Citation

Pfau M, Holbert RL, Zubric SJ, Pasha NH, Lin WK. Media Psychol. 2000; 2(1): 1-33.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2000, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1207/S1532785XMEP0201_1

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This investigation examined the role and influence of print and video communication modalities in inoculation. Inoculation is assumed to be an active cognitive process, and past research has assumed that inoculation treatments function in much the same way in fostering resistance to influence, irrespective of the medium employed to deliver them. The pattern of results indicates that print and video forms do not differ appreciably in their capacity to confer resistance, but they vary considerably in terms of how they promote resistance. Compared to controls, both inoculation approaches effectively generated threat but, contrary to what was predicted, only video elicited significant counterarguing output. In addition, the results confirmed that video treatments employ an alternative mechanism in conferring resistance, one that is based more on source considerations. Video treatments immediately generated positive relational perceptions about the source of the treatments, and they immediately bolstered attitudes. Positive relational perceptions of the source of inoculation treatments were subsequently associated with more negative perceptions of the source of counterattitudinal attacks, and to resistance to the attacks. By contrast, print treatments worked through more cognitive means, eventually inducing resistance, but only after participant exposure to counterattitudinal attacks.
This investigation examined the role and influence of print and video communication modalities in inoculation. Inoculation is assumed to be an active cognitive process, and past research has assumed that inoculation treatments function in much the same way in fostering resistance to influence, irrespective of the medium employed to deliver them. The pattern of results indicates that print and video forms do not differ appreciably in their capacity to confer resistance, but they vary considerably in terms of how they promote resistance. Compared to controls, both inoculation approaches effectively generated threat but, contrary to what was predicted, only video elicited significant counterarguing output. In addition, the results confirmed that video treatments employ an alternative mechanism in conferring resistance, one that is based more on source considerations. Video treatments immediately generated positive relational perceptions about the source of the treatments, and they immediately bolstered attitudes. Positive relational perceptions of the source of inoculation treatments were subsequently associated with more negative perceptions of the source of counterattitudinal attacks, and to resistance to the attacks. By contrast, print treatments worked through more cognitive means, eventually inducing resistance, but only after participant exposure to counterattitudinal attacks.