home

== =**ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL**= By: Britney Hill, Matthew Hunter, Sara Katzki, Noah Kipnis, Ryan Sladich

Overview The Central Route The Peripheral Route Important Concepts and How They Relate to Each Other How the Elaboration Likelihood Model has Developed Over Time Sample Studies Analysis of Our Studies Assessment References

 __**Overview**__ (return to top)

The Elaboration Likelihood Model was developed by social scientists, Richard Petty and John Cacioppo. It provides an understanding of the effectiveness of persuasive communication. There are two routes of influence that attitude can change: the central route and the peripheral route. These routes differ based on the thoughtful process of information or elaboration individuals undertake. Individuals who take the central route are considered high involvement consumers meaning that they critically analyze arguments before forming an attitude or making a decision on an advertisement or product. On the other end, individuals who take the peripheral route are low involvement consumers that make less of an effort and rely on less important aspects of an argument to make a decision. For example, if a source is attractive, such as a celebrity, these individuals will believe the source regardless of credibility or the quality of the argument.

Elaboration likelihood is determined by an individual’s motivation and ability to elaborate. Motivation, in this sense, is defined as the individual’s personal relevance to the persuasive message. Ability is defined as the individual’s cognitive competence or prior expertise with the attitude object. All individuals will differ in their ability and motivation.

 (return to top)
 * __The Central Route__**

The first method of persuasion is known as the central route. The central route involves a process known as message elaboration. Message elaboration is what a person carefully thinks about in an argument. Because individuals are great critical thinkers, we can commit effort, and adequate amount of time to make the persuasion process much easier. Within the process of message elaboration, Petty and Cacioppo have found two types of elaboration that relate to the Elaboration Likelihood Model. The first type of elaboration is known as objective elaboration. The object elaboration is the ability and motivation in which the likelihood that the message will be elaborated in the minds of those listening. But social theorists also believe that in an object elaboration, usually the information provided is not clear or fair. The second type of elaboration is known as biased thinking. In biased thinking, formed predetermined conclusions underline all the data, which was hidden in the argument, and reinforces ideas and information that have already been collected by the listener.

The Peripheral Route__** (return to top)
 * __

The second method of persuasion is known as the peripheral route. The peripheral route is the shortened way to accept or reject messages without having to actively think about the characteristics of the issue or the object of deliberation. Within the route, Petty and Cacioppo found six cues that relate to the peripheral route and the process of persuading. These cues include, authority, reciprocation, scarcity, social proof, liking and consistency. The authority cue is the power to persuade in an argument, like the phrase, “because I say so.” The reciprocation cue is used to persuade by making the other person feel that they owe them something. The scarcity cue is usually used at the end of an argument to scare someone into having to agree with them, with phrases like “It’s now, or never.” The social proof cue is used by persuading the other person that because “everybody likes it, so should you.” The fifth cue is the liking cue, which uses how much the other person likes something to persuade them to do something, like the phrase “if you love me, you will love my plan.” Finally, the last cue is the consistency cue. The consistency cue assumes that the plan the person is trying to persuade always has been done the same way. Relying on the six cues, the peripheral route is able to persuade the other in an argument or a conversation.

__** Important Concepts and How They Relate to Each Other **__ (return to top)

A core concept in relation to the Elaboration Likelihood Model is that in supplement to the central route, a receiver is able to learn a message without being persuaded (Cios encyclopedia). If a receiver has both the ability and motivation to fully process the information from a message, it is not absolute that they will be persuaded. However, the key concept in the central route of persuasion is that the receiver must have the ability and motivation to fully process the actual message. This results in the need for the receiver to be actively engaged in decoding the message, and thus, a more highly involved receiver.

In supplement to the peripheral route, a receiver may also be persuaded without paying attention to the message. For example, if a viewer of a commercial does not have the motivation to process the information from and advertising message, but the commercial has annoying jingle, the viewer may automatically be persuaded not to buy the product. Variables aside from the core message are what is influencing the receiver whether or not to accept the overall message given to them. These outside variables can include, for example, the attractiveness of a spokesperson, seeing the sender of the message as an expert and credible source, or even as mentioned above, whether the like the jingle of a commercial. Any variable of a message aside from the core information is what guides the peripheral route of persuasion.

__** How the Elaboration Likelihood Model has Developed Over Time**__ (return to top)

The Elaboration Likelihood Model is a relatively new theory. Petty and Cacioppo developed it in the 1980’s. Because the theory has only been around for less than 30 years, there has not been a huge amount of change to the theory over time. However, studies through the 1900’s show the development of what turned into the Elaboration Likelihood Model. In 1959, White studied and developed findings showing the differences in cognition based on motivation. In 1975, Underwood and Shaughnessy noted, “Certain questions allow individual differences to be an integral part of theoretical thinking. This creates the ability to test adequacy of theoretical notions” (Journal of personality and social psychology). From 1982 to 1984, Cacioppo and Petty developed their Elaboration Likelihood Model, which explained that individual differences in ability and motivation to process a message affect the cognitive approach they take to decoding a message sent to them.

