CMN101Sm09July8_ELM

CMN101Sm09July8_ELM - ± Pro vs counter-attitudinal...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) CMN101 Communication Theories Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ELM - Overview ± General focus: Cognitive processes and persuasive message effectiveness Initial question: Why are some people persuaded by strong arguments in some situations and others not?
Background image of page 2
Core Model ± Two “routes” to persuasion Central: high elaboration High issue-relevant thinking high mental load Peripheral: low elaboration Rely on heuristic cues Serve as short-cuts to quick decision-making low mental load Measuring degree of elaboration: “thought- listing technique”
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Influences on Degree of Elaboration ± Factors Affecting Elaboration Motivation Receiver involvement (personal relevance) Often used in empirical research to manipulate degree of elaboration Need for cognition ± Factors Affecting Elaboration Ability Distraction Prior knowledge
Background image of page 4
Outcome of Central Route Processing
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ± Pro vs. counter-attitudinal argument – Relate to Social Judgment Theory ± Argument strength/quality – Compare with argument quantity Outcome of Peripheral Route Processing ± Activation and appraisal of heuristics ± Types of peripheral cues – Reciprocation – Consistency – Social proof – Liking – Authority – Scarcity – Other? ± Are the cues strictly peripheral? Comparing Persuasion via Central and Peripheral Routes ± The same aspect of message can have different effects on the two routes e.g., argument strength, credibility of speaker ± Different long-term outcomes – Peripheral route: temporary change – Central route: enduring change ± Are central and peripheral routes mutually exclusive? Summary of ELM Evaluation of Theory ± Pragmatic implications ± Limitations Coming up ± Cognitive Dissonance Theory – Read Chapter 16...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 10

CMN101Sm09July8_ELM - ± Pro vs counter-attitudinal...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online