|
Article No. 15
Inoculation Theory: A Theoretical
and Practical Framework for Conferring Resistance to Pack Journalism
Tendencies
Gerald-Mark Breen and Jonathan Matusitz
University of Central
Florida
Abstract
This study examines the nature of
inoculation theory, a process through which attitude change can be
resisted in the face of counter-attitudinal communication intended
to convert or shift existing attitudes, and how it applies to pack
journalism, an unethical media practice where herds of journalists
repeatedly and widely cover one particular story and storm the
targets (i.e., people, buildings, etc.) with their overwhelming
presence. Based on inoculation theory’s theoretical assumptions, and
by deriving concepts and designs from previous inoculation studies,
the authors urge scholars to implement a viable theoretical and
practical platform by which inoculation treatments can be executed
on journalists to render maximum attitudinal resistance toward the
copycat (and unethical) element of pack journalism coverage.
Key words: ethics, inoculation,
journalism, media, news, pack journalism, reporters
Introduction
Pack
journalism is an unethical media practice where herds of journalists
repeatedly and widely cover one particular story and storm the
targets (i.e., people, buildings, etc.) with their overwhelming
presence (Frank, 2003). One usual element of this pack journalism
coverage is the sharing and copying of others’ news sources (that
is, words, titles, and content) and the eventual reporting of that
news in a similar if not identical fashion as the others’ reports (Kann,
1994). This tends to lead to an elimination of independent reporting
(Mundy, 1995). Journalists’ attitudes can be made to resist the
influence of such lazy and convenient reporting through a
well-established, communication process of systematic resistance:
inoculation (McGuire, 1961; Pfau, 1995). Although a great deal of
literature emphasizes the unethical nature of pack journalism
coverage (Berkowitz, 1997;
Brock, 1993; Crouse,
1973; Frank, 2003; Gordon et
al., 1999; Kann, 1994; Matusitz & Breen, 2005; Mundy, 1995),
as well as the need for more independent reporting (Crouse, 1973;
Lule, 1992; Stone, 1967), journalism scholars demand that more
research be done on pack journalism to better identify its
implications and intricacies (Frank, 2003). In addition, since Eagly
and Chaiken (1993) argue that more exploration on inoculation is
required for further understanding of this theory in practice, this
study breaks new ground by attempting to evaluate the relative
merits of inoculation in conferring resistance to pack journalist
practices.
In view of the fact that a certain
number of journalists recognize the wrongfulness of copying others’
sources (i.e., plagiarism) and have attitudes against blatant acts
of pack journalism, these journalists are ripe for undergoing
inoculation treatments. The results of these treatments should
include immunity/resistance to pressures to copy others’ reports.
This ultimately facilitates independent reporting and minimizes the
tendency or desire to resort to copycat pack journalism coverage. As
such, this study first examines the nature of inoculation theory,
that is, its main elements (threat and refutational preemption) and
its three stages (warning,
weak attack, and active defending).
Second, this study provides a detailed description of pack
journalism and relevant cases that illustrate its copycat and
unethical nature. Based on inoculation theory’s theoretical
assumptions (Compton & Pfau, 2004; McGuire, 1964), and by deriving
concepts and designs from previous inoculation studies, such as
studies on smoking prevention (Pfau, 1995; Pfau & Van Bockern,
1994), the authors urge scholars to implement a viable theoretical
and practical platform by which inoculation treatments can be
executed on journalists to render maximum attitudinal resistance
toward the copycat (and unethical) element of pack journalism
coverage.
The Nature of
Inoculation Theory: Description and Previous Studies
By
focusing on journalists who are regularly exposed to news
assignments that compromise their abilities to independently report
news – i.e., because they have a hard time doing so due to the pack
journalism phenomenon that pervades the vast majority of media
outlets (particularly newspaper organizations) – applying
inoculation on those journalists may be a successful tactic in
strengthening their attitudes against copycat reporting and may
contribute to this ideal of independent reporting, otherwise known
as enterprise journalism (Crouse, 1973).
In this
section, the authors give a detailed analysis of the nature of
inoculation theory by explaining two main points. First, a general
description of inoculation theory is provided from a variety of
scholarly sources. Second, previous inoculation studies are
addressed to demonstrate the viability of this theory in multiple
applications, including the one this study emphasizes. In short,
these two subsections are designed to educate the reader as to the
nature of the theory and its general application power in building
resistance to persuasion, social influences, and counterattitudinal
attacks.
Inoculation Theory
People
can learn to protect their existing attitudes from
counterattitudinal influences (or persuasion). Put differently,
peoples’ attitudes can be inoculated against persuasive
communications (e.g., arguments or social influences) that are
directed at them by some sources (e.g., peers, journalistic leaders,
commercials, authority figures, editors, etc.) (Matusitz & Breen,
2005). Inoculation theory was officially coined by McGuire (1961,
1964). McGuire described it as a process through which attitude
change can be resisted in the face of counterattitudinal
communication intended to convert or shift existing attitudes
(McGuire, 1964; Miller, 2002; Pfau & Burgoon, 1988). As the theory
developed, it became more elaborately defined as a method of
fortifying existing attitudes to decline persuasive communications
before those messages generated and presented themselves to the
recipient(s) (Compton & Pfau, 2004; Matusitz & Breen, 2005; Miller,
2002; Pfau, 1992).
