ABSTRACT

Since its beginning in the early 1960s, the inoculation theory of communication has been an analogy to medical inoculations and has explained how humans can resist persuasion. This theory holds three components to be important in the process: inoculation messages, threats and counterarguments. The inoculation theory proves useful when applied to public relations campaigns, as the two real-life examples I discuss later on in this paper will show. 

INTRODUCTION

As a society, we are constantly bombarded with persuasive messages. Instagram weaves product advertisements into its tap-through story feature, Tiktok influencers create trending dances or catchy jingles in partnership with a brand, and even beyond the realm of digital media, our friends perhaps convince us to put off homework assignments to go shopping instead. In the midst of the numerous choices we’re with presented on a daily basis, I ask you to stop and take a moment to consider: how does persuasion work in the first place? How can some persuasive attempts be successful, and others fall completely short of the goal? 

For the purposes of this paper, I will be reviewing the inoculation theory and describing 

the model it provides for persuasive communication. The inoculation theory provides an understanding for how humans manage to remain steadfast in their beliefs and opinions in the fact of opposing counterarguments (Banas & Richards, 2017). As its name suggests, the inoculation theory likens the process of resisting persuasion to the biological processes involved in receiving a vaccine. The upcoming pages will contain a description of the inoculation theory, complete with its basic tenets, history and examples of real-life applications within public relations campaigns. 

THE INOCULATION THEORY 

For over two centuries, doctors have administered vaccines on the premise that injecting patients with a weakened strain of a virus builds immunity upon later exposure to that same virus. Biologically, that small dose of the virus causes the formation of antibodies, which helps strengthen the human body and increase the chances of fighting the disease off later. In the early 1960s, social psychologist William J. McGuire applied this same notion of resistance to his studies on persuasion (Banas & Richards, 2017). In 1964, McGuire formed the inoculation theory of communication: a model for explaining how people counter against others’ persuasive attempts. Metaphorically similar to the working of medical immunizations, McGuire’s theory posits that when a weakened message or argument is presented to someone with the opposite belief, the individual will form defense mechanisms that make withstanding a subsequent stronger argument possible (Banas & Richards, 2017).

Central to both inoculation processes is the concept of threat. In a communications context, when one person makes a statement or claim that contradicts another’s pre-existing attitudes or opinions, this ultimately jeopardizes the security of that initial belief system (Compton, 2012). According to McGuire, threat is what triggers the formation of defense mechanisms. However, the activation of these protective responses is dependent on two important factors: a message that is just threatening enough to arouse a person’s defenses, but is not too threatening to motivate persuasion altogether (Compton, 2012). Once someone is equipped with defense mechanisms, and is able to defend and further justify their beliefs, resisting persuasive attacks become a possibility. This process mirrors the biological ones carried out when the human body is vaccinated; the injected virus has to be strong enough in dosage to produce the antibodies, but not strong enough to generate infection (Compton, 2012).

Beyond threat, McGuire’s early studies on inoculation uncovered other key components to the basic model of the theory: refutation and counterarguments. In an experimental setting, refutational pretreatments referred to “two-sided messages [that] raise persuasive challenges: counterarguments, or arguments that challenge existing positions, beliefs, or attitudes. These counterarguments are weakened by refutations” (Compton, 2012). Research participants who received a message of this kind prior to receiving a later persuasive attack were more successful in resisting later persuasion; this controlled condition was compared to other individuals who had received a one-sided, supportive message instead or had not received a pretreatment at all (Compton, 2012). 

Figure 1 helps explain the relationship between threat, refutation and counterargument in persuasion resistance in more simple terms. McGuire’s original concept of a two-sided refutational message is reflected in the “two-sided inoculative message” part of the graphic (Fagnot, I. & Stanton, J, 2015). Individuals must first be warned ahead of time that persuasion is about to occur. Then, they receive the weakened version of a contradictory argument from the opposing party, and their threatened stance is disproved. This initial exposure triggers defense mechanisms, allowing an individual to come up with their own protective response to the argument presented. The “attack message”, as outlined in Figure 1, contains a much stronger, more convincing statement from the opposing party (Fagnot, I. & Stanton, J, 2015). As a result of those defenses having kicked in, an individual is much more prepared to be immune to persuasion.

