All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Testing Inoculation Theory: A Meta-Analysis
Unformatted Document Text:  Meta-analysis     1 Testing Inoculation Theory: A Meta-Analysis Inoculation theory, described by Eagly and Chaiken as “the grandparent theory of  resistance to attitude change” (1993, p. 561), has been the focus of considerable research interest  in the past two decades. Inoculation theory applies the biological methaphor to conferring  resistance to persuasion by using preemptive messages that “inoculate” individuals against future  influence messages (Compton & Pfau, 2005; McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961). During this time,  research has focused on uncovering the mechanisms behind inoculation theory as well as  investigating inoculation’s potential applications in health, political, and commercial contexts.  Research examining inoculation theory has been successful at revealing several “nuances” (Pfau,  et al. 1997) in the process while simultaneously demonstrating inoculation theory’s almost  limitless application (e.g., An & Pfau, 2004; Burgoon, Pfau & Birk; 1995; Compton & Pfau,  2004); however, there remain important theoretical questions that lack clear answers. The meta-analysis reported here examined several key theoretical questions regarding  inoculation theory. First, despite the plethora of tests of inoculation, there is some inconsistency  regarding the effectiveness of inoculation theory to confer resistance to attitude change.  Although a fair amount of support exists for the theory (e.g., McGuire, 1961a, 1961b, 1962,  1964, 1966; McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961, 1962; Papageorgis & McGuire, 1961; Pfau, Holbert,  Pasha, & Lin, 2000; Pfau et al., 1997a, 1997b, 2001a, 2003, 2004, 2005; Wood, 2007), others  studies showed no difference in the attitudes of inoculation participants and those individuals in  the control condition (e.g. Lessne, 1983; Pashupati et al., 2002). Conducting a meta-analysis  makes it possible to determine the aggregate effect size for the body of research on inoculation  theory and, thus, offers a more comprehensive evaluation than any single test of the theory.  Second, the substantial amount of research conducted on inoculation theory has revealed several  potential moderating variables, and no single experiment can resolve the discrepancies and 

Authors: Banas, John. and Rains, Stephen.
first   previous   Page 1 of 27   next   last



background image
Meta-analysis     1
Testing Inoculation Theory: A Meta-Analysis
Inoculation theory, described by Eagly and Chaiken as “the grandparent theory of 
resistance to attitude change” (1993, p. 561), has been the focus of considerable research interest 
in the past two decades. Inoculation theory applies the biological methaphor to conferring 
resistance to persuasion by using preemptive messages that “inoculate” individuals against future 
influence messages (Compton & Pfau, 2005; McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961). During this time, 
research has focused on uncovering the mechanisms behind inoculation theory as well as 
investigating inoculation’s potential applications in health, political, and commercial contexts. 
Research examining inoculation theory has been successful at revealing several “nuances” (Pfau, 
et al. 1997) in the process while simultaneously demonstrating inoculation theory’s almost 
limitless application (e.g., An & Pfau, 2004; Burgoon, Pfau & Birk; 1995; Compton & Pfau, 
2004); however, there remain important theoretical questions that lack clear answers.
The meta-analysis reported here examined several key theoretical questions regarding 
inoculation theory. First, despite the plethora of tests of inoculation, there is some inconsistency 
regarding the effectiveness of inoculation theory to confer resistance to attitude change. 
Although a fair amount of support exists for the theory (e.g., McGuire, 1961a, 1961b, 1962, 
1964, 1966; McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961, 1962; Papageorgis & McGuire, 1961; Pfau, Holbert, 
Pasha, & Lin, 2000; Pfau et al., 1997a, 1997b, 2001a, 2003, 2004, 2005; Wood, 2007), others 
studies showed no difference in the attitudes of inoculation participants and those individuals in 
the control condition (e.g. Lessne, 1983; Pashupati et al., 2002). Conducting a meta-analysis 
makes it possible to determine the aggregate effect size for the body of research on inoculation 
theory and, thus, offers a more comprehensive evaluation than any single test of the theory. 
Second, the substantial amount of research conducted on inoculation theory has revealed several 
potential moderating variables, and no single experiment can resolve the discrepancies and 


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 1 of 27   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.