Inoculation systematically provides information to receivers prior
to persuasive communication. This allows for some expectation that
the information will reinforce the receiver’s resistance to future
counterattitudinal strikes (Borchers, 2001; Miller, 2002).
Inoculation theory also suggests that by methodically delivering low
doses of contrasting perspectives, the audience members will develop
a stronger immunity and, consequently, will diminish or minimize
their responses to those discordant perspectives (Infante, Rancer, &
Womack, 1997; McGuire, 1964; Pfau, 1995).
Attitude as a Component of
Inoculation
Before
inoculation theory can be described further, a solid grasp of what
attitude is and how it is generally represented to the scholarly and
academic communities is necessary. Why is this? The reason lies in
the fact that attitude is a critical concept that is deeply embedded
in the model of inoculation theory (Compton & Pfau, 2004; McGuire,
1964; Pfau, 1992, 1995). As such, attitude can be described as a
collection of opinions about a specific situation or circumstance
(i.e., religion, practices, behaviors, dress styles, etc.) weighted
by the evaluation of those opinions (Ajzen, 1988; Miller, 2002). In
light of this definition, coupled with the concept of inoculating
peoples’ existing attitudes, humans in particular can undergo
carefully designed inoculation treatments that maximize the strength
of their current attitudes and enable them to refuse embracing
communicative messages that are attitudinally dissimilar (Breen &
Matusitz, 2005; Matusitz & Breen, 2005).
Elements
of Inoculation: Threat and Refutational Preemption
Besides
a general framework of inoculation theory, it [the theory] has two
significant elements:
threat and refutational preemption. According Pfau and Van Bockern
(1994), both of these elements are necessary in order to confer
resistance to subsequent persuasive messages. Nonetheless, the first
key element to inoculation theory is threat. According to Pfau and
Burgoon (1988), a threat consists of a recognition or perception
that an attitudinal challenge may be impending. More complexly, the
threat element of an inoculation persuasion has the power to
“trigger the receiver’s motivation to bolster attitudes and gives
inoculation its distinctive power” (Pfau, 1995, p. 101). In essence,
a threat stimulates resistance to the contrasting persuasive
communication
(Breen & Matusitz, 2005; Matusitz &
Breen, 2005).
The second key
element to inoculation theory is refutational preemption (Miller,
2002; Pfau, 1992).
According to Pfau (1995), refutational preemption is represented by
potential attacks to current attitudes that are initially addressed
and subsequently preempted. In this regard, when an audience member
receives a persuasive communication, he or she must immediately cast
the idea out from his or her attitudinal structure.
Three Stages of
Inoculation: Warning, Weak Attack, and Active Defending
Beyond
the two key components (or elements) of inoculation theory, three
stages also exist with regard to effective inoculation treatments.
According to McGuire (1964) and Pfau (1992), the three stages to
efficacious inoculation include (1) the warning, (2) the weak
attack, and (3) the active defending. In reference to the first
stage of inoculation, that is, the warning, the participant
undergoing inoculation treatment is apprised that there will be an
upcoming argument and, consequently, he or she should be ready for a
counterattitudinal attack (Pfau, 1992, 1995). With respect to the
second stage of inoculation, that is, the weak attack, the
participant is lightly challenged, an approach that allows the
individual to readily reject the argument (Pfau, 1995). In regard to
the third stage of inoculation, that is, the active defending, the
participant must successfully protect his or her beliefs with simple
defense (Compton & Pfau, 2004; McGuire, 1964). These stages enable
effective inoculation.
Why Is
Inoculation Effective?
The
question arises as to why inoculation is such an effective strategy.
The reason lies in the fact that it first allows people to be
influenced by persuasion. Then, in effect, this persuasive attempt
will induce the inoculated participants to contemplate and contrive
rebuttals (Miller, 2002; Matusitz & Breen, 2005).
Ultimately, when these participants
are faced with the same arguments in the future, they will generally
disregard or ignore the arguments because their strengthened – or
inoculated – attitudes both unconsciously and consciously resist
them (Miller, 2002; Pfau & Burgoon, 1988; Pfau et al., 2001). In
essence, inoculation is a sort of mental immunization process
against external, attitudinal influences that are typically
undesirable to those who seek to be (and sustain such) morally or
ethically sound.
The
Broad Scope of Inoculation Studies
Inoculation has been both theoretically and empirically applied as a
resistance strategy (e.g., to social influences, persuasion, etc.)
in a variety of contexts, many of which have demonstrated
inoculation as an efficacious stratagem. Some of these studies
include alcohol consumption prevention (Godbold & Pfau, 2000),
commercial advertising (Pfau, 1992), gang prevention (Breen &
Matusitz, 2005), political campaign issues (Pfau & Burgoon, 1988),
public relations issues (Wan & Pfau, 2001), sexual harassment (Matusitz
& Breen, 2005), and smoking prevention (Pfau & Van Bockern, 1994;
Szabo & Pfau, 2001). As we can see, a tremendous amount of research
has already been conducted on inoculation theory and its impact on
inducing resistance to counterattitudinal attacks. Interestingly,
the focus of this study, that is, the potential use of inoculation
in conferring resistance to pack journalism practices, is the first
to date to examine the connection and viability of inoculation
theory to this context of journalism practices. The next section
provides a detailed analysis of pack journalism, the practice that
this study aims to minimize through applying a practical form of
inoculation.
A Detailed
Analysis of Pack Journalism
In this
section, the authors provide a detailed analysis of pack journalism
by examining two of its important elements. First, a general and
primarily negative description of pack journalism is provided from a
variety of scholarly sources, including straight definitions and
commentaries portraying it. Second, past and present cases in which
pack journalism occurred are identified to illustrate the many
negative implications and outcomes created through such a media
practice. Through this analysis, the authors attempt to illuminate
the near pure negativity of such a media practice, and how
inoculation may just work to minimize such blatant acts of pack
journalism.
What
Is Pack Journalism?
Pack
journalism can be thoroughly explained as a media practice that
takes place when a substantial number of reporters (i.e., anchors,
newspaper crew, camera equipment people, etc.) passionately pursues
one incredible story, fills the site with their overwhelmingly thick
presence, and frequently releases similar if not identical stories
(Crouse, 1973; Frank, 2003; Kolodzy, 2004;
Mundy, 1995; Vincent, Crow, & Davis,
1997). Quite simply, Kann (1994) describes pack journalism as a few
dozen reporters who “chase the same story together” (p. 2).
In line
with these contentions, peer influence is a major factor in pack
journalism behavior (Crouse, 1973). According to Mundy (1995), pack
journalism is nothing more than “mindless, ruthless copycat behavior
sprung of fear and laziness” (p. 15). What oftentimes happens in
these cases is that the reporters share and copy each other’s notes
and ideas, lazily refrain from writing up their own perceptions, and
agree to the validity of the sources without verifying them (Crouse,
1973). They report the news in media outlets (i.e., newspapers,
magazines, etc.) in a one-track fashion. Consequently, the story’s
common sense, or logic, as well as its component of independence and
fairness, disappear. Due to this fact, Kann (1994) sadly professes
that these journalism and media standards “seem to drop to the
lowest common denominator” (p. 2). Plus, Vincent, Crow, and Davis
(1997) support this claim by remarking that stories that are mass
produced (and distributed) by pack journalists are one-sided or
one-dimensional, lacking a variety of perspectives, opinions, or
facts. As such, it becomes understandable why renowned media critics
and scholars reprehend pack journalism because of its flagrant
exclusion of independent reporting (Frank, 2003; Gordon et al.,
1999; Kann, 1994).
Given
all this, Ben-David (2000) describes the rationale and ramifications
of pack journalism as follows: “For some reporters, it is easier to
file the same story as their colleagues. They can share the
research, the cab fare, the information, and the work – and in some
cases the ignorance (p. 1). Similarly, Kalb (1994) states that,
for
those who still see conspiracy in examples of overlapping reporting,
there is a possible explanation in what is called “pack journalism,”
reporters who band together and cover the same story, the same
sources, in the same way. Covering a campaign or the White House or
any other story where a horde of journalists rush after a single
source can often yield the meager one-dimensional news product
associated with “pack journalism.” But, though a number of prominent
news organizations may highlight similar stories, using virtually
identical sources, this is not to be mistaken for conspiracy. It is
only lazy journalism (p. 1).
Pack
journalists are often the
real villains; they turn trivial news stories into national concerns
through the cowardly strategy of repetition and emphasis. It is not
that events about Woody and Mia or Prince Charles and Princess Di
are not newsworthy. On the contrary, they should be of concern, but
not to the exclusion of everything else (Saltzman, 1993). By
the same token, those celebrities are often the first casualties of
pack journalists themselves (Cloud & Kamlani, 1990).
Examples of Pack Journalism
Pack
journalism has occurred in a large number of events across the globe
and has generally been viewed as producing negative outcomes in
these cases. From what can be seen, reporters exchange each other’s
notes, plagiarize news releases (including titles, content, and
style, from other dominant news sources), and ignore the benefit of
substantiating the sources via independent research (Ben-David,
2000). For example, the Scott Peterson murder trial received such
significant coverage (Rooney, 2004) and witnessed global plagiarism
of news stories, their titles, and information about the key members
in the trial (i.e., defendant, victim’s family, attorneys, jurors,
etc). From textually analyzing a variety of news sources, the
newspaper articles were practically identical in language and bias,
and the information provided was moot and unfinished at best
(Rooney, 2004).
