Nuances in inoculation: The role of inoculation approach, ego‐involvement, and message processing disposition in resistance

Pfau, Michael; Tusing, Kyle James; Lee, Waipeng; Godbold, Linda C.; Koerner, Ascan F.; Penaloza, L; Hong, Yah huei; Yang, Violet Shu Huei

doi:10.1080/01463379709370077

Cited by 28 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inoculation treatments have traditionally been thought to work because they stimulate counterarguing and systematic message processing; however, Pfau et al (2004) argued, ''there remains more to the process of resistance than the traditional or additional mechanisms to date'' (p. 347). Indeed, Pfau et al were referring to a consistent result revealed through structural equation modeling of a direct path from inoculation to resistance that circumvents traditional inoculation variables like threat, involvement, and counterarguing, as well as attitude accessibility and certainty (Pfau et al, 1997(Pfau et al, , 2001(Pfau et al, , 2004.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…It forewarns of a persuasive attack, highlighting the vulnerability of an individual's current attitudes, and thereby motivates resistance. The refutational preemption component contains specific content that can be used to bolster attitudes against an impending attack (Pfau et al, ). The purpose of the refutational component is twofold: It provides individuals with arguments or evidence that can be used to counter persuasive attacks, and it also allows individuals to practice defending their beliefs through counterarguing (Compton & Pfau, ; Insko, ; Wyer, ).…”

Section: Inoculation Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inducing Resistance to Conspiracy Theory Propaganda: Testing Inoculation and Metainoculation Strategies

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This investigation examined the boundaries of inoculation theory by examining how inoculation can be applied to conspiracy theory propaganda as well as inoculation itself (called metainoculation). A 3‐phase experiment with 312 participants compared 3 main groups: no‐treatment control, inoculation, and metainoculation. Research questions explored how inoculation and metainoculation effects differ based on the argument structure of inoculation messages (fact‐ vs. logic‐based). The attack message was a 40‐minute chapter from the 9/11 Truth conspiracy theory film, Loose Change: Final Cut. The results indicated that both the inoculation treatments induced more resistance than the control message, with the fact‐based treatment being the most effective. The results also revealed that metainoculation treatments reduced the efficacy of the inoculation treatments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Inoculation Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Inducing Resistance to Conspiracy Theory Propaganda: Testing Inoculation and Metainoculation Strategies

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Existing literature has assessed counter-argumentation in the inoculation context using several approaches, including thought-listing, check-listing and hybrid models (Pfau, et al, 1997a(Pfau, et al, , 1997b(Pfau, et al, , 2005. The optimal mode of capturing what has been referred to as the arsenal of argumentation has yet to be established (Wyer, 1974).…”

Section: Counter-argumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potentially deceptive health nutrition–related advertising claims: The role of inoculation in conferring resistance

Mason

Miller

2015

Health Education Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study sought to examine the efficacy of inoculation message treatments to facilitate resistance to health nutrition–related (HNR) commercial food advertising claims. Design: Data were collected across three phases extending across a 5-week period conducted over two semesters at a Midwest US university. A 2 × 3 between-subjects factorial design was adopted, with multivariate and univariate analyses being used to interpret the results. Setting: Pittsburg, USA. Method: Participants were emerging adult undergraduate students (aged 18–25 years) recruited from introductory communication courses. A total of 167 students participated in Phase 1 of the work, of whom 152 completed Phase 2 and 145 completed Phase 3 (resulting in an 86.8% retention rate). Among these, 45% were men. Results: The results indicated ( F(3, 129) = 9.83, p < .001, partial η2 = .18) that compared to control ( M = 5.20, standard deviation [ SD] = .84), participants who received an inoculation treatment experienced greater Phase 3 attitude strength ( M = 5.73, SD = .77) to the position that eating healthy food is necessary to maintaining a healthy life. Inoculated participants reported greater Phase 3 attitude certainty ( M = 77.15, SD = 19.21) for the above position than the control group ( M = 65.43, SD = 25.48). Inoculated participants held less favourable views towards the source of the HNR claims ( M = 4.80, SD = 1.18) relative to controls ( M = 5.73, SD = 1.36) and generated greater numbers of counter-arguments ( M = 3.90, SD = 1.74) compared to control groups ( M = 2.75, SD = 1.69), thus demonstrating resistance to persuasion. Conclusion: Inoculation was demonstrated to be an effective preemptive strategy against potentially deceptive HNR advertising claims. Hence, it may offer an effective strategy for helping to protect the health-conscious attitudes of emerging adults by providing resistance to the ‘pufferised’ appeals used by many commercial food advertisers.

show abstract

“…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%

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

Nuances in inoculation: The role of inoculation approach, ego‐involvement, and message processing disposition in resistance

Cited by 28 publications

References 34 publications

Inducing Resistance to Conspiracy Theory Propaganda: Testing Inoculation and Metainoculation Strategies

Inducing Resistance to Conspiracy Theory Propaganda: Testing Inoculation and Metainoculation Strategies

Potentially deceptive health nutrition–related advertising claims: The role of inoculation in conferring resistance

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About