User:Phrenic490/Inoculation theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Draft[edit]

Lead[edit]

Article body[edit]

Real-world applications[edit][edit]

Apple's "Get A Mac" campaign was widespread and effective.

Deception[edit][edit]

Inoculation theory plays a role in deception detection research. Deception detection research has largely yielded little predictable support for nonverbal cues, and rather indicates that most liars are revealed through verbal content inconsistencies. These inconsistencies can be revealed through a form of inoculation theory that exposes the subject to a distorted version of the suspected action to observe inconsistencies in their responses.[1]

Journalism[edit][edit]

Breen and Matusitz (2009) suggest a method through which inoculation theory can be used to prevent pack journalism, a practice in which a large quantity of journalists and news outlets swarm a person, place, thing, or idea in a way that is distressing and harmful. It also lends itself to plagiarism. Through this framework derived from Pfau and Dillard (2000)[2], journalists are inoculated against news practices of other journalists and instead directed towards uniqueness and originality, thus avoiding pack journalism.[3]

Health[edit][edit]

Much of the research conducted in health is attempting to create campaigns that will encourage people to stop unhealthy behaviors (e.g. getting people to stop smoking or prevention of teen alcoholism). Compton, Jackson and Dimmock (2016) reviewed studies where inoculation theory was applied to health-related messaging. There are many inoculation studies with the intent to inoculate children and teenagers to prevent them from smoking, doing drugs or drinking alcohol. Much of the research shows that targeting at a young age can help them resist peer pressure in high school or college. An important example of inoculation theory usage is protecting young adolescents against influences of peer pressure, which can lead to smoking, underage drinking, and other harmful behaviors

Godbold and Pfau (2000) used sixth graders from two different schools and applied inoculation theory as a defense against peer pressure to drinking alcohol. They hypothesized that a normative message (a message tailored around the current social norms) would be more effective than an informative message. An informative message is a message tailored around giving individuals information pieces. In this case, the information was why drinking alcohol is bad. The second hypothesis was that subjects who receive a threat two weeks later will be more resistant than those receiving an immediate attack. The results supported the first hypothesis partially. The normative message created higher resistance from the attack, but was not necessarily more effective. The second hypothesis was also not supported; therefore, the time lapse did not create further resistance for teenagers against drinking. One major outcome from this study was the resistance created by utilizing a normative message.

In another study conducted by Duryea (1983), the results were far more supportive of the theory. The study also attempted to find the message to use for educational training to help prevent teen drinking and driving. The teen subjects were given resources to combat attempts to persuade them to drink and drive or to get into a vehicle with a drunk driver. The subjects were: 1) shown a film; 2) participated in question and answer; 3) role playing exercises; and 4) a slide show. The results showed that a combination of the four methods of training was effective in combating persuasion to drink and drive or get into a vehicle with a drunk driver. The trained group was far more prepared to combat the persuasive arguments.

Additionally, Parker, Ivanov, and Compton (2012) found that inoculation messages can be an effective deterrent against pressures to engage in unprotected sex and binge drinking—even when only one of these issues is mentioned in the health message.

Compton, Jackson and Dimmock (2016) discuss important future research, such as preparing new mothers for overcoming their health concerns (e.g., about breastfeeding, sleep deprivation and post-partum depression).

Inoculation theory applied to prevention of smoking has been heavily studied. These studies have mainly focused on preventing youth smokers–inoculation seems to be most effective in young children. For example, Pfau, et al. (1992) examined the role of inoculation when attempting to prevent adolescents from smoking. One of the main goals of the study was to examine longevity and persistence of inoculation. Elementary school students watched a video warning them of future pressures to smoke. In the first year, resistance was highest among those with low self-esteem. At the end of the second year, students in the group showed more attitudinal resistance to smoking than they did previously (Pfau & Van Bockern 1994). Importantly, the study and its follow-up demonstrate the long-lasting effects of inoculation treatments.

