INOCULATION: Using a weak dose of a counter-argument to make a person resistant to stronger arguments

Article Screenshot: 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. 

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 (e.g., counterarguments that have been paired with refutations), 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.

Inoculation works because it exposes people to counter-arguments, making them think about and rehearse rebuttals. When they hear stronger versions of the arguments in the future, they pay less attention to them, and perceive them to be easily dismissed. One example would be how the media portrayed anti-vaxxers as being fearful of 5G microchips in the needles. You see it in movies and TV shows too, where people like conservatives are shown losing political arguments easily or becoming easily convinced by shallow, non-convincing arguments for which they have no answer.

The goal is to convince the propaganda victim that their beliefs are correct, and they should ignore all future challenges to their belief system. They are thus resistant to all persuasion, despite being unable to answer the stronger arguments.

đź”— HandWiki
đź”— Changing Minds


Related