home

ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL


E L M Nicolette Cardwell - Katlyn Connolly - Laura Contreras-Leyva - Marissa Green

//- OVERVIEW // P etty and Cacioppo state that there are two “routes” to persuasion: central and  peripheral . The **//central route//** to persuasion consists of //**thoughtfu**//l consideration of the **//arguments//** of the message. When a receiver is doing central processing, he or she is being an active participant in the //**process of persuasion**//. Central processing has two prerequisites:

It can only occur when the receiver has both the motivationand the ability to think about the message and its topic. If the listener doesn’t care about the topic of the persuasive message, he or she will almost certainly lack the motivation to do central processing. On the other hand, if the listener is distracted or has trouble understanding the message, he or she will lack the ability to do central processing.

The **//peripheral route//** to persuasion occurs when the listener decides whether to agree with the message based on other cues besides the strength of the arguments or ideas in the message. For example, a listener may decide to agree with a message because the source appears to be an expert, or is attractive. The peripheral route also occurs when a listener is persuaded because he or she notices that a message has many arguments -- but lacks the ability or motivation to think about them individually. In other words, **//peripheral cues//**, like source expertise or many arguments in one message, are a short-cut. I don’t want to or can’t think carefully about the ideas in this persuasive message, but it is a fair gamble to go ahead agree with the message if the source appears to be knowledgeable or if there are many arguments in support of the message. This route occurs when the auditor is unable or unwilling to engage in much thought on the message. Receivers engaged in peripheral processing are more passive than those doing central processing.



//There are two ways we make decisions and hence get persuaded: //
====When we are **//motivated//** and able to **//pay attention//**, we take a logical, conscious thinking, **//central route to decision-making//**. This can lead to permanent change in our attitude as we adopt and elaborate upon the speaker’s arguments. ==== ====In other cases, we take the **//peripheral route//**. Here we do not pay attention to persuasive arguments but are swayed instead by surface characteristics such as whether we like the speaker. In this case although we do change, it is only temporary. ==== ====The **//central route//** involves careful **//consideration of the proposal//** to identify the merits to decide if it is favourable and worth accepting or unfavourable and should be rejected. This does take time and effort so the person needs to be motivated and have the ability to make a considered judgement. ==== ====The **//peripheral route skips around the heavy duty thinking//** as people look for ways to short cut the decision making process. This time the mental processes depend on the way the message is presented. If it is from a reliable, trusted source, if it is well presented and if it looks attractive. Which route is taken depends on motivation - the **//personal relevance of the decision//**, the accountability on the results of the decision and individual's personal preference for thinking - and on the ability to make a rational decision. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">To effect **//longer-term changes//** in attitude, //**use the central route**//. For **//simple compliance//**, **//use the peripheral route//**. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">If you have their attention, be logical and present a compelling argument. If, however, they are not really paying attention to you, put them in a good mood then use subtle cues such as attractive clothes and leading statement. Then quickly lead them one more step at a time to where you want them to be. ====

media type="youtube" key="EC7VLjIw8hY" height="390" width="640" align="center"

//**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">A key prediction of the ELM is that attitudes which are changed through the central route to persuasion will have different effects from attitudes changed via the peripheral route. Petty and Cacioppo explain that “Attitude changes that result mostly from processing issue-relevant arguments (central route) will show greater temporal persistence, greater prediction of behavior, and greater resistance to counter persuasion than attitude changes that result mostly from peripheral cues” **//



