User:Wikilc11/sandbox

Peripheral Route Peripheral-route processes reduces the elaboration of the message through cognitive processing of an argument’s merits but attitude change still occurs from the impact of peripheral cues(extrinsic features of the communication situations) and other non-message factor such as one’s mood. These variables act as heuristics to activate mental shortcuts which accepts or rejects a messaged. For example, a person accept message based on the attractiveness of the presenter or quality of the presentation. The cognitive process that generates favorable or unfavorable thought in peripheral route requires relatively little cognitive resources. Recipient of message may choose the peripheral route because of lack of motivation to analyze the message, inability to comprehend the message, or unavailability of cognitive resources. Study shows that the same message can be processed differently depending on the individual because one will use whatever information useful to form attitude. However, the attitude change resulted from the peripheral route is weaker and temporary compared to the attitude change resulted from the central route. Self-Validation In recent research, psychologist found a new mechanism by which a variable can influence persuasion in the central route of elaboration likelihood model. The overall confidence people have in their thoughts greatly influence the judgment and results of persuasion. Self-validation states that the favorable or unfavorable thoughts generated upon receiving a message is not sufficient enough for attitude change, one must have confidence in his or her thoughts to influence attitude. Thought confidence refers to a sense of validity in one’s own thought. Thought confident has consequential influence because the extent of thought confidence affects whether people use their thoughts in forming their judgments. Petty et al., 2002 referred this as self-validation. Research demonstrated that upon receiving a message, participants were asked to write down a list of thoughts in response to the message. When the thought confidence is high, people are more likely to use these thoughts as basis in forming attitudes. On the other hand, when people have low thought confidence, attitudes are formed based on other variables such as source credibility. Consistent with the mechanisms of elaboration likelihood model, self-validation mechanisms operates at the high end of elaboration continuum and occurs when the sense of confidence experienced is most naturally attributed to one’s own thought. Advantages of ELM The ELM model is a multi-faceted theory that explains the different attitude change processes that can occur in different circumstances. The model explains why anyone variable can work in multiple ways and even produce the opposite outcomes. For example, a message from a high credibility source is presented to two recipients, one uses the central route and perceives message itself as a weak argument and ignore the factor of high credibility source which results in rejecting the message; the other who uses the peripheral route does not carefully elaborate the quality of the message but uses high credibility source as a cue to accept the message. On the same token, the ELM indicates that the same persuasion outcome can be a result of different processes, for example in the scenario above, if the person who uses the central route perceives the message as a strong argument and chooses to accept the message while the peripheral route recipient accept the message because of the high credibility source, the persuasion had the same effects on the two recipient even they engaged in different processes using different information. Lastly, the ELM model suggests that not all judgmental outcomes that appear to be the same may have different persistent effects, study have shown that judgmental outcomes made on a high level thinking process have a stronger and longer impact on the perceiver whereas judgmental outcomes from low end tends to be weak and temporary.

References Page: Petty, R. E. & Briñol, P. (2012). The Elaboration Likelihood Model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology(Vol. 1, pp. 224-245). London, England: Sage. Retrieved from http://www.psy.ohio-state.edu/petty/documents/2012PettyandBrinolELMchapterinVanLangeetal.pdf

Petty, R. E. & Wegner, D. T. (1999) The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current Status and Controversies. Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y The Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. (Ch. 3, pp. 41-66). Guildford Express 1999 Petty, R. E, Priester, J. R. & Briñol, P. (2009). Mass Media Attitude Change: Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In Bryant, J. & Oliver, M. B, Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research(Ch. 7, pp. 125- 141). NewYork: Routledge. Retrieved from hl=en&lr=&id=oC7eRTMmo3YC&oi=fnd&pg=PA125&dq=petty+and+brinol&ots=xmRrXQeBUI&sig=eRrdMeqpEjOFoUyYcZa_wZ1XF6w#v=onepage&q=petty%20and%20brinol&f=false Jae, H., & Delvicchio, D. (2004). Decision making by elaboration likelihood model- analysis journal and model. The journal of consumer affairs, 38(2), 342-354. Retrieved from http://staff.ui.ac.id/internal/0800300003/material/DMbyElaborationLikelihoodModel.pdf