Nuances about the Role and Impact of Affect in Inoculation

Abstract

This study examined the role and impact of affect in resistance. A three-phase experiment was conducted. The results indicated that inoculation treatments conferred resistance and exerted nuanced outcomes involving cognitive and affective responses to counterarguments and affect. The investigation also compared the effectiveness of cognitive, affective-positive, and affective-negative treatments. The results revealed that affective-negative messages were superior in eliciting threat, issue involvement, and cognitive counterarguing output and in enhancing the cognitive content of associative networks.

Keywords:

• Inoculation
• Affect
• Resistance to Influence

Acknowledgements

We thank instructors in the Department of Communication who provided subjects for this study.

Notes

1. The issues of restricting banning handguns and legalizing marijuana scored 7.63 and 6.28, respectively, on a three-item, 10-interval involvement measure, which was based on a tool originally developed by Traylor (1981). Scores on involvement across the 16 issues ranged from 5.33 to 7.63. The distribution of opinion—for, against, and neutral/no opinion—was: for banning handguns: 25%, 55%, and 19%; and for legalizing marijuana: 31%, 49%, and 19%.

2. All participants manifested attitudes toward at least one of the two issues.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael Pfau

Michael Pfau is Professor and Chair is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma

Shane M. Semmler

Shane M. Semmler was doctoral students in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma when the study was conducted

Leslie Deatrick

Leslie Deatrick was doctoral students in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma when the study was conducted

Alicia Mason

Alicia Mason was doctoral students in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma when the study was conducted

Gwen Nisbett

Gwen Nisbett was doctoral students in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma when the study was conducted

Lindsay Lane

Lindsay Lane was doctoral students in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma when the study was conducted

Elizabeth Craig

Elizabeth Craig was doctoral students in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma when the study was conducted

Jill Underhill

Jill Underhill was doctoral students in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma when the study was conducted

John Banas

John Banas is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma