Basically, persuasion is said to occur internally. Thus, it is possible for one to persuade another person who trusts them by simply coming up with convincing arguments which are then backed up with solid facts. Nevertheless, it is not possible to persuade an individual with 100% guaranteed success as individuals have also to persuade themselves the validity of the message presented to them (Petty, Briñol, & Tormala, 2002). In this case, the Elaboration Likelihood Model theory abbreviated as ELM is useful in understanding how to persuade others. It seeks to explain how people process stimuli differently, as well as the outcome of these processes with respect to changing attitudes and behavior.
Tenants of Elaboration Theory
Notably, the elaboration model suggests that there are two main paths of persuasions, that is, the central routes as well as peripheral routes (Kitchen et al., 2014). To begin with, the central path consists primarily of thoughtful considerations of the specific message being passed to another individual. It is considered to be more appropriate in the case where the receiver of this message is an active participant in this process of persuasion. There are two prerequisites in central processing; firstly, it can only occur when a listener is motivated to think about a message. The second prerequisite is that the listener should possess an ability to think about the topics of the message. In the case where the listener is not interested in the topic of the message meant persuade them, this would, in turn, make them lose the motivation that is necessary for central processing. Similarly, if the listener gets distracted or develops difficulties understanding messages, this leads to inability to do a central processing. The central routed messages have the ability to create long-term changes for the receiver as compared to peripheral messages.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The elaborated arguments are measured as strong, weak or neutral. Strong arguments are those which create a positive response in the listener’s mind while also aligning the beliefs of the listener with the views of the persuader positively (Kitchen et al., 2014). As such, they inoculate the receivers against a “counter-persuasion” thus creating long-term attitude changes which result in predictable behaviors. The “neutral arguments generate non-committal cognitive responses” (Kitchen et al., 2014). This means that there are no changes which occur in the listener and there are possibilities that the listener would turn to peripheral cues. Subsequently, weak arguments create negative cognitive responses. As a result, they prevent positive changes in the attitude of the listener. As a matter of fact, it might have a boomerang effect on the receiver thereby result in a reinforcement of opposing viewpoints.
On the other hand, a peripheral route occurs when the receiver of a message decides to either agree with the messages based on the different cues available besides the strengths of the idea or argument in a message (Jones, Sinclair, & Courneya, 2003). For instance, a listener may decide to agree with a message due to the fact that the source appears professional. In addition to this, a peripheral route may also occur in a case whereby the listener realizes that there are many arguments present in the message, but they lack the motivation or ability to think about them as individuals. As such, the listeners easily agree with this message in the instance where the source is perceived as credible or there are several arguments which support the message. In most cases, peripheral processing occurs when a listener is not willing or is unable to engage fully in thinking about the message. Thus, the cues presented to them act as short-cuts for decision making. It is worth noting that the receivers who engage in peripheral route processing are mainly passive as compared to those engaging in central processing.
There are several cues which propagate the use of peripheral message such as, commitment, liking, authority, social proof, contrast, scarcity, and reciprocity (Kitchen et al., 2014). In authority, the persuaders use the perception of authority in order to convince the receiver to accept the beliefs presented to them. Commitment emphasizes the dedication of a person to a particular social cause, product or group affiliation. In persuasion using contrasts, the persuader sets ups uneven points of making comparisons. Additionally, the liking cues stress an affinity toward a particular person as an object or a place. Reciprocity, on the other hand, tries to influence by creating a give and take type of relationship (Jones, Sinclair, & Courneya, 2003).
These peripheral messages can be evaluated as positive, negative or neutral (Benoit, & Benoit, 2008). Those which are positive are those which get perceived in a favorable manner by the receiver thus creating an affective state which is positive. Nonetheless, these messages have a tendency of yielding a weak positive change of the listener’s attitude. Negative messages result to the listeners developing a disproving emotional response. Lastly, the neutral peripheral messages result in the listener feeling emotionally ambivalent. That is, they hardly care or know the cues which are used for the purpose of capturing their attention.
Background of Elaboration Likelihood Model Theory
ELM theory was developed by John Cacioppo as well as Richard Petty, in the 1980’s. The proponents of this theory aimed at providing a blueprint for categorizing, organizing as well as understanding some of the basic processes which lead to the effectiveness and efficiency of persuasive communication (Kitchen et al., 2014).
