Comparative Efficacy of Preventative Inoculation Treatments and Reactive Mortification Defending Against Political Debate Attacks

Abstract

Tests comparing inoculation theory's preemptive refutation and image repair theory's reactive mortification in political scandals have indicated that the two monotherapies for crisis management are as effective as each other and perform equally well in adjunctive combination. Conspicuously absent from prior testing, however, is broader inoculation (“blanket protection”). I conduct preregistered multiple-message-design experiments testing a theoretical multiple-mediation model to assess messages affecting perceived scandal cover-up, followed by perceived trustworthiness, ultimately resulting in behavioral intentions. In the first study, N = 490 U.S. voters are exposed to political debate excerpts featuring a strongly favored politician under attack for sexist and higher-ed scandals. Isolated inoculation and mortification remain superior and do not vary. In the second study, N = 209 U.S. voters’ supported politician is attacked for public safety scandals. Isolated inoculation demonstrates superiority.