Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract One of the most significant departures from conventional inoculation theory is its intentional application for individuals already “infected”—that is, inoculation not as a preemptive strategy to protect existing positions from future challenges, but instead, inoculation as a means to change a position (e.g., from negative to positive) and to protect the changed position against future challenges. The issue is important for persuasion scholarship in general, as theoretical boundary conditions help at each stage of persuasion research development, serving as a guide for literature review, analysis, synthesis, research design, interpretation, theory building, and so on. It is an important issue for inoculation theory and resistance to influence research, specifically, for it gets at the very heart—and name and foundation—of inoculation theory. This article offers a theoretical analysis of inoculation theory used as both prophylactic and therapeutic interventions and concludes with a set of recommendations for inoculation theory scholarship moving forward.
Josh Compton (Sat,) studied this question.