Ohio’s
media coverage of the Lucasville prison riot of 1993 was also a
prime example of pack journalism coverage, not to mention a clear
negative reflection of what lies within such reporting. This riot
resulted in a prison-wide uproar and ended with several dead inmates
and guards. In reference to the pack journalism coverage this riot
received, Hallett (2003) stated that “never in this state’s history
has an event been covered so relentlessly or so massively, or, as it
turned out, so badly” (p. 5). Hallett (2003) went on to point out
that since scarce information was provided to journalists needing
reports on the status of the riot, “rumors were widely reported,
potentially harming delicate negotiations with inmates and
endangering the lives of hostages” (p. 5). Porter (2003) mentioned
that the incidents that transpired epitomized the “perils of pack
journalism, of competing reporters hitting on one theme and then
running around like lemmings trying to track down atrocities, while
editors back in the newsrooms push them, paranoid that another paper
or station will beat them” (p. 1). As shown in this case, some of
the travesties of pack journalism are that rumors can be spread,
incorrect information can be published (Crouse, 1973), and as the
worst consequence, deaths can occur.
Cases
of Copycat Reporting
Cases of
copycat reporting (or, pack journalism) are certainly not few in
number. Other fresh cases of such reporting practices include the
Michael Jackson sexual molestation case (Broder, 2003; The Chicago
Tribune, 2003; Madigan & Carter, 2003) and the Tsunami destruction
of Southern Asia (The Bangkok Post, 2004; The Business Standard,
2004; The Chicago Tribune, 2004; Djuhari,
2004). Historically speaking, pack journalism coverage that
involved such copycat reporting also included, in a nutshell, the
murder of James Byrd, Jr. (Stewart, 1999), the homicide of police
officers at the US Capitol Building (Arterburn, 1998), and the
massacre of teachers and pupils at Thurston High School (Postman,
1998). Rash, rampant, and oftentimes imprecise reporting was
practiced, therefore resulting in abysmal outcomes.
The
above section identified pack journalism as a negative and unethical
media practice. Some of the downsides of pack journalism include its
elimination of fair and independent reporting, its ability to spread
rumors, and its potential to create devastating outcomes (i.e.,
harm, death, etc.). In the next section, an inoculation platform by
which pack journalism may be reduced is explained in detail.
How to Apply the
Use of Inoculation on Journalists against Pack Journalism
This
section broadly describes this new framework for applying
inoculation theory, explains why traditional inoculation should be
used instead of social inoculation, proposes
proper timing and sequential reinforcement as a way to administer
inoculation, incorporates the factors of self-esteem and locus of
control as preventive measures against pack journalism, and
emphasizes the importance of using normative appeals to
display
opinions held by familiar others (i.e., colleagues, close friends)
about a particular unethical behavior (i.e., plagiarizing other
journalists’ stories).
Broad Description of This New Framework
Based on the
above-mentioned studies involving smoking prevention, the premise
and protocol of this study’s framework for applying inoculation
theory can logically be transferred over into the realm of pack
journalism prevention. As such, by following these notes, inoculated
pack journalists who undergo regular reinforcements should
demonstrate increased resistance to copycat or plagiaristic
note-taking, than those pack journalists who do not receive such
treatment. Although Crouse
(1973) maintains that independent journalists are hard to find and
few in number, and even though he asserts that “even the most
independent journalist cannot completely escape the pressures of the
pack” (p. 15), there is, indeed, a way to increase the number of
these scarce few: inoculation. By targeting journalists who are
frequently exposed to news assignments that compromise their
abilities to independently report news – i.e., because they find it
difficult to do so due to the pack journalism phenomenon that
pervades the vast majority of media outlets (particularly newspaper
organizations) – applying inoculation on those journalists may be a
successful strategy to reinforce their attitudes against copycat
reporting and may contribute to this ideal of independent reporting
(Crouse, 1973).
Traditional Inoculation as Opposed to Social Inoculation
In
addition, recall a statement that was made earlier: peer influence
is a major factor in pack journalism behavior (Crouse, 1973).
Since peer
influence contributes to this behavior, one could think that the
concept of “social inoculation” (Kirby & Barth, 1991) could be used
to explain these socially inspired actions. However, social
inoculation is not as effective as the traditional inoculation
strategy, for three reasons. First, social inoculation merely
combines portions from both McGuire’s inoculation (1961, 1964) and
Bandura’s constructs of social learning (Wallack & Corbett, 1987).
Second, the threat component (McGuire, 1961), or the antecedent to
refutational preemption, is not considered or included. Third,
although social inoculation employs a vast array of strategies, such
as slide and video displays and simulations (Flay, 1985), it has
been shown to be unfruitful in terms of rendering acceptable levels
of inoculation (e.g., short-lived effects, and low general effect)
(Best et al., 1988).
For all these
reasons, social inoculation will be discarded, and, instead, the
normal version of inoculation will be suggested as part of the
appropriate platform this study proposes with regard to applying
inoculation in the prevention of pack journalism practices. As
suggested by Pfau and Dillard (2000), an appropriate inoculation of
subjects could and should include basic 5-10-minute videos
(presentations). As based on previous research findings, inoculation
should render relatively strong outcomes (e.g., inoculation
participants should demonstrate more resistance to pack journalism
practices than those who do not undergo inoculation) on subjects
through this video presentation process. Moreover, similar
strategies that could be used might involve the use of actual
journalists in a simulation-like atmosphere, engaging an inoculation
framework – applying similar steps in video presentations – to
achieve the same results.