= **// - CASE STUDIES //** =

//**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">by Melissa B. Wanzer, Ann B. Frymier, and Jeffrey Irwin **//
====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">In the article, An Explanation of the Relationship Between Instructor Humor and Student Learning: Instructional Humor Processing Theory by Melissa B. Wanzer, Ann B. Frymier, and Jeffrey Irwin, the **//elaboration likelihood theory//** is described in correlation to whether instructional humor enhances learning. The study centers on instructors use of humor when teaching a class and the response of the students. It was noted that humor is used as a means of relating to others as a positive way of socializing. **//Humor is adaptive//** when used in this positive way. Breaking down the barriers of the standard professor/student relationship could enhance the ability of the student to attain the information. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">The impact of humor could, however, be **//interpreted differently//** among various students. The relationship to learning habits could be affected by the impact of the psychological well-being from the addition of humor. Each student does not agree with what types of humor are appropriate or which types are effective. In addition, just because the humor may be viewed as appropriate, it may not be effective in increasing student learning. This may be a result of the distractions associated with a humorous learning environment. Students may become easily distracted and unfocused. Yet, humor is undoubtably an attention getter and with this, students will be aroused and attentive. This is a positive effect if the humor is brief in exposure, which results in a good relationship between humor and learning. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">The elaboration likelihood theory explains how an individual processes persuasive communicative messages. The **//two methods//** used to further explain the theory are the central and peripheral routes. Either route is dependent on the motivation of the individual and the ability in which he is able to process information. The **//central route//** has a higher involvement rate where the individual's own beliefs factor into the ability to process the information. This changes cognitive structures, which **//influence behaviors.//** So if the individual is previously interested in the lesson, then the humor will only heighten their ability to process the information and enhance retention. The peripheral route illustrates how the individual tends to pay attention to the cues of the communication with low involvement. **//Cognitive structures are not typically changed//**, but this gives the individual more motivation to engage in the message. If the student finds the lesson more appealing, then they will pay attention to the message and evidently retain the information. This //**motivation**// has been linked to incongruent information, which results in better processing and recollection because the individual's personal opinions conflict with the information. The **//humor may conflict//** with what the student finds to be appropriate and therefore, he will retain the information of the lesson based on the conflicting views. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">The study was an online survey performed by 378 college students. The students were asked to analyze a professor's humor scale and the results were examined through 41 humor behaviors. The behaviors included relevant behaviors, appropriate behaviors, and offensive behaviors among others. The frequency of the behaviors was measured by students perceptions of the humorousness of their instructors. The first hypothesis of the study was that the participants would correlate positive association between humor and learning. Related humor was proven to be affective with learning. The second hypothesis was that inappropriate forms of humor would be negatively associated with learning. Inappropriate humor was not found to be a negative influence on learning, but it would reduce motivation. The last hypothesis was that the instructors with more popular humorousness would have differing types of humor compared to less popular instructors. Instructors with high humorousness used more appropriate/inappropriate humor than less humorous instructors, confirming hypothesis number three. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">The study showed that the instructors humorous messages cognitively and positively affected student retention. ELM was used to explain how the humor would be processed among individuals in instructional environments. Instructional messages that are able to gain a student's attention and create and environment to process and retain information with ease could be enhanced by humorous lessons. The study emphasizes that there is no concurrent conclusion to whether or not the addition of humor among studies is influential to student learning. It does however, offer the idea that perhaps a humorous aspect may be a positive inclusion. The elaboration likelihood theory provides the psychological information that allows this study to show merit among the students. ====



