The results reported here take us one step closer to a clearer understanding of the nature and quality of [postinoculation talk], 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.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10570314.2014.943423

For much of inoculation theory’s 50-year history, research has focused on intrapersonal processes of resistance such as threat and subvocal counterarguing. More recently, attention has shifted to interpersonal processes of inoculation-conferred resistance, specifically, postinoculation 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. Those inoculated were more likely to a) pass along material included in the inoculation treatment, b) share issue-relevant novel material, c) talk about topics related to the target issue, and d) be challenged by conversational partners when attempting advocacy. Results help explain what inoculated individuals talk about following an inoculation treatment, and how PIT may spread the process of resistance along social networks.

Ivanov, B., Sims, J. D., Compton, J., Miller, C. H., Parker, K. A., Parker, J. L., Harrison, K. J., & Averbeck, J. M. (2015). The general content of postinoculation talk: Recalled issue-specific conversations following inoculation treatments. Western Journal of Communication, 79(2), 218-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2014.943423