Proper Timing and Sequential Reinforcement
Normative Appeals and Inoculating Pack Journalists
One type
of appeal that works well in inoculation studies is called normative
appeals. Normative appeals are simply appeals that display opinions
held by familiar others (i.e., colleagues, close friends) about a
particular behavior (Blumenthal, Christian, & Slemrod, 2001).
Besides the unethical nature of pack journalism and the numerous
consequences it can reap to those involved, journalists can be
greatly influenced by how these other people perceive the
plagiaristic element of pack journalism and convey those ideas or
perceptions to them with some attempt at influence. The veracity of
this claim is reinforced by a comparable analysis done by Greene et
al. (1997) regarding condom use and AIDS, and was mentioned by Pfau
and Dillard (2000), as well as Breen and Matusitz (2005), in their
inoculation studies. Since numerous studies using inoculation have
successfully applied normative appeals (Pfau & Dillard, 2000), they
seem to fit cozily in the context of preventing pack journalism
practices, particularly the copycat-reporting element of it. By
taking this into account, this framework suggests that normative
inoculation appeals can cause pack journalists to resist such
plagiaristic tendencies and behavior without inducing reactance.
Methods
To witness the
successful results of such a study, the methodology should follow a
longitudinal analysis frame similar to Pfau and Dillard’s (2000)
inoculation study on smoking prevention. In this study, pack
journalism prevention is the focus. So why is it appropriate to draw
from former studies? In particular, Pfau and Dillard’s (2000)
methodological structure was solid, and, as such, the results
yielded were arguably valid. Plus, Breen and Matusitz (2005) derived
concepts from Pfau and Van Bockern’s (1994) study, which later led
to future inoculation studies (see Matustiz & Breen, 2006).
Nevertheless, the longitudinal examination proposed here should
focus on the effectiveness of inoculation pretreatment and
reinforcement videos in conferring resistance to plagiaristic
tendencies and behaviors in designated pack journalists. As opposed
to conducting a quantitative analysis that engages sophisticated
statistical analyses – such as employing a 5 (experimental
condition: inoculation, inoculation plus one reinforcement,
inoculation plus two reinforcements, inoculation plus three
reinforcements, and no inoculation/control condition) x 2 (content
focus: social-based appeal versus normative appeal) factorial
archetype (i.e., Pfau & Dillard, 2000) – the overall efficacy of
inoculation should be evaluated by looking at the similarities and
differences in the attitudes and behavioral dispositions of pack
journalists who undergo treatments versus those who do not, at 1-,
2-, 4-, and 8-month intervals. As such, creating experimental
protocols (i.e., treatments) is necessary at this point.
For example,
inoculation consists of a series of steps in which the subject or
participant – that is, a journalist – becomes increasingly resistant
to influence. A scenario that could attain such influence, in terms
of sustaining journalistic ethics, is one that consists of making
the journalist aware that pack journalism is a practice that falls
into the category of dishonesty and that is antithetical to proper
journalism practices (i.e., independent reporting or enterprise
journalism). By making this notion salient in the journalist’s mind,
the next stage would be to introduce the journalist to a sort of
temptation – via simulation in a controlled environment or using
comparable video presentations – that could sway the individual into
committing an act of pack journalism (or that which involves
plagiarism, publishing news or information without first verifying
the sources, etc.).
This temptation,
as a situation, could be observed as a scene – set up by the
researchers – in which a herd of journalists are physically present
at a site of a big story; the journalist [the subject or
participant] who is targeted for inoculation is offered the
opportunity of committing acts consistent with unethical pack
journalism practices. Because the journalist is aware that the scene
or experiment is designed or intended to test the journalists’
resistance to influence, the journalist should be able to mindfully
avoid succumbing to the trap of journalizing in this unethical
fashion. Once the journalist is fully aware that these are the
circumstances surrounding the test, the journalist will
conscientiously refrain from the unethical practice. This segment to
the inoculation series could be perceived as the weak attack. The
active defending could be similarly achieved by repeating this
scenario, but with perhaps greater pressure and influence from the
surrounding pack. If inoculation is effective, those pack
journalists who undergo treatments will be more likely to resist
plagiaristic or copycat note-taking influences and actions, less
positive about such unethical pack reporting practices, and,
ultimately, less likely to partake in such behavior.
Procedures
Creating the
platform for this inoculation campaign is the next important step.
As implicitly suggested in previously mentioned studies, an
inoculation campaign on pack journalists would best work by
selecting participants who are self-professed pack journalists at
newspapers. This can be discovered through questionnaires
identifying the attributes of pack journalists and if such
journalists admit to copycat reporting. Next, 50% of the
participants should be randomly placed in a pack journalism
education course during the first month and the other 50% of the
participants should be randomly placed in a pack journalism
education course during the second month. The study should include
pack journalists who are involved in this course during the first
month of the study. Obviously, the newspapers where these
journalists work would need to provide consent to allow their
journalists to partake in this study. Locations where the newspaper
journalists should be selected should be from larger, metropolitan
cities, where big events are covered frequently.
