treatments enhanced involvement and attitude accessibility, and the fear-and rationality-based treatments enhanced vested interest. Additionally, fear-based treatments derogated the source of the message. Results also suggest that a matching strategy is superior with both affect-and rationality-based attack messages, such that inoculation treatments are most effective when using the same argument bases (e.g., affective or rational) as the attack message. These results offer guidance for crafting communication campaign strategies to reduce the occurrence of student plagiarism offenses. Keywords: Inoculation; Resistance to Influence; PlagiarismCognitive and affective factors keep many students from violating academic codes of conduct by plagiarizing their work. Love and Simmons (1998) found that students who resist the temptation to plagiarize do so for rational, cognitive reasons (such as fairness to original authors) and affect-based reasons (such as fear and anticipated

show abstract

“…Alternatively, if communicators find themselves on the other side of an inoculation campaign—that is, as the source of attack messages—they may wish to consider low‐controlling, autonomy‐supportive language choices (Miller et al, 2007; Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). Such messages might vary in language intensity depending on the passive versus active nature of inoculation pretreatments (Burgoon & Chase, 1973; Burgoon & King, 1974), or the source versus message focus of inoculations targeting high‐ versus low‐esteem receivers (Stone, 1969).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas Stone (1969) called for inoculation research to focus more on attack message source derogation, Tannenbaum and colleagues compared the effectiveness of attack message source derogation and refutations independently and jointly (including two separate messages-one to generate source derogation followed by another to generate inoculation). They concluded that the greatest effects are experienced when the two are coupled and presented before the attack.…”

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Boosting the Potency of Resistance: Combining the Motivational Forces of Inoculation and Psychological Reactance

Miller

Ivanov

Sims

et al. 2012

Human Communication Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficacy of inoculation theory has been confirmed by decades of empirical research, yet optimizing its effectiveness remains a vibrant line of investigation. The present research turns to psychological reactance theory for a means of enhancing the core mechanisms of inoculation—threat and refutational preemption. Findings from a multisite study indicate reactance enhances key resistance outcomes, including: threat, anger at attack message source, negative cognitions, negative affect, anticipated threat to freedom, anticipated attack message source derogation, perceived threat to freedom, perceived attack message source derogation, and counterarguing. Most importantly, reactance‐enhanced inoculations result in lesser attitude change—the ultimate measure of resistance.

show abstract

Individual Differences and Inoculation against Persuasion

Abstract: Source vs. message orientation produced no differences under either source- or message-immunization conditions, nor did sex. But self-esteem did interact with immunization strategies as predicted.

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion

The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion

Inoculating Against Pro-Plagiarism Justifications: Rational and Affective Strategies

Boosting the Potency of Resistance: Combining the Motivational Forces of Inoculation and Psychological Reactance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About