1 Answers
Inoculation theory is a social psychological/communication theory that explains how an attitude or belief can be protected against persuasion or influence in much the same way a body can be protected against disease–for example, through pre-exposure to weakened versions of a stronger, future threat. The theory uses medical inoculation as its explanatory analogy—applied to attitudes rather than to a disease. It has great potential for building public resilience against misinformation and fake news, for example, in tackling science denialism, risky health behaviours, and emotionally manipulative marketing and political messaging.
The theory was developed by social psychologist William J. McGuire in 1961 to explain how attitudes and beliefs change, and more specifically, how to keep existing attitudes and beliefs consistent in the face of attempts to change them. Inoculation theory functions as a motivational strategy to protect attitudes from change–to confer resistance to counter-attitudinal influences, whether such influences take the form of direct attacks, indirect attacks, sustained pressures, etc., from such sources as the media, advertising, interpersonal communication, peer pressure, and other temptations.
The theory posits that weak counterarguments generate resistance within the receiver, enabling them to maintain their beliefs in the face of a future, stronger attack. Following exposure to weak counterarguments , the receiver will then seek out supporting information to further strengthen their threatened position. The held attitude or belief becomes resistant to a stronger attack, hence the medical analogy of a vaccine.
Inoculating messages can be on the same topic as the threatening message or on a similar topic. The effect of the inoculating message can be amplified by making the message of vested and immediate importance to the receiver. Post-inoculation talk is also important, as receivers can spread resistance to their social network, and the act of talking to others serves to strengthen their own resistance to attitude change.