Inoculation theory has been called “the grandparent theory of resistance to attitude change,”1 but as a colleague and I have argued, “This ‘grandparent theory’ remains spry, and a dormant retirement is not on its horizon.”2 Inoculation scholarship is witnessing a dynamic resurgence in quantity and quality not seen since William McGuire launched it in 1961.
What we know: It works. Inoculation has conferred resistance to
pressures on adolescents to smoke, alcohol advertisements, and
predatory credit card marketing directed toward college students.
Scholars have established it as a viable political campaign strategy.
And it strengthens peoples’ attitudes on a range of issues, both for
and against legalizing marijuana, violence restrictions on television,
banning handguns, and a host of others. Inoculation-based campaigns
are powerful, with proven utility across contexts.
What we don’t yet know: How does it work? The conventional
explanation, based on an analogy, has empirical support. Attitudinal
inoculation confers resistance to persuasion much like a medical
inoculation confers resistance to viruses. With live attenuated
medical inoculations, a weakened version of an offending agent (e.g.,
a virus) is injected, strengthening the body’s defenses against
future, stronger attacks (e.g., infections). With attitudinal
inoculations, a weakened version of an offending agent (e.g., a
counterattitudinal message) is subjected, strengthening the mind’s
defenses against future, stronger attacks (e.g., persuasive messages).
But there’s more to it than that. Since the early 1990s, scholars have
identified a mysterious path from inoculation treatment to resistance—
a path that doesn’t fit the conventional explanation.
We also don’t yet know the precise boundary conditions of inoculation,
why it sometimes fails (and even boomerangs), and how to enhance its
effects. Perhaps more importantly, we don’t know how to thwart it.
Inoculation theory is amoral—it explains what happens when people
encounter persuasive attempts. It doesn’t explain what should happen.
We’ll survey some of the ethical dimensions of inoculation in
practice.
This course asks us to approach persuasion from a new perspective: Not
what makes messages more persuasive, but instead, how can messages
confer resistance to persuasion? This question, with roots in ancient
rhetorical teachings and applications in contemporary contexts, should
fuel our discussions, analysis, and projects during the term.
A close study of inoculation theory will help us to become more
knowledgeable, nuanced producers and consumers of influence messages.
------------------------------------
1 Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.To meet these primary objectives, I will help you to: