Psychology C1 - elaboration likelihood Flashcards
elaboration likelihood model of persuasion
elaboration-likelihood model
-Petty et al. (1981)
-two ways a message can persuade someone to change their attitude or behaviour
Process one: central route
-might be persuaded by message itself after processing its content in detail
-interested in issue and motivated by it (personal relevance)
-‘high elaboration’ due to ‘thoroughly evaluating the message content
Process two: peripheral route
-persuaded by factors other than the message’s content
-doesn’t process the content, might not have enough time or ability
-‘low-elaboration’ due to evaluation being minimal
factors of influence
-possible to be persuaded via central or peripheral routes
-theory suggests several factors (relevance of the message etc.) which determine the route
-if a celeb or attractive person is associated with message, route is peripheral
-if celeb highlights content, the route is central
individual differences
-people differ in ability and motivation to process a message centrally
-key difference = need for cognition
-people high in NFC = motivated to think about many issues
-most persuaded through central routes
petty et al. (1981) - personal involvement – aims
-does high involvement lead to attitude change through persuasion by the central route, and low involvement by the peripheral route?
petty et al. (1981) - personal involvement – procedure
-American uni students heard messages suggesting new ‘comprehensive exam’ should be introduced which all students would have to pass to graduate
-each student was given a further message which differed in these ways:
1. some told the exam would be introduced the following year (high personal relevance), others told ten years (low)
2. some told messages were produced by an expert
3. some messages contained strong arguments
-students attitudes measured by rating concept of comprehensive exam and extent to which they agreed
petty et al. (1981) - personal involvement – findings
-personal involvement = high, main factor influencing attitude = quality
-expertise of source had little influence
-low involvement, quality of argument had no significant effect on attitude
petty et al. (1981) - personal involvement – conclusions
-issue = personal relevant, attitude change occurs through thoughtful of message when issue isn’t relevant
-peripheral cues = more influential
influential study
(evaluation)
+
-had a huge influence on field of persuasion
-sparked a torrent of research studies into how persuasive messages could have a max. impact - highly relevant in area of health promotion
-Oenema et al. (2005) matched messages avout healthy eating to recipients, increased central processing, greater behavioural change
-shows studies value
sample issues
(evaluation)
-
-pps = uni students, assume that students have greater cognitive abilities
-explains why attempts to replicate petty’s study = unsuccessful, involvement made no difference to children’s attitudes
-suggests that the unrepresentative nature of pps mean that findings can’t be generalised to other groups of younger people
practical application
(evaluation)
+
-make health messages more persuasive
-health campaigners might be tempted to use peripheral route (celebs)
-ELM shows that this self-defeating, attitude/behaviour change = short-lived
-better solution = use central and peripheral routes
-shows that ELM = useful as it suggests practical ways of making health messages appeal
poor explanatory powers
(evaluation)
-
-doesn’t really explain how persuasive messages affect attitudes and behaviour
-offers a thorough detailed and complex description of the two routes - doesn’t explain how this happening
-complexity works against it, example – proposes a large number of factors influence the choice routes
-makes it hard to use ELM to predict actual behaviour change
