![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
A meta-analysis of 54 cases testing the effectiveness of inoculation theory at conferring resistance and examining the mechanisms of the theory was conducted. The analyses revealed inoculation messages to be superior to both supportive messages and no-treatment controls at conferring resistance. Additionally, the results revealed refutational same and refutational different preemptions to be equally effective at reducing attitude change. However, the data were not consistent with some predictions made in narrative reviews of inoculation. No significant increase in resistance as a function of threat or involvement was found. Further, instead of a curvilinear effect for delay on resistance, the point estimates from our meta-analysis revealed equivalent resistance between immediate and moderate delays between inoculation and attack, with a decay in resistance after two weeks.
Keywords:
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the late Michael Pfau for inspiring this project
Notes
1. Fixed-effects models “treat the effect-size parameters as fixed but unknown constants to be estimated,” whereas random-effects models “treat the effect-size parameters as if they were a random sample from a population of effect parameters and estimate hyperparameters (usually just the mean and variance) describing this population of effect parameters” (Hedges & Vevea, 1998, p. 486). Tests of Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, and 5 were also conducted using random-effects model meta-analysis (or, where appropriate, random (mixed)-effects models). The results are consistent with the omnibus outcomes of the fixed-effects meta-analyses reported in this study. It was not possible to test Hypothesis 3 using a random (mixed)-effects model. Please contact the authors for the results of the random-effects model meta-analyses.
