Proper Evaluation Of The Elaboration Likelihood Model example essay topic

Elaboration Likelihood 2 Introduction Recently the nation was bombarded with political ad campaigns of all shapes and sizes. There were the ads for and against succession, the ads that attempted to show Gray Davis as someone who could actually run the state of California, and the ads that didn't really seem to have any purpose at all. It is obvious that each of these campaigns was focused on a specific target audience. What may not have been so obvious was that each of the ad campaigns was also based upon the involvement or interest of the voters (Perloff, 1993). This involvement or interest is a component of the Elaboration Likelihood Model. This theory helps advertising consultants decide what elections are important to voters and what elections have no relevance to anyone but lawmakers (Perloff, 1993).

Important elections, such as the gubernatorial race will have strong arguments and depth while not so significant elections, such as the clean water initiative will rely on cues that are undemanding in terms of the amount of brain power used (Perloff, 1993). The application of the Elaboration Likelihood Model to political campaigns is just one of the many practical uses of this theory. But before it is possible to examine other possible applications of the ELM, one must understand the basic ideas and factors that make it work. After a clear understanding of the ELM is devolved it will be shown in relation to the specific communication perspective that it fits into, and then used to evaluate a real life situation. Subsequent to the evaluation of the practical application the ELM will be scrutinized and summed up, but first the basics. Description of Theory Elaboration Likelihood 3 The elaboration likelihood theory was created by two social scientists, Richard Petty and John Cacioppo, who sought to create a model of persuasion that was more inclusive in terms of the range and depth in which the theory covered (Perloff, 1993).

Petty and Cacioppo's theory is a culmination of their research in the area of "cognitive responses to persuasion" and theories of attitude change (Perloff, 1993, p. 118). The ELM is a theory of persuasion with a central premise that seeks to explain how deeply an individual will elaborate the arguments of a persuasive message by examining the individual's attitude towards the subject matter in relation to the amount of personal involvement he or she has with the topic (Sereno, 2002). The ELM defines two distinct methods of elaboration that are based on the content and personal significance of the message (Sereno, 2002). Before the factors of elaboration are defined it is essential to understand what elaboration is and the role that it plays within the theory. Perloff states that the concept of elaboration "refers to the extent to which a person thinks about the issue-relevant arguments contained in a message" (Perloff, 1993, p. 118). If elaboration were calculated on a scale, one side would represent profound deliberation, while the other would represent an almost complete lack of thought and careful insight.

These opposite sides of the scale represent what Petty and Cacioppo call the "two distinct routes to attitude change"; the central route and the peripheral route (Perloff, 1993, p. 119). The central route "consists of thoughtful consideration of the arguments in the message, and occurs only when a receiver possesses both the motivation and ability to think about the message and topic" (Perloff, 1993, p. 121). The peripheral route comes to light "when the receiver lacks ability and / or motivation to engage in much Elaboration Likelihood 4 thought on the issue" (Stephenson, Benoit, and Tschida, 2001, p. 1). It must be taken into consideration that neither the peripheral, nor central routes are better or worse; they are simply different ways in which persuasive messages are processed. More specifically, the process of choosing the peripheral or central route begins with the involvement or motivation of the individual and whether or not he or she has the knowledge to process the message accurately (Sereno, 2002). If there is a personal connection or motivation to pay attention to the message, it is probable that the individual will contemplate and reflect deeply upon the arguments within the message (Littlejohn, 2001).

For example, the student senate is trying to lower the price of parking passes and since you park in the university parking center it is likely that you will be motivated take action. Changes in attitude that result from central processing tend to last longer and have more profound effects on the manner and behavior of the individual (Sereno, 2002). In the situation where the message holds no value or is beyond the individual's range of knowledge, it is likely that "simple decision tools" will be used such as "the expert is to be believed", or "men are usually right on political issues" (Perloff, 1993, p. 119). These simple decision tools used completely in the peripheral route, mentioned by Perloff (1993), are quick references to past events or common knowledge that allow for an immediate positive or negative assessment of a message without using a large amount of brain power.

Changes in attitude that result from peripheral processing are likely to be short-lived and easily swayed because they are based on no more than superficial mental ques and quick references (Sereno, 2002). Elaboration Likelihood 5 To sum it up, the ELM provides logical reasoning as to why people have such enduring positions regarding such things as war and child abuse, while also justifying how easy it is to switch brands of laundry detergent (Perloff, 1993). Generally speaking, the ELM is an extremely useful tool for explaining the cause and effect relationship between attitude and personal involvement in the ever increasingly pervasive media of today (Sereno, 2002). Aside from the actual definition, another important aspect of the ELM is the perspective that it takes in terms of scientific or humanist, because the category that it falls into will determine exactly how research is done using it. Identification of Perspective Because it falls into the category of cognitive theory, the Elaboration Likelihood Model takes the psychological perspective of communication. Within a cognitive theory internal factors are held accountable for the way that recipients conduct themselves in communication situations (Sereno, 2002).

Basically, various characteristics within an individual affect his or her responses to persuasive messages. Unlike humanistic views, the variables inside of the experiments only affect the subject in question (Sereno, 2002). According to Perloff (1993), the ELM utilizes cause and effect, which follows the guidelines of science in assuming that people do not have free will, which is a major factor in deciding whether or not the theory is of world view I or of world view 2. For example, the main premise of the ELM states that, the higher the personal involvement with the subject the greater the elaboration of the subject and vice versa (Sereno, 2002). If the theory was humanistic it would assume that people have free will and would not be able to make predictions or generalizations regarding the outcome of specific events. Elaboration Likelihood 6 The psychological perspective asserts that attitudes and personality traits are essential areas of securitization.