**__ Sample Studies__** (return to top)

Many studies have been conducted to better understand the elaboration likelihood model. By understanding the ELM, one can know how to construct their message to have the most effect on their audience. People who subscribe to the central route are highly involved in the decision-making process and are more likely to pay attention to details. Others who follow the peripheral route aren’t as involved and are easily persuaded by environmental cues, like a celebrity endorsers and the aesthetics of the message. There are also some studies that look at the ELM to understand why some people behave the way they do. The ELM model is also being used to better develop messages to be more effective. The following is a description of several studies conducted using the elaboration likelihood model. In Solomon’s //Consumer Behavior//, the author takes a look at a study where researchers wanted to know how college students would react to an advertisement for a low-alcohol beer. The researchers manipulated several variables crucial to the ELM. The subject’s involvement with the product was manipulated at the beginning of the research by promising gifts of the beer and availability of the product in their area in the near future to some and no beer and no availability to others. There were several versions of the ad where the level of persuasiveness was manipulated. One version of the ad promised fewer calories and another claimed it was just as good as any other beer. The source of the message also varied by changing the attractiveness of the couple drinking the beer in the ad. The study supports the idea that highly involved consumers look at strong, rational arguments and the less involved are more effected by external factors such as images, packaging, and the source of the message.

A blogger, Thom Holwerda, was interested in knowing why normal computer users refused to switch from the Windows operating system to one of the better operating systems on the market. Holwerda looked at motivation and ability variables of the ELM to understand why users won’t make the switch. Normal computer users usually don’t make the shift to a better operating system because they lack the motivation and they lack the ability to interpret the message on the central route. When advocates of a better operating system try to appeal to the central route by giving the quantitative advantages, the normal computer user simply doesn’t care enough to be persuaded otherwise. This supports the ELM by showing that detailed, descriptive messages often will have a temporary to no effect on the less involved.

In another interesting study, researches wanted to know attitudes of adolescents towards HIV prevention. The study took almost 300 eighth and ninth grade students and randomly exposed each of them to one of four tapes where the relevancy of the message source varied between an HIV positive teen and a parent concerned about infection. The strength of the argument was varied as well, while controlling for the processing style. Afterwards, the researchers asked the subjects to score their opinion on several aspects of the message. Involvement was measured by asking the teens to take a pamphlet after testing. Those whore were effected by the message took a pamphlet and those not as effected left without one. This study provided a great first step in better constructing an HIV prevention message by utilizing the elaboration likelihood model.

= = __** Analysis of Our Studies**__ (return to top)

=
Through our studies using our articles, we have been able to see how the Elaboration Likelihood Model theory is being applied to studies conducted today. Each of our articles used the two routes of persuasion to see weather when individuals are being persuaded, if they think deep into the issue or they make decisions without much thinking. Researchers found that by applying a popular demand like environmental friendly products, or celebrity endorsed products that consumers chose the central route and was persuaded with very little thinking. But when people chose the peripheral route, they were either skeptic, or held very strong biased about the product when making their choice. Through these studies, we were able to see how people are persuaded into making decisions, using the ELM theory.=====

=
Richard Petty and John Cacioppo says that in order to determine people’s Elaboration Likelihood, they must be able to be motivated, and also have the ability to elaborate. We found this to be true through a __study__ conducted to see what the effects of advertising were on young children under 8. They split the test into three categories between advertisements involvement, information processing of advertisements, and advertisement efficacy in children and tested over 300 kids. They found that because children under 8 were not able to motivate or have the ability to elaborate, they were not able to choose either the central route or the peripheral route in the ELM theory and thus cannot be really persuaded by advertisements. This article helped us see that unless the person can motivate or be able to elaborate, they will not be able to choose a route of persuasion.=====

=
Another __article__ we studied, helped us understand how companies use the central route to try and persuade consumers to buy their products. These are the central route and the peripheral route. The article did this by trying to find out why computer users who own a Microsoft Windows operating system would not switch to any other operation systems. They tested the theory by trying to figure out which persuasion route is used by other operating systems for Windows computer users. They found that the other operating companies use the central route and try to convince Windows users. Because the central route involves a type of process known as message elaboration, where the person has to carefully think about the argument presented, they do not want to waist all the effort in trying to figure out other systems. Because Windows system works for them and other companies try to make the user think and weigh options, Window users tend to just stay with their original system. We learned in this article that some times, making consumers try to elaborate messages using the central route can become a negative route because some consumers don’t want to waist time thinking too much when purchasing a product.=====

