Misplaced Pages

Refutational preemption

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Aspect of inoculation theory
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
The topic of this article may not meet Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.
Find sources: "Refutational preemption" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
(Learn how and when to remove this message)

In inoculation theory, refutational preemption consists of “specific content that receivers can employ to strengthen attitudes against subsequent change.”

Overview

Drawing on McGuire & Papageorgis, Pfau, et al. define the refutational preemption, or pretreatment, step of the inoculation process: "The theory posits that refutational pretreatments, which raise the specter of content potentially damaging to the receiver’s attitude while simultaneously providing direct refutation of that content in the presence of a supportive environment, threaten the individual. This triggers the motivation to bolster arguments supporting the receiver’s attitudes, thus conferring resistance".

Instead of providing the receiver with additional supporting evidence why their held beliefs are true, the receiver is provided counterarguments they may encounter in the future that might challenge their held belief. The effectiveness of this inoculation falls off as the level of effort required by the receiver to defend the belief increases.

See also

References

  1. Kyle, Michael Pfau; Tusing, James; Koerner, Ascan F.; Lee, Waipeng; Goldbold, Linda C.; Penzola, Linda J.; Shu-Huei, Violet; Hong, Yang-Huei (1997). "Enriching the Inoculation Construct The Role of Critical Components in the Process of Resistance". Human Communication Research. 24 (2). Oxford University Press (OUP): 187–215. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00413.x. ISSN 0360-3989.
  2. Pfau, Michael; Kenski, Henry C.; Nitz, Michael; Sorenson, John (1990). "Efficacy of inoculation strategies in promoting resistance to political attack messages: Application to direct mail". Communication Monographs. 57 (1). Informa UK Limited: 25–43. doi:10.1080/03637759009376183. ISSN 0363-7751.
  3. McGuire, W. J.; Papageorgis, D. (1961). "The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 62 (2). American Psychological Association (APA): 327–337. doi:10.1037/h0042026. ISSN 0096-851X. PMID 13773992.
Categories:
Refutational preemption Add topic