The Conundrum of the Timing of Counterarguing Effects in Resistance: Strategies to Boost the Persistence of Counterarguing Output

Pfau, Michael; Compton, Josh; Parker, Kimberly A.; An, Chasu; Wittenberg, Elaine; Ferguson, Monica; Horton, Heather; Malyshev, Yuri

doi:10.1080/01463370600650845

Cited by 34 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…McGuire (1964) posited that an attitudinal resistance inoculation treatment warns the individual of a future attitudinal attack against an existing, yet vulnerable, attitude and then presents weakened counter-attitudinal arguments to build attitudinal resistance. 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).…”

Section: The Inoculation Process Of Conferring Resistance To Influencementioning

confidence: 76%

“…Threat generated by the inoculation messages was assessed using five bipolar adjective pairs. In the context of inoculation research, threat is conceptualized as the realization that one might encounter a counterattitudinal message designed to sway an existing attitude (e.g., Pfau et al, 2004Pfau et al, , 2006. The reliability of the threat measure was .94.…”

Section: Design and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Counterarguing was assessed using a checklist technique first utilized by Pfau et al (2004Pfau et al ( , 2006. This technique presents participants with a list of 20 arguments, including some that were included in the inoculation treatment and in attack messages and some that were not.…”

Section: Design and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: 76%

Section: Design and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…Using psychological reactance to boost the threat component of inoculation treatments seems particularly promising. The only research we know of examining the use of a threat booster has employed the use of a second conventional inoculation treatment (e.g., Pfau et al, 2006). Unfortunately, the findings associated with that research failed to confirm significant increases in threat (Compton & Pfau, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Boosting the Potency of Resistance: Combining the Motivational Forces of Inoculation and Psychological Reactance

Miller

Ivanov

Sims

et al. 2012

Human Communication Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficacy of inoculation theory has been confirmed by decades of empirical research, yet optimizing its effectiveness remains a vibrant line of investigation. The present research turns to psychological reactance theory for a means of enhancing the core mechanisms of inoculation—threat and refutational preemption. Findings from a multisite study indicate reactance enhances key resistance outcomes, including: threat, anger at attack message source, negative cognitions, negative affect, anticipated threat to freedom, anticipated attack message source derogation, perceived threat to freedom, perceived attack message source derogation, and counterarguing. Most importantly, reactance‐enhanced inoculations result in lesser attitude change—the ultimate measure of resistance.

show abstract

“…The theory indicates that once the attitudes of individuals are threatened, they will be motivated to bolster their arguments to effectively counterargue any possible counterattitudinal messages. To assess the level of counterarguing output, this investigation relied on the recognition check-off procedure devised by Miller and Baron (1973) and used with success in previous inoculation studies (Pfau et al, 2004(Pfau et al, , 2005(Pfau et al, , 2006.…”

Section: Manipulation Check Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ivanov¹,

Pfau

Parker

2009

Communication Monographs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Conundrum of the Timing of Counterarguing Effects in Resistance: Strategies to Boost the Persistence of Counterarguing Output

Cited by 34 publications

References 22 publications

Inoculating Against Pro-Plagiarism Justifications: Rational and Affective Strategies

Inoculating Against Pro-Plagiarism Justifications: Rational and Affective Strategies

Boosting the Potency of Resistance: Combining the Motivational Forces of Inoculation and Psychological Reactance

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About