This investigation compared the traditional explanation for the way inoculation confers resistance to influence with an alternative rationale for resistance based on attitude accessibility. Four hundred forty-three participants took part in the investigation in four phases spanning 54 days. The combined multiple regression and structural equation modeling results suggest that the traditional and alternative explanations for the way that inoculation confers resistance involve separate processes; counterarguing and accessibility appear to be distinct tracks en route to resistance, but the two explanations also are overlapping processes in which elicited threat plays an integral role.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pfau et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: