This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 21 November 2014, At: 14:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Evidence-Based Social WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/webs20

Applying Inoculation Theory to the Studyof Recidivism Reduction in CriminalPrison InmatesJonathan Matusitz a & Gerald-Mark Breen ba Nicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida ,Sanford , Florida , USAb Department of Public Affairs , University of Central Florida ,Sanford , Florida , USAPublished online: 25 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Jonathan Matusitz & Gerald-Mark Breen (2013) Applying Inoculation Theory tothe Study of Recidivism Reduction in Criminal Prison Inmates, Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work,10:5, 455-465, DOI: 10.1080/15433714.2012.760929

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2012.760929

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10:455–465, 2013

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1543-3714 print/1543-3722 online

DOI: 10.1080/15433714.2012.760929

Applying Inoculation Theory to the Study of RecidivismReduction in Criminal Prison Inmates

Jonathan Matusitz

Nicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida, Sanford, Florida, USA

Gerald-Mark Breen

Department of Public Affairs, University of Central Florida, Sanford, Florida, USA

The purpose of the authors through this study is to establish inoculation theory as a viable method in

the prevention or reduction of recidivism in criminal prison inmate populations in the United States.

The authors begin with a detailed literature review on inoculation. They also describe, in detail,

recidivism in prisons. In doing so, they provide a series of interconnected topics, such as the total

number of inmates in U.S. prisons, statistical displays of repeat offenders or subjects of recidivism,

and the types of crimes oftentimes repeated by convicted criminals. What comes afterwards is an

explication of how inoculation theory can be applied in the context of reducing prisoner recidivism.

The authors conclude this study with a discussion section that offers suggestions for future research.

Keywords: Criminals, inoculation theory, offenders, prisons, recidivism, rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the researchers in this study is to establish inoculation theory—a widely recognizedtheory in the field of communication (Matusitz & Breen, 2005)—as a viable method in the preven-

tion or reduction of recidivism in criminal prison inmate populations in the United States. Given the

massive prison population in the United States, and the tendency toward offenders to be recidivists(that is, to repeat their crimes and return to prison: Edge, 2009), inoculation should be considered

as a method of reducing this highly consequential social issue in our society. Particularly in light

of the gravity of many crimes that lead to imprisonment and recidivism—including homicide, sex

offenses, larceny, and assault/battery—and because the public and government must have someconfinement method to house and isolate criminals from tampering with the rest of society, a

feasible approach to behavioral modification, cognitive restructuring, and persuasive resistance

needs to be explored.

This application of inoculation in reducing recidivism among prison inmate populations is thefirst to investigate inoculation theory’s potential power in diminishing criminal recidivism rates.

As such, after providing a detailed literature review on inoculation and recidivism in prisons, in

this study we present a detailed analysis of U.S. prisons, focusing on the purpose of prisons, the

Address correspondence to Jonathan Matusitz, Nicholson School of Communication, University of Central Florida,

Partnership Center (#UP 3009), 100 Weldon Blvd., Sanford, FL 32773, USA. E-mail: matusitz@gmail.com

455

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:02

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

456 J. MATUSITZ AND G.-M. BREEN

philosophy of corrections and rehabilitation, and the concept of confining dangerous populations.In doing so, we describe a series of interconnected topics, such as the total number of inmates

in U.S. prisons, statistical displays of repeat offenders, or subjects of recidivism, and the types

of crimes oftentimes repeated by offenders or convicted criminals (thus leading them to return to

prison). We then discuss an explication of how inoculation theory can be applied in the contextof reducing prisoner recidivism, concluding with a discussion that offers two major suggestions

for future research.

INOCULATION THEORY: EXAMINING CONCEPTUAL UNDERPINNINGSAND EFFECTS FROM APPLIED RESEARCH REPORTS

Recently, there has been a reduced emphasis on prison programs designed to instill skills training

and counseling for inmates designed to prepare them for their inevitable return into society

(Schultz, 2006). Cullen (2005), a proponent of the reaffirmation of rehabilitation among prisoners

and the implementation of programs rooted in the principles of effective intervention, particularlynoticed that criminologists and policymakers do not believe in programs aimed at reducing

recidivism; they even think that “rehabilitation is dead” (Cullen, 2005, p. 1). This deficiency

in concern over the issue is rendering discharged prisons considerably ill-equipped to effectively

re-enter the public population (Edge, 2009).Inoculation theory has been applied in many contexts, minimizing undesirable behavior on

vulnerable populations through systematic treatments. Some of these contexts include alcohol,

drug, sex offense, and smoking prevention, as well as skin cancer prevention by protecting skin

from damage due to excessive or unprotected ultra violet exposure (Beech, Craig, & Browne,2009). Corrections and rehabilitation are basic tenets and are at the core of the criminal justice

system. In addition, policymakers and the general public consistently deem recidivism rates to

be a significant assessment tool in measuring the performance level and quality of correctionalinstitutions (Lynch & Addington, 2006). Attempting this proposed inoculation method, in theo-

retical speculation, and considering and drawing from similar studies that prevented comparable

behaviors in special populations, inoculation should reveal to be a sound and unique strategy to

lessen recidivism, an issue that represents one major reason for the overpopulation in Americanprison systems and continued crime in the public sphere. Hence, it is important to understand

inoculation theory, which is the purpose of the following section.

Definition of Inoculation Theory

Inoculation theory, coined by William McGuire (McGuire, 1961, 1964; Pfau, 1992, 1995), roughly

represents a process through which attitude transformation can be resisted during social interac-

tions that involve typically cogent, persuasive messages designed to change existing attitudes andmodify behavior (Breen & Matusitz, 2006; Lin & Pfau, 2007; Matusitz & Breen, 2005; McGuire,

1964; Pfau & Burgoon, 1988). Inoculation, as a practical method to improve attitude and behavior,

can be described as a laboratory or experimentally-based procedure in which strengthening existing

attitudes to reject persuasive communication before those messages have been put forward isintended (Pfau & Burgoon, 1988). Criminals and other high-risk populations can prepare with

their newfound, desirable attitudes from counter-attitudinal persuasion, as inoculation can produce

a fortified attitude to resist the temptation to engage in wrongful conduct (Beech et al., 2009).

As a systematic process rendering cognitive restructuring and behavioral modification, inocu-lation supplies information to receivers before the communication occurs, with some anticipation

that the information will strengthen the receiver’s resistance to future counter-attitudinal attacks

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:02

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

INOCULATION AND RECIDIVISM 457

(Borchers, 2001; McGuire, 1961, 1964). Inoculation is also designed and implemented in astrategic way; delivering small doses of opposing perspectives, yielding the experimental subjects

with a greater immunity, and reduction in their responses to those differing perspectives (Matusitz

& Breen, 2005; McGuire, 1961, 1964).

Attitude and Inoculation: A Major Component in Cognition and Behavior

Inoculation theory, besides a theory that consists of a complex construct, has a major associationand link to the cognitive aspect of attitude. Attitude is a key term within the model of inoculation

theory (Compton & Pfau, 2004; Matusitz & Breen, 2005; Pfau, 1995). According to Matusitz

and Breen (2005), attitude comprises a collection of beliefs about a particular behavior weightedby the valuations of those beliefs. Based on this notion of inoculating peoples’ existing attitudes,

people can receive treatments that reinforce their current attitudes and shape them to be impervious

to communicative messages that aim to disarm their inoculated attitudes, enabling refrain from

undesired behavior (Benoit, 1991).

Inoculation Theory’s Two Main Elements: Threat and Refutational Preemption

In further examining inoculation theory’s practical side, inoculation features two main elements:

threat and refutational preemption. According to various inoculation theorists and practitioners

(Matusitz & Breen, 2005; Pfau & Van Bockern, 1994), both elements are essential to conferresistance to succeeding persuasive communication. The first essential element to inoculation

theory is threat (Miller, 2002; Pfau et al., 2001). Threat represents an acknowledgement that a

challenge to present attitudes is likely to occur (Pfau & Burgoon, 1988; Pfau et al., 2001). The

threat element of an inoculation communication, in effect, has the ability and tendency to “triggerthe receiver’s motivation to bolster attitudes and gives inoculation its distinctive power” (Pfau,

1995, p. 101). In simplified terms, a threat activates resistance to the opposing persuasive message

(Miller, 2002). The second essential element to inoculation theory is refutational preemption

(Matusitz & Breen, 2005; Pfau & Burgoon, 1988; Pfau et al., 2001). According to Lin and Pfau(2007), refutational preemption is a human-performed act in which potential attacks to existing

attitudes are first addressed and then preempted. In the context presented in this study, once the

persuasive message is presented to the recipient (criminal), the recipient must expel the idea from

his or her attitudinal frame, thereby preventing continuation of criminal conduct.

