Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion

Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion is a speech communication theory which attempts to explain the process of persuasion, particularly in regards to the effect of different source factors on the attitude of the audience (object of persuasion). Unlike earlier theories, the Elaboration Likelihood Model accounts for two different channels of persuasion. The first of these two channels is the "central route," where the audience considers a new idea logically to be persuaded. The second channel is the "peripheral route," where the audience relies on preexisting ideas to be persuaded.

The Central route processes involve careful scrutiny of the communication's content to determine the merits of the argument. In Central route persuasion, a person's unique cognitive responses to the message determine the persuasive outcome of the communication. (Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T., 1986, p. 191). Peripheral route processes rely on environmental characteristics of the message, like the perceived credibility, presentation, or attractiveness of the source. (Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T., 1986, 191). Peripheral route processes are not influenced as much by the actual merits of the actual argument. Thus, there exists a much lower degree of elaboration of the original message itself.

Petty and Cacioppo represent ELM through a continuum representing the degree to which a person is motivated to thoughtfully consider, or elaborate upon, the merits of a particular attitude object. The person's capacity is also a factor in motivation. The person's location on this continuum will determine whether the persuasive communication travels through the central route, when the person is guided by ideas within the persuasive communication, or the peripheral route, where a person is guided by ideas existing before the persuasive communication.

Literature Review Outline

Cultivation and the Elaboration Likelihood Model

In her study, Schroeder uses the Elaboration Likelihood Model to reconcile two theories on Cultivation, the Active Construction Model and the Passive Availability Heuristic Models. (Schroeder, 2005, p. 228). Schroeder finds that the ELM's Central Route corresponds to the Active Construction Model and the Peripheral Route corresponds to the Passive Availability Heuristic Model.

The Effects of Structural and Grammatical Variables on Persuasion

In his study, Areni addressed the effects of argument quality on persuasion, or, why verbal arguments are more persuasive than others. The study examined various structural and grammatical elements of verbal arguments in order to develop conceptually meaningful definitions of argument quality and more rigorous theoretical accounts of argument-driven persuasion within the ELM. (Areni, 2003, p. 351)

Elaboration Likelihood Model: A Missing Intrinsic Emotional Implication

In their study, Morris, Woo, and Singh criticize the Elaboration Likelihood Model is attempt to show that, in the Elaboration Likelihood Model, the emotional component is as important as the cognitive component. They conclude that even as an individual processes a message cognitively, that cognition has an emotional core. In addition, there is a possibility that content processing (elaboration) gives rise to emotions and that this leads to a longer-lasting change in attitudes. (Morris, 2005, p. 85).

The Taking of a Position: A Reinterpretation of the Elaboration Likelihood Model

Cook, Moore, and Steel study ELM from the perspective of the recent Positioning Theory. conclude that ELM is merely a descriptive explanation of persuasion, instead of a causal explanation of persuasion. (Cook, 2004, p. 318). ELM "…fails to explain convincingly the reason, cause or purpose for having a disposition to engage in consideration of persuasive messages of various forms." (Cook, 2004, p. 321) The authors use recent Positioning Theory to develop a position model, employing the concept of "position" as an analogy for the interpretation of regularities in data that is associated with the positions taken by persons.

Analysis

ELM is particularly good at explaining the wide divergence in the outcomes of speech communication. Essentially, ELM explains this divergence by positing a continuum of elaboration, with each degree on the continuum resulting in a particular outcome. The audience's location on the continuum itself is determined by its motivation to listen and its ability to listen. This explanation is very hard to debunk because it describes virtually every type of outcome.

Because of its comprehensive scope, ELM has become very influential in the field of psychology and speech communication. The applications of ELM have been varied and fruitful. Scholars such as Schroeder and Areni have employed ELM as a conceptual framework in their studies of cultivation (acculturation) and linguistics, respectively. These scholars have generally used ELM as a new paradigm in order to illuminate new perspectives on issues in their own fields. Thus, their treatment of ELM has tended to lack depth and criticism.

Other scholars have been more critical of ELM. The Morris, Woo, and Singh study, along with the Cook, Moore, and Steel study, focuses on the major shortcomings of ELM. Unlike Schroeder and Areni, these scholars evaluate ELM as an actual model for psychological studies, as opposed to just a conceptual framework. The Morris, Woo, and Singh study found that the model had an excessively narrow focus on the cognitive aspects of audience elaboration, neglecting the emotional aspects. The Cook, Moore, and Steel study found that ELM did not offer an actual causal explanation of persuasive communication and offered Positioning Theory for a causal explanation.

When Cook, Moore, and Steel use the term "causal explanation," they are getting at the predictive value of ELM, which is a very important element of a model's usefulness. One problem with the predictive value of the ELM is the model's argument variable. To test ELM, one needs a stable control variable. In this case, that control variable is an argument that is universally seen as strong or weak. The ELM predicts that a "strong" argument will produce a positive outcome for persuasive communication because of high elaboration, while a "weak" argument will produce a negative outcome because of low elaboration.

In practice, is harder to find a universally "strong" or "weak" argument than it appears. Even in everyday communication, the strength of an argument is largely determined by the particular outcome itself. A negative outcome, an unpersuaded audience, will usually insist that the argument presented to it was weak. In a sense, the audience would be right because the argument is weak, that is to say, unpersuasive, to them.

There are two ways of looking at ELM. As a conceptual framework, ELM is excellent because it is flexible and testable. Actually, it is better used as a framework, or a paradigm, than as a model itself. As a model, ELM suffers from some serious shortcomings. Although ELM accounts for virtually every type of outcome for persuasive communication, it cannot, by itself, predict the outcomes of a given persuasive communication.

Ethical Reflection

Persuasion is an ethically gray element of human interaction. Some will insist that persuasion merely entails a person/audience being reminded, illuminated, or put on notice of a particular point that the person/audience had not yet considered. Others will insist that persuasion entails a person/audience being coaxed, pressured, or manipulated into adopting a certain position or action. Indeed, the line between persuasion and manipulation is thin, as well as elastic.