The document summarizes the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion proposed by Richard Petty and John Cacioppo. The model suggests there are two routes to persuasion: central route of message elaboration involving careful consideration of arguments, and peripheral route relying on simple cues with little thinking. The effectiveness of a persuasive message depends on the ability and motivation of the audience to elaborate, as well as characteristics of the message itself.

1. ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL Of Richard Petty and John Cacioppo

2. TWO ROUTES TO PERSUASION Central : message elaboration – the extent to which a person carefully thinks about issue-relevant arguments contained in a persuasive communication The more listeners work to attend to the message the less influenced they are by content-irrelevant factors Peripheral : shorthand method to accept or reject a message without any active thinking about the attributes of the issue or the object of consideration The more listeners attend to content-irrelevant factors, the less the impact of the message

3. Note: Two Dimensions Messages can be constructed with a view either to elaborated or peripheral processing, or some mixture of the two Messages can be interpreted through attention either mainly to elaborated or to peripheral features, or some mixture of the two

4. CUES Reciprocation – “ you owe me” Consistency – “we’ve always done it that way” Social proof – “everybody’s doing it” Liking – “ love me, love my ideas”, Authority – “just because I say so” Scarcity – “Quick, before they’re all gone”

5. Motivation Message elaboration requires motivation Motivation enhanced by personal relevance Motivation enhanced by need for cognitive clarity Message elaboration requires ability Ability may be impeded by distraction Repetition may increase prospect for elaboration

6. Types of elaboration Objective: considers facts on their own merit. Listeners who objectively elaborate will need to be impressed by the argument Biased: predetermined conclusions color the supporting data So elaboration is not always desirable from the point of view of the persuader. It has to generate favorable thoughts.

7. Arguments Strong arguments likely to lead to change that is: persistent over time resists counter persuasion predict future behavior Weak arguments may have boomerang effect leading to enduring rejection of argument.

8. Peripheral Cues Most messages processed peripherally Tangible rewards, others’ reactions, and source credibility (likeability, character, expertise), emotionally engaging, are important. Some cues inhere in the listener (e.g. mood). More likely to be short-lived However, peripheral cues may sometimes stimulate elaboration, as do some in slide 4: e.g. “social proof” may involve argument by appeal to precedent. In other words, peripheral cues are not necessarily illogical

9. Critique Should it pay more attention to emotional appeal? Not always straight forward to determine a “strong argument” Theory grown unwieldy, less predictive Might be better to have an “elaboration continuum” rather than a binary opposition between “elaboration” and “peripheral” appeals