Attitude Inoculation
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
There are a number of ways that people can avoid being influenced by persuasive messages that attempt to influence and change people’s attitudes and beliefs (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). One way a person can resist a persuasive message is by utilizing attitude inoculation (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). Also know as inoculation theory, attitude inoculation proposes that people can be motivated to build up resistance to future attacks on their beliefs and attitudes by being exposed to weakened versions of the attack message or argument (Cameron, 2009).
The way attitude inoculation works is by making people immune to attempts to change their attitudes by initially exposing them to small doses of the arguments against their position and by doing this, people will become immune to later, full -blown attempts to change their attitudes (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007; McGuire 1961). Attitude inoculation allows people to consider the pro and con arguments against one’s attitude before it is attacked (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). Once people have considered the arguments in advance people are relatively immune to the effects of the later full-blown arguments against their attitudes and ward off attempts to change their attitude using logical arguments (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007). However, when people are not forewarned of the attack on their attitude and have not thought much about the issue they are particularly susceptible to an attack on that attitude using logical appeals (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2007).
According to McGuire, “cultural truism” or those attitudes and beliefs commonly shared and rarely attacked are actually the most vulnerable to attack and people are usual unprepared to defend them (McGuire, 1961; Cameron, 2009). In order for people to effectively defend their position or beliefs against an attack that attempts to change their attitudes or beliefs, a person must first be warned of a potential attack on their beliefs (Cameron, 2009). By doing this, it forewarns the person and induces a threat that motivates that person to defend their belief against the potential attack (Cameron, 2009). The person is then exposed to small doses of the message attacking their beliefs (Papagerorgis & McGuire, 1961). These attack messages contain weak arguments that refuted the person’s belief that is being attacked (Papagerorgis & McGuire, 1961; Cameron, 2009). After being exposed to small doses of the attacking message containing the weak arguments, the person is then exposed to the actual attack and is required to defend his original attitude on their beliefs (Papagerorgis & McGuire, 1961; Cameron, 2009).
Attitude inoculation is most effective when the person is actively generating their own refutations to smaller does of the attack containing the weak arguments versus passively defending their attitude with prepared refutation statements (Cameron, 2009). Without the two components, threat and refutational preemption, attitude inoculation will not work (Pfau, 1997). This is because the threat component gives motivation for a person to protect their attitudes and the refutational preemption component allows people to initiate their own arguments for future defense of their attitude while strengthen their existing attitudes through counterarguments (Pfau, 1997). Once the person has gone through the attitude inoculation process, the person is prepared to resist strong persuasive attacks and is able to defend his original attitudes (Cameron, 2009).
Example-Research
As a concrete example of attitude inoculation research, Nabi (2003) explored the role of emotionally suggestive visuals in the inoculation process. Nabi wanted to determine whether more or less emotionally evocative visuals in a message with audiovisual redundancy would impact resistance to an emotionally charged attack message. The research question, how does emotional arousal in response to an inoculative pretreatment influence resistance to an emotionally evocative attack message. In this study, it was hypothesis that the messages with more equal distribution of emotionally evocative visuals would present greater attitudinal resistance than the messages with an unequal distribution of emotionally arousing visuals. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the five conditions—four experimental and one control—considering only gender and incentive for participation to ensure their comparable distribution. Participants completed a consent form and a pretest questionnaire that measured demographic information and the participants’ attitudes about, involvement in, and knowledge of animal rights issues, especially as related to experimental medical research. The operationalization of attitude inoculation or inoculation within the method was manipulating the threat arousal, persuasive attack, and the visual affective intensity of the video utilized in the study. The dependent measure was the post inoculation or post-treatment attitudes of the participant. The result in this study supported inoculative success when more or less emotionally arousing images were consistently used in the counterargument and refutation portions of the pretreatment. The results also showed that inconsistent use of emotionally evocative visuals appeared to minimize, and even eliminate, resistance that might have otherwise been present. These results provide evidence that visuals can influence degree of inoculation conferred through their affective level and placement within an inoculation video, above and beyond any argumentative or emotional impact of the message’s text. Nabi’s study emphasized both the importance of emotion in the inoculation process as well as the possibility that one can inoculate against emotion-laden arguments.
Example-Real Life
According to Pfau (2004) and his past research, inoculation has been shown to be a viable strategy for instilling resistance against the influence of political attacks. When debates are influential, inoculation can safeguard against the persuasiveness of an opponent’s counterattitudinal attacks that are presented during a televised debate (Pfau, 2004). Due to the combative nature of televised debates, candidates perceive potential danger and a threat to their campaign (Pfau, 2004). In debates like the 2008 presidential debates, candidates would prepare for attacks on their position on issues and on their character by using attitude inoculation to prepare themselves for televised debates. The candidates’ communication in the media (television ads, print ads, and comments made in the press) prior to a televised debate is utilized as content for inoculation messages and allows campaigns to not only prepare for a full-blown attack, but allow the campaigns to generate their own refutations (Pfau, 2004).
An example of this can be seen with the presidential debates in 2008. It was reported by MSNBC that during the third televised debate Senator John McCain proceeded to launch heavy arguments against Senator Barack Obama. This was used in a last ditch effort to change more of the nation’s attitude in his favor and have more voter support. However, the attacks against Obama’s view and positions did not help Senator McCain’s campaign and it did not appear to change many of the voter’s attitudes. Senator McCain attempted to attack Obama for his economic and budget proposal and offshore drilling. The attacks were a calculated gamble on the part of the McCain campaign, which has seen its polling numbers fall as its anti-Obama rhetoric has diverged from substantive policy discussions (Johnson, 2008). Prior to the third debate, the Obama campaign was being expose to McCain’s attacks in smaller doses through campaign commercials and ads before the third debate. The Obama campaign countered these attacks by condemning what it called McCain’s “angry and negative attacks” (Johnson, 2008). Because of the negative commercials and ads that was attacking Obama; his campaign was able to deploy a heavy-duty response team in order to prepare for a full-bore assault from McCain during the debate (Johnson, 2008). The Obama campaign was able to utilize the negative communication in the media as smaller doses of McCain attacks prior to the third televised debate in order to generate counterarguments against McCain’s attacks by explaining his economic and budget proposal and views on offshore drilling.
Reference
Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, R. M. (2007). Social Psychology. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Cameron, K. (2009). A practitioner’s guide to persuasion: An overview of 15 selected persuasion theories, models and frameworks. Patient Education Counseling, 74(4) 309-317.
Johnson, A. (2008). McCain goes on the attack in final debate. Retrieved October 16, 2008 from msnbc.com: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27184386/ns/politics-the_debates/
McGuire, W. J. (1961). Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative couterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(2), 326-332.
Nabi, R. L. (2003). “Feeling” resistance: Exploring the role of emotionally evocative visuals inducing inoculation. Media Psychology, 5, 199-223.
Papageorgis, D. & McGuire, W. J. (1961). The generality of immunity to persuasion produced by pre-exposure to weakened counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 475-481.
Pfau, M., Tusing, K. J., Koerner, A. F., Lee, W., Godbold, L. C., Penaloza, L. J., Yang, V. S., & Hong, Y. (1997). Enriching the inoculation construct: The role of critical components in the process of resistance. Human Communication Research, 24, 187-215.
Pfau, M., & An, C. (2004). The effiency of inoculation in televised political debates. Journal of Communication, 54(3), 421-436.
◄ Back to Fall 2009 PSY 322 Assignment page
