COMM 3060-Persuasion-Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM, hereafter)

-Eaves-in O=Keefe--pp.137-167

I. ELM Defined: Asuggests that important variations in the nature of persuasion are a function of the likelihood that receivers will engage in Aelaboration@ of information relevant to the persuasive issue. (P. 137-139)

II. Variations in Elaboration--Central vs. Peripheral (pp. 139-141)

A. Thought-listening technique: immediately following the receipt of a persuasive message, receivers are simply asked to list the thoughts that occurred to them during the communication--thus, revealing an index of the amount of issue-relevant thinking.

B. The amount of issue-relevant thinking is positively correlated with the amount of central processing that is occuring.

C. If he/she is not producing much issue-relevant thinking, he/she is said to be processing laregly through peripheral processing.

D. Peripheral processing deemphasizes Aissue-relevant@ information.

Ex: focus on eye contact, strong voice or comunicator credibility.

E. Two general conclusions about elaboration:

1. As elaboration likelihood decreases, peripheral cues become more important;

2. As elaboration likelihood increases, peripheral cues should play only a minimal role.

F. ELM suggests that at moderate levels of elaboration likelihood, the persuasion processes involved likely represent a complex admixture of central-route and peripheral-route processes, with correspondingly complex patterns of effects.

III. FACTORS AFFECTING DEGREE OF ELABORATION (pp. 141-145)

A. Receiver=s Motivation--three main contributors:

1. Receiver involvement--as a person becomes increasingly involved on a topic, he/she is said to be more motivated

2. Multiple Sources with Multiple Arguments--when multiple arguments are presented by multiple sources, elaboration increases

3. Need for Cognition--

a. Athe tendency for an individual to engage in and enjoy tinking@

b. Findings: Those individuals low in need for cognition typically process the message peripherally; incontrast, those high in need for cognition typically process the message centrally

B. Receiver=s Ability--three main contributors:

1. Distraction causes issue-relevant thinking to decrease --recall the study done on personal space at UGA)

Typically, distraction reduces persuasion. However, if it is a counter-attitudinal message, it is likely that distraction will enhance persuasion. Tuition increase study at UGA as an example

Argument strength key--if the message was weak, then the distraction increased persuasion since the receiver was drawn away from weak arguments. However, when the message was strong, the distraction reduced persuasion. --this was a weakness in the UGA study because we did not control for argument strength--I have included a copy of the ELM paper that I proposed a FSU--look at the implementation of Aargument strength@ as a variable--also, look at this as a model for your paper--I used APA style for the paper.

2. Prior knowledge also contributes to ability--the more prior knowledge, the greater ABILITY to do issue-relevant thinking--Do you know much about Sanford Bissop/Glenn?

3. Other influences on elaboration ABILITY:

a. Body posture and message repitition (Note: there needs to be more study on these variables here in #3)

IV. Central Routes to Persuasion--High Elaboration (pp.145-148)

A. Elaboration Direction:

1. Pro-attitudinal versus counter-attitudinal messages

2. Argument Strength as a variable--see B.1. above

a. Research problematic because of how Aargument strength@ is operationally defined

b. Conclusions about argument strength, therefore, are unreliable

3. Other influences on elaboration direction--very few, forewarning receivers in advance has been tried and produced greater amounts of Aunfavorable@ reaction

V. Peripheral Routes to Persuasion--Low Elaboration (pp. 148-150)

A. Heuristic principles--represent simple decision procedures requiring little information processing (p. 106)

B. Varieties of Heuristics:

1. Crediblity--issue of trust (ex: Pres. Reagan-1981-1988)

2. Liking--how well do you like this communicator

3. Consensus--if others believe it, it must be true

(Ex: a poll taken--often shown on the news to Apersuade or influence voters or public opinion)

4. Other Heuristics--number of arguments; sheer length of message--again very little evidence on these factors in b.4.

VI. Complexities and Consequences: (pp. 151-161)

A. central-peripheral routes on a continuum, not an Aeither-or@ proposition

B. Some weaknesses:

1. Research on ELM based on limited amount of topics --senior comprehensive exams and tuition charges--

2. Other factors on central or peripheral processing need to be studied in greater depth

3. Argument strength can yield different and conlficting operational definitions

4. Like social judgment theory (not covered in second edition of O'Keefe), ELM theory relies on involvement--which is multi-faceted--of which personal relevance is only a part...Examples include:

As personal relevance increases, message scrutiny increases;

but..As position commitment increases, message scrutiny could increase or decrease (depending on the effects of the scrutiny)--