I. Resistance to PersuasionA. Most theories focus on explaining how attitudes are changedB. Resistance research examines how to prevent attitude or behavior change1. Protect your positive attitude from being changed/from attackC. From the persuasion matrix:1. Reinforcing an attitude or behavior to prevent it from being changedII. Inoculation Theory: Overview (McGuire, 1961)A. Biological metaphor1. Attitudes can be inoculated in the same way that we can be inoculated against a virus2. Introducing a weakened strain of an argument to promote resistancea. Weakened strain leads to the development of antibodiesi. i.e., counterargumentsii. Ex: a weak reason why recycling is bad, they would say it doesn't make sense and they would give you all of the reasons why recycling is good, so that is protecting them for when somebody tries to attack their attitudesb. Prepares us to better defend against future attacksIII. Inoculation Theory: BackgroundA. “Cultural truisms”1. “Beliefs that are so widely shared within the person’s social milieu that he would not have heard them attacked, and indeed, would doubt that an attack were possible” (McGuire, 1964, p. 201)a. Un-contested attitudes or beliefsi. Ex: tooth brushing is beneficialii. Ex: democracy is good2. McGuire argued that, because they are untested, we are not able to effectively defend thema. They exist in an “antiseptic” environment and are, thus, susceptible to attackB. Inoculation renders us better able defend against future attacks on our belief systemC. A strategy for making attitudes resistant to attack1. i.e., resistant to attempts at changing that attitudeD. Has been applied beyond cultural truismsIV. Inoculation Theory: Key ElementsA. Threat: forewarning of an impending attack1. E.g., “You might hear a new ad campaign about how most common methods of recycling do not benefit the environment.”2. People must feel that their existing attitudes are threatened in order to motivate them to strengthen those attitudes3. Creates motivation to defend one’s existing attitude4. Compton and Pfau (2005): “inoculation is impossible without threat” (pp. 100-101)B. Refutational preemption1. 2a. (Weakened) counterarguments against one’s current attitudea. Ex: if pro-recycling, “Having separate bins for trash and recycling requires the city of Tucson to burn twice as much fossil fuel in collecting trash.” (arguments against the belief you hold2. 2b. Refutations of those counterargumentsa. Arguments against those arguments (refute counterarguments)i. Ex: counterargument = “having separate bins for trash and recycling requires the city of Tucson to burn twice as much fossil fuel in collecting trash.”; refutation = “the fossil fuels used to collect recycling are more than offset by not having to create new plastic and aluminum containers from raw materials.”C. Two types of refutational preemption:1. Active refutation:a. Identify counterarguments against the attitude and have the audience develop their own refutationsi. You come up with refutationsb. Mostly used in early inoculation researchc. Strength: people are more committed to refutations they develop on their ownd. Limitation: people have difficulty identifying refutations2. Passive refutation:a. Provide the audience with counterargument and refutations to those counterargumentsi. Provided with bothb. Strength: more efficient – does not rely on audiencec. Limitation: people may be less committedD. Two types of passive refutational preemptions:1. Refutation-samea. Addresses the exact same arguments as are raised in the attitude-attacking messageb. Limitation: must know attack in advance2. Refutation-differenta. Addresses a generic form of the arguments raised in the attitude-attacking messagei. Much more general; allows us to prepare for a number of different attacksii. Since you don't know how you will be attacked, you usually use refutation-differentb. Limitation: may be less effectiveV. Inoculation Theory: Factors to ConsiderA. Time between inoculation and attack1. How much time prior to an attack should inoculation occur?a. McGuire said 2 days to build resistance2. Some evidence that effects of inoculation may persist – even up to months laterB. Topic involvement1. Inoculation works best when people are moderately involved- as opposed to high or low in involvementEx: smoking is not allowed on campusThis is not a Persuasion theory. Reactance is a theory to explain how persuasion attempts fail!!I. Reactance Background (Brehmn, 1966)A. We greatly value our personal freedom1. Autonomy and self-determination are central to who we area. Ex: we are the land of the free, home of the braveb. I should be able to do what I can doB. When we perceive that a relevant freedom has been threatened, we feel “psychological reactance”1. Reactance is a “motivational state”a. Reactance motivates a person to reestablish the threatened or eliminated freedomi. Ex: lets take back our freedomsii. Ex: The American Revolution2. Reactance is often cited as a cause for the failure of persuasive message campaigns ***(ON TEST)***a. Ex: teacher got a note that his son had a temper problem in class, he had 2 choices and then they were taken away. This resulted in his anger flipping tables.II. Overview of Psychological Reactance TheoryA. Freedom1. Listed on next paragraph. Look down!B. Threat1. Anything that reduces or eliminates our freedomC. Reactance1. Anger2. Negative thoughtsa. Ex: well since I’m mad I have a curfew, I’m going to speed in my carD. ReinstatementIII. FreedomA. The belief that one can:1. Engage in a particular behavior2. Hold a particular orientation toward a person, object, or issuea. Ex: my parents disapprove of my bf, but that just makes me want to be with her moreB. For a freedom to exist one must:1. Have knowledge that the freedom existsa. Awareness that the freedom exists2. Have the competence to exercise that freedoma. Believe that we could, if we choose, exercise the freedomIV. (Freedom) ThreatA. The recognition of an attempt to reduce or eliminate one’s freedom1. Perceived threat = threat2. Ex: “…is prohibited.” “You must not…”3. Freedoms can be threatened by implication – implied freedom threats can create reactanceB. Almost any kind of persuasion attempt can be construed as a freedom-threatening1. Trying to change someone’s attitude is, in essence, an attempt at limiting or removing his/her freedom to have that attitude2. Ex: