ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL

CTU LIVE CHAT

Developed by. Richard Petty. & John Cacioppo

Two mental routes to changing an attitude

• Central processing• Thinking actively

about argument

• Peripheral processing• Shorthand way to

accept/reject an argument

Central route processing

• Involves message ELABORATION• “Extent to which a person carefully thinks

about issue-relevant arguments contained in a persuasive communication.”

• Ideas are scrutinized carefully• Goes beyond simple understanding• Receiver generates attitude relevant

thoughts about persuasive message

Central Route:Biased or Objective

• Central route processing can be characterized by objective or biased elaboration on argument• Objective processing equals objective

evaluation of argument• Biased processing most likely to occur

with vested interest or unbalanced amount of information

Peripheral processing

• Does not involve elaboration• “Without any active thinking about the

attributes of the issue or the object of consideration.”

• No extensive cognitive work required for decision making

• Receiver relies on a variety of CUES to make quick decisions

• Cues allow us to travel along the peripheral route on auto pilot

Peripheral route:Cues for “Click, Whirr”

• Reciprocation• Consistency• Social proof• Liking• Authority• Scarcity

ELM as a continuum

• Routes are not mutually exclusive• Central and Peripheral are poles on a

cognitive processing continuum• Elaboration likelihood determinant• Most receive middle ground attention

Motivation for elaboration

• Personal relevance• Need for cognition

• “I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they don’t affect me personally.”

• “I prefer my life to be filled with puzzles I must solve.”

• “I prefer to think about small, daily projects to long-term ones.”

• “Thinking is not my idea of fun.”

Ability for elaboration

• Freedom from distraction• Distraction disrupts elaboration• Concentration must be possible

• Sufficient prior knowledge• Receiver must be able to understand

information in order to be able to elaborate on it

Elaborated arguments

• Based on PERCEIVED strength• Strong argument is one that

generates favorable thoughts when heard and scrutinized

• Arguments can be• Strong = favorable thoughts• Weak = unfavorable thoughts• Neutral = neutral thoughts

Power of elaboration

• Enhanced thinking will lead to stronger attitude change

• Positive or negative attitudes• Persistent over time• Resistant to counterpersuasion• Predictable in terms of behavior

• Except Neutral (No change)

The other side:Peripheral Cues• Most messages are processed this way

out of necessity (info overload)• Differs both qualitatively and

quantitatively from central route• Cues aid in making quick decisions

• Speaker credibility• Reaction of others• External rewards

Back to the continuum

• Single persuasion variables can take on multiple roles: argument, cue, or an elaboration moderator

• Peripheral cues can stimulate elaboration (leading to central route processing)

Practical Utility of ELM

• High Elaboration Likelihood:• Motivation and

Ability present• Focus on the

argument itself• Support essential• Cogent argument

• Maximum Effect

• Low Elaboration Likelihood:• Motivation and

Ability absent• Focus on cues

within delivery• Specious

argument

• Minimum Effect

Praise for ELM theory

• Instrumental in integrating the literature on source, receiver, message, and context effects

• Has become a springboard for new research

Criticism of ELM theory

• Involvement distinction exists

• Precludes a multi-channel processing

• Methodological problems

• No conceptual understanding of good argument