Before engaging
the participants in the inoculation treatments, they should be
surveyed beforehand to collect standard demographic information,
evaluate self-esteem and locus of control, and gauge attitudes about
pack journalism, its ethical implications, and whether they
participate in and how they feel about engaging in pack journalism.
After the administration of the survey, participants should then be
grouped off into pack journalism education classes and then placed
into the social-based or normative inoculation condition, or as
controls. Each participant in the treatment condition should watch
an inoculation video during the first injection. Also, 75% of
treated participants should watch one or more reinforcement videos,
delivered at 2- to 3-week intervals. Treatment and control
participants should be periodically or regularly evaluated to check
their attitudes and behaviors toward pack journalism. The
evaluations, which should take the form as questionnaires, should be
conducted at four-months and eight-months to determine overall
efficacy of the treatments.
The Video
Presentation Component
Once more, the
layout for this section is designed combining elements from the
inoculation study conducted by Pfau and Dillard (2000) and
comparable replications proposed by Breen and Matusitz (2005). Four
videos should be manufactured and utilized in this campaign on
inoculating pack journalists. The videos should be made to last at
least 5 minutes, but no longer than 10 minutes. Two of the videos
should present the previously described inoculation treatments,
operationalized as consisting of threat to attitudinal freedom along
with refutational preemption displays. One of the inoculation videos
should apply a social-based appeal whereas the other should utilize
a normative appeal, as described earlier. The social-based appeal
should stress or emphasize the negative effects of pack journalism
and its other harmful implications, and the normative appeal should
include commentaries from journalism critics and scholars that
denounce and loathe the practice (pack journalism). One additional
social-based and normative appeal video should be applied to bolster
or reinforce the nascent inoculation treatments. Videos should
exhibit visual and musical displays steered to supplement the
corresponding verbalizations.
As suggested by
Pfau (1995) in behavioral inoculation studies, the intricacies and
designs behind inoculation message generation and video composition
should follow his guidelines. In this case, if any videos currently
exist that depict pack journalism practices and their negative
results, they should be watched first and assessed to see what
qualities and features manifest the most pronounced effects of pack
journalism. Such work allows for pretesting for efficacy. Then,
ideal videos can be produced that create maximum impact for an
inoculation presentation.
Essential
Financial Expenses for Research
As an experienced
researcher (for example, inoculation researchers) can imagine,
tremendous fiscal costs are attached to such an inoculative campaign
(Pfau & Dillard, 2000). Employment funds are needed to monetarily
support the human resources, including primary researchers and
assistant researchers. As suggested by earlier studies, such costs
could reach or exceed $40,000. Equipment is also necessary for such
a project, including televisions, VCRs, high-quality and standard
video cassettes for recording, which could total up to $700.
Creating videos for inoculation treatments by using a professional
agency could rise to $40,000. Plus, software to analyze such data,
such as SPSS, could reach between $300-500. In any event,
inoculation is not a cheap undertaking. It requires tremendous
financial resources in addition to many committed people. But by
following the recommendation as outlined in the paper (as based on
previous studies and researchers’ recommendations), an inoculation
campaign designed to minimize pack journalism practices may be
possible.
Discussion,
Limitations, and Future Directions
What
this paper has demonstrated is that the nature of inoculation theory
can make journalists more resistant to pack journalistic attitudes
and practices. As we have seen, inoculation is a mental immunization
process against attitudinal influences deemed undesirable to
individuals who seek to be morally or ethically sound. Based on
inoculation theory’s theoretical assumptions and deriving concepts
and designs from previous inoculation studies on smoking prevention,
the authors have laid out a theoretical and practical framework from
which inoculation treatments can be executed on journalists to
render maximum attitudinal resistance toward the copycat (and
unethical) element of pack journalism coverage. Arguments were made
as to why inoculation is an effective strategy. As it was explained,
inoculation allows participants to be influenced by persuasion. This
persuasive attempt, in turn, induces the inoculated participants to
contemplate and contrive rebuttals (Miller, 2002).
Ultimately, when these participants
are faced with the same arguments in the future, they generally
disregard or ignore the arguments because their inoculated attitudes
unconsciously and consciously resist them (Compton & Pfau, 2004;
Miller, 2002; Pfau & Burgoon, 1988; Pfau et al., 2001).
Based on the
premises of this study, inoculated pack journalists who are placed
into experiments to undergo regular reinforcements should exhibit
increased resistance to copycat or plagiaristic note-taking, than
those pack journalists receiving no such treatment.
By concentrating on journalists who are
regularly exposed to news assignments that compromise their
abilities to independently report news – i.e., because they find it
difficult to do so due to the pack journalism phenomenon that
pervades the vast majority of media outlets (particularly newspaper
organizations) – applying inoculation on those journalists may be a
successful strategy to reinforce their attitudes against copycat
reporting and may contribute to this ideal of independent reporting
(Crouse, 1973).