To make this position evident it must be noted that attitudes and personality traits are the main points of research within the Elaboration likelihood Model, which only affirms that the ELM is of the psychological perspective (Sereno, 2002). Evaluation In order for a theory to stand out it must undergo rigorous comparisons to other theories (Littlejohn, 2001). The way in which theories are judged or compared is through an evaluation, which looks at many different criterions and how the theory holds up under each of them. Littlejohn (2001) states, the theory that encompasses the ability to sustain itself across the majority of the criterion is considered to be the superior theory.

The proper evaluation of the Elaboration Likelihood model will require the following criterion; theoretical scope, heuristic value, and parsimony (Sereno, 2002). First, the theoretical scope will be evaluated, which is described by Littlejohn (2001) as the generality or adequacy of the theory in evaluating a wide range of events outside of an individual study. The theoretical scope of the ELM demonstrates a wide range of communication situations and a narrow range of events within the constraints of the psychological perspective (Sereno, 2001). The range of the ELM is not wide in terms of being applied to many different experiences, but more in the sense that it can be applied to many different instances within a small array of events (Littlejohn, 2001). The theory itself is inclusive in terms of the numerous applications it is capable of.

Elaboration Likelihood 7 Secondly, the heuristic value must be considered in order to discover any research that may have been spawned from the original ELM. In lecture Sereno (2002) stated that strong theories will almost always generate subsequent research. The heuristic value of the Elaboration Likelihood Model is immense according to Perloff (1993, p. 118), who states "the ELM has generated relatively more research across a variety of social science disciplines". Lastly, the parsimony of the ELM will be evaluated.

Parsimony refers to the simplicity of the theory and serves as a method of determining the better hypothesis of two very similar theories (Sereno, 2002). The Elaboration Likelihood Model can be clearly expressed in nearly one sentence, which shows how rational and coherent the argument is. Now that a firm grasp on the theory has been established, the ELM can now be applied to a real life scenario that will help to better explain the factors and variables involved. Application Within the scenario there are three situations in which three variations of the Elaboration Likelihood Model take place.

The situation involves three fictitious students from the Annenberg School for Communication who are all watching the same presidential debate between Bush and Gore. Although each of the students are viewing the same information they each come to find very different conclusions. The first student, Kevin, is not concerned with politics and is only watching the debate because it is a requirement for the class. Since Kevin has no interest in politics or the debate, it is safe to say that there is a vast lack of motivation and ability.

The absence Elaboration Likelihood 8 of motivation and ability show that Kevin processed the debate using the peripheral route (Sereno, 2002). The elaboration likelihood in Kevin's case is very low because the topic has no personal relevance, and he does not encompass the familiarity with the subject matter needed to think deeply about the topic. In stead, Kevin reverted to superficial ques that assisted in the decision making process, but will have no on going impact on his life. The second student, Stacey, is a knowledgeable Republican who firmly believes in the policies of George W. Bush.

It is almost certain that Stacey would have watched the debate whether it was a class assignment or not. It is obvious that Stacey is using the central processing route because she definitely has the motivation and ability to analytically think about the polices and issues discussed by both candidates. Unlike Kevin, the elaboration likelihood is exceptionally high in Stacey's situation. The third student, Dave, is a knowledgeable Democrat who initially wants Gore to get elected only because he is the Democratic candidate.

Dave has the motivation and ability but chooses to process the begging of the debate using the peripheral route because he believes that his mind is made up and there is no reason to waste time thinking about a silly Republican from Texas. But as the debate progresses, Dave more and more begins to agree with the policies that Bush is proposing and shifts to the central processing route. Dave is so moved by Bush's arguments that his report to the class praises Bush's policies and Dave actually changes political parties and votes for Bush. Early on it seemed as though the elaboration likelihood was quit low but in the end it was rather high.

The most important thing to note is the fact that because of the arguments Elaboration Likelihood 9 presented by Bush Dave made a huge attitude change. This change in attitude is a result of the central route and will most likely be long lasting and life changing. Conclusion The Elaboration Likelihood Model is simple by definition but could take a life time to explain. The basics are straightforward, if an individual has personal involvement with a the subject matter it is likely they will spend time and brain power thinking about the message (Sereno, 2002). Over all the ELM could be useful in the fields of advertising and political campaigns. The ELM would definitely be of assistance to an ad company that wanted to get thorough response from its audience and as stated earlier the ELM is a vital part of any political campaign.

In conclusion, B argh (2002, p. 2) gives his opinion that "The most influential social cognition models are the elaboration likelihood model and the heuristic-systematic model". Although the Elaboration Likelihood Model is a strong theory, it could still use a few improvements. First of all, Perloff (1993, p. 132) makes the point that there should be more consideration of "situational and personality factors that might interact to influence the processing strategy". Perloff (1993, p. 132) also would like to know "how do people simultaneously process central and peripheral information?" Elaboration Likelihood 10

Bibliography

Bargh, J.A. (2002, September).
Losing Consciousness: Automatic Influences on Consumer Judgment, Behavior, and Motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2). Littlejohn, S.W. (2001).
Theories of Human Communication. Albuquerque, NM: Wadsworth. Perloff, R.M. (1993).
The Dynamics of Persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Sereno, K. (2002, Fall).
Comm 200: Communication as a Social Science. Lecture Notes. Stephenson, M.T., Benoit, W.L., Tschida, D.A. (2001).