Inoculation theory: how to fight being influenced

The denial of scientific research can have dramatic consequences.

Sure, denying the existence of the dinosaurs or arguing that the Earth isn't round isn't going to kill anyone, but denial of the effectiveness of vaccines because it is believed that they cause autism is causing a rise in the number of preventable diseases.

When we present evidence that contradicts someone's beliefs, that someone's beliefs may grow even stronger. When proving that vaccines aren't linked to autism, anti-vaxxers express their belief even more strongly. The same occurs with the idea that humans are causing climate change; presenting more evidence can lead more people to believe the contrary.

The famous facepalm

Inoculation

To  neutralise the misinformation found in these theories one should make use of inoculation theory. This theory applies inoculation, often associated with vaccines, to knowledge. First developed by McGuire in 1961, inoculation theory helps us to preserve our original attitudes and beliefs in the face of persuasion. Just like a shot in the arm uses weakened or dead viruses that stimulates our immune system to protect against future attacks, an inoculation uses a weakened version of a future persuasion attempt. The weak attack is refuted (or the potential victim receives help to refute it), with the end results being that they are less likely to be affected by a stronger attack.

Applied Inoculation

The theory has been replicated in a variety of contexts including politics, public relations, and smoking and drinking prevention. Here is a video showing Obama making using of inoculation before he was elected President:

Research in Inoculation

Recognizing a serious problem with student credit card debt, and with no clear way to solve this (at the time), Compton & Pfau (2004) tested whether inoculation theory would extend to students under attack from credit card marketing. Compton & Pfau set out their inoculation in 3 phases:

1) Participants were assessed whether or not they had a credit card and their attitude towards credit cards.

2) Their attitudes towards credit cards were assessed again, followed by an inoculation message.

3) Participants were then subjected to a simulated credit card advertising message, then again were assessed on their attitudes towards credit cards

Results

Inoculation helped to defend against credit card advertisements, with students protecting healthy attitudes about credit cards. As the table below shows; students were also more likely to pay-down their credit card debts if they had them, whilst word-of-mouth communication about credit card debt to other peers increased.

How does it work?

Inoculation works by engaging the central route of processing an attitude. The inoculation message's weak attack causes the person to think carefully, unlike peripheral processing in which people bypass the whole thinking part. Inoculation causes people to think more than they would otherwise. This thinking develops stronger attitudes about an object, in the above case; attitudes about credit card use, and this will lead to a behaviour change (as the picture below shows)

So if you want to succeed in inoculating people against those pesky credit card companies, or against any cold-calling companies then it'll be good to follow these three rules:

1.  Warn the receiver of the impending attack.
2.  Make a weak attack (not too strong or weak; like a vaccine should be)
3.  Get the receiver to actively defend the attitude.


References

Compton, J. A., & Pfau, M. (2004). Use of inoculation to foster resistance to credit card marketing targeting college students. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 343-364.

McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion.The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 327.