In
future research germane to this topic, it might prove interesting to
search for and identify, via the Internet and other equally feasible
means, journalists who engage in these pack practices, who
acknowledge the unethical nature of the practice, and who would be
interested in participating in inoculative experiments so that their
standards of journalistic conducts can be improved. Finding more and
more of these types of participants may ultimately lead to a global
reassessment of journalistic practices, thereby changing the
paradigm by which these news gatherers collect and report their
information to the world. Journalists are in fact major contributors
to how the world changes (Crouse, 1973;
Gordon et al., 1999). Perhaps by improving journalists in
this way, the world as a whole can be made better. In turn,
inoculation can become a more accepted theoretical and practical
procedure for enhancing human behavior, a benevolent and noble goal
that all communication scholars should strive to attain.
As a later form
of future research on this topic, journalists who have undergone and
successfully changed their ways of journalistic news gathering
(i.e., abandoned pack journalism practices) can be surveyed to show
if the inoculation model or strategy, in fact, works in bettering
their methods of news collection and reporting. If journalists
answer honestly to survey questionnaires that inquire if they were
indeed influenced to behave in a more ethical manner in their
journalism practices as a result of the inoculation treatments, then
we as scholars have succeeded in our academic and moral obligation
to better the world and add to the body of knowledge and goodness.
However, it should be noted that
inoculation theory presents weaknesses that may restrict research
reliability and objectives. For example, according to Miller (2002),
inoculation theory hardly ever provides a full explanation of
observed behavior and, consequently, fails to concentrate on many
elements of variance. Besides, the theory is relatively limited in
terms of the scenarios and behaviors in which it can provide
explanations. For this reason, only a restricted range of studies
can be reasonably conducted and explained through the application of
inoculation theory. With regard to the theory as applied to pack
journalism, an inoculative campaign targeting those who are prone to
engaging in pack journalism (i.e., sportswriters, etc.) may be
difficult to implement. Part of the reason is that some participants
in the study may resist the inoculative experiment because they may
misconstrue it as a form of indoctrination or brainwashing.
Nevertheless,
no matter what form of
inoculative strategy is used and without consideration of the
context or area selected for new research, occurrences of pack
journalism through effective inoculation, will, hopefully, be
lessened considerably or eliminated altogether for the betterment of
the media world and its consumers.
References
Ajzen,
Icek (1988) Attitudes, personality and behavior,
Milton-Keynes, England: Open University Press.
Arterburn, Tom R.
(1998) “Hometown of a Shooting Suspect Copes with a Media Frenzy”,
Christian Science Monitor 90 (170), p. 5.
Ben-David, Lenny (2000) Why are they saying all those terrible
things about Israel?Speech delivered at the meeting of Amit
Women, Washington, D.C.
Best, J.
Allan, Shirley J. Thompson, Susanne M. Santi, Edward A. Smith, and
K. Stephen Brown (1988) “Preventing Cigarette Smoking among School
Children”, Annual Review of Public Health 9, pp.
161-201.
Borchers,
Timothy A. (2001) Persuasion in the media age, New York:
McGraw-Hill Press.
Breen,
Gerald-Mark and Jonathan Matusitz (2005) “Preventing
youths from joining gangs: how to apply inoculation theory”.
Paper presented in the Poster Sessions of the 91st Annual
National Communication Association Conference, Boston, MA.
Brock,
Peter (1993) “Dateline Yugoslavia: The Partisan Press”, Foreign
Policy 93, pp. 152-72.
Broder,
John M. (2003, November 20) “Michael
Jackson Faces Arrest on Charges of Child Molesting”, The New York
Times, p. A1.
Cloud,
Stephen W. and R. Kamlani (1990) “The First Casualty”, Time
136 (11), pp. 67-68.
Compton, Joshua
and Michael Pfau (2004) “Use
of Inoculation to Foster Resistance to Credit Card Marketing
Targeting College Students”, Journal of Applied Communication
Research 32 (4), pp. 343-65.
_________________
(2005) “Inoculation theory
of resistance to influence at maturity: recent progress in theory
development and application and suggestions for future research”,
in: P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed), Communication yearbook 29,
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 97-145.
Coopersmith, Stanley (1967) The antecedents of self-esteem,
San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Company.
Crouse, Timothy
(1973) The boys on the bus, New York: Random House
Press.
Djuhari, Levy T.
(2004, December 28) “U.N. says death toll may top 100,000”, AOL
News, p. A1.
Eagly,
Alice and Shelly and Chaiken (1993) The psychology of attitudes,
Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Frank, Russell (2003) “These Crowded
Circumstances: When Pack Journalists Bash Pack Journalists”,
Journalism 4 (4), pp. 441-58.
Godbold, Linda C. and
Michael Pfau (2000) “Conferring Resistance to Peer Pressure Among
Adolescents: Using Inoculation Theory to Discourage Alcohol Use”,
Communication Research 27, pp. 411-37.
