User:Yvette72/sandbox

The first source I want to add is Te’eni-Harari, Tali, Shlomo I. Lampert, and Sam Lehman-Wilzig. “Information Processing of Advertising among Young People: The Elaboration Likelihood Model as Applied to Youth.”I want to add this to the section of a) Application in Advertising and Marketing, b) Critiques of the Theory, phrased as below: Te’eni-Harari et al. discussed the limation of the scope of ELM. The research looks into advertisements' influence on children and proves that in contrast to adults, children and early adolescents use neither of the routes to process information.

The second source I want to add is Bitner, Mary J., and Carl Obermiller. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Limitations and Extensions in Marketing.” I want to add this to the section of a) Application in Advertising and Marketing. I also want to add an image to the expansion of the model after I worked out the rules of how to upload images of others. Phrase as below: Bitner, Mary J. et al. proposed in the context of marketing, the determinant of routes is more complex. Motivation and ability are under an interlaced mediation of situational variables, person variables, and product categories variables.

The third source I want to add is J. Kitchen, Philip, Gayle Kerr, Rod McColl, Heather Pals, and Don E. Schultz. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Review, Critique and Research Agenda.” this article create a clearer view of critiques of the theory. I want to use it to re-organize the section Critiques of the Theory. The starting would be phrased as below: In terms of concerns towards the ELM throughout the history, J. Kitchen et al. identified four main areas in where the critique lies: a) the descriptive nature of the model, b)the continuum questions, c)the issue of multi-channel processing, and d)the analysis of the different variables which mediate elaboration likelihood.