Experimental Inoculation Treatments: Warning, Weak Attack, andActive Defending

Besides the two essential elements to inoculation theory, there are also three stages to efficacious

inoculation treatment in a laboratory setting and experimental design. 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 the first stage of inoculation, that is, the

warning, the subject receiving inoculation is informed that an argument will be delivered and

expressed so that he or she can be prepared for a counter-attitudinal attack (Compton & Pfau,2004; Matusitz & Breen, 2005). In the second stage of inoculation, that is, the weak attack, the

subject of inoculation is lightly challenged, a means by which the individual can easily cast down

or dispel the argument. In the third and final stage of inoculation, that is, the active defending,

the treated inoculation subject must effectively defend his or her beliefs without serious effort,an indication that attitude has solidified (McGuire, 1964; Pfau, 1992, 1995; Pfau & Burgoon,

1988).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:02

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

458 J. MATUSITZ AND G.-M. BREEN

Selecting Inoculation as a Potential Option for the Proposed Context

The quest for justification arises regarding why inoculation should be given merit or confidence

as an effective strategy in the context of reducing recidivism cases in prison inmate populations.

One basic, but major, reason looks at the core of what inoculation is designed to accomplish;

inoculation treatments first allow people to be influenced by persuasion, leading to the effect thatthe persuasive attempt will induce the inoculated participants to contemplate and contrive rebuttals

(Matusitz & Breen, 2005; Miller, 2002). In real situations, when these participants are faced with

the same arguments in the future, such as on the street or with former criminal partners, they will

generally disregard or ignore the arguments because their strengthened—or inoculated—attitudesboth unconsciously and consciously resist them (Compton & Pfau, 2004; Miller, 2002; Pfau &

Burgoon, 1988; Pfau et al., 2001).

The etymology of inoculation—that is, the deliberate introduction of a pathogen or antigen into

a live organism to induce the manufacturing of antibodies (Matusitz & Breen, 2005; McGuire,1964)—reasonably reflects what the theory represents in the social sciences context; a sort of

mental immunization process against external, attitudinal influences that are typically unwanted

to those who seek to be and remain morally or ethically appropriate.

Relevant Inoculation Studies: Empirical Proof that Inoculation Is Valid

Inoculation, with much success noted, has been empirically applied as a resistance strategy in

a variety of social and public health contexts (Saraiya et al., 2004), laying the argument out

that the theory, when put in practice, demonstrates much efficacy. Some of these studies includealcohol consumption prevention (Godbold & Pfau, 2000), political and public affairs (Lin & Pfau,

2007; Pfau & Burgoon, 1988), public relations issues (Wan & Pfau, 2004), sexual harassment

(Matusitz & Breen, 2005), and smoking prevention (Pfau & Van Bockern, 1994; Szabo & Pfau,

2001). There are numerous other research studies that were empirically conducted, applying thistheory, that depict quite clearly the theory’s practical impacts on inducing resistance to counter-

attitudinal attacks in such germane situations. Nonetheless, of the areas applying inoculation, such

as smoking and alcohol prevention, sexual harassment prevention, and others, there exists a clear

demonstration of the compatibility and applicability of inoculation in the criminal justice arena,especially in the reduction of recidivism rates in criminal inmate populations. In fact, inoculation’s

goal in this context is to prevent criminal behavior that leads released prisoners back to prison.

Interestingly, the context of this study—that is, the potential use of inoculation in reducing re-

cidivism among criminal, prison inmate populations—is the first to date to examine the connectionand viability of inoculation theory in tackling criminal recidivism rates. As such, the next section

provides a detailed analysis of U.S. prisons, focusing on the purpose of prisons, the philosophy of

corrections and rehabilitation, and the concept of confining dangerous populations. Then comes

a series of interconnected topics, such as the total number of inmates in U.S. prisons, statisticaldisplays of repeat offenders, or subjects of recidivism, and the types of crimes (i.e., homicide, sex

offenses, larceny, and assault/battery) oftentimes repeated by convicted criminals (thus leading

them to return to prison). Such information clarifies the prevalence of abhorrent crime across thenation, the detriments criminals place on society, and why inoculation is justifiable as a proposed

method to tackle criminal misconduct and prevention.