**//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">by: Garretson, Judith A., Burton, Scot, Journal of Marketing //**
====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">In this article, the **//elaboration likelihood model theory is associated with the strategic combinations//** and advertising cues, including those which are spokescharacters, as well as verbal attributes that integrated marking communications that might in fact yield both memory and attitudinal benefits. The study emphasizes the benefits on more versus less in relevance to spokescharacters (eg. Tony the Tiger, Energizer Bunny, Pillsbury Doughboy) in both advertising and product packaging. Mainly this study was focused on the frequent use of these spokescharacters and the beneficial outcomes they potentially had on the consumers when it came to purchasing products. The elaboration likelihood model might offer an explanation about the more versus less stimuli and their effect on the consumers’ memory. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">**//The elaboration likelihood model correlate//**s with this study because these consumers view and process advertisements may conclude the extent to which specific cues receive elaboration and become encoded. In may also play a role to which specific package cues effectively provide access to encode these cues, such as a brand claim that was presented with the packaging cues. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">The hypothesis in this experiment was that for brand processors, the use of more brand-relevant spokescharacters as package cues results in improved memory for brand claims and more favorable compared to those who use the less-relevant brand spokescharacters. As for the ad processors, the affects of characters on memory is less prominent. As for the use of verbal attribute cues, relevancy and processing goals have inadequate effects on the brand claim recognitions. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">In the study itself, researchers tested **//1. Relevancy (high versus low) 2. Processing goals (brand versus advertisement), and 3. Package cue (spokescharacter versus verbal attribute)//** between subjects for two product categories (cheese and laundry detergent). In this three-stage experiment, researchers randomly assigned participants to the experimental circumstances. In stage one; researchers manipulated the participants processing goals (brand versus advertisement) and character relevancy by rendering them to ad stimuli. In the second stage, they provided a distractions task to clear the participants’ short term memory. In the last stage, the researchers manipulated the package cue by showing participants a package mock-up for the advertised products and then asking the participants to respond to the relevancy, processing goals, package cue as well as the target advertising on the mock package stimuli. ==== ====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">The study showed that although more or less relevant spokescharacters emerge in **//marketing communication//** campaigns, the results show that more relevant spokescharacters as package cues may in fact promote brand claim recognition amongst brand processors. These spokescharacters appear to provide more than simply just a way to identify a brand, but for consumers who are initially motivated to process-brand relation information; these more relevant characters can improve more memory and brand evaluations. In the study the researchers predicted that ad processors would be less affected by the relevancy of these spokescharacters. An explanation for this may be cause by the presence of the less relevant spokescharacter during encoding might possibly boost the consumers motivation to process the brand information, but also might as well, cause them to encode less favorable reactions towards these products. Overall, this study concluded that more relevant spokescharacters, which consumers distinguish as conveying a specific brand attribute, used at different times in integrated marketing communication appear to offer these brand benefits of both increased memory strength and amplified evaluations among consumers who vigorously process brand information. ====

media type="youtube" key="Tuzw_cm_-jI" height="390" width="480" align="center"

**//<span style="color: #00bdff; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 130%;">LAURA E CONTRERAS //**
====<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">http://web.ebscohost.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=108&sid=72f9d2e6-e7ad-41bf-b2c5-133372cd5a45%40sessionmgr115&vid=3 ====

=

 * //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">By: Moyer-Gusé, Emily; Nabi, Robin L.. Human Communication Research, Jan2010, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p26-52, 27p, 4 Diagrams, 1 Chart, 1 Graph; DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x //**=====

=
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">The purpose of the research study according to Moyer-Gusé was "to examine the ability of entertainment-education (E-E) programs to influence **//behavior across a variety of health and social issues//**. In keeping with the extended elaboration likelihood model (E-ELM) and the entertainment overcoming resistance model (EORM), researchers examined how story features, such as narrative transportation and involvement with characters, may reduce three forms of resistance to persuasion — reactance, counterarguing, and perceived invulnerability." =====

=
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">A total of 367 U.S. undergraduates (77% female) between the ages of 18 and 25 years (M = 19.8, SD = 1.28) completed an online pretest at least 2 days before attending a laboratory session.1 At the laboratory session, participants were randomly assigned to one of two television viewing conditions (dramatic narrative, nonnarrative). Participants viewed their program in groups (n = 1–9) in a comfortable, living- room-like environment and filled out a posttest questionnaire afterward. Safe sex intentions were measured with two Likert-type items asking participants to indicate their intentions to use birth control over the next year, should they choose to have sexual intercourse. For example, one item asked: ‘‘How likely is it that you will use some form of birth control every time you have intercourse over the next year?’’Two weeks later, participants completed an online follow-up questionnaire. Of the original group of participants, 353 (96%) completed this final phase of the experiment. 367 undergraduates viewed either a dramatic narrative or a nonnarrative program about the difficult consequences of an unplanned teen pregnancy. Participants completed a questionnaire assessing their reactions to the program immediately after viewing and again 2 weeks later. Consistent with predictions derived from the EORM and E-ELM, the dramatic narrative reduced reactance by fostering parasocial interaction with characters and decreasing perceptions of persuasive intent. Taken together, this research demonstrates that **//investigating narrative influence from the perspective of overcoming resistance//** is a useful approach. Findings also suggest important differences in how individuals process narrative and nonnarrative messages. =====

