You are on page 1of 9

Running Head: Elaboration Likelihood Model 1

Elaboration Likelihood Model: Creating a Strong Attitude Shift Susannah Saylor Wheaton College

Abstract

Running Head: Elaboration Likelihood Model 2 etty and Cacio!!o"s Elaboration Likelihood Model suggests that indi#iduals undergo an attitude change through an elaboration in the central route or a $uick decision in the !eri!heral route% When an audience has &oti#ation and ability to carefully 'eigh both sides of an issue at hand( they 'ill ha#e a strong attitude change that resists counter !ersuasion% Ho'e#er( if &oti#ation and ability are lacking( there is a 'eaker attitude change that is te&!orary and doesn"t resist counter argu&entation% Significant research de&onstrates that a strong argu&ent consists of !o'erful language( high cogniti#e need and an increased !artici!ant in#ol#e&ent through &essage)oriented thinking% Any factor that induces the cogniti#e !rocess and allo's for an indi#idual to consider both sides of an argu&ent 'ill result in a strong attitude change))'hether it is !ositi#e or negati#e% After the initial consideration of the argu&ent !resented( the audience 'ill e#aluate the outco&e or conse$uence based on !re)concei#ed !ri&ary and !ro*i&al beliefs 'ith regards to the intended target belief%

Elaboration Likelihood Model

Running Head: Elaboration Likelihood Model + Ho' does an indi#idual decide 'hat sha&!oo to !urchase, -s it endorsed by a celebrity or ha#e an aesthetic a!!eal, .r is it 'orth the &ore e*!ensi#e !rice to in#est in a !roduct that 'ill enhance the health of your hair, /his is the essence of etty and Cacio!!os"s Elaboration Likelihood Model% According to the researchers( 0!ersuasion occurs along a continuu&( anchored at one end by a !eri!heral !rocessing and the other end by central !rocessing(1 213456% /he central route in#ol#es thinking through the logic and content !resented by the s!eaker( 'hereas the !eri!heral route in#ol#es a 0$uick decision1 based on a !re)concei#ed series of !resets 227126% -n deciding 'hich !ath to follo'( an indi#idual &ust consider 'hether he or she has the &oti#ation and ability to de#ote cogniti#e effort to'ards the issue% Moti#ation: is it 'orth the effort, Most !eo!le &ake this decision 'ith regards to the to!ic"s !ersonal rele#ance to the&% Ability: Can - understand it, 8sually distractions))!hysical or !sychological))deter an indi#idual fro& choosing the central route( or cogniti#e co&!le*ity% -f the &aterial is dense or too co&!licated for an audience( they 'ill default to the !eri!heral route 227126% When the &oti#ation and ability are high( then an indi#idual elaborates the content and has a strong attitude shift 227746% /his in#ol#es thinking through all the logical ele&ents of a sound argu&ent: data and facts of the issue% Any sort of !resentation or deli#ery of the &essage is erroneous 'ith regards to central route !ersuasion% As a result( the indi#idual 'ill ha#e a strong attitude shift)) !ositi#e or negati#e))that 'ill last o#er a !eriod of ti&e and resist counter !ersuasion 227126% Con#ersely( 'hen &oti#ation and9or ability is lacking( an indi#idual defaults to the !eri!heral route% /here are si* !resets that influence a 0$uick decision1 in this category: reci!rocity 0you o'e &e1( consistency 0'e al'ays do it this 'ay1( social !roof 0e#eryone is doing it1( liking 0lo#e &e( lo#e &y ideas1( authority 0:ust because - say so1 and scarcity 0$uick( before it runs out1 227126% Referring back to the sha&!oo e*a&!le( if an indi#idual chooses a brand based on a

