Samenvatting artikelen Gezondheidscommunicatie:
Elaboration Likelihood Model – O’Keefe:
The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion is an example of a ‘dual process’ approach
to persuasion. The ELM suggests that important variations in the nature of persuasion are a function
of the likelihood that receivers will engage in elaboration of (that is, thinking about) information
relevant to the persuasive issue. Depending on the degree of elaboration, 2 different kinds of
persuasion process can be engaged – one involving systematic thinking and the other involving
cognitive shortcuts. Different factors influence persuasive outcomes depending on which process is
activated.
These 2 persuasion processes are called the ‘central route’ and the ‘peripheral route’ to persuasion.
The central route represents the persuasion processes involved when elaboration is relatively high.
Where persuasion is achieved through the central route, it commonly comes about through
extensive issue-relevant thinking: careful examination of the information contained in the message,
close scrutiny of the message’s arguments, consideration of other issue-relevant material, and so on.
In short, persuasion through the central route is achieved through the receiver’s thoughtful
examination of issue-relevant considerations.
The peripheral route represents the persuasion processes involved when elaboration is relatively
low. Where persuasion is achieved through peripheral routes, it commonly comes about because the
receiver employs some simple decision rule (some heuristic principle) to evaluate the advocated
position. That is, receivers may rely upon various peripheral cues (such as communicator credibility)
as guides to attitude and belief, rather than engaging in extensive issue-relevant thinking (
Information Processing).
Influences on the degree of elaboration
A number of factors have been found to influence the amount of elaboration (and hence to influence
which route to persuasion is activated). These factors can be classified broadly as influencing either
elaboration motivation or elaboration ability.
A receiver’s motivation for engaging in elaboration can be influenced by the relevance of the topic; as
the personal relevance of the topic (the receiver’s degree of ‘involvement’ in the topic) increases, the
motivation to engage in elaboration also increases ( Involvement with Media Content). Elaboration
motivation can also be influenced by the receiver’s level of ‘need for cognition’, a personality
characteristic reflecting the tendency to enjoy and engage in thinking; people higher in need for
cognition generally have greater elaboration motivation ( Personality and Exposure to
Communication). The receiver’s ability to engage in elaboration can be influenced by factors such as
the presence of distraction in the persuasive setting or the amount of relevant background
knowledge; a person who lacks prior knowledge of the subject matter or is distracted may be unable
to engage in issue-relevant thinking.
Influences on persuasive outcomes
Because central-route persuasion and peripheral-route persuasion have different underlying
processes, the factors determining persuasive success correspondingly differ.
Influences on Persuasive Outcomes in Central-Route Persuasion
, Under conditions of relatively high elaboration, the outcomes of persuasive efforts will largely
depend on the outcomes of the receiver’s thoughtful consideration of issue-relevant arguments (as
opposed to depending primarily on the operation of simple decision principles). Broadly put, when
elaboration is high, persuasive effects will depend upon the predominant valence (positive or
negative) of the receiver’s issue-relevant thoughts. To the extent that the receiver is led to have
predominantly unfavorable thoughts, then the message will presumably be relatively unsuccessful.
2 primary factors influence the predominant valence (the overall evaluative direction) of elaboration.
One is whether the message’s advocated position is proattitudinal or counterattitudinal for the
receiver. Everything else being equal, one expects proattitudinal messages (ones advocating views
toward which the receiver initially feels at least somewhat favorably inclined) to evoke predominalty
favorable thoughts, and counterattitudinal messages to evoke predominantly unfavorable thoughts.
The second factor is the strength (quality) of the message’s arguments. Under conditions of high
elaboration, receivers are willing and able to engage in extensive issue-relevant thinking, including
careful examination of the message’s arguments. If such scrutiny reveals weak evidence, slipshod
reasoning, and the like, predominantly negative reactions are to be expected. But if the message is
seen to contain powerful arguments, good evidence, sound reasoning, and so forth, then more
positive thoughts are likely to result. That is, under conditions of high elaboration, the quality
(strength) of the message’s arguments influence the predominant valence of elaboration and hence
affect persuasive success.
Influences on Persuasive Outcomes in Peripheral-Route Persuasion
Under conditions of relatively low elaboration, receivers are not engaged in thoughtful consideration
of the message’s arguments and evidence. Rather, receivers use heuristic principles (‘heuristics’),
simple decision procedures that require little information processing; heuristics are activated by
‘peripheral cues’, extrinsic features of the communication situation such as the characteristics of the
communicator. A number of such heuristics have been identified.
One is the credibility heuristic, in which receivers are guided by the apparent expertise of the
communicator. Rather than carefully considering the message’s arguments, receivers can simply rely
on the communicator’s credibility as a guide to what to believe: where the communicator is judged
to be an expert, receivers will be persuaded by the communicator’s view (and where judged
inexpert, the communicator will be relatively unpersuasive). A second heuristic is based on the
receiver’s liking for the communicator; when this liking heuristic is employed, liked communicators
will be more persuasive than disliked communicators. A third processing shortcut is the consensus
heuristic, in which the receiver’s views are influenced by the reaction of others to the message; when
this heuristic is activated, seeing approving reactions of others enhances the message’s
persuasiveness (and disapproving reactions impair effectiveness).