RECIDIVISM, PRISON POPULATIONS, AND GENERAL CRIME STATISTICS

Recidivism can be summarized or defined as a relapse in behavior. For criminal behavior, recidi-

vism refers to a relapse particularly after being convicted on previous offenses (Zamble & Quinsey,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:02

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

INOCULATION AND RECIDIVISM 459

2001). Criminal offenses, though most relevantly phrased as “felony offenses,” are classified bymany authorities according to the following nine categories: assault, burglary, drug, manslaughter,

murder, property, robbery, sex, and other (Zamble & Quinsey, 2001).

As shown in Figure 1, we need to first recognize that, at the beginning of 2005, there were

approximately 5 million people who, at one point in their lives, served time in a state or federalprison institution. That is almost five times as many prisoners as the number of prisoners in 1980.

In other words, in 25 years, the number of prisoners increased fivefold. According to Lynch and

Addington (2006), drug and property crimes represent the most common types of present criminal

conduct, rated at approximately 33% and 29% respectively. Contrary to popular assumption,violent crimes, including homicide (i.e., 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, and negligent

homicide, etc.), sex offenses (i.e., sexual assault, pedophilia, abusive or lewd conduct/touching,

etc.), and larceny (particularly armed robbery), all constituted the smallest class of criminal conduct

and recidivism rates. Along the same lines, homicide, larceny, and sex offenders were the leastapt to engage in the same criminal conduct as what they were convicted or arrested for in the past,

showing that they step into other areas of crime besides what they committed in their histories.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice, 2006), approximately 30% of

criminals who committed acts of homicide (whether the homicide was defined in terms of degrees;1st degree, 2nd degree, and so forth) were below the age of 21. Almost 60% of the violent U.S.

felons, particularly those who engaged in a form of homicide or attempted murder and were

later convicted, turned out to have conviction histories; of those who were accounted, nearly

40% held a previous felony conviction and 15% were formerly convicted for a similar violentoffense.

Almost half of criminals convicted of a violent, felonious offense were given a prison sentence.

Nearly 100% of homicide offenders were handed and served significant prison sentences. Criminalsconvicted of larceny (including robbery, theft, etc.) had a 69% probability of receiving prison

sentences while sex offenders (including rape, child abuse, etc.) had a 62% probability of serving

prison time. In terms of those who were convicted of assault or battery, nearly 38% of offenders

were handed imprisonment or jail. The average prison sentence was 20 years for homicide,10 years for sex offenses, 5 years for larceny, and 4 years for assault/battery. Furthermore, nearly

all violent, convicted felons not sentenced to incarceration were given a considerable term of

probation (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010).

As shown in Figure 2, the number of prisoners who were given a considerable term of probationincreased fourfold from 1980 to 2005. However, this figure does not reflect the very fact that even

FIGURE 1 Number of sentenced inmates incarcerated under State and Federal jurisdiction per 100,000 (1980–

2005). Source: Pew Research Center, 2011.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:02

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

460 J. MATUSITZ AND G.-M. BREEN

the criminals who are placed on probation are at risk of repeat offenses (Mauer, 2007). Extractinginformation from a Bureau of Justice Statistics report released in 1994, Langan and Levin (2002)

examined, in detail, comprehensive national data on prisoner recidivism. What they discovered in

past reports was that a cohort of state prison inmates released in 1994 had a recidivism or re-arrest

rate of 67.5% within three years after those discharges. In comparison to recidivism reported fromthe previous decade, this is an increase of 5% in contrast to the prisoners discharged in 1983.

Even more concerning for rehabilitation and corrections experts, 46.9% of discharged prisoners

were reconvicted on criminal charges, conduct new to their record, within a 36-month period, with

51.8% of those arrested incurring repeat imprisonment. While 36 months, or three years, may seemlike a short period of time to many, it may feel like a long time for others. Of interest in this time

scheme is that most of the aforementioned re-arrests transpire within the first year after prison

discharge, making one year following the discharge a critical time frame from which to expect

either repentance or recidivism from inmates.With approximately 33% of the accounted released offenders being re-arrested before a six

month stretch, and given that a substantial percentage of these arrests lead to conviction and

recidivistic imprisonment, a strong method of preventing this societal strain may very well be

inoculation. In 2004, the total measure of recidivism for males was 64.6% versus 50.5% forfemales (National Center on Health Statistics, 2005). According to data extracted from the same

source, it was noted that African Americans represent 3.5% of the population in Washington,

constituting 13.6% of all sentences, and demonstrating the most significant recidivism percentage

over all other racial groups at 71.5%. Interestingly, Caucasians, as a whole, represent the largestportion of the overall population, rising at 77.6%, and comprised 72% of all sentences with a

recidivism rate of 61.1% (National Center on Health Statistics, 2005).