Running Head: Elaboration Likelihood Model ; celebrity endorse&ent( he or she &ight be re#erting to the liking cue))he or she likes the celebrity( so he or she likes the !roduct% /his route generally results in a 'eaker attitude shift that is te&!orary and 'on"t resist counter !ersuasion 227126% <ust because a !erson buys a brand of sha&!oo this &onth doesn"t guarantee the sa&e !urchase the ne*t &onth% =or daily decisions( &ost indi#iduals o!t for the !eri!heral route% Ho'e#er( once in a 'hile an audience co&&its to the central route( in 'hich case the s!eaker &ust deli#er a logical( sound argu&ent% /he $uestion re&ains: 'hat constitutes a logical( sound argu&ent, etty and Cacio!!o"s Argu&ent >uality A logical( sound argu&ent boils do'n to t'o ingredients: argu&ent $uality and argu&ent #alence% etty and Cacio!!o define argu&ent $uality as as 0?an@ audience"s sub:ecti#e !erce!tion of the argu&ents in the !ersuasi#e &essage as strong and cogent on the one hand #ersus 'eak and s!acious on the other(1 213456% Aotice( this does not necessarily entail a !ositi#e strong attitude shift in fa#or of the &essage !resented( but si&!ly a strong reaction that induces an attitude shift one 'ay or the other% A strong argu&ent is defined as 0logically sound( defensible and co&!elling1 213456 that elicits fa#orable( cogniti#e and affecti#e res!onses to the &essage 213446% -n other 'ords( the argu&ent &ust resist counter !ersuasion and elicit fa#orable &essage) oriented thoughts( thus e#oking interest fro& the audience% /he last co&!onent in etty and Cacio!!o"s definition))co&!elling))s!eaks to the &oti#ation as!ect in Elaboration Likelihood Model: is it 'orth the effort, -s it !ersonally rele#ant to the audience enough to !i$ue their interest, -n contrast( etty and Cacio!!o define a 'eak argu&ents as 0o!en to ske!ticis& and easy refutation1 that does not resist counter argu&entation and elicits negati#e res!onses to the &essage% -f an indi#idual is s!lit on their decision on the issue or :ust doesn"t ha#e an o!inion( their &oti#ation is lo' and allo's for doubts to deter his or her decision to listen carefully to the

Running Head: Elaboration Likelihood Model B &essage !resented% Less elaboration 'ill occur( and selecti#e listening 'ill allo' an audience to &ake $uick decisions based on buCC 'ords or deli#ery of the !resentation% Andre's and Shi&!"s Effects of -n#ol#e&ent and Argu&ent Strength A &ultitude of #ariables such as in#ol#e&ent in the &essage affect the strength of the argu&ent and ulti&ately a strong shift in attitude% Researchers <% Craig Andre's and /erence A% Shi&! e*a&ine the effects of increased cogniti#e in#ol#e&ent as it relates to argu&ent strength 213376% Consistent 'ith Elaboration Likelihood Model 2ELM6( they found that &ost !artici!ants using the central route had increased cogniti#e acti#ity% Strong argu&ents elicited a higher cogniti#e in#ol#e&ent by generating &ore &essage)oriented thoughts( fa#orable and unfa#orable( and source)oriented thoughts 213376% Message)oriented thoughts is consistent 'ith ELM and &akes sense considering the audience"s increased cogniti#e co&!le*ity and ability to use the central route% A stronger argu&ent co&bined 'ith a ca!able audience 'ill generate increased thoughts regarding the issue% Whether these thoughts are fa#orable or unfa#orable is u! to the indi#idual% A !ositi#e attitude shift isn"t necessarily the goal 'hen it co&es to a strong argu&ent% -t is !referred( but an indi#idual &ight analyCe all the facts !resented and decide to fight against the issue% -n creating a strong argu&ent( the fact that an indi#idual is conte&!lating both sides of an issue instead of basing his or her decision on 'hether the s!eaker is attracti#e is a 'in% An increase in source)oriented thoughts is not consistent 'ith ELM( thereby !i$uing the curiosity of researchers Andre's and Shi&! 213376% 8sually( anything source related is attributed to a !eri!heral cue because it does not directly relate to the issue( ho'e#er( Andre's and Shi&! argue that it can be attributed to the central route% -ncreased source)oriented thoughts de&onstrate an indi#idual"s high cogniti#e ability( 'hich is associated 'ith the central route 213376% .ne could argue that not all indi#iduals 'ho ha#e an increased cogniti#e ability 'ill use

