Inoculating against fatalistic beliefs: a comparative test of narrative and non-narrative strategies

This study compares the effectiveness of narrative and non-narrative inoculation messages in reducing fatalistic beliefs and fostering resistance to conflicting cancer information. A two-phase randomized experiment (N = 572 in Phase 1; n = 332 in Phase 2) tested their effects on counterarguing against attack, cancer fatalism, perceived efficacy, and intentions to adopt cancer risk-reduction behaviors. Compared with control, both inoculation messages reduced cancer fatalism, enhanced perceived efficacy, and increased certain intentions to adopt certain risk-reduction behaviors. Narrative inoculation elicited more counterarguing against attack than the non-narrative counterpart. Inoculation effects also varied by baseline fatalism, functioning therapeutically by immediately reducing initially high fatalism and, more modestly, prophylactically by maintaining initially low fatalism. These findings extend inoculation theory by elucidating the role of message format in sustaining resistance to negative media effects, and by demonstrating the theory’s potential dual prophylactic–therapeutic functionality in a fatalistic belief context.