=
In the third __article__, researchers try to see if adding environmental information to marketing products persuaded the consumers in buying the product. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model theory, researchers also tried to see if by adding the environmental information, did consumers choose either the central route or peripheral route when making there decisions. They found that when marketers add not only environmental information but also anything popular to the product, consumers tend to lean towards the central route. They are persuaded by the fact that something popular is added on to the product, like environmental process, and want to further look into the product. By adding the unique feature to the product like environmental process, consumers tended to want to get more involved with the product like hybrid cars, and recyclable toilet papers. This article showed us that consumers do not always choose the peripheral route and make quick decisions without looking deep into products. Also, when they choose the central route, consumers pay more attention to advertisements and commercials for the products.=====

====In the fourth __article__, we learned about ways Public Service Announcement companies try and persuade certain demographics to become aware about issues. In this case the researchers looked into African American youths and making them aware about HIV and AIDS. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model, they tested both high involvement messages and low involvement messages, using celebrities, and and non-celebrities in there PSA commercials to see how the African America youth would respond. Similar to the previous study, researchers found that the message content wasn’t a factor but the celebrity status was the factor that persuaded change in African American youth. They found that when they put a celebrity in the PSA commercials, people chose the central route and wanted to find out more about HIV/AIDS issues. The study showed us that applying popular celebrities to the PSA messages would help persuade African American youth to look more into the issues of HIV and AIDS.====

=
Finally, we looked into an __article__ that studied how individuals are broken into either the central route or peripheral route. They collected a total of 278 undergraduate college students and asked them their opinions on how they felt about online reviews on certain products. They found that those with low skepticism about the product, usually fell towards the peripheral route, because they usually accepted or rejected the online review without much thinking. Instead of trying to figure out what the reviews said, they only looked at the amount of reviews that were given and decided the more reviews the higher popularity on the product. On the other hand, we were able to see that high skeptic individuals had to take a longer amount of time to judge the product and took the central route. Those that had high skepticism chose to consider a couple of factors like the credibility of the source, and the argument quality. Through this article, we have seen that the ELM theory is important in order to be able to categorize certain ways of thinking when being persuaded.=====  __**Assessment**__ (return to top)

Petty and Caccioppo’s Elaboration Likelihood Model has proven to be successful in determining how human beings can be persuaded. Even though it was developed 30 years ago, it has not changed much as the theory is pretty simple in it's content. If we care about an issue and have the motivation and ability to process the information, we will take the ELM’s Central Route to persuasion. On the contrary, if we don’t care very much or don’t have the resources to process the information, we will still take the Peripheral Route.

We have learned that variables in ELM routes can serve multiple roles in a persuasive setting depending on other relative factors, and the most recent adaptations of the ELM have added a new role: self-validation. The self-validation role determines that variables can affect the extent that a person has confidence in, and therefore trusts, their own thoughts in response to a message.

Unfortunately, the ELM does not account for all people all the time, as evidenced in the study with children and advertising. Studies conducted for the development model were mainly conducted on college-educated adults, and therefore misrepresent adults with lower levels of education. They might not have the knowledge to process anything on the central route, which is one of the vital factors one must have to process along this route. However, despite its short-comings, the Elaboration Likelihood Model will continue to be used to understand persuasive communication.  __**References**__ (return to top)

Holwerda, T. (2006) The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Why People Won’t Switch. //OS News//. Retrieved from: []

Keys, T., Morant, K., Stroman, C. (2009) Black Youth's Personal Involvement in the HIV/AIDS Issue: Does the PSA Still Work? //Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives//, 14(2), 189 – 202. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database: []

Lampert, S., & Lehman-Wilzig, S.Te'eni-Harari, T. (2007). Information Processing of Advertising among Young People: The Elaboration Likelihood Model as Applied to Youth. //Journal of Advertising Research//, //47//(3), 326-340. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database: [|http://libproxy.sdsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=26976962&site=ehost-live]

Lugue-Martinez, T., Montoro-Rios, F.J., & Rodriguez-Molina, M.A. (2008). How Green Should You Be: Can Environmental Associations Enhance Brand Performance? //Journal of Advertising Research, 48(4),// 547-563. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database: [|http://libproxy.sdsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=35651382&site=ehost-live]

Metzler AE, Weiskotten D, Morgen KJ; National HIV Prevention Conference (1999 : Atlanta, Ga.). Retrieved from: []

Sher, P., & Sheng-Hsien, L. (2009). CONSUMER SKEPTICISM AND ONLINE REVIEWS: AN ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL PERSPECTIVE. //Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal//, //37//(1), 137-143. Retrieved from Communication & Mass Media Complete database: []

Solomon, M.R. (2007). Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being. (7th Ed.) 291-293. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.