Have you ever wondered why advertisements or political campaigns are more effective than others? The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is a theory that explains how people process information. Furthermore, how people make decisions in response these persuasive messages. The theory was developed by Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo in 1986. Ever since, ELM has become a widely used framework in media and communications research. In this article, we will explore the Elaboration Likelihood Model and its relevance to understanding persuasion.
Central and Peripheral Routes
The Elaboration Likelihood Model proposes two distinct routes for processing persuasive messages: the central route and the peripheral route. The central route is the route of processing where people actively think about the message and its content. They evaluate the arguments or evidence presented and decide based on the strength of these influences. The peripheral route, on the other hand, is the route of processing where people are not motivated to think deeply about messages. They rely on cues such as the source’s attractiveness or likeability. Other considerations include the message’s length or format, as well as the presence of emotional appeals towards them.
The two routes are not mutually exclusive and can operate simultaneously. However, the extent to which each route is used depends on the person’s motivation and ability to process information. When people have the motivation and ability to process information, they are more likely to use the central route. When they lack motivation or ability, they are more likely to use the peripheral route.
Factors Affecting the Routes of Elaboration Likelihood Model
Several factors influence the likelihood of using the central or peripheral route of processing. One such factor is the personal relevance of the message. When a message is personally relevant, people are more motivated to think about it. Therefore, people are more likely to use the central route. For example, if you are interested in buying a new phone, you are likely to think more critically. This is because it has a direct impact on your life and alters perceptions of ads and reviews you see.
Another factor is the need for cognition, which is the extent to which individuals enjoy and engage in effortful thinking. People with a high need for cognition are more likely to use the central route. This is even the case when the message is not personally relevant. Then again, those with a low need for cognition are more likely to use the peripheral route. Despite the message been personally relevant.
The credibility of the source is also an important factor. When a source is credible, people are more likely to believe the message and use the central route of processing. Conversely, when sources are not credible, people are more likely to use the peripheral route and rely on peripheral cues.
Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model
The Elaboration Likelihood Model has important implications for media and communications. For example, it suggests that messages that are personally relevant and contain convincing arguments. Also, that evidence which comes from credible sources are more likely to be effective. It also highlights the importance of targeting specific audiences. For example, distinct groups may have different motivations and abilities to process information.
Additionally, the model has been used to explain the Media Effects on attitudes and behaviour. For instance, a study found that the central route of processing was more effective in changing attitudes towards anti-smoking campaigns. On the other hand, the peripheral route was more effective in changing attitudes towards fashion advertisements.
Elaboration Likelihood Model Criticisms
While the Elaboration Likelihood Model has been a widely used framework in media and communications research, it is not without its criticisms. One criticism is that the model oversimplifies the process of persuasion by reducing it to two distinct routes of processing. In reality, people may use a combination of central and peripheral processing, and the extent to which each route is used may vary depending on the individual and the situation.
Another criticism is that the model places too much emphasis on cognitive processes and fails to consider the role of emotions in persuasion. Emotions can also play a significant role in how people respond to persuasive messages, and the model does not fully account for this.
Moreover, critics have criticised the model for excessively concentrating on individual-level factors. Thus, neglecting to consider the wider social and cultural context in which persuasion takes place. Societal norms, cultural values, and group identities can all have an impact on persuasion, which the model fails to address completely.
Despite these criticisms, the Elaboration Likelihood Model remains a valuable framework for understanding persuasion in media and communications. By recognising its limitations and integrating it with other theories and approaches, researchers and practitioners can continue to enhance our understanding of persuasion in different contexts.
Conclusion
The Elaboration Likelihood Model is a useful framework for understanding how people process persuasive messages. The model proposes two routes of processing, the central and peripheral routes. These operate based on the person’s motivation and ability to process information.
The model also highlights the importance of a number of factors. These factors include personal relevance, the need for cognition, and source credibility in determining the route of processing. Understanding these factors can help media and communications practitioners create more effective persuasive messages.
References
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). Academic Press.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 37-72). The Guilford Press.