CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 233Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyPsychology of Social Influence

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inducing Resistance to Conspiracy Theory Propaganda: Testing Inoculation and Metainoculation Strategies

Banas, John A., Miller, Gregory·2013·Human Communication Research
DOI 10.1111/hcre.12000
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This investigation examined the boundaries of inoculation theory by examining how inoculation can be applied to conspiracy theory propaganda as well as inoculation itself (called metainoculation). A 3-phase experiment with 312 participants compared 3 main groups: no-treatment control, inoculation, and metainoculation. Research questions explored how inoculation and metainoculation effects differ based on the argument structure of inoculation messages (fact- vs. logic-based). The attack message was a 40-minute chapter from the 9/11 Truth conspiracy theory film, Loose Change: Final Cut. The results indicated that both the inoculation treatments induced more resistance than the control message, with the fact-based treatment being the most effective. The results also revealed that metainoculation treatments reduced the efficacy of the inoculation treatments.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hcre.12000

Cites

0 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: 36

  1. Becker, 1961, An index to measure contingency of English sentences, Language and Speech, 4, 138, 10.1177/002383096100400301 · DOI
  2. Brock, 1967, Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinant of counterargument production, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 269, 10.1016/0022-1031(67)90031-5 · DOI
  3. Burgoon, 1978, An empirical test of model of resistance to persuasion, Human Communication Research, 5, 27, 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00620.x · DOI
  4. Chazan, 1996, European Jewry and the first crusade
  5. Compton, 2005, Inoculation theory of resistance to influence at maturity: Recent progress in theory development and application and suggestions for future research, Communication Yearbook, 29, 97, 10.1207/s15567419cy2901_4 · DOI
  6. Dillard, 2002, The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice, 10.4135/9781412976046 · DOI
  7. Goldzwig, 2002, Conspiracy rhetoric at the dawn of the new millennium: A response, Western Journal of Communication, 66, 492, 10.1080/10570310209374751 · DOI
  8. Grossman , L. 2006, September 3 Time · DOI
  9. Hayes, 2006, 9/11: The roots of paranoia: Conspiracy theories and public mistrust, The Nation, 283, 11
  10. Hellinger, 2003, Transparency and conspiracy: Ethnographies of suspicion in the new world order, 204, 10.1215/9780822384854-007 · DOI
  11. Hofstadter, 1964, November, The paranoid style in American politics, Harper's Magazine, 77
  12. Howell, 2010, Statistical methods for psychology
  13. Insko, 1967, Theories of attitude change
  14. Wyer, 1974, Cognitive organization and change: An information processing approach
  15. Levine, 2011, The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication
  16. Mason, 2002, Conspiracy nation: The politics of paranoia in postwar America, 40
  17. McGuire, 1961a, The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion, Sociometry, 24, 184, 10.2307/2786067 · DOI
  18. McGuire, 1961b, Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 326, 10.1037/h0048344 · DOI
  19. Melley, 2002, Conspiracy nation: The politics of paranoia in postwar America, 57
  20. Miller, 2002, Conspiracy theories: Public arguments as coded social critiques: A rhetorical analysis of the TWA fight 800 conspiracy theories, Argumentation and Advocacy, 39, 40, 10.1080/00028533.2002.11821576 · DOI
  21. Miller, 2013, Boosting the potency of resistance: Combining the motivational forces of inoculation and psychological reactance, Human Communication Research, 39, 127, 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01438.x · DOI
  22. Mook, 1983, In defense of external validity, American Psychologist, 38, 379, 10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379 · DOI
  23. Papageorgis, 1961, The generality of immunity to persuasion produced by pre-exposure to weakened counterarguments, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 475, 10.1037/h0048430 · DOI
  24. Park, 2007, The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions, Human Communication Research, 33, 81, 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00290.x · DOI
  25. Perelman, 1969, The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation
  26. Petty, 1986, Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change, 10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Pfau, 2005, Evaluating conspiracy: Narrative, argument, and ideology in Lincoln's “House Divided” speech, Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 57, 10.1080/00028533.2005.11821642 · DOI
  28. Pfau, 2004, The traditional explanation for resistance versus attitude accessibility: Do they trigger distinct or overlapping processes of resistance?, Human Communication Research, 30, 329
  29. Pfau, 2005, Inoculation and mental processing: The instrumental role of associative networks in the process of resistance to counterattitudinal influence, Communication Monographs, 72, 414, 10.1080/03637750500322578 · DOI
  30. Pfau, 2009, Nuances about the role and impact of affect and enhanced threat in inoculation, Communication Monographs, 76, 73, 10.1080/03637750802378807 · DOI
  31. Pfau, 2001, The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion, Human Communication Research, 27, 216, 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00781.x · DOI
  32. Pfau, 1997, Nuances in inoculation: The role of inoculation approach, ego-involvement, and message processing disposition in resistance, Communication Quarterly, 45, 461, 10.1080/01463379709370077 · DOI
  33. Shermer, 1997, Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstitions, and other confusions of our time
  34. Stempel, 2007, Media use, social structure, and believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 353, 10.1177/107769900708400210 · DOI
  35. Szabo, 2002, The persuasion handbook
  36. Willman, 2002, Conspiracy nation: The politics of paranoia in postwar America, 21

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 233

Metadata

Authors
Banas, J. A., & Miller, G.
Affiliations
University of Oklahoma (US)
Corresponding author
Banas, John A.
ORCID
Banas, John A.
Venue
Human Communication Research
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2013-01-25
Volume
39
Issue
2
Pages
184-207
ISSN
0360-3989 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/hcre.12000
OpenAlex
W1963443214
Cited by
233
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5
FWCI
13.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 949 d)
Locations
Human Communication Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
inoculation theory, conspiracy theories, argument structure

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