Inoculating Against Anti-Vaccination Conspiracies

References

• Abelson, R. P. (1995). Statistics as principled argument. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Afifi, A. A., Clark, V., & May, S. (2004). Computer-aided multivariate analysis. Chapman and Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Amazeen, M. A., Krishna, A., & Eschmann, R. (2022). Cutting the bunk: Comparing the solo and aggregate effects of prebunking and debunking Covid-19 vaccine misinformation. Science Communication, 44(4), 387–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221111558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aquino, F., Donzelli, G., De Franco, E., Privitera, G., Lopalco, P. L., & Carducci, A. (2017). The web and public confidence in MMR vaccination in Italy. Vaccine, 35(35), 4494–4498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.029
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banas, J. A. (2020). Inoculation theory. In J. Van den Bulck, D. R. Ewoldsen, M.-L. Mares & E. Scharrer (Eds.), International encyclopedia of media psychology (pp. 1––8). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0285
   Google Scholar
• Banas, J. A., & Bessarabova, E. (2023). Employing inoculation theory to mitigate conspiratorial beliefs. In M. Miller (Ed.), The social science of QAnon: Understanding a new social and political phenomenon (pp. 252–270). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Banas, J., Bessarabova, E., Adame, B., & Robertson, K. (2015, May). The role of emotion in inoculating against conspiracy media [Paper presentation]. International Communication Association (ICA) convention, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
   Google Scholar
• Banas, J. A., & Miller, G. (2013). Inducing resistance to conspiracy theory propaganda: Testing inoculation and metainoculation strategies. Human Communication Research, 39(2), 184–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banas, J. A., & Rains, S. A. (2010). A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Communication Monographs, 77(3), 281–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751003758193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banas, J. A., & Richards, A. (2017). Apprehension or motivation to defend attitudes? Exploring the underlying threat mechanism in inoculation-induced resistance to persuasion. Communication Monographs, 84(2), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1307999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belseck, N. (2019). Anti-vaxxers a top threat to global health. Medical Chronicle, 2019(2), 1–4. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-14439d025c
   Google Scholar
• Bessarabova, E., Piercy, C., King, S., Vincent, C., Dunbar, N. E., Burgoon, J. K., Miller, C. H., Jensen, M., Elkins, A., Wilson, D., Wilson, S. N., & Lee, Y.-H. (2016). Mitigating bias blind spot via a serious video game. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 452–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brotherton, R., French, C. C., & Pickering, A. D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: The generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgoon, M., Cohen, M., Miller, M. D., & Montgomery, C. L. (1978). An empirical test of a model of resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 5(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00620.x
   Google Scholar
• Carrieri, V., Madio, L., & Principe, F. (2019). Vaccine hesitancy and (fake) news: Quasi- experimental evidence from Italy. Health Economics, 28(11), 1377–1382. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compton, J. (2020). Prophylactic versus therapeutic inoculation treatments for resistance to influence. Communication Theory, 30(3), 330–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compton, J. A., & Pfau, M. (2005). Inoculation theory of resistance to influence at maturity: Recent progress in theory development and application and suggestions for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 29(1), 97–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2005.11679045
   Google Scholar
• Compton, J., van der Linden, S., Cook, J., & Basol, M. (2021). Inoculation theory in the post- truth era: Extant findings and new frontiers for contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, J., Ellerton, P., & Kinkead, D. (2018). Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors. Environmental Research Letters, 13(2), Article 024018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa49f
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Manalo, E. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS ONE, 12(5), Article e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deer, B. (2020). The doctor who fooled the world: Andrew Wakefield’s war on vaccines. Scribe Publications. https://doi.org/10.1353/book.99594
   Google Scholar
• Dimala, C. A., Kadia, B. M., Nji, M. A. M., & Becham, N. N. (2021). Factors associated with measles resurgence in the United States in the post-elimination era. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 51. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80214-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanov, B., Parker, K. A., & Dillingham, L. L. (2018). Testing the limits of inoculation-generated resistance. Western Journal of Communication, 82(5), 648–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2018.1454600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanov, B., Pfau, M., & Parker, K. A. (2009). The attitude base as a moderator of the effectiveness of inoculation strategy. Communication Monographs, 76(1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750802682471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2017). Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(8), 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Lancet. (2010). Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 375(9713), 445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lees, J., Banas, J. A., Linvill, D., Meirick, P. C., Warren, P., & Druckman, J. (2023). The spot the Troll Quiz game increases accuracy in discerning between real and in authentic social media accounts. PNAS Nexus, 2(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad094
   Google Scholar
• Levine, T. R. (2011). Quantitative social science methods of inquiry. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 25–55). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., Oberauer, K., & Denson, T. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS ONE, 8(10), Article e75637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. J. (1961). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry, 24(2), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786067
   Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60052-0
   Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1962a). Effectiveness of forewarning in developing resistance to persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/267068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1962b). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief- defense in producing immunity against persuasion. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external validity. American Psychologist, 38(4), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newheiser, A.-K., Farias, M., & Tausch, N. (2011). The functional nature of conspiracy beliefs: Examining the underpinnings of belief in the Da Vinci Code conspiracy. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 1007–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omer, S. B., Salmon, D. A., Orenstein, W. A., deHart, M. P., & Halsey, N. (2009). Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(19), 1981–1988. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0806477
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science: Advanced Materials and Devices, 349(6251), Article aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
   Google Scholar
• Parker, K. A., Ivanov, B., & Compton, J. (2012). Inoculation’s efficacy with young adults’ risky behaviors: Can inoculation confer cross-protection over related but untreated issues? Health Communication, 27(3), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.575541
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, K. A., Rains, S. A., & Ivanov, B. (2016). Examining the “blanket of protection” conferred by inoculation: The effects of inoculation messages on the cross-protection of related attitudes. Communication Monographs, 83(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1030681
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfau, M., Banas, J. A., Semmler, S. M., Deatrick, L., Lane, L., Mason, A., Nisbett, G., Craig, E., & Underhill, J. (2010). Role and impact of involvement and enhanced threat in resistance. Communication Quarterly, 58(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370903520307
   Google Scholar
• Pfau, M., Compton, J., Parker, K. A., Wittenberg, E. M., An, C., Ferguson, M., Horton, H., & Malyshev, Y. (2004). The traditional explanation for resistance versus attitude accessibility: Do they trigger distinct or overlapping processes of resistance? Human Communication Research, 30(3), 329–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00735.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfau, M., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D., Wood, M., Yin, S., Cho, J., Lu, K.-H., & Shen, L. (2003). Attitude accessibility as an alternative explanation for how inoculation confers resistance. Communication Monographs, 70(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750302474
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfau, M., Semmler, S. M., Deatrick, L., Lane, L., Mason, A., Nisbett, G., Craig, E., Cornelius, J., & Banas, J. A. (2009). Nuances about the role and impact of affect in inoculation. Communication Monographs, 76(1), 73–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750802378807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierre, J. M. (2020). Mistrust and misinformation: A two-component, socio-epistemic model of belief in conspiracy theories. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 8(2), 617–641. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v8i2.1362
   Google Scholar
• Richards, A., & Banas, J. A. (2018). The opposing mediational effects of apprehensive threat and motivational threat when inoculating against reactance to health promotion. Southern Communication Journal, 83(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2018.1498909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). The fake news game: Actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research, 22(5), 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1443491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., & Nygren, T. (2020). Prebunking interventions based on “inoculation” theory can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 1(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008
   Google Scholar
• Sapountzis, A., & Condor, S. (2013). Conspiracy accounts as intergroup theories: Challenging dominant understandings of social power and political legitimacy. Political Psychology, 34(5), 731–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid, P., & Betsch, C. (2019). Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(9), 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stempel, C., Hargrove, T., & Stempel, G. H., III. (2007). Media use, social structure, and belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(2), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900708400210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swami, V., Coles, R., Stieger, S., Pietschnig, J., Furnham, A., Rehim, S., & Voracek, M. (2011). Conspiracist ideation in Britain and Austria: Evidence of a monological belief system and associations between individual psychological differences and real-world and fictitious conspiracy theories. British Journal of Psychology, 102(3), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2010.02004.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swami, V., Pietschnig, J., Tran, U. S., Nader, I. W., Stieger, S., & Voracek, M. (2013). Lunar lies: The impact of informational framing and individual differences in shaping conspiracist beliefs about the moon landings. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2873
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran, U. S., & Furnham, A. (2014). Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition, 133(3), 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traberg, C. S., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation against misinformation: Current evidence and future directions. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221087936
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uscinski, J. E., & Parent, J. M. (2014). American conspiracy theories. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), Article 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vraga, E. K., Kim, S. C., Cook, J., & Bode, L. (2020). Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and type on Instagram. The International Journal of Press/politics, 25(4), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220919082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood, M. J., Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2012). Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 767–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611434786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. (2019). Ten threats to global health in 2019. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019
   Google Scholar
• Young, M. J., Launer, M. K., & Austin, C. C. (1990). The need for evaluative criteria: Conspiracy argument revisited. Argumentation & Advocacy, 26(3), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1990.11951482
   Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1086/208520
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarefsky, D. (2014). Rhetorical perspectives on argumentation (Vol. 24). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8
   Google Scholar