Use of inoculation to promote resistance to smoking initiation among adolescents

Pfau, Michael; Bockern, Steve Van; Kang, Jong G.

doi:10.1080/03637759209376266

Cited by 110 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effectiveness of inoculative treatments in maintaining attitudes in the presence of counterattitudinal persuasive messages has been supported by laboratory experiments (e.g., Pfau et al, 2004Pfau et al, , 2006 and successfully tested in applied settings such as political campaigns Pfau & Burgoon, 1988;Pfau, Kenski, Nitz, & Sorenson, 1990), public relations (Burgoon, Pfau, & Birk, 1995;Wan & Pfau, 2004), and advertising Pfau, 1992). In addition, the theory is supported by research in adolescent health-preventative contexts, including smoking (Pfau & Van Bockern, 1994;Pfau, Van Bockern, & Kang, 1992;Szabo & Pfau, 2002) and drinking (Godbold & Pfau, 2000). In laboratory studies and applied studies, the inoculation approach protects attitudes from subsequent attacks, conferring attitudinal resistance to those inoculated.…”

Section: The Inoculation Process Of Conferring Resistance To Influencementioning

confidence: 75%

Inoculating Against Pro-Plagiarism Justifications: Rational and Affective Strategies

Compton¹,

Pfau

2008

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Self Cite

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

Section: The Inoculation Process Of Conferring Resistance To Influencementioning

confidence: 75%

Inoculating Against Pro-Plagiarism Justifications: Rational and Affective Strategies

Compton¹,

Pfau

2008

Journal of Applied Communication Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, a full list of cases that were related to inoculation theory but excluded from the analyses is available from the authors. In general, cases were excluded because they did not include sufficient information to compute effects (e.g., Anderson & McGuire, 1965;Benoit, 1991;Lumsdaine & Janis, 1953;McGuire, 1961aMcGuire, , 1961bMcGuire, , 1962Quereshi & Strauss, 1980;Tannenbaum & Norris, 1965), lacked a separate attack message (e.g., Bohner, Einwiller, Erb, & Siebler, 2003;Godbold & Pfau, 2000;Kamins & Assael, 1987;Pfau & Van Bockern, 1994;Pfau, Van Bockern, & Kang, 1992), and/or included other persuasive strategies in tandem with an inoculation component (e.g., Banerjee & Greene, 2007;Duryea, 1984;Rosenberg, 2004).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…small effect sizes are common and are meaningful' ' (p. 212, emphasis in original). In the context of health campaigns directed at young adults, for example, even a small increase in the likelihood that individuals will resist a persuasion attempt to engage in unhealthy behavior is of great value (e.g., Godbold & Pfau, 2000;Pfau & Van Bockern, 1994;Pfau et al, 1992;. As a final consideration of the methods for inducing resistance, supportive treatments were compared to no-treatment controls.…”

Section: Overall Inoculation Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mechanisms behind the inoculation process and several nuances of the theory have been identified and tested (Compton & Pfau, 2005;Szabo & Pfau, 2002). Further, scholars have investigated inoculation's potential application in health (Pfau & Van Bockern, 1994;Pfau, Van Bockern, & Kang, 1992), political Pfau & Burgoon, 1988), educational (Compton & Pfau, 2008), and commercial contexts (Burgoon, Pfau, & Birk, 1995;Compton & Pfau, 2004). However, despite two comprehensive narrative reviews of research on inoculation theory (Compton & Pfau, 2005;Szabo & Pfau, 2002), the complete picture of this theory remains unclear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Meta-Analysis of Research on Inoculation Theory

Banas¹,

Rains²

2010

Communication Monographs

338

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A meta-analysis of 54 cases testing the effectiveness of inoculation theory at conferring resistance and examining the mechanisms of the theory was conducted. The analyses revealed inoculation messages to be superior to both supportive messages and notreatment controls at conferring resistance. Additionally, the results revealed refutational same and refutational different preemptions to be equally effective at reducing attitude change. However, the data were not consistent with some predictions made in narrative reviews of inoculation. No significant increase in resistance as a function of threat or involvement was found. Further, instead of a curvilinear effect for delay on resistance, the point estimates from our meta-analysis revealed equivalent resistance between immediate and moderate delays between inoculation and attack, with a decay in resistance after two weeks.

show abstract

“…Unlike the strategy of restoration (Pfau, 1992), which occurs after the attack, inoculation is a preemptive strategy employed prior to an attack. For the theory to be of practical use, one cannot rely on anticipation of the type of attack the current attitudes are likely to face, and then develop an inoculation strategy based on the anticipated attack.…”

Section: Attitude Base and Inoculationmentioning

confidence: 98%