Running Head: Elaboration Likelihood Model 5 it on e#ery decision they &ake in the day% Ho'e#er( in this case the stars line u!: the indi#idual has the cogniti#e ability and an increased in#ol#e&ent due to a higher generation of thoughts 213376% As so&eone thinks &ore about the argu&ent( their &oti#ation 'ill be satisfied as 'ell as their ability% Distractions could be a #ariable( but if an indi#idual is consciously thinking through the issues at hand( they shouldn"t be an issue% /herefore( a stronger argu&ent elicits greater cogniti#e in#ol#e&ent by the audience through increased &essage)oriented and source)oriented thoughts that leads to a stronger attitude change% Hos&an( Huebner and Siltanen"s -&!act of o'er of S!eech and Argu&ent Strength Researchers La'rence A% Hos&an( /ho&as M% Huebner and Susan A% Siltanen analyCed the i&!act of !o'erful s!eech( argu&ent $uality and need for cognition 'ith regards to an audience"s attitude to'ards an issue 227726% /hey hy!othesiCed that all these co&!onents 'ould increase an indi#idual"s attitude to'ards a to!ic( 'hich is consistent 'ith ELM 227726% o'erful s!eech should con#ey a &essage 'ith greater clarity and de!th( therefore inducing &ore &essage)oriented thoughts for the audience% /he researchers also belie#ed that !o'erful s!eech 0!ro#ides infor&ation rele#ant to assessing &erits of the !osition being ad#ocated(1 227726% Argu&ent $uality is central to !ersuasion( es!ecially to those using the central route in deciding a stance on an issue% /he &ore logical and sound an argu&ent( the stronger attitude change% =inally( need for cognition s!eaks to the ability co&!onent in ELM% -f a higher thinking !rocess isn"t satisfied( then an indi#idual 'ill re#ert to the !eri!heral route that 'ill result in a 'eaker attitude change% -nterestingly( the results of this study did not co&e out as !redicted% o'erful s!eech had less of an i&!act on attitude change% -n fact( there 'as discussion that !o'erful s!eech &ay act as a !eri!heral cue( leading the audience to e#aluate the &essage based on the s!eaker"s !ersonal

Running Head: Elaboration Likelihood Model E attributes than the &essage 227726% -nstead of generating &erits of the !osition( it elicited thoughts of the s!eaker% Con#ersely( argu&ent $uality had a direct effect on attitude change as !redicted% /he stronger the argu&ent $uality( the stronger the attitude shift 227726% A &ore logical and sound argu&ent resisted any refutations or counter !ersuasion and generated &ore &essage)oriented thoughts% artici!ants 'ere better able to be &oti#ated and ca!able of 'restling 'ith both sides of the argu&ent 'ith a better re!resentation of the facts% Disa!!ointing to Hos&an( Huebner and Siltanen 'as the need for cognition co&!onent% /here 'asn"t any clear data regarding this issue( therefore there aren"t any clear conclusions% -n su&( the argu&ent $uality of an issue is the !ri&ary factor in eliciting a strong attitude change 'ith !o'erful s!eech being a secondary factor 227726% S!arks and Areni"s Multi!le Roles of Language o'er in ersuasion <ohn R% S!arks and Charles S% Areni in#estigated the role of language !o'er in !ersuasion and attitude change))an issue of style #% substance% /hey inter!reted &essage style to re!resent language !o'er and &essage substance to re!resent argu&ent $uality% /hey disco#ered language !o'er to be effecti#e in elaboration only 'hen the s!eaker used !o'erful language 2o!!osed to !o'erless language6 227746% o'erless language distracted the audience fro& the &essage and directed their focus the s!eaker"s attributes% Ho'e#er( !o'erful language lead !eo!le to increased &essage)oriented thoughts on the issue and a stronger attitude change 227746% Argu&ent $uality 'as also e#aluated and dee&ed an i&!ortant !art to attitude change( ho'e#er( not as significant as language !o'er% S!arks and Areni suggest that the style of the &essage led the audience to beco&e &ore in#ol#ed in the issue than the actual substance 227746% /his is a bold state&ent( ho'e#er( it indicates that language !o'er is a deter&inate in the strength of an argu&ent and strength of an attitude shift%