Generally, the study of persuasion as well as attitude began as a key focus of socio-psychology by Gordon Allport and also Edward Ross. They concentrated on underlying factors in persuasion and attitude which included the consistencies between attitudes and subsequent behaviors. However, Richard and John noticed some significant problems with the approach that the researchers had adopted. This brought about the two routes of persuasion which are present in ELM theory.
Applications of the ELM Theory in Strategic Communication Context
In trying to persuade people using the tenants of this theory in strategic communication context, it is critical to evaluate the quality of arguments. If the arguments presented to the receiver are not strong, chances are that the result of persuasion will be inconsistent. According to Petty and Cacioppo, strong arguments are those which contains arguments which if presented to a receiver, they will act as par the instruction contained in the message. According to a test study in communication carried by Caccioppo and Petty, it showed that in cases when the elaboration likelihood is low, it results in favorable attitudes from people regardless of the available strengths of the message (Kitchen et al., 2014). However, when elaboration likelihood is high the strengths of the argument are the only aspects which can manipulate the affected attitudes (Schultz & Pilotta, 2004)
Research on ELM theory as it applies to communication in the present decade shows that the ELM was during the times of mass-media marketing communication in the 1980’s (Miller, 2004). Thus its predictive abilities for usage in advertising design and implementation requires caution. Nevertheless, according to Rollins & Bhutada, (2014), using ELM theory can help to understand as well as to make an evaluation of the underlying mechanisms which describe the relationship between the type of endorser, the disease state involvements and also the “consumer response to a direct-to-consumer advertisement (DTCA)”. Essentially, endorsers do not have much effect on the attitude of consumers. However, the levels of disease-state and behavioral intentions have significant impacts on the attitude of consumers. Thus using this variable, in strategic communication such as advertising the ELM theory can be used to guide how communication is carried out (Priester, Brinol, & Petty, 2009).
Limitation of the Elaboration Likelihood Model
Undoubtedly, Petty and Cacioppo describe ELM as a framework which is concentrates on classification and organization of processing styles; however, it hardly elaborates on classification of objective cues. Notably, marketers, in the contemporary society, are interested in controlling objective cues which in turn affects communication to a larger extent (Jae, 2004). The model is limited in that it does not help individuals to predict which cue can be processed under what particular set circumstances. In other words, as it is now, the ELM only describes the process which results directly from a motivational state but fails to predict the motivation state. As noted by Choi & Salmon, (2003) people tend to have many thoughts regarding different messages and mostly, these thoughts may be overridden by persuasive communications thus causing the decision which is made to be more of mental shortcuts.
Conclusion
ELM theory provides insight with respect to processing a stimulus, and tries to explain why it is used, as well as the outcomes with respect to changing attitudes. The ELM theory was developed by Petty and Cacioppo, in 1980 to improve on the research previously done in the field of socio-psychology. They proposed two main routes which can be used to persuade individuals; that is, central and peripheral routes. The tenants of this theory can be applied in strategic communication to ensure that the messages are passed across for change of attitudes. However, there are a couple of limitations attached to this theory as noted above.
References
Choi, S. M., & Salmon, C. T. (2003). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion after two decades: A review of criticisms and contributions. The Kentucky Journal of Communication , 22 (1), 47-77.
Benoit, W. L., & Benoit, P. J. (2008). Persuasive messages: The process of influence : Wiley- Blackwell.
Jae, H. delvicchio, D.(2004). Decision making by elaboration likelihood model-analysis journal and model: The Journal of Consumer Affairs , (38), 2.
Kitchen, P. J., Kerr, G., E. Schultz, D., McColl, R., & Pals, H. (2014). The elaboration likelihood model: review, critique and research agenda. European Journal of Marketing , 48 (11/12), 2033-2050.
Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory: Journal of applied social psychology , 33 (1), 179-196.
Miller, K. (2004). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts : McGraw- Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
Rollins, B., & Bhutada, N. (2014). Impact of celebrity endorsements in disease-specific direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertisements: an elaboration likelihood model approach. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing , 8 (2), 164-177
Schultz, D. E., & Pilotta, J. J. (2004). Developing the foundation for a new approach to understanding how media advertising works: In Proceedings of the ESOMAR/ARF Worldwide Audience Conference .
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of personality and social psychology , 82 (5), 722.
Priester, J. R., Brinol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2009). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Media effects (pp. 141-180). Routledge.
