Inoculation Theory

[Searcher08]

I am getting interested in communication science and am intrigued by inoculation theory...

However, I have been surprised by the small amount of information that seems to be available around it. Is there a particular link / source anyone would recommend for an good overview? Example in a non -KWH context (advertising?) would be useful as "training wheels" too

[justdrew]

ripped from:
www ciadvertising org student_account/fall_01/adv382j/cmoore/elaboration_likelihood_model.htm

Elaboration Likelihood Model
by: Charlie Moore

Introduction

Some people are gullible. They will accept anything at face value and they will trust others at the drop of a hat. Some people are argumentative. They have an opinion and they will have others take notice of it and believe it come hell or high water. Some people are stubborn. These people will have nothing to do with something they don’t believe or agree with. They form their own opinions based on facts that they know to be true and aren’t easily swayed otherwise. And some people are unconvincing. They may have something great to say, something really meaningful and useful. But they are unable to convey their message in a way that is credible to others. Then there are the people in the middle. Those with the happy balance of trust and skepticism. They may be ready to hear a message and take it in as their own, but if it is a worthless message or one ill conceived, then they cast it aside in search of new and meaningful information.



The fact that these different types of people exist is the foundation for the existence of the concept of persuasion. Without the green and gullible there would be no one to be persuaded. Without the argumentative and trustworthy ones there would be no one to persuade. But the very existence of certain types of people with certain personalities does not account for the existence of persuasion. There must be something in the message itself that lends itself to adoption. There must be something that people want to hear and believe and pass on as a viable concept. What is it about a message that makes people believe it and allow it to change their attitude about a subject?



In 1980, Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo created the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion to explain, in detail, how a persuasive message worked to change the attitude of the receiver. They proposed that a message was transmitted and received through one of two routes of persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route.



The central route holds that a person is more likely to be persuaded if he is able to elaborate on a message extensively. That is, if he is motivated to think about the message, is able to think about it, and if the message is a strong one, he will be persuaded in accordance with the message.



The peripheral route states that if a person is unable to elaborate on a message extensively, then she may still be persuaded by factors that have nothing do with the actual content of the message itself. That is that she would be drawn to the message by factors that she is already familiar with and has positive attitudes about and would associate those attitudes with the message. She would then be persuaded toward the message, albeit weakly and temporarily.



The following is an exploration of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) through the two routes to persuasion.



Central route
Persuasive communication

For a message to be effective it must be persuasive. It attempts to steer one’s thinking in a direction that will likely benefit the communicator and/or the receiver. Determining whether the message is indeed persuasive is what this model is all about. If it is a neutral message, it has failed to be persuasive and the receiver can take it or leave it for what it is worth (a waste of the receiver’s time). So, assuming that the message is in some way, at least a little bit persuasive, the receiver becomes involved in the next step. For the purposes of this paper, a persuasive message should be considered to be an advertisement.


Motivation to process

In order for the receiver to have motivation to process the message it must have some relevance to her. It should pertain to something that she already knows about. At least some familiarity with the subject matter of a message will encourage the receiver to process it. People have a lot to do in a day. They don’t have a chance or the desire to think about every little thing that pops up. This is known as low involvement. When a person has little or no tie to a product or message, they have little involvement with it and thus little or no desire to hear much about it.



On the other hand is high involvement. An expert in woodcarving will want to know more about techniques and processes that he can use to refine his craft. A person suffering from asthma will want to know about new breakthroughs in the treatments that will help her breath a little easier. In shopping for a car, a consumer will want to find out about all the features of several different models in order to make an informed and confident decision before spending such a sum of money. When a person has a high degree of personal experience with information conveyed in the persuasive communication, he or she is more likely to pay attention and get deeper into the message.


Ability to process

Now the receiver has been motivated to process but does he have the ability to do so? There may be a multitude of distractions: the kids screaming for dinner, the neighbor is at the door for another cup of sugar, the receiver is thirsty and wants a drink. Other advertisements and outlets of information are also distractors. Competition among persuasive messages is fierce and the receiver’s time is precious. He may simply not have the opportunity to process the message at that particular time.



The information being conveyed may be to complex to comprehend. An asthma sufferer will surely want to know about the new product but if the ad contains a lot of technical and medical jargon, the patient is likely to be turned off because she simply cannot understand the diction. She will not elaborate on the message.



