This paper examines the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion, a speech communication theory developed by Petty and Cacioppo that describes two distinct routes through which audiences are persuaded: the central route, involving careful cognitive elaboration, and the peripheral route, relying on environmental cues. Through a structured literature review, the paper surveys four scholarly studies that apply, extend, and critique ELM in relation to cultivation theory, argument structure, emotional processing, and positioning theory. The analysis evaluates ELM's strengths as a conceptual framework while identifying its limitations as a predictive model. The paper concludes with an ethical reflection on persuasion in Western culture, drawing on Nilsen's framework to distinguish more and less ethical forms of persuasive communication.
The paper demonstrates comparative literature synthesis: rather than summarizing each study in isolation, the analysis groups scholars by their relationship to ELM (users vs. critics) and draws cross-study conclusions. This technique shows the writer's ability to move beyond description toward evaluation of a theoretical model's scope and limitations.
The paper follows a four-part structure: (1) a theoretical overview of ELM's two routes and elaboration continuum; (2) an annotated literature review covering four studies; (3) an analytical section evaluating ELM's strengths and weaknesses as both framework and predictive model; and (4) an ethical reflection using Nilsen's ethics framework to assess the moral dimensions of persuasion and elaboration level.
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion is a speech communication theory that attempts to explain the process of persuasion, particularly with regard to the effect of different source factors on the attitude of the audience — that is, the object of persuasion. Unlike earlier theories, the Elaboration Likelihood Model accounts for two distinct channels of persuasion. The first is the "central route," in which the audience logically considers a new idea in order to be persuaded. The second is the "peripheral route," in which the audience relies on preexisting ideas to be persuaded.
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 & Cacioppo, 1986, p. 191). Peripheral route processes rely on environmental characteristics of the message, such as the perceived credibility, presentation, or attractiveness of the source (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986, p. 191). Peripheral route processes are not influenced as strongly by the actual merits of the argument; thus, there exists a much lower degree of elaboration of the original message itself.
Petty and Cacioppo represent ELM through a continuum that reflects 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. A person's location on this continuum will determine whether persuasive communication travels through the central route, where the person is guided by ideas within the persuasive communication, or the peripheral route, where the person is guided by ideas that existed before the persuasive communication.
In her study, Schroeder uses the Elaboration Likelihood Model to reconcile two theories of cultivation: the Active Construction Model and the Passive Availability Heuristic Model (Schroeder, 2005, p. 228). Schroeder finds that the ELM's central route corresponds to the Active Construction Model, while the peripheral route corresponds to the Passive Availability Heuristic Model.
In his study, Areni addresses the effects of argument quality on persuasion — specifically, why some 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).
In their study, Morris, Woo, and Singh criticize the Elaboration Likelihood Model in an attempt to show that 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, they suggest that content processing — elaboration — may give rise to emotions, which in turn leads to a longer-lasting change in attitudes (Morris et al., 2005, p. 85).
Cook, Moore, and Steel study ELM from the perspective of recent Positioning Theory, concluding that ELM is merely a descriptive explanation of persuasion rather than a causal one (Cook et al., 2004, p. 318). In their view, 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 et al., 2004, p. 321). The authors employ Positioning Theory to develop a position model, using the concept of "position" as an analogy for interpreting regularities in data associated with the positions taken by persons.
ELM is particularly effective at explaining the wide divergence in outcomes of speech communication. Essentially, it explains this divergence by positing a continuum of elaboration, with each point on the continuum resulting in a particular outcome. The audience's location on the continuum is itself determined by its motivation to listen and its ability to listen. This explanation is difficult to debunk because it accounts for virtually every type of persuasive outcome.
Because of its comprehensive scope, ELM has become very influential in the fields of psychology and speech communication. Its applications have been varied and fruitful. Scholars such as Schroeder and Areni have employed ELM as a conceptual framework in their studies of cultivation and linguistics, respectively. These scholars have generally used ELM as a new paradigm to illuminate fresh perspectives on issues in their own fields; consequently, their treatment of ELM has tended to lack depth and critical evaluation.
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 research rather than merely as 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 does not offer an actual causal explanation of persuasive communication, and proposed Positioning Theory as an alternative for causal explanation.
When Cook, Moore, and Steel use the term "causal explanation," they are addressing the predictive value of ELM — a very important element of any model's usefulness. One problem with ELM's predictive value involves the model's argument variable. To test ELM, one needs a stable control variable: in this case, an argument that is universally perceived as strong or weak. ELM predicts that a "strong" argument will produce a positive outcome for persuasive communication due to high elaboration, while a "weak" argument will produce a negative outcome due to low elaboration.
In practice, it is harder to identify 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: the argument is weak, meaning unpersuasive, to them.
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.