1. ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL CTU LIVE CHAT Developed by. Richard Petty. & John Cacioppo

2. Two mental routes to changing an attitude Central processing Thinking actively about argument Peripheral processing Shorthand way to accept/reject an argument

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Peripheral route: Cues for “Click, Whirr” Reciprocation Consistency Social proof Liking Authority Scarcity

7. 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

8. 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.”

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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

15. Praise for ELM theory Instrumental in integrating the literature on source, receiver, message, and context effects Has become a springboard for new research

16. Criticism of ELM theory Involvement distinction exists Precludes a multi-channel processing Methodological problems No conceptual understanding of good argument