If the receiver can understand the message and there are no distractions, he or she can then go to the next stage in the model.


Nature of arguments in the message

What is the message trying to say? If it is a strong message -- that is, if it is a well-constructed and convincing message, the receiver is more likely to receive it favorably. Persuasion may occur even if the message content is in contrast to the receiver’s initial attitude. If it is in keeping with the receiver’s previous opinions, there is likely to be lasting, positive persuasion. The receiver will have been pulled even more in the direction that he or she was already leaning, thus reinforcing that particular attitude for the future. At this point it is likely that behavior can be predicted as a result of persuasion (Fishbein 1975), i.e. the consumer will purchase the asthma medication because she was persuaded based on the strength and relevance of the message. Successful persuasion has occurred!



If the receiver has become involved with the message this far into the central path but the message does not contain a cogent argument or if it contains false information there is likely to be a boomerang effect. This means that the receiver will reject the message and form negative thoughts and feelings about the message. This is especially true when the receiver is an expert or has a lot of previous knowledge about the subject of the message. She may disagree with the ideas expressed in a well-formed argument and simply reject the message. Or she may see the inadequacies of the message and dismiss it as unreliable information, failing to be persuaded.




Peripheral route

If a message fails to be channeled through the central route, it may find a path to the receiver via the peripheral route. This happens when the receiver is not motivated to think about the message, if he is unable to process it, or if the argument is weak. A message using the peripheral route attempts to persuade by focusing on issues or themes that are not directly related to the subject matter of the message. That is, the message will attempt to grab attention by making the receiver think about something that she is already familiar with and has positive thoughts about, such as sex, money, or a celebrity. An example is the use of Michael Jordan in selling batteries. There is no distinguishable tie between Jordan’s reputation as a basketball player and a battery but a consumer may be persuaded to buy the battery simply because he likes Michael Jordan. In this example Michael Jordan is a peripheral cue.



Robert Cialdini has identified six types of peripheral cues: reciprocation, consistency, social proof, liking, authority, and scarcity.



1. Reciprocation is the idea that the receiver is somehow obligated to agree with the message because of some past experience or information.



2. Consistency means relying on thoughts held in the past. (“I felt like this before and I feel like this now”)



3. Social proof is akin to peer pressure. The actions and words of others are likely to influence a receiver of a new message.



4. Liking simply means that the speaker is likeable. They may be physically attractive, charismatic, or charming.



5. Authority is the sense that the speaker has some power over the receiver, be it an expertise in the subject matter or possibly an overbearing attitude.



6. Scarcity is the idea that the message will only be around for a short time and that the receiver should snatch it up before it disappears.



Each of these peripheral cues has little or nothing to do with the actual content of the message. (http://www.as.udayton.edu/com/FACULTY/Kenny/chap17.htm)



So if the message fails to take the central route at any step in the process (i.e. if the receiver is not motivated, does not have the ability, or if the argument is weak) then the next question is whether there is a peripheral cue present in the message. If there is no cue present, the original attitude will be retained. The attempt at persuasion will fail. If there is a cue, it may produce a positive, but temporary attitude change.



Although the attitude change may be temporary, it could be enough to encourage action. The consumer would then have some more experience with the object of the message. Then, later, when the message is repeated, it may have a better chance of surviving through the central route and change attitudes permanently.



For example: a student needs a new backpack. A Jansport ad happens to come on TV with kids looking cool and having fun with their new packs. The ad touts a few benefits but for the most part the ad is full of appealing visuals. The student is then peripherally motivated to buy a Jansport backpack. The student discovers that the pack is quite a nice and useful one and comes to respect the brand in general. The next time the ad comes on TV the student will have had some practical experience with the brand and will be more motivated to listen to the message and reinforce the positive opinions of Jansport backpacks. Even the very repetition of the message will serve to reinforce the opinions of the student. (Eagly 1993)


Conclusion
Tips for the would be persuader

These two routes to persuasion seem to exist as separate entities but Petty and Cacioppo note that they should be considered as poles on a “cognitive processing continuum that shows the degree of mental effort a person exerts when evaluating a message” (McClish 2001). There are innumerable factors that may account for the elaboration – or lack thereof - of a message. As such, the steps in the two routes may overlap as they combine with the environmental factors that the receiver deals with.



However, the two routes are distinct enough that they give a general direction for the communicator to follow in attempting to pass on his message. The central route is the stronger of the two routes. If a message is to persuade using this route, it should be well grounded in facts and attributes of the subject itself. These elements are more trustworthy in the eyes of the receiver and will be the basis for a convincing argument. As such, a message channeled through this route will result in lasting persuasion. There is a danger in attempting to employ the central route. If the subject’s attributes are meaningful but the argument is weak, a boomerang effect will occur, resulting in negative opinions of the subject and message. A boomerang effect will likely occur if the subject’s attributes are weak, even if the argument is strong. In such a case, the communicator should use the peripheral route to persuade the receiver.



When peripheral cues are present, a positive attitude change can occur. This change is likely to be ephemeral, however. For it to become a more lasting change the message should be repeated over a period of time. If there is no peripheral cue, the receiver’s initial attitude (probably a negative one) will be reinforced or altered in the negative direction. The communicator’s choice of routes is one to be made carefully, given the message content and the environment in which the message will be received.



The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion is a relatively new theory, having been developed within the last 20 years. Its theories have stood the test of time thus far, though well challenged. In an ever-changing climate, the Petty and Cacioppo’s model may see further updating or replacement in the near future. Nevertheless, successful persuasion will continue to rely on those special people with those special personality traits.







References



Cialdini, Robert B. (1993). Influence. New York:Harper Collins College Publishers.

Eagly and Chaiken, "McGuire's Information Processing Paradigm," in Eagly and Chaiken, The Psychology of Attitudes, 1993, pp. 259-279.



Fishbein and Ajzen. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.



McClish, Glen and Jacqueline Bacon (2000). Instructor's Manual for A First Look at Communication Theory, 4th Edition. (San Diego State University)



Petty and Cacioppo, "Epilog: A General Framework for Understanding Attitude Change Processes," in Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches, 1981.



Petty and Cacioppo, "Central and Peripheral Routes of Persuasion: Application to Advertising," in Percy and Woodside (eds.), Advertising and Consumer Psychology, 1983, pp. 3-23.



Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann, "Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (Sept. 1983), pp. 135-146.



http://chadwick.jlmc.iastate.edu/theory/elm.html



http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~kc502498/elm.htm



http://www.abacon.com/psychsite/glossary.html



http://www.as.udayton.edu/com/FACULTY/Kenny/chap17.htm



http://www.ciadvertising.org/student_ac ... aper1.html



http://www.uis.edu/~grubbs/bryant/chap5b.html



http://www.utexas.edu/coc/admedium/Ivor ... jcira.html

[justdrew]

Symbolic Convergence Theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About
Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT) is a general communication theory. SCT explains that meanings, emotions, values, and the motives for action are in the rhetoric that is co-created by people trying to make sense out of a common experience, such as university life. SCT posits that students talk about their shared experiences, like a professor they have had in class. During such discussions, a rhetorical fantasy might chain out about a professor that will bring the teacher into dramatic life acting in a classroom scene, often in humorous ways. A professor might be called "The Red Pheasant" because he has red hair and bobs his head like a pheasant going down a corn row. Or the professor might be called "The Candy Lady" because she brings treats to class.

SCT is a general communication theory because it explains that such fantasy-chaining by people about a common experience produces a rhetorical vision in all communities. Just as students co-create university dramas, so, too, do marines, police officers, firefighters, and members of any organization. SCT argues that people inherently co¬create their own symbolic reality into a stable rhetorical form that can be studied and understood. SCT calls these stable forms of viewing the world (that evolve through human talk), rhetorical visions. These rhetorical visions contain one of three underlying or under-girding master analogues (Righteous, Pragmatic, and Social).

