User:Sdmlas/Inoculation theory

Lead: 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 (or beliefs) rather than to a disease. It has great potential for building public resilience ('immunity') 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 of 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. copied from Inoculation theory

History: William McGuire set out to conduct research  McGuire was motivated to study inoculation and persuasion as a result of the aftermath of the Korean War. Nine US prisoners of war, when given the opportunity, elected to remain with their captors. Many assumed they were brainwashed, so McGuire and other social scientists turned to ways of conferring resistance to persuasion. This was a change in extant persuasion research, which was almost exclusively concerned with how to make messages more persuasive, and not the other way around. copied from Inoculation theory

Prebunking:    Pre-bunking (or prebunking) is a form of Inoculation theory that aims to combat various kinds of manipulation and misinformation spread around the web. In recent years, misleading information and the permeation of such have become an increasingly prevalent issue. Standard Inoculation theory aims to combat persuasion. Still pre-bunking seeks to target misinformation by providing a harmless example of it. Exposure builds future resistance to similar misinformation. copied from Inoculation theory

Key components:


 * 1) Delay. There has been much debate on whether there is a certain amount of time necessary between inoculation and further attacks on a person's attitude that will be most effective in strengthening that person's attitude. McGuire (1961) suggested that delay was necessary to strengthen a person's attitude and since then many scholars have found evidence to back that idea up. There are also scholars on the other side who suggest that too much of a delay lessens the strengthening effect of inoculation. Nevertheless, the effect of inoculation can still be significant weeks or even months after initial introduction or the treatment showing that it does produce somewhat long-lasting effects. Despite the limited research in this area, meta-analysis suggests that the effect becomes weakened after too long of a delay, specifically after 13 days.
 * 2)   Involvement.   defined involvement as "the importance or salience of an attitude object for a receiver" and is “among the most important and widely employed concepts in the scholarly literature on persuasion” (p. 190). Involvement is critical ; an individual's involvement with an issue   determines how effective the inoculation process will be, if at all. If an individual does not have a vested interest in the subject, they will not perceive a threat and, consequently, will not feel the need to defend and strengthen their original opinion, rendering the inoculation process ineffective.

Psychological reactance: Such a study is the large complex multisite study of Miller et al. (2013). The main focus is to determine how to improve the effectiveness of the inoculation process by evaluating and generating reactance to a threatened freedom by manipulating explicit and implicit language and its intensity. While most inoculation studies focus on avoiding reactance, or at the very least, minimizing the impact of reactance on behaviors, in contrast, Miller, et al. chose to manipulate reactance by designing messages to enhance resistance and counterarguing output. They showed that inoculation coupled with reactance-enhanced messages leads to "stronger resistance effects". Consistent with the medical analogy of inoculation theory, they liken reactance-enhanced messages to a "booster shot," increasing the success of the inoculation. Most importantly, reactance-enhanced inoculations result in lesser attitude change—the ultimate measure of resistance. copied from Inoculation theory Cyber security: Treglia and Delia (2017) apply inoculation theory to cyber security (internet security, cybercrime). People are susceptible to electronic or physical tricks, scams, or misrepresentations that may lead to deviating from security procedures and practices, opening the operator, organization, or system to exploits, malware, theft of data, or disruption of systems and services. Inoculation in this area improves peoples resistance to such attacks. Psychological manipulation of people into performing actions or divulging confidential information via the internet and social media is one part of the broader construct of social engineering. copied from Inoculation theory Instructor Feedback

''I had a bit of trouble following what additions you made to the article as they weren't included in a distinctive font. I believe the statement I bolded above is your addition as I didn't find it within the published Wikipedia article. All of your proposed edits should be made in a distinctive font so they are easier for the reviewer to see. From reviewing that article, I think there are many improvements you can make. Currently, it is written too much like a review paper (referencing authors and using direct quotations). There is also a heavy focus on works by the same authors and I would suggest working to introduce more variety around sources. I would suggest rewording the statement "help with others emotional issues" above. It isn't grammatically correct as structured. Is others meant to be possessive? Again, I would avoid direct quotes where possible. I would encourage you to bring over more of the Wikipedia article so reviewers can easily see how your edits will fit into those. I would bring over headers and organizational structure from the article as well. I encourage you to review the final assignment rubric so you know the areas I will be assessing. If you have questions/concerns, please let me know.''