Introduction
People have countless opinions pertaining to countless subjects. For most people these opinions are hard to change and they stick with their beliefs. There is good reason for why so many people stick to their pre-formed opinions and it all has to do with the inoculation theory. The inoculation theory suggests that when people form opinions about things, those opinions are hard to change, especially if met with weak opposition throughout time. With the myriad of messages crossing our paths everyday, this theory proves to be very useful. Whether it is through advertising, social media, or word of mouth, we are constantly hearing new messages. Once someone has made an opinion about a message they have, it is unlikely to change. In the field of Public Relations, if the opinion formed is a positive one, it is important that the person receiving that message maintains that opinion. This is why the inoculation theory is so important to the field of Public Relations. It keeps consumers attitudes where they are wanted and even better it strengthens their support for your product or cause. With the knowledge of how people’s decisions are made and attitudes are kept, this theory is very useful in a field, where the main goal is to bring in consumers, convince them to accept your message, and then keep them with you for the long haul.
What is Inoculation Theory?
In 1964 American psychologist, William J. McGuire created the inoculation theory (Oxford). The theory got its name from the medical term inoculation, which is otherwise known as a vaccination. A vaccine works by injecting a weak strain of a virus into the body and allowing a person’s immune system to learn to fight off the disease, strengthening the body and creating immunity to the virus. Inoculation theory works like a metaphorical vaccination, implying that message recipients become “immune” to opposing messages trying to change their attitudes or beliefs about something. It suggests that if one sends out messages with weak counterarguments, an individual can build immunity to those messages and strengthen their original attitudes. It uses a “threat” on initial beliefs to trigger a person’s desire to fight against the treat, ultimately reinforcing their attitude. This technique is helpful because according to the Encyclopedia of Communication Theory, “unchallenged beliefs can be swayed if the holder is not used to defending them” (Banas & Rains, 281).
The creation of inoculation theory first came about during the time of the Korean War, after American soldiers who were captured reported being brainwashed. These reports inspired psychologists to find a way of building up resistance to certain ideas, making it harder for people to be persuaded by opposing negative messages (Dewey). Since its creation, the uses of inoculation theory have been expanded the areas of health, political, educational, and commercial messaging.
Inoculation theory has seen a big change since its creation in the 1960’s. Back when McGuire first created the theory, it was applied to the “cultural truisms” of society. This meant that it was primarily used toward the attitudes that were rarely, if ever attacked by opposing forces. The early tests of inoculation theory were used on non-controversial issues, such as the idea that brushing your teeth is good for you. Barely anybody would believe otherwise, so outside opposing arguments against tooth brushing would never actually change a person’s opinion, but it would strengthen a person support for brushing their teeth (Banas & Rains, 283). Now inoculation theory goes after the less popular or common opinions, like whether to choose a Mac or a PC computer or support gay marriage. This shows that the theory does work and that it can be used to strengthen attitudes that will experience wore frequent opposition.
There are four elements that contribute to the success of inoculation and those elements are threat, refutational preemption, delay, and involvement. Threat is the first necessary element required in the success of inoculation. The message receiver must interpret that a message is actually threating and recognize that there is reason to fight to maintain and strengthen their opinion. If the receiver of an opposing message does not recognize that a threat is present, they will not feel the need to start defending their position and therefore will not be change their attitude or strengthen their opinion (Banas & Rains, 285).
The next element that is important to the success of inoculation theory is “refutational preemption.” Refutational preemption “provides specific content that receivers can employ to strengthen attitudes against subsequent change.” This aids in the inoculation process by giving the message receiver a chance to argue with the opposing message. It shows the message receiver that their attitude is not the only attitude or even the “right” attitude, creating a threat to their beliefs. This is beneficial because the receiver will get practice in defending their original attitude, therefore strengthening it. This is important in fighting off future threats of opposing messages and helps to insure that the message will not affect their original stance on the issue (Banas & Rains, 285). Refutational preemption acts as the weak strain of the virus in this metaphor. By injecting the virus or opposing opinion into a person, you are letting them learn how to fight off the opposing threat. By the time you body processes the virus or you process the counter attack, you have learned how to eliminate the threat. In the case of messaging, if the threatening message is weak or unconvincing, a person is able to reject the message and stick with their original stance on the matter. By being able to reject threatening messages a person builds up the strength of their belief and with every unsuccessful threatening message that they encounter their original opinions only get stronger. (Banas & Rains, 285).
Delay is the next element that is necessary in the inoculation process. There has been much debate on whether or not 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 suggested that delay was necessary in strengthening 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. With this being said, it has been revealed that 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 (Banas & rains, 286-7).