Rhetorical visions are formed from various fantasies that chain out over important issues in the community. There are heroes, villains, and plotlines for each competing vision. Righteous heroes strive for excellence. These heroes want to be at the cutting edge of their field. They want things done the right way and they need in-depth knowledge to do so. A Righteous hero says: "If you want something done right, do it yourself" Social heroes stress the importance of human ties. For them, humane acts, loyalty, and trust are important values in forming strong, interpersonal bonds. They believe that networking is an important strategy for getting things done. Social heroes say: "You don't have to know everything about the job. You just have to know how to work with people and share knowledge to accomplish common goals. The Pragmatic hero seeks the most efficient and cost-effective strategy to reach a goal with a minimum of intellectual and emotional involvement. A Pragmatic university student says: "I need a university degree which requires the least effort, the fewest dollars, and the fastest time, to get the best job." In a nutshell, if the three competing heroes were discussing how they would change motor oil, the Righteous one would say: "I'll do it myself;" the Social one would say: "I'm having my trusted auto mechanic do it for me;" and the Pragmatic hero would say: "I'm going to Jiffy Lube because it's quicker and cheaper."

Fantasy types are the work-horse of SCT. New rhetorical fantasies are often created from old, existing ones. For example, if you go on the Internet and Google search "The Perfect Storm," the first seven or so hits are stories about the movie by that name in which three bad weather conditions produced monstrous, 100-foot waves that sunk a fish boat. However, the next score of hits reveal a fantasy type. Economic stories are reported that are called "The Perfect Economic Storm," meaning three bad economic events coincided to produce a disastrous business situation. You could have a "Perfect Storm" semester if three bad academic events occurred simultaneously like a professor from hell, an impossible roommate, and a bad case of the flu during finals week.

During the 1972 U.S. presidential election, people working for then-President Nixon broke into the national Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. They were caught, the President tried to cover it up, but eventually he had to resign. This high drama produced a fantasy type that still exists. The French have had their "Wine-gate," and President Reagan had his "Iran-gate." Put "gate" after anything these days and we know it's a plotline that involves administrative corruption and government cover-up. Sometimes a fantasy type is produced by putting "another" in front of an old drama, as in "another Vietnam," or "another Rodney King" case. When a rhetorical community knows one fantasy, they can quickly chain out a new one by making the first fantasy into a fantasy type.

As noted above, rhetorical visions can vary along a number of different continua. As you saw, two continua (Pure to Mixed Master Analogues, and Satisfied to Dissatisfied) produced 12 different visions. If one were to add three more continua (Egalitarian to Elite, Proselytizing to Secretive, and Flexible to Rigid) then there would be 96 potential dramas. However, in reality, most rhetorical communities have only three to seven at any given time. In fact, some communities only have one rhetorical vision. American history is replete with examples of one-vision religious cults. Jimmy Jones' Temple members committed mass ritualistic suicide in Guyana, The Heaven's Gate sect also committed mass ritualistic suicide in San Diego, and the Branch Davidians, in Waco, Texas, died in a confrontation with the FBI. In these extreme, righteous, rigid dramas, any backsliders are punished for even minor deviations from the orthodox vision.

You have probably not been in such an intense rhetorical vision but SCT predicts that you are most likely in several different rhetorical visions simultaneously. For example, you might be in a Righteous student vision at your university but also in a Pragmatic drama in your part-time job, while at the same time in a Social drama about America's place in world affairs. Furthermore, SCT suggests that over time you might migrate from one master analogue-based vision to another. In your first year of college you could have been caught up in a Righteous vision but by your senior year you might find yourself in a very Pragmatic drama about finishing school and getting a job.

Regardless of the longevity of a rhetorical vision, SCT explains that visions go through a five-stage lifecycle.

Stage 1: Creation

The genesis story of "In the beginning was the Word." For the University of St. Thomas, it was Bishop Ireland's dream of a Catholic Diocesan university. For the University of Missouri-Kansas City, it concerned the back room political deals necessary to get the legislative votes to have the State of Missouri bail out the bankrupt, private school, the University of Kansas City. The dominant rhetorical vision of your university started with a rich "genesis" story. Do you know what it is?

Stage 2: Consciousness-Raising

This is the stage where fantasies begin to chain out among a collectivity of people over a common interest. As they co-create a new vision, their lives take on new meaning and emotion and their behavior changes. New members of existing visions often go through this stage in a formal, prescribed way. "Pledge" classes for fraternities and sororities, "boot" camp for Marine recruits, and "retreats" for novices of religious orders are typical examples. The first week or two of college for new students can have a consciousness¬raising effect if the university plans ritualistic events designed to assimilate the students into the university's vision. Can you identify any college rituals in which you participated that heightened your sense of belonging to your school or some sub-group, like the band, a debate team, or a sport?