Grover (2011) researched the effectiveness of the "truth" anti-smoking campaign on smokers and non-smokers. The truth adverts aimed to show young people that smoking was unhealthy, and to expose the manipulative tactics of tobacco companies. Grover showed that inoculation works differently for smokers and non-smokers (ie, potential smokers). For both groups, the truth adverts increased anti-smoking and anti-tobacco-industry attitudes, but the effect was greater for smokers. The strength of this attitude change is partly mediated (controlled) by aversion to branded tobacco industry products. However, counter-intuitively, exposure to pro-smoking adverts increased aversion to branded tobacco industry products (at least in this sample). In general, Grover demonstrated that the initial attitude plays a major role in the ability to inoculate an individual.

Future health-related studies can be extremely beneficial to communities. Some research areas include present-day issues (for example, inoculation-based strategies for addiction intervention to assist sober individuals from relapsing), as well as promoting healthy eating habits, exercising, breastfeeding and creating positive attitude towards mammograms. An area that has been underdeveloped is mental health awareness. Because of the large number of young adults and teens dying of suicide due to bullying, inoculation messages could be effective.

Dimmock et al. (2016) studied how inoculation messages can be used to increase participants' reported enjoyment and interest in physical exercise. In this study, participants are exposed to inoculating messages and then given an intentionally boring exercise routine. These messages cause the reinforcement of the individual's positive attitude towards the exercise, and as a result increase their likelihood to continue exercise in the future.[4]

Explanation[edit][edit]

Key Components[edit][edit]

3. Delay. There has been much debate on whether there is a certain amount of time necessary between inoculation and further attacks on a persons' attitude that will be most effective in strengthening that person's attitude. McGuire (1961) suggested that delay was necessary to strengthen a person's attitude and since then many scholars have found evidence to back that idea up. There are also scholars on the other side who suggest that too much of a delay lessens the strengthening effect of inoculation. Nevertheless, the effect of inoculation can still be significant weeks or even months after initial introduction or the treatment showing that it does produce somewhat long-lasting effects. Despite the limited research in this area, meta-analysis suggests that the effect becomes weakened after too long of a delay, specifically after 13 days.[5]

Straw man fallacy[edit][edit]

Due to the nature of attitudinal inoculation as a form of psychological manipulation, the counterarguments used in the process do not necessarily need to be accurately representative of the opposing belief in order to trigger the inoculation effect. This is a form of a Straw man fallacy, and can be effectively used to reinforce beliefs with less legitimate support.[6] An example of this occurred in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, when anti-masking rhetoric would assert that the idea of wearing face masks was purely a decision by the government to control citizens and restrict individual liberties.[7]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Levine, Timothy (2019). Duped: Truth-default theory and the social science of lying and deception. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 9780817392710.
  2. ^ Pfau, Michael, & Dillard, James P. (2000) “Inoculation and smoking prevention: Conferring resistance while avoiding reactance”, Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
  3. ^ Breen, G. M., & Matusitz, J. (2009). Inoculation theory: A theoretical and practical framework for conferring resistance to pack journalism tendencies. Global Media Journal, 8(14).
  4. ^ Dimmock, J. A., Gagné, M., Proud, L., Howle, T. C., Rebar, A. L., & Jackson, B. (2016). An exercise in resistance: Inoculation messaging as a strategy for protecting motivation during a monotonous and controlling exercise class. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(6), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0146
  5. ^ Banas, John A; Rains, Stephen A (2010). "A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory". Communication Monographs. 77 (3): 281–311. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.477.1497. doi:10.1080/03637751003758193. S2CID 3196234.
  6. ^ Downes, S. (2000). Stephen Downes Guide to the logical fallacies. Retrieved July 28, 2022, from https://web.archive.org/web/20160303181716/http://web.uvic.ca/psyc/skelton/Teaching/General%20Readings/Logical%20Falllacies.htm#_Toc495459590
  7. ^ McCann, M. (2020, June 1). Mandatory masks aren't about safety, they're about social control. The Federalist. Retrieved July 28, 2022, from https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/27/mandatory-masks-arent-about-safety-theyre-about-social-control/

Instructor feedback: Is the term predictable a necessary modifier above? I was a bit confused about how we went from the statement about deception to the term liars which doesn't appear elsewhere in the sections you copied over? Is this the best word choice? I encourage you to review the rubric as that may help illustrate the level of edits expected as part of this assignment. You have a promising start, but you will need additional edits to be eligible for full credit. I will be looking for several examples of peer-reviewed secondary literature (e.g., review articles). Ensure that you current citation is formatted appropriately for the platform (I do not think it is).