Running Head: Elaboration Likelihood Model 4 =ishbein and A:Cen"s Argu&ent Logic #% Falence Researchers Charles S% Areni and Richard <% LutC discuss the role of argu&ent $uality in the Elaboration Likelihood Model through =ishbein and A:Cen"s &odel of attitude for&ation and change% According to the researchers( argu&ent strength is 0?an@ audience"s sub:ecti#e !robability that the attitude ob:ect is associated 'ith so&e outco&e or conse$uence1 213446% /herefore( the strength of an argu&ent should elicit !ercei#ed benefits for the audience% /he outco&e of an argu&ent is de!endent on an !otential change in the indi#idual"s !ri&ary and !ro*i&al beliefs through the strength of the &essage"s target beliefs 213446% A !ri&ary belief is defined as 0a belief held by an indi#idual 'hich ser#e?s@ as a funda&ental deter&inant of a #ariable 2i%e% attitude to'ards a to!ic6(1 'hereas a !ro*i&al belief is defined as 0!re)e*!osure belief that corres!onds to &essage argu&ents(1 213446% Gefore addressing an audience( the s!eaker should be a'are of any current( !re)concei#ed notions of the issue% /he target belief is the 0!rinci!al assertion of !ersuasi#e co&&unication1 aka the intent of the &essage 213446% /he argu&ent #alence occurs 'hen an indi#idual e#aluates the outco&e of the issue by 'restling 'ith the !resented target beliefs and !re)concei#ed !ri&ary and !ro*i&al beliefs% As long as the argu&ent $uality is clear( elaboration and e#aluation of the issue should be easier for an audience( creating a stronger attitude change% Discussion /he Elaboration Likelihood Model suggests that effecti#e attitude change results fro& elaboration on a strong argu&ent% An indi#idual either chooses the !eri!heral route or the central route in deciding a stance on an issue% -f there is enough &oti#ation and ability( elaboration 'ill occur 227126% An audience 'ill carefully think through both sides of an issue and 'eigh the !ros and cons))their !ri&ary and !ro*i&al beliefs 'ill be at 'ar 'ith the intended target beliefs of the

Running Head: Elaboration Likelihood Model 3 &essage 213446% /he stronger the argu&ent( the stronger the attitude change% etty and Cacio!!o suggest a strong argu&ent to be 0logical and sound1 213456% Andre's and Shi&! further define it to be increased cogniti#e acti#ity and audience in#ol#e&ent through source)oriented and &essage)oriented thinking 213376% Si&ilarly( Hos&an( Huebner and Siltanen see a strong argu&ent as ha#ing an effecti#e argu&ent $uality and !o'erful s!eech 227726% =inally( language !o'er aids in eliciting an increased cogniti#e ability and &essage)oriented a!!roach regarding a strong argu&ent 227746% /herefore( if a s!eaker 'ants to elicit a strong attitude change( he or she &ust tailor the intent of the &essage to defy any !re)concei#ed notions and !resent a uni$ue !ers!ecti#e on the issue%

References Andre's( <% C%( H Shi&!( /% A% 213376% Effects of in#ol#e&ent( argu&ent strength( and source characteristics on central and !eri!heral !rocessing of ad#ertising% sychology H Marketing( E( 13B)21;. Areni( C%( H LutC( R% 213446% /he Role of Argu&ent >uality in the Elaboration Likelihood Model% Ad#ances in Consu&er Research( 1B( 13E)27+% Hos&an( L% A%( Huebner( /% M%( H Siltanen( S% A% 227726% /he -&!act of o'er)of)S!eech Style( Argu&ent Strength( and Aeed for Cognition on -&!ression =or&ation( Cogniti#e Res!onses( and ersuasion% <ournal of Language and Social sychology( 21( +51)+E3% etty( R% E%( H Cacio!!o( <% /% 213456% /he elaboration likelihood &odel of !ersuasion% Ad#ances in E*!eri&ental Social sychology( 13( 12+)27B% S!arks( <% R%( H Areni( C% S% 227726% Style Fersus Substance: Multi!le Roles of Language o'er in ersuasion% <ournal of A!!lied Social sychology(+4216( +E)57%