The Role of Threat and Counterarguing in Therapeutic Inoculation

Ivanov, Bobi; Rains, Stephen A.; Dillingham, Lindsay L.; Parker, Kimberly A.; Geegan, Sarah; Barbati, Juliana L.

doi:10.1080/1041794x.2021.1983012

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although early inoculation research focused primarily on ‘cultural truisms’ where participants all had the desired attitude on a given topic, later research has evidenced that inoculation can bolster resistance to persuasion even when people are already familiar with the topic or have been exposed to the misinformation before [ 20 , 21 ], so-called ‘therapeutic inoculation’. Therapeutic inoculation mirrors recent advances in medicine where therapeutic vaccines can still boost the production of antibodies even when people have already been infected [ 22 , 23 ]. A seminal meta-analysis by Banas & Rains [ 24 ] highlights the ability of inoculation interventions to confer resistance against persuasive attacks with an average intervention effect size of d = 0.43.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technique-based inoculation against real-world misinformation

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, numerous psychological interventions have been developed to reduce susceptibility to misinformation. Inoculation theory has become an increasingly common framework for reducing susceptibility to both individual examples of misinformation (issue-based inoculation) and to the techniques and strategies that are commonly used to mislead or misinform people (technique-based inoculation). In this study, we address two open questions related to technique-based inoculation in two separate experiments (total n = 2188; convenience sample recruited via the Bad News online game platform): (i) can technique-based inoculation effectively reduce susceptibility to real-world misinformation that went viral on social media? and (ii) can technique-based inoculation confer cross-protection against misinformation that does not make use of any of the techniques against which people were inoculated? We find that playing a 15 min game confers psychological resistance against real-world misinformation that makes use of manipulation techniques against which people were inoculated (Cohen's d = 0.37, Cohen's U 3 = 64.4%, p < 0.001), and that cross-protection is achieved but at a reduced effect size ( d = 0.10, U 3 = 54.0%, p = 0.001).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technique-based inoculation against real-world misinformation

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Soon after McGuire's early work involving cultural truisms, scholars began applying inoculation to controversial/contested issues (e.g., Burgoon & Chase, 1973). This has evolved into an unconventional approach to inoculation theory by applying a prebunking message to those who may not have the desired belief or attitude in place but rather, a counter attitude (Ivanov et al, 2017(Ivanov et al, , 2022Wood, 2007). In this type of therapeutic inoculation, exposure is intended to lessen the effects of harmful beliefs held by those already exposed to-or "infected" by-a persuasive attempt (Compton, 2020).…”

Section: Inoculation Theory Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cutting the Bunk: Comparing the Solo and Aggregate Effects of Prebunking and Debunking Covid-19 Vaccine Misinformation

Amazeen

Krishna

Eschmann

2022

Science Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An online experiment among a nationally representative YouGov sample of unvaccinated U.S. adults ( N = 540) leverages inoculation theory as a preliminary step in uniting the prebunking and debunking literature. By testing how prior attitudes toward Covid-19 vaccines interact with varying message interventions, the study finds that specific inoculation messages protect against misinformation, but only among those with preexisting healthy attitudes. Generic inoculation messages have wider application, offering both prophylactic and therapeutic benefits. However, the therapeutic benefits of generic inoculations disappear when debunking messages are present. Nonetheless, generic inoculations do not appear to have detrimental effects on those infected with unhealthy attitudes, unlike specific inoculation messages. Whether the messages are truly a form of inoculation by generating threat merits further research.

show abstract

“…Threat has long been conceptualized a key and necessary component for inoculation to take place (McGuire, 1964) with most recent scholars agreeing that a threshold level of threat is required for inoculation to be conferred (Compton, 2021) as it serves the function of highlighting one's vulnerability which in turn, motivates the build-up of resistance. While there is no quantitatively defined level of minimum threat discussed in inoculation theory, studies assessing inoculation have traditionally measured threat as an apprehension (Ivanov et al, 2022;Wood, 2007) and more recently in a motivational form (Banas & Richards, 2017). Unfortunately, we did not include measures of apprehensive or motivational threat in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gamified Inoculation Against Misinformation in India: A Randomized Control Trial

Harjani

Roozenbeek

Linden

2023

JOTE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the spread of misinformation is a pervasive and disruptive global problem, extant research is skewed towards “WEIRD” countries leaving questions about how to tackle misinformation in the developing world with different media and consumption patterns unanswered. We report the results of a game-based intervention against misinformation in India. The game is based on the mechanism of psychological inoculation; borrowed from the medical context, inoculation interventions aim to pre-emptively neutralize falsehoods and help audiences spot and resist misinformation strategies. Though the efficacy of these games has been repeatedly demonstrated in samples from Western countries, the present study conducted in north India (n = 757) did not replicate earlier findings. We found no significant impact of the intervention on the perceived reliability of messages containing misinformation, confidence judgments, and willingness to share information with others. Our experience presents a teachable moment for the unique challenges associated with complex cultural adaptations and field work in rural areas. These results have significant ramifications for designing misinformation interventions in developing countries where misinformation is largely spread via encrypted messaging applications such as WhatsApp. Our findings contribute to the small but growing body of work looking at how to adapt misinformation interventions to cross-cultural settings.

show abstract

The Role of Threat and Counterarguing in Therapeutic Inoculation

Cited by 9 publications

References 24 publications

Technique-based inoculation against real-world misinformation

Technique-based inoculation against real-world misinformation

Cutting the Bunk: Comparing the Solo and Aggregate Effects of Prebunking and Debunking Covid-19 Vaccine Misinformation

Gamified Inoculation Against Misinformation in India: A Randomized Control Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About