Of particular concern among the criminal population are the recidivism rates regarding sexoffenders. Statistics published by the U.S. Department of Justice (2010) showed that sex offenders

had a 400% higher probability than non-sex offenders—that is, 5.3% of sex offenders to 1.3%

of non-sex offenders—to be arrested for a subsequent sex crime following their discharge from

prison. This population is clearly susceptible to recidivism and requires additional focus.Recidivism impacts society, taking a tremendous toll on government resources, especially tax

appropriations and allocations (Farrington, Welsh, & Sherman, 2000). What recidivism ultimately

employs is the use of law enforcement personnel, court systems, incarceration, and other expenses

designated for crime prevention. These increased demands overload prosecutors, public defend-ers, and relevant agencies (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 2006). Recidivism causes an

overburdening of the court system, at both the micro and macro levels, rendering lengthy setbacks

FIGURE 2 Adult correctional populations (probation, prison, parole, jail), 1980–2005. Source: Pew Research

Center, 2011. (color figure available online)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:02

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

INOCULATION AND RECIDIVISM 461

in criminal proceedings, and extended waits in civil litigation matters. The government could beapplying more tax monies toward improving school systems, enhancing hospitals and the care

they deliver, renovating or establishing new parks, and expanding libraries.

Lynch and Sabol (2001) even pointed out that there has been a widespread decline in the

number of pre-release treatments, educational programs, and vocational treatments—all methodsto reduce recidivism. Even prisoners who have previously had abundant opportunities to attend

religious instruction (which, by attending, happens to indicate a lower rate of recidivism) are now

facing a lessening in frequency and/or availability of such religious exposure. Another somewhat

self-defeating scenario in the criminal justice system is that approximately 50% of incarceratedconvicts were reported to have significant levels of drugs or alcohol in their systems during the

relative time of the offenses (which led to police capture).

It is contended that insufficient interventions are taken in the criminal justice system as a whole

to confront and address these issues of drug abuse. By educating inmates on the disadvantagesof drug use, and by discouraging inmates through professional training, a triggering force toward

criminal behavior can be eliminated, thereby offering up another method for reducing recidivism.

Inoculation, as shown earlier, has been empirically applied in the context of alcohol and drug

prevention, signaling hope that the use of inoculation in this recidivism context can be moredeeply applied to train inmates to resist drug and alcohol use.

As Mumola (1999) asserts, by neglecting prison programs and offering minimal resources to

inmates once they are discharged from prison, recidivism rates will probably remain elevated. We

can also make the logical assumption that as the rate of an individual’s history of arrests rises,the probability that the individual will engage in repeat behavior that leads to recidivism likewise

increases. From this we can deduce that early intervention is pivotal in reducing this incessant

pattern of prison discharge, re-arrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration. Furthermore, one of themain contributions to prison overcrowding is the repeating of an unwanted conduct after having

experienced negative consequences of that conduct, or after having been treated or trained to

eliminate that conduct (Douglas et al., 2006).

When considering the concepts of correction and rehabilitation within criminal justice systems,we think in terms of modifying an inmate’s thinking and behavior so that release into society is

made easier and free from future misconduct (Geis, Mobley, & Shichor, 1999; Zamble & Quinsey,

2001). Unfortunately, research has shown that the time sentencing aspect of punishment seems to

demonstrate minimal effects on a criminal’s recidivism potential (Douglas et al., 2006; Lynch &Sabol, 2001; Zamble & Quinsey, 2001). Nearly 66% of inmates undergoing at least six months

of imprisonment were notably re-arrested. Yet, even after long-term stays, such as five years of

incarceration or longer, the recidivism rate only slightly reduces to 54%, a rather tiny change from

those serving much shorter sentences.

INOCULATION THEORETICALLY APPLIED TO CRIMINAL PRISON INMATEPOPULATIONS: DOES THIS CONSTRUCT INDICATE HOPE AS A

RECIDIVISM REDUCER?