=
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">According to Moyer-Gusé a typical E-E program is created with careful attention to theories of message design and behavior change, and undergoes rigorous formative assessment. an E-E program may be one educational scene, episode, or storyline embedded in an otherwise purely entertainment program (Greenberg et al., 2004; Singhal & Rogers, 1999). it is characterized by highly competitive media environments and little government control over media content. E-E programs do vary in approaches and goals, some aim to inform viewers about a particular issue whereas others seek to change attitudes or behavior. This is a **//critical distinction as different processes//** are involved in merely conveying information to viewers versus altering more durable attitudes or behaviors, it is usually narrative. Narrative programming is characterized by the emotional connection viewers develop with characters. . **//The extended elaboration likelihood model//** was put forth precisely to consider how E-E programs may lead to persuasion by reducing resistance (Slater & Rouner, 2002). According to Slater, the E-ELM focuses on the ability of E-E programs to reduce message scrutiny, one source of resistance to persuasion. The definition of **//message scrutiny//** based on the researcher's point of view falls into an idea that individuals will engage in careful attention and thoughtful elaboration on a message when they are sufficiently motivated and able to do so. At its core, the E-ELM posits that when viewers are absorbed into the dramatic elements of an entertainment program, they are less motivated to counterargue with the embedded persuasive message. Here ‘‘absorption’’ refers to becoming swept up into the narrative and identification with characters, these models posit that narrative programs foster a unique experience inasmuch as viewers get swept up into the story and become emotionally and vicariously involved with the characters depicted therein.There is reason to believe that narrative E-E programs may reach viewers whose resistance is based on perceived invulnerability due to their ability to foster involvement with characters. =====

=
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Results exactly taken from the article //**"Explaining the Effects of Narrative in an Entertainment Television Program".**// Before testing the model, we first compared the dramatic narrative and nonnarrative conditions across several dimensions. Because the E-ELM and EORM begin with the assumption that involvement—in the form of transportation, identification, and PSI—are important to the narrative persuasion process. The processing of the nonnarrative program differed in several notable ways. First, among those in the nonnarrative condition, transportation negatively predicted counterarguing—a relationship predicted by the E-ELM, but not found within the dramatic narrative condition. Second, unlike the E-E condition, perceived persuasive intent and PSI were not associated with reactance among participants in the nonnarrative condition. Third, the role of identification also differed across the message types. In the nonnarrative condition, identification with the teens in the program significantly predicted perceived vulnerability at the posttest, but this relationship became weaker over time. This is in contrast to the fictional drama where the relationship between identification and vulnerability increased over time. In summary, the data suggest some marked differences between conditions in terms of the processes laid out by the E-ELM and EORM, indicating that the persuasion process differs for these two styles of persuasive messages. This research was designed to examine the unique processes underlying E-E effects, particularly with respect to overcoming resistance to persuasion. =====

=
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">In conclusion, this study has taken a crucial step toward refining theoretical explanations of E-E effects. Results demonstrate that E-E programming may influence viewers by overcoming various **//types of resistance//**. In particular, their ability to mask persuasive intent and foster PSI and identification with characters facilitate these effects. The findings also suggest important differences in how individuals process narrative and nonnarrative messages. More practically, these findings may be of interest to E-E message creators. In particular, message designers should begin with an understanding of the forms of resistance that operate within their targeted audience as different message features are important for overcoming various types of resistance. Among an audience where reactance is likely to be high, messages should be designed to keep perceived persuasive intent low and use characters with whom viewers experience PSI. =====



