Elaboration Likelihood Model
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
In an attempt to explain how attitudes are formed and changed, in 1980 Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo developed the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion. The ELM is based on a postulate proposed by Leon Festinger in 1954, which states that people are motivated to hold correct attitudes. These attitudes help people make sense of themselves and the world, allowing them to respond to changing events (Cafferata & Tybout, 1989).
However, Cacioppo and Petty (1980) noted that due to limited cognitive resources, the amount of elaboration (or thoughtful attention) that people are willing and/or able to invest in decision-making varies with the individual and the situation. When making a decision, there is often not enough time or mental capacity to fully analyze important aspects of persuasive arguments. In these instances, people tend to rely on other cues to make decisions (Cafferata & Tybout, 1989). This notion of limited cognitive resources is essential to the ELM and has since been elaborated to form what is called the “Elaboration Continuum”. This continuum describes how the amount of thought (elaboration) given to a persuasive message varies. Sometimes people put in a great deal of thought (high elaboration) and sometimes only very little thought (low elaboration). When a lot of thought goes into the analysis of a persuasive message, central route cues are relied upon. Likewise, when little thought or effort goes into analyzing a message the peripheral route cues are utilized (Hamilton, 2004).
Contents |
Central Route to Persuasion
The Central Route to Persuasion is marked by high elaboration (Shavitt & Brock, 1994). Elaboration is defined as the factor that relates information in a persuasive message to knowledge already possessed in order to arrive at new ideas that were not already present in the advertisement or stored in previous knowledge (Cafferata & Tybout, 1989). The ultimate goal of elaboration is to judge whether the position taken in the persuasive message has any real merit. The thoughts and responses that a person has in response to a message are called cognitive responses. In generating cognitive responses, a person is able to analyze the merit of the position taken (Shavitt & Brock, 1994).
In order to evaluate a message, a person must be motivated and able. If they have both the motivation and the ability, a person can carefully appraise the message’s merit. It is important to know that appraisal varies from person to person and situation to situation (Cafferata & Tybout, 1989).
Peripheral Route to Persuasion
The Peripheral Route to Persuasion is defined by the reliance on simple cues and environmental characteristics of the message to make decisions and judgments (Cafferata & Tybout, 1989). For example, in the peripheral route people rely on cues such as source attractiveness, perceived credibility of the source, and message length (Petty, 2001). Here, if either motivation or ability is not available to a person, there is a heavy reliance on peripheral cues as opposed to a message’s factual information, which needs to be carefully analyzed (Shavitt & Brock).
Cialdini (1981) identified six types of peripheral cues: reciprocation, liking, social proofing, consistency, authority and scarcity. Reciprocation describes a feeling of obligation to believe a message based on a previous experience. Liking refers to the attractiveness or view that the message source is likeable. Social proofing is very similar to peer pressure. Consistency describes when one relies on thoughts and feelings they had in the past. Authority refers to when a source is viewed as an expert or authority figured that should be trusted and obeyed. And, scarcity is when the message is perceived as only being present for a short time and must be accepted quickly. (Cialdini et. al, 1981)
Putting the Central Route and Peripheral Route Together
Deciding which route is used when forming or changing an attitude based on a persuasive message can be thought of as a series of steps (Shavitt & Brock, 1994). First, a person comes into contact with a persuasive message. Next, the motivation of the individual must be assessed. This is most influenced by two factors – intention and exertion (effort). If the person is lacking motivation, the peripheral route is taken. If motivation exists, then the next question is ability. Ability is influenced most by factors such as gender, IQ, and opportunity. Again, if the person is not able, peripheral cues are used (Shavitt & Brock, 1994). Then, if a person is motivated and able to thoughtfully consider a persuasive message, the next step would be to look at the nature of the cognitive process. If the person feels neutral about the message, the peripheral cues are used (Shavitt & Brock, 1994). However, if the person feels something other than neutral about the message – either a favorable or unfavorable outlook – the central route to persuasion is complete. This is marked by either a positive attitude change, in the event of a favorable response to a message, or a negative attitude change in the event of an unfavorable response to a message. The type of cognitive process (neutral, favorable or unfavorable) is influenced by the quality of the argument presented and the initial attitude held (Petty, 2001).
