CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 510Social and Intergroup PsychologyBehavioral Health and InterventionsPsychology of Social Influence

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 120 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Meta-Analysis of Research on Inoculation Theory

Banas, John A., Rains, Stephen A.·2010·Communication Monographs
DOI 10.1080/03637751003758193
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03637751003758193

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · DOI · Paper page
  2. *An , C. 2003 . Efficacy of inoculation strategies in promoting resistance to political attack messages: Source credibility perspective . Unpublished doctoral dissertation , University of Oklahoma .
  3. 10.1207/s15567419cy2901_4 · DOI
  4. *Davis , C. M. 1965 . An experimental analysis of propaganda-resistance-conferring techniques for controversial and non-controversial issues . Unpublished doctoral dissertation , University of Iowa .
  5. 10.1002/mar.4220120509 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/B978-0-08-057065-5.50010-5 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1162/105474603321640932 · DOI
  8. 10.1037/h0044782 · DOI
  9. *Koehler , J. W. 1968 . Effects on audience opinion of one-sided and two-sided speeches supporting and opposing a proposition, examining opinions on speaker's ethos, the topic and the “open mindedness” of listeners . Unpublished doctoral dissertation , Pennsylvania State University .
  10. *Lee , W.-P. 1997 . The effects of cognitive and affective inoculation appeals in conferring resistance against cognitive and affective attacks . Unpublished doctoral dissertation , University of Wisconsin at Madison .
  11. *MacDougall , B. L. 2001 . The role of attitude bases and argument type in the inoculation effect . Unpublished Master's thesis , Queen's University .
  12. 10.1111/j.1468–2958.2007.00290_2.x · DOI
  13. Pfau , M. 1997 . “ The inoculation model of resistance to influence ” . In Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion , Edited by: Barnett , G. A. and Boster , F. J. Vol. 13 , 133 – 171 . Greenwich, CT : Ablex .
  14. *Pfau , M. , Compton , J. , Parker , K. Wittenberg , E. , An , C. , Ferguson , M. et al. . 2003 . Inoculation, mental processing, and time: The short- and long-term influence of associative networks in the process of resistance to counterattitudinal influence . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association , San Diego, CA .
  15. 10.1080/03637750302474 · DOI
  16. *Shapiro , M. E. 1978 . The effect of belief type, pretreatment strategy, and language intensity on the induction of resistance to persuasion . Unpublished doctoral dissertation , Florida State University .
  17. Szabo , E. A. , & Pfau , M. 2001 , November . Reactance as a response to antismoking messages . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association , Atlanta, GA .
  18. *Wood , M. L. M. 2006 . Expertise and prior attitude: Exploring new moderators in the context of inoculation research . Unpublished doctoral dissertation , University of Wisconsin at Madison .
  19. *Yin , S. 2003 . Priming in the inoculation process: An alternative route of resistance to persuasion . Unpublished doctoral dissertation , University of Wisconsin at Madison .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 510

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Banas, J. A., & Rains, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oklahoma (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Banas, John A.
ORCID
Venue
Communication Monographs
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2010-09
Volume
77
Issue
3
Pages
281-311
ISSN
  • 0363-7751 (ISSN-L)
  • 1479-5787
DOI
10.1080/03637751003758193
OpenAlex
W2144729414
Cited by
510
References
116
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Communication Monographs (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
inoculation theory, attitude change, threat level, audience involvement, persuasion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review