**// MARISSA GREEN //**
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T8V-47779RV-7&_user=521817&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F2002&_rdoc=1&_fmt <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">=high&_orig=gateway&_ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1667596904&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000059576&_version <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=521817& <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">md5=57acda8e97bf9327db6a3dbf6e4a6458&searchtype=a

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">My article was from the J**//ournal of Psychosomatic Research called “A Controlled Evaluation of an Eating Disorders Primary Prevention Videotape using the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.”//** This study was an eating disorder prevention study. The article states that over the past 10 years there has been growing concern over eating disorders in adolescent girls. This study was aimed towards trying to help out young girls and somehow influence and persuade the young girls of these studies by using the Elaboration Likelihood Model. In the introduction something that stuck out to me was, “prevention programs have typically aimed to reduce body concerns and unhealthy dieting practices in adolescent girls, using psycho education and interactive presentations in a school classroom setting. It was a study that tested 242 young girls in the 7th grade between the ages of 12 and 13 years old from three different girls only secondary schools in Melbourne, Australia. In this study there were two groups, there was a control group in which 127 were in and there was an intervention group in which 115 were part of.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">During the study there were three items that were measured to determine the dieting behavior of the girls. The first was how often the girls dieted, the there were three items that were measured, the second was how old they were when they first started dieting and the third was what behaviors they used to diet. Out of the three schools, only one of the girls’ secondary schools was shown a preventative video. The videotape touched on five main topics: determinants of body shape and size, the historical and social influences on the female body, the negative effects of extreme and yo-yo dieting, healthy eating habits, and some suggestions for creating a healthy body image. Following the video the girls had to fill out a questionnaire to determine their thoughts about the video. The girls on the control groups were only given the questionnaire.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">After the researchers analyzed the results, they determined that the girls that had been in the intervention group “made small but significantly more changes in drive for thinness, knowledge and intention to diet, than girls who received no intervention.” But after a month, the only changes that remained to be present were the knowledge that they maintained. The video is a great example of the **//Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion//** because the point of this model is to see how attitudes are formed and changed by the elements of persuasion. The video in this case is the example of the ELM. In closing out the article, the researchers make it a point to acknowledge the potential success of videotaped prevention messages. They state that they are, “an effective method of intervention as they are both cost effective and easily used in schools Future research needs to examine the long-term impact when this program is combined with further interventions that provide the opportunity for girls to discuss and think through the arguments in the videotape.”

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">References:

=
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Paxton, Susan, Werthelm, Eleanor, Withers, Giselle, Twigg, Kylie. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Volume 53, Issue 5, Pages 1021-1027. “A Controlled Evaluation of an Eating Disorders Primary Prevention Videotape using the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” School of Psychological Science, La Trobe University, Bundora (Melbourne), Vic. 3083, Australia. Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic, =====



//** - HOW THIS THEORY AFFECTS ALL OF US AS A ** SOCIETY // ?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">Our group believes that this theory has a **//major affect on not only us//** but our society as a whole because the elements of persuasion alone has a great affect on people, whether it is through the media, our friends, or family. Media is a very powerful thing in our society. It comes in so many different forms. For example, just to name a few, it is present in advertisements, television, and the Internet. Those three factors are some of the most watched, viewed and surfed examples that media has to offer. **//Advertisements are a great way to influence//** people to buy products. In the TOMS example above is a great example of even if a person doesn't know what the cause is for, just because other people are doing it, they will do it because of the influence of others. It is the next best thing to be a part of, and everyone wants to be a part of that right? **//The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion//** is a model of how people's attitudes are persuaded and changed. **//Media has a great way of influencing people//**, it is very easy for a person to be persuaded to change their decisions based on what they see or hear from other people. One minute we can have one idea and make one decision and the next just by simply viewing an advertisement or watching a 60 minute segment on TV we can have a completely different idea or make the exact opposite decision. Whether people are easily swayed with their decision making or not, The Elaboration Likelihood Model is a very persuasive model that has a huge affect on our society. ==

==