Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Petty Et Al. 2004 - ELM Model

    Uploaded by

    P Alexia
    9 views13 pages

    Original Title

    Petty et al. 2004_ELM model

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views13 pages

    Petty Et Al. 2004 - ELM Model

    Uploaded by

    P Alexia

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    Perspectives on Persuasion, : Social Influence, and The Elaboration Likelihood Compliance Gaining Model of Persuasion Richard E. Petty, Derek D. Rucker, George Y. Bizer, and John T. Cacioppo John S. Seiter Utah State University The Art of Persuasion: The Early Years ‘The study of persuasion and rhetoric dates back othe ine ofthe ancient Greeks. those Robert H. Gass times, persuasion was seen as the instrument by which debates could be resolved, indi- California State University, Fullerton viduals coud be educated, and ideas could be communicated to an audience. Given that persuasion was uch a vial aspect of Greek society, understanding the factors responsible for social influence was crucial. Recognizing this, Arse, one ofthe great thinkers of the time, provided a theory that specified what a speaker needed to know inorder on derstand how to persuade oters.Aristtle reasoned that to be sucessful at persuasion, ‘one ha! to understand characterises ofthe source (thos, the message (logon). and the ©2004 {emotions of the audience (pathos: Aristotle, 1988). For example, Aristotle remarked tha its source were well respected, it would be easier vo persuade others of his views than if he was not well respected In the 2.400 yeas that have passed since the tne ofthe ancient Greks, the a of persuasion has become an even more integral pat of society. Persuasion has become the | ‘hie too by which imporant legislation gts passed, products get ol, and parent ine fence their chilien. Furthermore, its Ansotle's ides that provided the foundation for ‘nich ofthe erly work on persuasion in the twentieth century. Nowhere i this more evi ‘deat than inthe work and theorizing of Carl Hovland and bis colleagues who began as sessing the effects of variables elated othe source the message and the audience on he ‘impact of persuasive atemps (Hovland, Jans, & Kelley, 1953; Hovland, Lumsdaine.& I Sheffield, 1949; Hovland & Weis, 1981) Early research in persuasion was guided bythe | belie that any given variable, for example, source eredibity. had single and nary Boston New York San Francisco . t Mexico City Monteal Teron” London Madd Munich Pai ong Kong. Singapore Tokyo. Cape Town Sydney \ fect on persusion: A variable was thought either wo enhance the success of a persuasive emptor reduce it, Funhermore, there was an assumption that there was one mechanis Part 1 + Preliminaries: Definions, Trends, nd Theoretical Undepinnings hic be flcs ws ono fr cx lc QS aD > GHRRAEIONMREMMAARARD ts csence, ts research followed a"ampte ETE and “single process” approach to understanding the impact of variables on persuasion (see Pedy, 1997). Thus, the goal ofthis research was to determine what the single effect of a variable was and what he process was by which this variable worked Initial endeavors folguing this approach appeared promising, For example, follow. ing Aristotle's notion QI researchers found tha Qe Seiten nS sion (Hovland & Weiss. 1951). Following Aristotle's concept iam researchers Found ‘QEATSONEMOUREURER in favor of a posit Ptercased the overall amount OP PermUReTOO Teme TR, a elal 27 Final sealers fallin ‘Aco scocept of pathos found ha Ql MGNee eee GEREMAOED (2nns, Kiesler, & Pikons, 1970). Furthermore, the researchers ued the effects ofthese variables to single processes, For example, negative emotion was sid to reduce persuasion because of classical conditioning (Stats & Stats, 1958). “Although some early research was consistent with the idea that a variable had = single effect on persuasion via one mechaninm te single-effect and single-process ap- prosch soon became untenable, Reserch on persuasion began to experience a period of| ‘Chaos and turmoil because subsequent esqrch findings contradicting early results began to appear inthe iteratre. For exami subscguent cesar op increasing the nur of arguments ina message found tt @QHMH@Une NOR aN edi Breer eiGID BBD (Norman, 1976), Subsequent research on source crediiiy an negative emotions oun that scsetimes highly credible sources could be associated with eced persuasion (eg. Sterthal, Dholakia, & Leavit, 1978) and that negative emotions could be used to Increase persuasion (Rogers, 193), Uncovering different Fnings led researchers 10 pos- {ulate different processes by which the vanables worked. Even when researchers could ‘gree on the single effet that was tobe observed, they often disagreed onthe process by ‘which the effect came about (eg. was it dissonance or self-perception? Greenwald & Roni, 1978. This state of affairs crippled the approach of searching forthe singe effect fof a given variable and its single process. However, conflicting findings did more than simply destroy tis approach: They placed the entire Feld of attude change ina state of| confusion (eg. Himmelfarb& Eagly, 1974). This left the state of atitude research in ned ‘ofa resolution of these apparent contradictions aI aC aciopro. 1981, 19860) was ‘Seveloped tek and rganize paar SONICS in the persuasion literature as well sto GBR PEND The goal ofthis chapcr is to provide an under REMEMBER Nene of ie BEY as framework for understanding and investigating the effects of pe- suasive communications To this end the Key postulates ofthe ELM are reviewed, and the ‘ity ofthe model for resolving conflicting findings inthe lterature and guiding research is highlighted. Furthermore, misconception ‘model ae considered and addressed, Overview of the Elaboration Likelihood Model.! Ansiicnleiecinmocectnitor'y, Sih i ree (clinbies can ipaet jidgmdat) andl specter vrl=Di Token ese NOES —— es (hopter + The Elaboration Likelitood Model of Persuasion «67 i ie heen ie. Ta bear m — 22 pecs dein change ine nueinae an Seis, te Seah of Oe judgments sales ORO eke Sve poss snc sapped ar. QU ‘SE i Seer FT ore» Qi ana GRD Taine vonne Senge Deen or dene persion Fade were varhie See ey i ia ht OO ‘os {4 SS aad blnisbisabotan! sacs ea ‘suei#Eatlomaain avail iepeaauincomert hcg na Sb.hihars ia nid wetncleasemnninc coat ae ee ‘nian ang fom cues nemeperconeresnttniaie (fre 1s an aengsto mate nazar dents he meine he koe ee De reson) eae a inant NIE cont Ses an Se or mre offal of vel lowfat mses (called (hQQHRRMARR oute To persuasion). ——— ~ i hey can ew oft (lowing ont of 0 ros operas cial nd aE Se "el pre em he WO i a cen fa

    You might also like