I read up on the internet somewhere about inoculation theory, got curious and looked up Wikipedia, which says,
“Inoculation theory is a social psychological/communication theory that explains how an attitude or belief can be protected against persuasion or influence in much the same way a body can be protected against disease–for example, through preexposure to weakened versions of a stronger, future threat.”
I understand the disease analogy, but cannot relate with attitude/belief.
[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculation_theory)
In: Other
Basically a person holds a belief that needs to be “inoculated”. What happens is a *counter* argument is given to them that says their belief is wrong…but that argument is simplistic and paired with a reasonable explanation as to why the actual belief is true and the counter argument is false.
The subject sees how easily the (simplistic) counter argument is refuted and gains confidence in their original belief. This process continues with the counter arguments (and refutations) getting more and more complex.
Eventually the subject is essentially inoculated against having their mind changed. They will believe what they believe no matter what you say because they have witnessed argument after argument against it get refuted. Even if those arguments and refutations are full of holes, it doesn’t matter. As long as there is the appearance that the counter argument is defeated it works.
For example:
This tactic was used by the LGBT community to cause the American public accept homosexual marriage. They targeted a younger generation and inoculated them against the thought that gay marriage is wrong. There are some very valid arguments against gay marriage (for example the government shouldn’t be in the “marriage business” at all gay or straight) but by the time the question was put to vote the voting public was inoculated meaning it didn’t matter *what* argument was raised against it, they were going to believe it anyway.
Another example would be Christianity. Most people are exposed to overly simplistic versions of Christianity and then those arguments for it are refuted and mocked. As time wears on the arguments against it get moderately more complex and are refuted. Eventually they get to the point that it doesn’t matter if a very good sound argument for it’s existence is raised or not, (which there are) they will not believe it no matter what.
This theory can be used to convince people to believe something (as in the first example) or convince people *not* to believe something (as in the second example) depending on the desired outcome. It’s worth noting that a public that is inoculated will hold a belief even if it’s irrational to do so or illogical.
Latest Answers