Gordon, A. David, John
M. Kittross, John C. Merrill and Carol Reuss (1999)
Controversies in media ethics, Reading: Addison Wesley.
Hallett,
Josh (2003, April 13) “Pack Journalism Added to the Confusion
during the ‘93 LucasVille Riot”, The Columbus Dispatch, p.
B5.
Infante,
Dominic A., Andrew S. Rancer and Deanna F. Womack (1997) Building
communication theory, New York: Waveland Press.
Kalb,
Marvin (1994) The Nixon memo, Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Kann, Peter (1994)
“10 Disturbing Trends in U.S. Journalism”, Editor & Publisher
127 (44), pp. 18-20.
Killer
waves kill 8,500; 3,200 in India alone (2004, December 26)
The Business
Standard, p. A1.
Killer
waves wreak havoc. (2004, December 27) The Bangkok Post,
p. A1.
Kirby,
Douglas and Richard P. Barth (1991) “Reducing the Risk:
Impact of a New Curriculum on Sexual Risk-Taking”,
Family Planning Perspectives
23
(6), pp. 253-63.
Kolodzy,
Janet (2004) “Pack Journalism: Seen from Two Sides, Darkly”,
Christian Science Monitor 96 (242), p. 9.
Lule,
Jack (1992) “I. F. Stone’s Ethical Perspective”, Journal of
Mass Media Ethics 8, pp. 88-102.
Madigan,
Nick and Bill Carter (2003, November 19) “Michael
Jackson’s Ranch Is Raided in Criminal Inquiry”, The New York
Times, p. A16.
Matusitz,
Jonathan and Gerald-Mark Breen (2005) “Prevention of Sexual
Harassment in the Medical Setting: Applying Inoculation Theory”,
Journal of Health and Social Policy 21 (2), pp. 53-71.
McGuire,
William (1961) “Resistance to Persuasion Conferred by Active and
Passive Prior Refutation of the Same and Alternative
Counterarguments”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
63, pp. 326-32.
______________ (1964) “Inducing resistance to persuasion”, in: L.
Berkowitz (Ed), Advances
in experimental social psychology,
New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 192-229.
Miller, Katherine
(2002) Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and
contexts, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mundy, Andrew (1995,
July 31) “Gunning with the Pack”, MediaWeek, p. A15.
Nowicki,
Stephen and Bonnie R. Strickland (1973) “A Locus of Control Scale
for Children”, Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology
40, pp. 148-54.
___________
(1995) “Designing messages for behavioral inoculation”, in: E.
Maibach and R. L. Parrott (Eds), Designing health messages:
approaches from communication theory and public health practice,
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 99-113.
Pfau,
Michael and Michael Burgoon (1988) “Inoculation in Political
Campaign Communication”, Human Communication Research 15
(1), pp. 91-111.
Pfau,
Michael and James P. Dillard (2000) “Inoculation and smoking
prevention: Conferring resistance while avoiding reactance”,
Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Pfau, Michael and
Steve Van Bockern (1994) “The Persistence of Inoculation in
Conferring Resistance to Smoking Initiation among Adolescents: The
Second Year”, Human Communication Research 20, pp. 413-30.
Pfau,
Michael, Erin Allison Szabo, Jason Anderson, Joshua Morrill, Jessica
Zubric and Hua-Hsin Wan (2001) “The Role and Impact of Affect in
the Process of Resistance to Persuasion”, Human Communication
Research 27, pp. 216-52.
Postman, Dennis
(1998, May 23) “Backlash to Media Mob: You Have No Sympathy”,
Seattle Times, p. A1.
Rooney, Brian (2004,
December 11) “Media Metropolis at Peterson Trial: Blanket Press
Coverage as Jury Weighs Death Penalty Decision”, ABC News
Network: World News Tonight, p. A1.
Saltzman,
Joe (1993) “News Must Be More than Sex and Violence”,
USA Today Magazine
121
(2574), p. 83.
Stewart, Ronald
(1999, February 2) “Circus Has Come Back to Town”, Houston
Chronicle, p. A1.
Stone,
I. F. (1967) In a time of torment: 1961-1967, Boston:
Little, Brown and Company.
Szabo,
Erin Allison and Michael Pfau (2001) “Nuances in inoculation: theory
and applications”, in: J. P. Dillard and M. Pfau (Eds), The
persuasion handbook: developments in theory and practice,
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 233-58.
12
Americans killed in Asian tsunamis (2004, December 28) The
Chicago Tribune, p. A1.
Vincent, R. C., B. K.
Crow and D. K. Davis (1997) When technology fails: the drama of
airline crashes in network television news”, in: D. Berkowitz (Ed),
Social
meanings of news,
Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, pp. 351-61.
About the Authors
Gerald-Mark Breen is a research
assistant in the Department of Public Affairs at the
University of
Central Florida. He specializes in health communication, social
policy, and media studies.
Jonathan Matusitz, Ph.D.,
is an Assistant Professor in the Nicholson School of Communication
at the University of Central Florida. His academic interests are
media studies, organizational communication, and communication &
technology.
|
