The results reported here, however, take us one step closer to a clearer understanding of the nature and quality of PIT, and how it may function in multiple ways within the process of inoculation-conferred resistance. 

Bobi Ivanov, Jeanetta Sims, Josh Compton, Claude Miller, Kimberly Parker, et al.

For much of inoculation theory’s fifty-year history, research has focused on the intrapersonal processes of resistance—such as threat and subvocal counterarguing. However, some attention has recently shifted to the interpersonal processes of inoculation-conferred resistance, and more specifically, to post-inoculation talk (PIT). This study examined the substance of PIT, and how people may talk to one another for reassurance and advocacy following an inoculation. Findings indicate advocacy attempts were significantly greater within the inoculation condition. Furthermore, those who were inoculated were more likely to pass along material included in the inoculation treatment, were more likely to share issue-relevant novel material, were more likely to talk about topics related to the target issue, and were more likely to be challenged by conversational partners when attempting advocacy. Results offer a clearer understanding of what inoculated individuals talk about following an inoculation treatment, and provide further support for the notion that PIT functions to spread the process of resistance along social networks. 

Ivanov, B., Sims, J. D., Compton, J., Miller, C., Parker, K. A., Parker, J. L., Harrison, K., Averbeck, J., Aboubead, M., & Turner, K. (2012, November). The general content of post-inoculation talk: Recalled issue-specific conversations following inoculation treatments [paper presentation]. National Communication Association, Orlando, FL, United States.