Talk:Elaboration likelihood model/Archives/2014

Applications
Hi all. Maks kv 91 requested that I elaborate a bit on my rationale for this revision. Perhaps it will be easiest if I speak to each of my points briefly: I hope this makes things clear and of course let me know if it is not clear or sounds unreasonable. I am also happy to hear the views of other editors. Cheers Andrew (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) some misrepresentation of source - As one example, it is misleading to say that "students with lower need for cognition were persuaded by the emotion centered campaign and the students with higher need for cognition were persuaded by the fact centered campaign". This was only true of some of the students who participated in the study.
 * 2) uncited claims - "the scientist ... proved that the elaboration-likelihood model is correct" and "[the scientists] have ... transformed the way advertisement are designed" are uncited claims.
 * 3) clarity issues - There are aspects of the writing that will read as strange to many audiences. Who are these students? Why are they being exposed to two approaches? What is an emotion centered campaign? These questions may seem silly from a research perspective, but someone coming at the issue from outside psychology could quite defensibly find the content indecipherable.
 * 4) possible undue weight - I am not sure this is a good example of the application of the ELM. That is, I wonder if article space would be better spent on a more real world application.

My Edit
Hi, just making this post to inform past/future editors about the edit I made to the page. My edit was recommended by U3964057. I condensed the model routes and elaboration types sections into one section because of the overlap that they have. I also added the advantages/ disadvantages section and updated some of the references to the current edition of the book used for reference. If you feel some of my work needs some more adding to it please leave a message here so I can update it. Thanks --LewisHoward (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi LewisHoward. I wouldn't go so far as to say that your edit was "recommended" by me. It is all in the execution after all. Speaking of which, overall I felt the edit was of value to the article (e.g. trimming down some of the redundant content), but there are a couple opportunities for further improvement. For example, the advantages and disadvantages section needs referencing and the choice of route section does not have a consistent referencing style. I would also like to see less reliance on an introductory text book, but this is a bug bare of mine and not an expectation I can enforce. Anyway, I hope the assignment goes well. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Andrew Thanks for your feedback, I will be busy for the next few days with some other work but I will try to make the improvements you suggested soon. I can clean up the references but they will all be from the same textbook ATm because its the book we are using for this module. Also I would just like to say thank you for your help and support that you gave me and my group. Thanks --LewisHoward (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments to Zl116
First, I have some formatting and off-the-cuff comments:
 * The source in the middle of the first sentence should be moved to the end of the sentence.
 * The advantages/disadvantages section is confusing. All of the "However"s are flipping my mind in circles. That said, there's probably a huge opportunity here to add to the page.
 * Needs a criticisms section! I want to see what other scholars have to say, especially because I don't think this theory makes much intuitive sense.
 * This theory feels like Aristotle's thoughts on Rhetoric, just with different terminology.
 * I got confused in the Model Routes section. When referring to someone's motivation and ability, can you add whether it is the message sender or receiver each time? I get that a receiver's motivation may vary, but does the sender's motivation and ability to persuade matter?

I don't think I really understand this theory in a general sense. I get that there are two routes to persuade, but I don't know how the motivation and such impact the persuasiveness of the message. Does the sender or the receiver choose to take the peripheral route or the central route? I don't know whether me asking you questions is helpful. Perhaps they should be answered in the article? Maybe some examples or images would help? If you'd like more feedback, we can talk in person. I don't know where I'd take this, but I'm certainly available to comment on your ideas!Jk1618 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)