APPLICATION TO PUBLIC RELATIONS

A main function and goal of public relations is to foster mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics. Public relations professionals often accomplish this by addressing problems that organizations face and strategically planning a campaign. A critical part of this process is identifying a target audience: a specifically defined group of the public that will be met with messages from the campaign. In the sense that these individuals will be influenced to think or act a certain way, persuasion is embedded into public relations campaigns. 

Persuasion is important to consider in the realm of public relations, especially as it pertains to crafting effective messages and strategies for reaching a target audience. 

This being said, the inoculation theory also becomes an important and relevant thing for public relations professionals to be aware of. Especially as it pertains to crafting effective messages and strategies to reach a target audience, the theory provides a description of how humans generally respond to messages that are perceived to threaten to their beliefs. Depending on the purpose of the campaign, inoculation messages may be sent out to an organization’s target audience to prepare them for claims made by competing organizations and companies (Liberman, 2014). For this use of inoculation in public relations, an overarching goal could perhaps be to maintain consumer loyalty. Exposing an organization’s publics to weakened versions of arguments that competitors would likely make, thus inoculating them, initiates the process of forming claims to counter to those arguments and resisting later persuasion. 

The inoculation theory was brought to life in a public relations campaign ran by Johnson & Johnson in the early 2000s. Johnson & Johnson was sued for the wrongful death of people taking even the recommended dose of Tylenol, and created the Responsible Dosing Campaign afterwards to protect both the company’s reputation and the drug’s consumers. Researchers found that Tylenol users who consistently took higher-than-recommended doses were more likely to administer too high of a dose to their children as well, so Johnson & Johnson decided to communicate the importance of reading the bottle’s label. An advertising campaign, “Stop. Think. Tylenol.” ensued and “inoculated consumers against imminent lawsuits and create the appearance of a solution (we care so we are telling you to be careful)” (Liberman, 2014). Johnson & Johnson’s campaign was deemed a success, thanks to research, the relevance of its lawsuit and effective inoculation messages.

Another example of the inoculation theory in public relations campaigns occurred in the late 1980s. At the time, Phillip Morris cigarettes, which has since rebranded to Altria, ran a campaign to help its target audience of cigarette smokers counter against anti-smoking arguments. Phillip Morris printed messages that encouraged its consumers, despite the increasing number of health officials, lawmakers and media outlets that warned the public about tobacco’s effects (Liberman, 2014). In this case, the messages contained within the cigarette cartons inoculated smokers and were strategically designed to help resist others’ persuasive attempts. 

IN CONCLUSION

The inoculation theory offers an explanation for how humans respond to, and ultimately, resist attempts of persuasion. Similarly to the body’s building of immunity against a virus, individuals are believed to build immunity to persuasion when they are exposed to a weaker form of the argument prior to larger-scale, subsequent exposures. Once we hear a claim that contradicts our own views, we become motivated by threat to counter the arguments, further promoting a process where we affirm our belief system. With this defense mechanism in place, we are able to hold onto our strengthened belief system even in the face of stronger persuasive attacks, according to what psychologist William McGuire uncovered through his 1960s research. 

Persuasion is inherently part of public relations campaigns, and so awareness of the inoculation theory becomes useful as a result. As was proven for Johnson & Johnson and the Phillip Morris cigarette making company, inoculation messages are an effective strategy when creating campaigns and considering the audience to target.

 

References

Banas, J. A., & Richards, A. S. (2017). Apprehension or Motivation to Defend Attitudes? 

Exploring the Underlying Threat Mechanism in Inoculation-Induced Resistance to 

Persuasion. Communication Monographs, 84(2), 164-78. 

https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1080/03637751.2017.1307999

Compton, J. (2012). Inoculation Theory. In 929927894 728619200 J. P. Dillard & 

929927895 728619200 L. Shen (Authors), The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion:

Developments in Theory and Practice (2nd ed., pp. 220-236) Los Angeles: Sage.

doi:10.4135/9781452218410.n14

Fagnot, I. & Stanton, J. (2015). Enhancing Retention of Future Information Professionals Using

Attitude Innoculation, 20(2), 16. 

Liberman, C. J. (2014). Using Inoculation Theory in Public Relations Messages: Preparing the 

Audience for Arguments to be Made Later. In Casing Persuasive Communication (pp.

127-143). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company