Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments.

Abstract

HE present study is one of a series comparing the relative effectiveness of various pretreatments in making initially unquestioned beliefs resistant to change when subsequently the person is forced to expose himself to strong counterarguments against the belief. The theoretical point of departure of the present and the earlier studies is the postulate of "selective exposure." Initially strong appearing beliefs, it is assumed, are actually quite vulnerable under forced exposure to strong counterarguments, because such beliefs tend previously to have been overprotected. By selective avoidance of counterarguments in the past, the person has kept his beliefs extreme, but has also left himself unpracticed in their defense and unable to deal with strong counterarguments when exposure to them is forced.The postulate of "selective exposure" is no novelty in communication research. Since Klapper (1949) called it "the most basic process thus far established by research on the effects of mass media," it has stimulated much research, designed either to account for it in a theoretical system (Festinger, 1957) or to use it predictively (Janis, 1957). Its general relevance to the present problem is to suggest that beliefs can be "inoculated" against persuasion in subsequent situations involving forced exposure to strong counterarguments by pre-exposing the person to the counterarguments in a weakened form that stimulates-without overcoming-his defenses (Lumsdaine & Janis, 1953).The hypotheses tested in the study reported here were suggested by interpretations of the outcomes of two previous studies. One of them (Papageorgis & McGuire, 1961) demonstrated that prior exposure to refuted counterarguments tends to make a belief more resistant to subsequently presented strong forms, not

Inoculation in Political Campaign Communication

“…However, once voter judgments of candidate character take, the potential of character messages to influence voters diminishes sharply (Hofstetter, Zukin & 8us, 1978;Kinder, 67 1978;Patterson, 1980;Patterson & McClure, 1976;Strouse, 1975 (McGuire, 1961a(McGuire, , 1961b(McGuire, , 1962(McGuire, , 1970, 1962 and for the extension of the model to more controversial topics (Burgoon, 1976;Burgoon & Chase, 1973: Burgoon, Cohen, Miller & Montgomery, 1978: Burgoon & King, 1974: Freedman & Steinbruner, 1964Infante, 1975;McCroskey, 1970;McCroskey, Young & Scott, 1972;Miller & Burgoon, 1979;Ullman & Bodaken, 1975). …”

Reducing the Risk of Disordered Eating Among Female College Students: A Test of Alternative Interventions

“…Specifically, cognitions/attitudes are strengthened by countering and refuting beliefs, ideas, and values that have already been accepted to be true. McGuire (1961) found 'practicing' counterarguments to be effective when attempting to 'take on' a new idea. Through the 6-week programs, participants in the CD-combined groups had the opportunity to become more aware of what their beliefs and values about women and attractiveness were, to learn how they could counter some of the pressures they experience (e.g., identify previous/current cognitions about sociocultural pressures, importance of the thin ideal, etc.…”

“…Specifically, the dissonance-based intervention produced significant reductions in levels of internalization, perceived social pressures, and body dissatisfaction in comparison to the control condition; this group also experienced significant reductions in dietary restraint and bulimic symptoms over the course of the study. Within the content of the cognitive-dissonance and combined cognitive-dissonance programs, persuasion principles are utilized (McGuire, 1961;McGuire, 1985). Specifically, cognitions/attitudes are strengthened by countering and refuting beliefs, ideas, and values that have already been accepted to be true.…”

Media as a Vaccine against Critical Thinking

“…This will hopefully make the receiver actively defensive and allow them to create arguments in favor of their preexisting thoughts. The more active the receiver becomes in his or her defense the more it will strengthen their own attitudes, beliefs, or opinions (see McGuire, 1961).…”

“…One of the theories that addresses the persuasion psychology and an automatic response from the receiver of the information is inoculation theory (McGuire, 1961), which argues that the effect of the propaganda is less if the recipient of the communication is previously warned about the threat. Inoculation theory gave insights into the process of persuasion psychology by using an analogy with medical inoculation.…”