Quite clearly, the statistics addressed in this study demonstrate the weaknesses in the criminal

justice system that enable or help fuel recidivism. Recent reports indicate that the prison populationis overcrowded, discharged offenders repeat prison-bound crimes, there has been and continues

to be tremendous expense and loss of federal monies, and the resources and programs that are

under-utilized to facilitate corrections and rehabilitation among criminal populations are otherwise

stagnant in reducing recidivism. A solution, which should be proposed and implemented in prisoninmate populations to reduce recidivism, is the model or construct of inoculation. It has been shown

to be effective in the prevention or reduction of smoking, alcohol use, drug use, and inappropriate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:02

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

462 J. MATUSITZ AND G.-M. BREEN

sexual behavior, all issues of general social concern (Compton & Pfau, 2004; Matusitz & Breen,2005). Thus, it then makes logical sense to attempt to apply this practice or method of behavioral

modification/cognitive restructuring on those who pose a very dangerous threat to the public and

political interests: first-time and repeat criminal offenders.

If recidivism is such a major issue in our society, creating financial, security, governmental, andresource strains, then why is it that programs designed to reduce such future behavior are being

unplugged? Perhaps there may be a general loss of hope that such programs work or a financial

unwillingness to expend from the budget enough resources to smoothly operate such programs.

Inoculation certainly suggests a serious commitment, with multiple resources and streams offunding to enable it, both at the regional and national levels. However, the benefits may outweigh

the risks or losses.

Consider that inoculation aims and can very easily succeed at altering attitudes, changing

cognitive functioning, and improving behavior (Matusitz & Breen, 2005). To systemically shapeinmates into law-abiding citizens—without a residual, significant temptation to repeat imprisoning

acts—requires a penetrating method of mental restructuring. Inoculation strikes at the core of the

issue, impacting attitude and enabling a resistance to persuasion to engage in undesirable behavior.

As a proposed platform to implement such services in prison institutions, inoculation needs tobe spelled out and organized in laboratory-like fashion to achieve the results. First, the inmates

who demonstrate “the most risk” in repeating criminal offenses or recidivism should be identified.

They will be the subjects of the inoculation treatments.

How should the subjects or participants be identified? Considering the aforementioned statisticsand profiles, those criminals who fall into the categories of recidivistic probability should be

selected. Those from the selection will be convicted offenders who committed acts of homicide,

sex offenses, larceny, and assault/battery, taking into account gender, age, type of crime, recidivistichistory, and so forth. The subjects must first be educated or trained, using a video cassette or actual

guest speaker, to clearly demonstrate the negatives of crime, the harm involved, and the prospects

of returning to prison and losing the chance to lead a normal life. The information comprised in

this initial training program must provide the attitude change needed for fortification so inoculationcan distinctively work.

Then, we delve into the elements of inoculation referred to as “threat” and “refutation pre-

emption.” As we have already covered, threat represents an acknowledgement that a challenge

to present attitudes is likely to occur, leading to attitude protection or resistance to opposingpersuasion. In this case, a simulation would be created in which the inmate subject would be

informed by the conductor of the experiment that a persuasion of some type will be imminently

offered up as a means to encourage bad behavior. With the inmate being aware of this impending

threat, the newfound, law-abiding attitude will emerge, arming the inmate against temptingmisbehavior. Then, as has also been described in this study, the second inoculation element to be

engaged is refutational preemption, a human-performed act in which potential attacks to existing

attitudes are first addressed and then preempted. Because the threat has already been conveyed to

the inmate subject, the subject is prepared for that attack.In the refutational preemption stage, the subject refrains from any advances to commit criminal

conduct because the attitude has been strengthened and refuses to act contrary. As an example, in

the simulation, another individual, posing as a criminal, can approach the subject and tempt thesubject into committing, for instance, armed robbery. No matter how persuasive the actor is in

attempting to recruit the subject into mentally surrendering to the persuasion to commit unlawful

conduct, the inoculated attitude should remain strong and resistant to such influences.

To fully ensure effective inoculation, the conductor of the experiment must then also testthe three stages to efficacious inoculation treatment, which is applying the warning, the weak

attack, and then the final active defending. The warning requires that the inmate subject receiving

inoculation be informed that an argument to engage in criminal conduct will be expressed so

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:02

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

INOCULATION AND RECIDIVISM 463

that immediate preparation for that counter-attitudinal attack will transpire. In other words, the“psychological protective guards” will be up on the criminal subject.