Stage 3: Consciousness-Sustaining

A mature rhetorical vision seeks stability. New members are brought in, old members are retained. The vision must adapt to changing events and provide rebuttals to competing visions. Often, rhetorical visions can remain stable for 100 years or longer. Can you identify any other 100-year-old rhetorical visions?

Stage 4: Vision-Declining

Situations in a rhetorical community can change so rapidly that the vision cannot adapt successfully. After 100 years of being Illinois' oldest teacher-training college, Illinois State Normal Teacher's College changed its name to Illinois State University in 1964. Today, only ten-percent of 18,000 students are education majors. Starting in 1964, the faculty and students began participating in new rhetorical dramas that would give meaning to their place in higher education. Has your university gone through a similar identity crisis as one rhetorical vision declined and a new one began to emerge?

Stage 5: Vision Implosion

Sometimes rhetorical visions instantly implode in the presence of a major event. At other times, the implosion can take years. The Cold War Rhetorical Vision (1947-1990) was a case of instant No implosion. The Righteous Cold War drama portrayed heroic Americans as being in a struggle against God-less Communism. It was a struggle for the hearts and minds of people on a worldwide stage. In 1990, the drama imploded with the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union. The Upjohn Pharmaceutical Co. lasted for 100 years with the slogan: "Keep The Quality Up." In the space of two years, Upjohn merged with another century-old Swedish company only to see the new merged company purchased and dissolved by a third drug company, Pfizer. In the first case, the Cold War warriors could declare victory and look for a new vision of America's role in the world. In the second example, the loyal Upjohn employees felt stripped of their symbolic identity. Have you ever been in a rhetorical vision when it imploded? For example, maybe your old high school closed or merged with another. Maybe your favorite sport was dropped by the university or your major was eliminated. The felt loss is real in terms of meaning, emotion, and motive for action.

What is the utility of SCT for you? SCT explains the way your view of campus life depends upon the rhetorical vision in which you participate. If you are a Righteous student, you probably see SCT as an important communication theory that you can study. In fact, you might want to conduct your own SCT study on your campus by using this research instrument, plus a questionnaire asking demographic (age, gender, etc.), sociographic (behaviors) and psychographic (attitudes and beliefs) questions. If you are a Social student, you might see SCT as yet another way to understand interpersonal communication and how people come to identify with one another. If you are a Pragmatic student, you will see the utility of SCT in designing marketing and Public Relations campaigns and use the theory to improve your job interviewing skills.

Bibliography

* Ernest G. Bormann, (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 396-407.
* Ernest G. Bormann, John F. Cragan, & Donald C. Shields (1994). In defense of symbolic convergence theory: A look at the theory and its criticisms after two decades. Communication Theory, 4, 259-294.
* Ernest G. Bormann, John F. Cragan, & Donald C. Shields (1996). An expansion of the rhetorical vision concept of symbolic convergence theory: The cold war paradigm case. Communication Monographs, 63, 1-28.
* Ernest G. Bormann, John F. Cragan, & Donald C. Shields (2001). Three decades of developing, grounding, and using symbolic convergence theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 25 (pp. 271-313). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum and the International Communication Association.
* Ernest G. Bormann, John F. Cragan, & Donald C. Shields (2003). Defending symbolic convergence theory from an imaginary Gunn. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 89, 366-372.
* John F. Cragan, & Donald C. Shields (1995). Symbolic theories in applied communication research: Bormann, Burke, and Fisher. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

[DrVolin]

The absolute best example I know of inoculation has to be the 'no plane at the pentagon' contagious mind vaccine. Not only did it spread like wildfire, but it is extremely effective. Most reasonable people I know, as soon as they hear a whiff of 911 skepticism, will immediately revert to 'next you re going to tell me there was no plane at the Pentagon'. And to them, the discussion is over.

I would love to see a detailed history of the organism.

1. What was the index case?
2. What was the epidemiology like?
3. Did it evolve in a natural population, or was it engineered?
4. If it is a natural mutation, did it get any help spreading after being identified?
5.If it was engineered, can we trace it to a lab?

Perhaps this forum is a good place to do that as a collective effort.

