İknaya Karşı Direnç Oluşturmada Aşılama Teorisinin Aktif Savunma İle Destekleyici Savunmanın Karşılaştırması

Abstract

İknaya karşı direnç çalışmalarında tek yönlü iletişime kıyasla çift yönlü iletişimin daha etkili olacağı varsayımına dayanan aşılama teorisi, temel iki savunma tipini ayırt etmiştir. Bireyin görüşlerine karşıt tezin çürütülmesine dayanan aşılayıcı savunma ve bireyin görüşlerini destekleyen bilgilerin sağlanmasına dayanan destekleyici savunma iki temel savunma tipidir. Aşılayıcı savunma iki şekilde gerçekleşebilmektedir; karşıt tezin zayıf bir formunun bireye çürütülerek verilmesine dayanan pasif savunma ve bireyin bu tezi kendisinin çürütmesine dayanan aktif savunma. Çalışmamızda bu savunma tiplerinden aşılayıcı aktif savunma ve destekleyici savunma arasında bir karşılaştırma yapılmış ve bu iki savunma tipinin ikna mesajlarına karşı bireyin görüşlerini sağlamlaştırmasındaki etkisi incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla çalışmamıza Mersin Üniversitesinde öğrenim görmekte olan 69 kişi denek olarak katılmış ve bu denekler araştırmadaki 3 gruba (aşılama grubu, destekleme grubu ve kontrol grubu) seçkisiz olarak atanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler 2 X 2 X 2 gruplar arası deney düzenine uygun istatistiksel yöntemlerle analiz edilmiştir. Bulgularda aşılama teorisinin ileri sürdüğünün aksine aşılama grubu ile kontrol grubu arasında bir fark bulunamamışken destekleme grubu ile kontrol grubu arasında bir fark bulunmuştur. Bu çalışma destekleyici savunmanın, aşılama teorisinin savunma tiplerinden biri olan aktif savunmaya göre daha etkili olduğunu göstermektedir

Keywords

• İkna, direnç, aşılama teorisi, destekleyici savunma, aktif ve pasif aşılayıcı savunma

COMPARING THE ACTIVE DEFENCE OF INOCULATION THEORY WITH SUPPORTIVE DEFENCE IN CREATING RESISTANCE TO PERSUASION

Abstract

In the researches of resistance to persuasion, the inoculation theory based on the assumption that two-sided messages are more effective than one-sided messages in a comparison has distinguished two basic defense types. Inoculative defense based on refutation of counterargument for individual’s opinion and supportive defense based on supportive information reinforcing person’s opinion are two types of basic defense. Inoculative defense is likely to take place in two different types. Passive defense based on presenting a weak form of counterargument with refutation to individual and active defense based on person’s self refutation of that thesis himself/herself. In our study, a comparison between supportive defense and inoculative active defense which is among these defense types has been done and the effects of those two types of defenses against persuasive messages in making person’s own opinions stronger investigated. In order to fulfill that purpose, 69 participants, who were students of University of Mersin, joined our study and those participants were assigned randomly into 3 groups (inoculation group, supportive group and control group) in this research. Obtained data was analyzed with statistical procedures in conformity with 2x2x2 intergroup empirical design. In analysis findings, contrary to fact that the inoculation theory put forward, no difference was found between inoculation group and control group, whereas the difference between support group and control group was found. This research showed that supportive defense is more effective than one of the active defense types of inoculation theory

Keywords

• Persuasion, resistance, inoculation theory, supportive defense, active and passive inoculation defense

References

1. BETTİNGHAUS E. P., & CODY M. J., Persuasive communication. Thomson Learning. London, 1994
2. CİALDİNİ R. B. , İknanın Psikolojisi. Çev: Fevzi Yalım. Media Cat, İstanbul, 1993
3. COHEN S. , “Training to understand tv advertising: Effects and some policy implications”, Paper presented at the American Psychological Association convention, 1980
4. CRONEN V. E., & LAFLEUR G., “ İnoculation against persuasive attacks: A test of alternative explanations”. Journal of Social Psychology, 102, (1977) 255-265.
5. DURYEA E. J., “Application of inoculation theory to preventive alcohol education”, Paper presented at the National Convention of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Nisan 1982, Houston, TX . FARKAS A. J., & ANDERSON N. H. İntegration theory and inoculation theory as explanations of the “paper tiger” effect. Journal of Social Psychology, 98, (1976) 253-268.
6. FESHBACH N. D., "The Child as 'Psychologist' and 'Economist': Two Curricula." Paper presented at the American Psychological Association convention,1980
7. FESTİNGER L., & CARLSMİTH J. M., “Cognitive consequences of forced compliance”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58 (1957), 203-210.
8. KİESLER C. A., COLLİNS B. E., & MİLLER N., “ Attitude change: A critical analysis of theoretical approaches”, Wiley, New York, 1969

9. McALİSTER A., PERRY C., KİLLEN J., SLİNKARD L. A. & MACCOBY N., “Pilot study of smoking, alcohol and drug abuse prevention”, American journal of Public Health , 70 (1980), 719-721
10. McGUİRE W. J. & PAPAGEORGİS D., “ The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (2), (1961), 327-337.
11. McGUİRE W. J., “ Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 (2) , (1961), 326- 332.
12. McGUİRE W. J., “ Persistence of the resistance to persuasion induced by various types of prior belief defenses”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64 (4), (1962), 241-248.
13. MYERS D. G., Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, 1996
14. PFAU M., SZABO E. A., ANDERSON J., MORRİLL J., ZUBRİC J. & WAN H. H., “ The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion”, Human Communication Research, 27 (2), (2001), 216-252.
15. RAY M. L., “Biases in selection of messages designed to induce resistance to persuasion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 (4), (1968), 335-339.
16. SCOTT P., & SPENCER C., Psychology: A contemporary introduction, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, (1998)
17. TANNENBAUM P. H., MACAULAY J. R. & NORRİS E. L., “Principle of congruity and reduction of persuasion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3 (2), (1966), 233-238.
18. TORMALA, Z. L. & PETTY R. E., “Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (4) (2004), 427-442.
19. YILMAZ Kürşad ve ÇOKLUK- BÖKEOĞLU Ömay, “Fakülte yaşamının niteliği ölçeği geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması”, Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4 (2), (2006), 201-210.