During the weak attack, the criminal subject of inoculation is lightly challenged by some

temptation, whereby another criminal, under simulation, must be disregarded and shunned off

without effort, keeping the subject intact. In the final stage of inoculation, for efficacy testingpurposes, the active defending aspect must show that the newfound, law-abiding attitude has been

solidified. This requires that, during the simulation, a strong influence by another criminal be

exerted on the inoculated, inmate subject. The subject must show complete resistance to this

negative influence to engage in the illegal conduct, thereby paving the path for a potentiallyrehabilitated and corrected dischargeable inmate.

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

What we have demonstrated is that since inoculation has been abundantly shown to reduce

unwanted behavior (or behavior deemed unacceptable by society), inoculation can be a potential

strategy to confront criminal recidivism and aim to resolve it to a significant degree. In manyinstances across the United States, the criminal justice system is bombarded by an influx of

criminal offenders who are sentenced to prison; and in several of those cases, offenders are

returned back to prison after being previously discharged. Those instances depicting recidivism

are particularly concerning to those who wish to clear up prison populations, promote correctionsand rehabilitation, and minimize safety threats to the general public. Government employees who

need additional funding from the limited budget need appropriate allocations of monies for other

pressing purposes (i.e., schools, hospitals, parks, and libraries).

Inoculation, using a simulation-type platform, and applying systematic designs from earlierempirical inoculation studies, can be applied on prison inmate populations. As we have seen,

inoculation has been proven to be a well-established solution to several crucial social and public

issues. Inoculation has the ability to substantially reduce or prevent such behaviors as alcohol orcigarette use, drug use, and inappropriate sexual behavior in the medical setting, then targeting

criminal inmate populations who need attitude adjustment and aspirations to do right and not

commit wrong should be equally feasible. Because inoculation theory has not yet been applied to

this context, the subject matter proposed in this study is unique and innovative. Hence, it shouldhave tremendous implications for criminal justice scholars and practitioners, public administrators,

and sociological researchers interested in modifying behavior to minimize recidivism and crime

nationwide. Furthermore, as inoculation is typically categorized as a communication theory, this

study encourages and integrates the field of communication with criminal justice, a new path thatcriminal justice scholars can consider when pursuing topics related to corrections and rehabilitation

of prison inmates.

For future research, it might prove interesting to introduce inoculation theory as a method

to reduce recidivism in other nations that struggle with the same criminal and incarcerationrecidivism issues. We know, for instance, that criminal recidivism in South Africa is very high

(Gaum, Hoffman, & Venter, 2006). Even though at Pollsmoor Prison, Cape Town (South Africa),

incidence, potential causes for, and treatment of recidivism have been investigated, little has

been done to effectively understand and reduce recidivism in this particular population. Thus, itbecomes imperative to identify methods that have been empirically shown to be effective and viable

in reducing unwanted social behavior. As such, promoting the value and function of inoculation

theory across nations—particularly in criminality-prone areas—requires serious consideration.

In line with these contentions, it might prove useful to conduct a comparative analysis, alonggender lines, between female and male inmates in terms of criminal recidivism. According to

Fortuin (2007), female prisoners are rehabilitating at a higher rate than male prisoners. In a Maine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:02

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

464 J. MATUSITZ AND G.-M. BREEN

prison, a gender-specific, cognitive-based curriculum was developed to help female offenderslearn new ways of adopting an appropriate mode of conduct. It proved successful. However, to

date, minimal empirical data have been provided as to why rehabilitation programs work more

effectively with female than with male offenders (Sudbury, 2005). Because of this lack of evidence,

it becomes essential to explore the relative merits of inoculation theory in order to experimentallyexamine and subsequently determine whether the inoculation model can bring to light possible

gender differences in terms of rehabilitative integration into society.

Truly, it is our aim to prove that occurrences of recidivism in prisoners and offenders can be

reduced through effective inoculation treatments. The primary objective of inoculation theory isto yield positive transformations to achieve healthier human environments.

REFERENCES

Beech, A. R., Craig, L. A., & Browne, K. D. (2009). Assessment and treatment of sex offenders: A handbook. New York,

NY: Wiley.

Benoit, W. L. (1991). Two tests of the mechanism of inoculation theory. Southern Communication Journal, 56, 219–229.

Borchers, T. A. (2001). Persuasion in the media age. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Press.