[justdrew]

not positive but didn't that french guy start it? MessyYen? something like that.

upon searching: Thierry Meyssan is the name. He _seems_ like a good guy in many respects, but yeah, this idea hasn't panned out real well and has been hugely criticized by all sides.

however, I still find it extremely odd that we don't have one real picture of the plane on approach. and also a big deal had been made about installing an anti-air missile battery at the pentagon just a few years before. (after the nut landed a cesna on the whitehouse lawn)

[Searcher08]

justdrew, Thanks very much for that - it was exactly what I was looking for.
I will try and digest it over the weekend.

DrVolin,
I appreciate your example. Whenever I have tried to discuss 9/11 with people, it seems to either run into the type of cognitive wall you describe; variations on Reagen's "Oh, there goes Searcher again" (great at demolishing whatever comes after it)

[justdrew]

one question is do we want to just know and immunize ourselves and others or do we want to use these techniques? no doubt there is already a long tradition of using mind-based approaches to causing change. What else is there after all?

[brainpanhandler]

The absolute best example I know of inoculation has to be the 'no plane at the pentagon' contagious mind vaccine. Not only did it spread like wildfire, but it is extremely effective. Most reasonable people I know, as soon as they hear a whiff of 911 skepticism, will immediately revert to 'next you re going to tell me there was no plane at the Pentagon'. And to them, the discussion is over.

I would love to see a detailed history of the organism.

1. What was the index case?
2. What was the epidemiology like?
3. Did it evolve in a natural population, or was it engineered?
4. If it is a natural mutation, did it get any help spreading after being identified?
5.If it was engineered, can we trace it to a lab?

Perhaps this forum is a good place to do that as a collective effort.

I'm a bit confused by your wording. As I understand McGuire's Inoculation Theory the idea is to introduce information prior to a message in order to make the recipient immune to the message (or to govern and manipulate the recipient's reactions). In the context of governmental psyops this immunity in the audience can take a number of forms and be considered successful. The most obvious is for the audience to simply close their minds, as in, "Oh, and next you're going to tell me there were no planes at the Pentagon". The audience in this instance closes their minds to any and all arguments that 911 can be better explained by something other than the official explanations. Just as effective relative to perception management and real world action would be to place a target audience in a perpetual limbo of I don't know and I cannot ever know. This agnostic purgatory has the same net effect... no action, complacency, resignation.

Maybe I am misunderstanding Inoculation Theory. Let's take another example. The Pentagon and the DOD wish to minimize the negative effect on the support for the war of American casualty figures. Let's suppose the Pentagon and the DOD have reason to believe that American casualty figures are going to increase at a specified time in the future, say after a planned assault. Or as Hugh has suggested let's suppose that a milestone like 4,000 American dead needs to be minimized. American casualty figures are Bad news. The effect of images of dead American soldiers (virtually nonexistent in American media) hurts public support for the war. One way of inoculating the American populace against such bad news would be to sprinkle the mainstream news and entertainment media streams with images and stories of gruesome and graphic military violence which lead to American casualties. Ideally this would be done in as graphic a manner as possible. Saving Private Ryan seems like a good example that also includes the more straight forward positive framing of American miltary personnel as righteous crusaders.

Another related example is inoculating the American populace against images and stories of civilian casualties. The pentagon and the DOD have good reason to believe that it was the uncensored images that slipped out and were being broadcast out of vietnam that fueled the domestic protest against the war. These were shocking images. But if a populace were repeatedly exposed to such images in small, regular doses they would no longer be shocking, presumably. Obviously in the case of the Iraq invasion censorship is the first line of defense. Anything else that slips through needs to be minimized with inoculation. They learned their lessons well. The American media will not be putting images of Iraqi children murdered and maimed by white phosporous in front of the American public any time soon. But what we should see is a dramatic increase in graphic violent images in the media if inoculation theory is being employed.

Does anyone know if their have been studies conducted which have examined the relative prevalence of graphic images of violence and civilian casualties both before the Iraq invasion and during the ongoing occupation? If we believe that the administration intended to invade Iraq before 911 (and there is strong evidence to indicate this is so) and inoculation theory was being employed, we would expect an upsurge of graphic military violence in the media prior to the invasion and periodic upticks as the bad news warrants.

Scott McClellan's new book seems both a limited hang out and possibly inoculation theory at work.

Can one be inoculated against inoculation?