To summarize, the main factors that influence which route is taken is motivation and ability. Without either of these two variables the peripheral route must be used, and thus the individual must rely on simple cues to make a decision about their attitude towards the message. In comparison, the attitudes developed from the central route to persuasion are said to be:
1) Relatively easy to be called to mind
2) Relatively persistent and stable over time
3) Relatively resistant to challenges from competing messages
4) Relatively predictive of a person’s attitude-relevant behavior
In essence, the central route produces a much stronger attitude than those that emanate from the peripheral route (Shavitt & Brock, 1994).
Implications
There are two key implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. The first is that any one variable can produce persuasion by different processes in different situations (Petty, 2001). This goes back to the notion that persuasion differs from individual to individual and from situation to situation (Hamilton, 2004). The next importation idea is that not all attitude changes of the same magnitude are equal. That is, thoughtful attitude changes (via central route) are more consequential than non-thoughtful changes via the peripheral route (Petty, 2001).
Evidence For the ELM
In 1979, Petty and Cacioppo conducted an experiment to test ELM theory. College students were given both strong and weak arguments for a comprehensive college exam that would be required to graduate (Cafferata & Tybout, 1989). At first, all students were initially not in favor of such an exam. Relevance was also manipulated, such that students in the high relevance condition were told that the exam would be instituted before their graduation while those in the low relevance condition were told that the exams would not be instituted for 5 years. The results showed that in the low relevance condition, students’ attitudes remained neutral despite given strong or weak arguments. In the high relevance condition, those given strong arguments showed a positive shift in favor of such exams while, those given weak arguments showed a negative shift away from a mandatory exam. Therefore, students are more likely to enter the central route of persuasion as personal relevance increases. Similar results have been shown with variables such as need for cognition and distraction (Cafferata & Tybout, 1989).
In 1999, Smith and DeCoster demonstrated the ELM is compatible with recent developments in cognitive neuropsychology. They found that underlying structural systems of operation in the brain may be associated with the ELM’s central and peripheral processes. This was proposed while studying “fast-learning” and “slow-learning” memory systems. Here, the fast-learning system is where new information is quickly taken in without much thought (likened to the peripheral route) and the slow-learning system is likened to the central route where information is slowly analyzed before stored (Smith & DeCoster, 2000).
Criticisms of the ELM
The Elaboration Likelihood Model is one of the two dual processing models of persuasion. The other major model is called the Heuristic-Systematic Model, which shares much in common with the ELM. Together, these are the two main theories of processing that social psychologists look at to describe how attitudes are formed and changed in response to a persuasive message (Petty, 2001).
The Heuristic-Systematic Model emphasizes that people use mental shortcuts (heuristics) in decision-making. Instead of looking at the central route of processing and the peripheral route of processing, in this theory thoughtful and attentive decision-making is called systematic processing and automatic processing is called heuristic processing (Hamilton, 2004).
While there are two different theories, the fact that they are so similar in nature demonstrates that the ELM is widely believed and few social psychologists criticize its merit. The experiments that support the ELM have been replicated again and again in different situations and with various variables. Therefore, the Elaboration Model of persuasive is held as the leading theory to describe the processing of persuasive messages (Petty, 2001).
Works Cited
Cafferata, P. & Tybout, A.M. (1989). American Psychological Association., Marketing Science Institute., Needham Harper Worldwide. & Conference on Advertising and Consumer Psychology. Cognitive and affective responses to advertising. (pp. 69-86). Anonymous Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Cialdini, R., Petty, E. & Cacioppo J. (1981). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology. 32, 1.
Hamilton, V.L. (2004). Identification as a Challenge to Dual-Process Theories of Persuasion. Anonymous In "The social psychology of group identity and social conflict: Theory, application, and practice.". DC, US: American Psychological Association: Washington.
Petty, R.E. (2001). Attitude Change: Psychological. Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes(eds). In "International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences". Oxford:Pergamon.
Shavitt, S. & Brock, T.C. (1994). Persuasion: psychological insights and perspectives. (pp. 114-141). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, E. & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 4, 2.
Works Consulted
Baumeister, R., & Bushman, B. (2008). Social Psychology & Human Nature. (pp. 463-465). California, USA: Thomson Wadsworth.
