1) Elaboration Likelihood Model

The Elaboration Likelihood Model claims that there are two paths to persuasion: the central path
and the peripheral path. The central path is most appropriately used when the receiver is
motivated to think about the message and has the ability to think about the message. If the person
cares about the issue and has access to the message with a minimum of distraction, then that
person will elaborate on the message. Lasting persuasion is likely if the receiver thinks, or
rehearses, favorable thoughts about the message. A boomerang effect (moving away from the
advocated position) is likely to occur if the subject rehearses unfavorable thoughts about the
message. If the message is ambiguous but pro-attitudinal (in line with the receiver's attitudes)
then persuasion is likely. If the message is ambiguous but counter-attitudinal then a boomerang
effect is likely.

If the message is ambiguous but attitudinally neutral (with respect to the receiver) or if the
receiver is unable or not motivated to listen to the message then the receiver will look for a
peripheral cue. Peripheral cues include such communication strategies as trying to associate the
advocated position with things the receiver already thinks postively towards (e.g., food, money,
sex), using an expert appeal, and attempting a contrast effect where the advocated position is
presented after several other positions, which the receiver despises, have been presented. If the
peripheral cue association is accepted then there may be a temporary attitude change and
possibly future elaboration. If the peripheral cue association is not accepted, or if it is not
present, then the person retains the attitude intially held.

If the receiver is motivated and able to elaborate on the message and if there are compelling
arguments to use, then the central route to persuasion should be used. If the receiver is unlikely
to elaborate the message, or if the available arguments are weak, then the peripheral route to
persuasion should be used.

2) Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors.

This produces a feeling of mental discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes,
beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.

For example, when people smoke (behavior) and they know that smoking causes cancer
(cognition), they are in a state of cognitive dissonance.

Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all
our attitudes and behavior in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance). This is known as
the principle of cognitive consistency.

When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must

change to eliminate the dissonance.

What causes cognitive dissonance?

 1. Forced Compliance Behavior,

2. Decision Making,

3. Effort.

We will look at the main findings to have emerged from each area.

Forced Compliance Behavior

When someone is forced to do (publicly) something they (privately) really don't want to do,
dissonance is created between their cognition (I didn't want to do this) and their behavior (I did
it).

Forced compliance occurs when an individual performs an action that is inconsistent with his or
her beliefs. The behavior can't be changed, since it was already in the past, so dissonance will
need to be reduced by re-evaluating their attitude to what they have done.

Decision Making

Life is filled with decisions, and decisions (as a general rule) arouse dissonance.

For example, suppose you had to decide whether to accept a job in an absolutely beautiful area
of the country, or turn down the job so you could be near your friends and family. Either way,
you would experience dissonance. If you took the job you would miss your loved ones; if you
turned the job down, you would pine for the beautiful streams, mountains, and valleys.

Effort

It also seems to be the case that we value most highly those goals or items which have required
considerable effort to achieve.

This is probably because dissonance would be caused if we spent a great effort to achieve
something and then evaluated it negatively. We could, of course, spend years of effort into
achieving something which turns out to be a load of rubbish and then, in order to avoid the
dissonance that produces, try to convince ourselves that we didn't really spend years of effort,
or that the effort was really quite enjoyable, or that it wasn't really a lot of effort.

3) Attribution theory

Attribution theory is concerned with how ordinary people explain the causes of behavior and
events. For example, is someone angry because they are bad-tempered or because something
bad happened?
A formal definition is provided by Fiske and Taylor (1991, p. 23):

“Attribution theory deals with how the social perceiver uses information to arrive at causal
explanations for events.  It examines what information is gathered and how it is combined to
form a causal judgment”.

The Attribution Process

The underlying assumption of attribution theory is that people are motivated to understand
their environment and the causes of particular events. If individuals can understand these
causes, they will then be in a better position to influence or control the sequence of future
events. Specifically, attribution theory suggests that particular behavioral events (e.g., the
receipt of a promotion) are analyzed by individuals to determine their causes. This process may
lead to the conclusion that the promotion resulted from the individual’s own effort or,
alternatively, from some other cause, such as luck. Based on such cognitive interpretations of
events, individuals revise their cognitive structures and rethink their assumptions about causal
relationships. For instance, an individual may infer that performance does indeed lead to
promotion. Based on this new structure, the individual makes choices about future behavior. In
some cases, the individual may decide to continue exerting high levels of effort in the hope that
it will lead to further promotions. On the other hand, if an individual concludes that the
promotion resulted primarily from chance and was largely unrelated to performance, a
different cognitive structure might be created, and there might be little reason to continue
exerting high levels of effort. In other words, the way in which we perceive and interpret events
around us significantly affects our future behaviors.

Self-perception theory helps to explain the effectiveness of a sales strategy called the foot-in-

the-door technique that is based on the observation that a consumer is more likely to comply
with a request if he or she has first agreed to comply with a smaller request.

The foot-in-the-door technique (or FITD) is a strategy used to persuade people to agree to a

particular action, based on the idea that if a respondent will comply with an small initial request
then they will be more likely to agree to a later, more significant, request, which they would not
have agreed to.

Defensive Attribution 

Defensive Attribution is a mental mechanism used to avoid the worry associated with the belief
that one will be a victim or cause of something negative. This commonly occurs when
encountering a person who has experienced a mishap, such as a car accident or being attacked.
For example, people might blame an automobile accident on the other driver's mistake
because this attribution lessens their perception that they themselves are responsible for the
accident.