Breen, G. M., & Matusitz, J. A. (November, 2006). Inoculation theory: A theoretical and practical framework for confer-

ring resistance to pack journalism tendencies. Paper presented in the Mass Communication Division of the 92nd Annual

National Communication Association Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Criminal offenders statistics. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

Compton, J. A., & Pfau, M. (2004). Use of inoculation to foster resistance to credit card marketing targeting college

students. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 343–365.

Cullen, F. T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference.

Criminology, 43, 1–42.

Douglas, J., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (2006). Crime classification manual: A standard system for

investigating and classifying violent crimes. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

Edge, L. B. (2009). Locked up: A history of the U.S. prison system. Breckenridge, CO: Twentyfirst Century Books.

Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B., & Sherman, L. W. (2000). Costs and benefits of preventing crime: Economic costs and

benefits. Jackson, TN: Westview Press.

Fortuin, B. (2007). Maine’s female offenders are reentering—and succeeding. Corrections Today, 69, 34.

Gaum, G., Hoffman, S., & Venter, J. H. (2006). Factors that influence adult recidivism: An exploratory study in Pollsmoor

prison. South African Journal of Psychology, 36, 407–424.

Geis, G., Mobley, A., & Shichor, D. (1999). Private prisons, criminological research, and conflict of interest: A case study.

Crime & Delinquency, 45, 372–388.

Godbold, L. C., & Pfau, M. (2000). Conferring resistance to peer pressure among adolescents: Using inoculation theory

to discourage alcohol use. Communication Research, 27, 411–437.

Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Lin, W., & Pfau, M. (2007). Can inoculation work against the spiral of silence? A study of public opinion on the future

of Taiwan. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 155–172.

Lynch, J. P., & Addington, L. A. (2006). Understanding crime statistics: Revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and the

UCR. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, J. P., & Sabol, W. J. (2001). Prisoner reentry in perspective. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Matusitz, J., & Breen, G. M. (2005). Prevention of sexual harassment in the medical setting: Applying inoculation theory.

Journal of Health and Social Policy, 21, 53–71.

Mauer, M. (2007). The hidden problem of time served in prison. Social Research, 74, 701–706.

McGuire, W. (1961). Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative

counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 326–332.

McGuire, W. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology

(pp. 192–229). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, K. (2002). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Mumola, C. J. (1999). Substance abuse and treatment, state and federal prisoners, 1997. Washington, DC: Bureau of

Justice Statistics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:02

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

INOCULATION AND RECIDIVISM 465

National Center for Health Statistics. (2005). Recidivism of adult felons. Washington, DC: Washington Office of Financial

Management.

Pew Research Center. (2011). Public safety, public spending. Washington, DC: Author.

Pfau, M. (1992). The potential of inoculation in promoting resistance to the effectiveness of comparative advertising

messages. Communication Quarterly, 40, 26–44.

Pfau, M. (1995). Designing messages for behavioral inoculation. In E. Maibach & R. L. Parrott (Eds.), Designing health

messages: Approaches from communication theory and public health practice (pp. 99–113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Pfau, M., & Burgoon, M. (1988). Inoculation in political campaign communication. Human Communication Research,

15, 91–111.

Pfau, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1994). The persistence of inoculation in conferring resistance to smoking initiation among

adolescents: The second year. Human Communication Research, 20, 413–430.

Pfau, M., Szabo, E. A., Anderson, J., Morrill, J., Zubric, J., & Wan, H. H. (2001). The role and impact of affect in the

process of resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 27, 216–252.

Saraiya, M., Glanz, K., Briss, P. A., Nichols, P., White, C., Das, D., : : : Rochester, P. (2004). Interventions to prevent skin

cancer by reducing exposure to ultraviolet radiation: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,

27, 422–466.

Schultz, E. (2006). The second chance act. Corrections Today, 68, 22–23.

Sudbury, J. (2005). Global lockdown: Race, gender, and the prison-industrial complex. New York, NY: Routledge.

Szabo, E. A., & Pfau, M. (2001). Nuances in inoculation: Theory and applications. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The

persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 233–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2010). Immigration consequences of criminal convictions. Washington, DC: Author.

Wan, H.-H., & Pfau, M. (2004). The relative effectiveness of inoculation, bolstering, and combined approaches in crisis

communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 301–328.

Zamble, E., & Quinsey, V. L. (2001). The criminal recidivism process. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:02

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14