Involvement is the last element necessary in the effectiveness of inoculation theory. This element is important because an individual’s involvement with an issue determines how effective the inoculation process will be, if at all. If an individual has no involvement, or interest in the subject, they are not going to perceive a threat toward their attitude and therefore will not feel the need to defend and strengthen their original opinion, making the inoculation process useless. A graphic that visualizes the entire inoculation process and the necessary elements can be seen on page 8 of this paper.
Application in Public Relations
The field of Public Relations is the perfect place for the inoculation theory to be put to use because the field itself is meant to act to the public, their opinions, and their actions. It’s especially useful with an audience who already has an opinion on a brand. If someone already has a brand preference they are more than likely not going to change that preference and it is a PR professional’s job to make sure it stays that way. Inoculation theory is the perfect way to convince already faithful customers that they are making the right choice in trusting your company and to keep the customer coming back in the future.
One company that did a great job of using this theory is Apple and their “Mac vs. PC” campaign. This campaign did a great job of following the inoculation theory in targeting those who already preferred Mac computers. The series of ads put out in the duration of the campaign had a similar theme; they directly compared Macs and PCs. Inoculation theory is in action here because these commercials are more than likely aimed toward apple users. These ads are effective because the apple users already have a preference for Mac computers and they unlikely to change their minds. This comparison creates refutational preemption, showing mac users that macs may not be the only viable options on the market. The TV ads throw in a few of the positive advantages that PCs have over Macs, but by the end of every commercial they reiterate the fact that the Mac is ultimately the superior product for consumers. This reassures viewers that their opinion is still right and that macs are in fact better than PCs.
The use of inoculation theory in these ads keep Mac users coming back for apple products and may even have them coming back sooner for the bigger and better products that Apple is releasing. That last part is especially important in a field like technology because it is continually changing and something new is always being pushed out onto the shelves.
Another great example of inoculation theory is a series of videos that College Humor released in support of same-sex marriage. One of the videos that the website released was titled, “Gay Men Will Marry Your Girlfriends.” During the videos a number of gay men talk about how if they are not allowed to get married to another man they will just marry the girlfriends of the people opposing them. The video start off with the men saying, “fine, keep marriage between a man and a woman. We’ll just marry your girlfriends,” suggesting that they don’t care if they cannot get married to other men. As the video goes on they list a bunch of reasons why gay men would make better husbands than straight men and why it would really be okay to not have same-sex marriage. At the end of the video they turn the message back around in support of gay marriage and the men say “don’t make us marry your girlfriends, support gay marriage.” These videos could be targeted toward both sides of the issue, but for those who already support gay marriage, these videos would only strengthen that standpoint. The video presents the fact that there are two different view points on the issue, it even toys with the idea that it would really be okay if same-sex marriage weren’t supported because at least women would better enjoy gay men as suitors. The video was not extreme enough to turn a current supporter of gay marriage, but it made enough of a threat that after watching the video a supporter would feel stronger about their opinion than they did before watching the video.
While it may seem as though these ads are not necessary for people who already use apple products or support gay marriage, it does strengthen the publics’ support of the message that is being sent out. While it is not likely that a person who has already made an opinion in favor of a message will change that opinion, it is not guaranteed that that attitude will never change. Inoculation theory helps to strengthen preexisting attitudes and helps to prevent an individual’s attitudes from ever shifting over time.
Conclusion
Inoculation theory is so important in a field like PR, because it keeps consumers believing in your cause, your products, or your message. This theory is vital in the field of Public Relations because the purpose of PR is to convince and audience that your brand is the best and to maintain that view point among your audience. While you know that what you are putting out to the public, your target audience already prefers, you cannot be sure that preference will always stand true. By creating a threat to consumers’ beliefs you strengthen their attitude toward your message and ensure that they will remain in line with you are trying to accomplish. It is not a perfect science, but inoculation theory uses the natural inclinations of human beings to an advantage and makes sure that individual’s preferred attitude stays the same or even strengthens over time.
References
Banas, J. A., & Rains, S. A. (2010). A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Communication Monographs, 77(3), 281-311. doi:10.1080/03637751003758193
Dewey, Russ. “Inoculation and Forewarning. Chapter 15: Social | from Psychology: An Introduction. http://www.intropsych.com/ch15_social/inoculation_against_persuasion.html. Web. 07 Feb. 2016.
“Inoculation Theory.”, 2008-01-01. Oxford Reference. 2009-01-01. Date Accessed 7 Feb. 2016. http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100004443.
Vaughan, D. R. (2009). Inoculation Theory. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Communication Theory (Vol. 1, pp. 515-517). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3201900179&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=psucic&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=18a9ea8ad922c9636430ddbed8e756f1
College Humor Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8
Mac vs. PC Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZSBWbnmGrE