The General Content of Postinoculation Talk: Recalled Issue-Specific Conversations Following Inoculation Treatments

Abstract

For much of inoculation theory's 50-year history, research has focused on intrapersonal processes of resistance such as threat and subvocal counterarguing. More recently, attention has shifted to interpersonal processes of inoculation-conferred resistance, specifically, postinoculation talk (PIT). This study examined the substance of PIT, and how people may talk to one another for reassurance and advocacy following an inoculation. Findings indicate advocacy attempts were significantly greater within the inoculation condition. Those inoculated were more likely to a) pass along material included in the inoculation treatment, b) share issue-relevant novel material, c) talk about topics related to the target issue, and d) be challenged by conversational partners when attempting advocacy. Results help explain what inoculated individuals talk about following an inoculation treatment, and how PIT may spread the process of resistance along social networks.

Keywords:

• Counterarguing
• Inoculation
• Interpersonal Communication
• Postinoculation Talk
• Resistance
• Word of Mouth Communication

Notes

Differences in participants' initial attitudes toward the issues were not discovered as a result of university size or location, F(4, 415) = .26, p = .90. The five university data collection sites varied in size (1,200 to 30,000 students) and location; two of the universities were located in the southwest (size, medium and large), two in the southeast (size, large and small), and one in the central (size, medium) region of the country.

The unbalanced samples for treatment and control were the result of two slightly different inoculation messages being designed for each inoculation issue (both for and against the issue), and used to test theoretical nuances not pertinent to this study. Since no inoculation differences were discovered among inoculated individuals who provided recalled conversations as the result of the two different inoculation messages on PIT for both the number of conversational partners, t(200) = .58, p = 56, and conversation frequency, t(200) = .69, p = 49, the inoculation conditions were combined.

Attitude change was derived as the difference between final and initial attitude toward the issue, which allowed for the individual impact of the initial attitude to be controlled.

The rest of the control participants either discussed the treatment issue, 71.43% (20/28), or did not discuss any issues, 7.14% (2/28). Similarly, the rest of the treatment participants discussed the inoculation-specific issue, 67.16% (135/201) or did not discuss any issues, 1.49% (3/201).

The negative number represents the scale used to trichotomize attitude strength/confidence, with 1 representing high; thus, the greater the number of challenges, the higher the strength/confidence in the attitude.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Bobi Ivanov

Bobi Ivanov is an Associate Professor and interim Associate Dean for Graduate Programs in Communication in the College of Communication and Information at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Jeanetta D. Sims

Jeanetta D. Sims is an Associate Professor in the Department of Marketing at the University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond.

Josh Compton

Josh Compton is a Senior Lecturer in Speech in the Institute for Writing and Rhetoric at Dartmouth College, Hanover.

Claude H. Miller

Claude H. Miller is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Kimberly A. Parker

Kimberly A. Parker is an Associate Professor and Academic Director of iNET (Innovation Network for Entrepreneurial Thinking) in the College of Communication and Information at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

James L. Parker

James L. Parker is Vice President of Student Development and Enrollment in the Office of Student Development and Enrollment at Bemidji State University, Bemidji.

Kylie J. Harrison

Kylie J. Harrison is an Assessment Specialist and Report Writer in the Center for Curriculum, Learning, Technology, and Institutional Assessment at Mid-America Christian University, Oklahoma City.

Joshua M. Averbeck

Joshua M. Averbeck is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Western Illinois University, Macomb.