The Attitude Base as a Moderator of the Effectiveness of Inoculation Strategy

Untangling Threat during Inoculation-Conferred Resistance to Influence

“…Eight inoculation messages were designed to preempt the attack messages; four favoring and four opposing the issue. 2 The first paragraph of each inoculation message provided an explicit forewarning of an impending challenge to the present attitude designed to generate threat, which is consistent with previous inoculation studies (e.g., Ivanov et al, 2009). The refutation preemption component was operationalized by raising and refuting two distinctive counterattitudinal challenges (e.g., Ivanov et al, 2009).…”

“…2 The first paragraph of each inoculation message provided an explicit forewarning of an impending challenge to the present attitude designed to generate threat, which is consistent with previous inoculation studies (e.g., Ivanov et al, 2009). The refutation preemption component was operationalized by raising and refuting two distinctive counterattitudinal challenges (e.g., Ivanov et al, 2009). Becker, Bavelas, and Braden's (1961) Index of Contingency was used to ensure readability equivalence across messages.…”

“…All participants (except those in the control condition) were presented with an inoculation message, and the elicited threat was measured at the conclusion of each inoculation message. The exception was the control condition for which, consistent with previous inoculation studies (e.g., Ivanov, Pfau, & Parker, 2009), perceived (rather than elicited) threat was measured as the idea that the participants may come in contact with arguments contrary to their position on the issue. For a random half of the participants receiving an inoculation message, we also assessed threat using the same measure presented after the explicit forewarning but before the refutational preemption (i.e., the interruptive threat condition).…”

“…1 The main independent variable in this study was the timing of threat assessment, which resulted in three conditions: control, postmessage threat assessment (traditional), and interruptive threat assessment (nontraditional). In the control condition, congruent with previous inoculation studies (e.g., Ivanov, Pfau, & Parker, 2009), threat was measured without a presentation of an inoculation message, while in the postmessage threat assessment condition, threat was measured at the conclusion of the inoculation message. We departed from traditional assessment of threat in the interruptive threat assessment condition, whereas threat, in addition to being measured at the conclusion of the inoculation message, was also assessed by interrupting the flow of the inoculation message.…”

“…Threat Threat to established attitudes was measured using a standard, six-item, 7-point (1-7) scale (e.g., Ivanov et al, 2009), which included the following bipolar adjectives: nonthreatening=threatening, not harmful=harmful, not dangerous=dangerous, not risky=risky, calm=anxious, and not scary=scary. These items demonstrated excellent internal consistency regardless whether they were assessed at the end of the inoculation message (including control), a ¼ .95, or embedded between the explicit forewarning and the refutational preemption components of the message, a ¼ .96.…”