As elaboration increases, the influence of such heuristics diminishes. When receivers are engaging in
close scrutiny of and thinking about the message, peripheral cues such as the communicator’s
likeability, the communicator’s credibility, and the reactions of other people play smaller roles as
influences on persuasive outcomes. But where receivers are unable or unmotivated to engage in
message scrutiny, these cognitive shortcuts are relied upon.
Complexities and consequences in persuasion processes
Tradeoffs between Central and Peripheral Persuasion Processes
Elaboration Likelihood Model – O’Keefe:
The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) of persuasion is an example of a ‘dual process’ approach
to persuasion. The ELM suggests that important variations in the nature of persuasion are a function
of the likelihood that receivers will engage in elaboration of (that is, thinking about) information
relevant to the persuasive issue. Depending on the degree of elaboration, 2 different kinds of
persuasion process can be engaged – one involving systematic thinking and the other involving
cognitive shortcuts. Different factors influence persuasive outcomes depending on which process is
activated.
These 2 persuasion processes are called the ‘central route’ and the ‘peripheral route’ to persuasion.
The central route represents the persuasion processes involved when elaboration is relatively high.
Where persuasion is achieved through the central route, it commonly comes about through
extensive issue-relevant thinking: careful examination of the information contained in the message,
close scrutiny of the message’s arguments, consideration of other issue-relevant material, and so on.
In short, persuasion through the central route is achieved through the receiver’s thoughtful
examination of issue-relevant considerations.
The peripheral route represents the persuasion processes involved when elaboration is relatively
low. Where persuasion is achieved through peripheral routes, it commonly comes about because the
receiver employs some simple decision rule (some heuristic principle) to evaluate the advocated
position. That is, receivers may rely upon various peripheral cues (such as communicator credibility)
as guides to attitude and belief, rather than engaging in extensive issue-relevant thinking (
Information Processing).
Influences on the degree of elaboration
A number of factors have been found to influence the amount of elaboration (and hence to influence
which route to persuasion is activated). These factors can be classified broadly as influencing either
elaboration motivation or elaboration ability.
A receiver’s motivation for engaging in elaboration can be influenced by the relevance of the topic; as
the personal relevance of the topic (the receiver’s degree of ‘involvement’ in the topic) increases, the
motivation to engage in elaboration also increases ( Involvement with Media Content). Elaboration
motivation can also be influenced by the receiver’s level of ‘need for cognition’, a personality
characteristic reflecting the tendency to enjoy and engage in thinking; people higher in need for
cognition generally have greater elaboration motivation ( Personality and Exposure to
Communication). The receiver’s ability to engage in elaboration can be influenced by factors such as
the presence of distraction in the persuasive setting or the amount of relevant background
knowledge; a person who lacks prior knowledge of the subject matter or is distracted may be unable
to engage in issue-relevant thinking.
Influences on persuasive outcomes
Because central-route persuasion and peripheral-route persuasion have different underlying
processes, the factors determining persuasive success correspondingly differ.
Influences on Persuasive Outcomes in Central-Route Persuasion
, Under conditions of relatively high elaboration, the outcomes of persuasive efforts will largely
depend on the outcomes of the receiver’s thoughtful consideration of issue-relevant arguments (as
opposed to depending primarily on the operation of simple decision principles). Broadly put, when
elaboration is high, persuasive effects will depend upon the predominant valence (positive or
negative) of the receiver’s issue-relevant thoughts. To the extent that the receiver is led to have
predominantly unfavorable thoughts, then the message will presumably be relatively unsuccessful.
2 primary factors influence the predominant valence (the overall evaluative direction) of elaboration.
One is whether the message’s advocated position is proattitudinal or counterattitudinal for the
receiver. Everything else being equal, one expects proattitudinal messages (ones advocating views
toward which the receiver initially feels at least somewhat favorably inclined) to evoke predominalty
favorable thoughts, and counterattitudinal messages to evoke predominantly unfavorable thoughts.
The second factor is the strength (quality) of the message’s arguments. Under conditions of high
elaboration, receivers are willing and able to engage in extensive issue-relevant thinking, including
careful examination of the message’s arguments. If such scrutiny reveals weak evidence, slipshod
reasoning, and the like, predominantly negative reactions are to be expected. But if the message is
seen to contain powerful arguments, good evidence, sound reasoning, and so forth, then more
positive thoughts are likely to result. That is, under conditions of high elaboration, the quality
(strength) of the message’s arguments influence the predominant valence of elaboration and hence
affect persuasive success.
Influences on Persuasive Outcomes in Peripheral-Route Persuasion
Under conditions of relatively low elaboration, receivers are not engaged in thoughtful consideration
of the message’s arguments and evidence. Rather, receivers use heuristic principles (‘heuristics’),
simple decision procedures that require little information processing; heuristics are activated by
‘peripheral cues’, extrinsic features of the communication situation such as the characteristics of the
communicator. A number of such heuristics have been identified.
One is the credibility heuristic, in which receivers are guided by the apparent expertise of the
communicator. Rather than carefully considering the message’s arguments, receivers can simply rely
on the communicator’s credibility as a guide to what to believe: where the communicator is judged
to be an expert, receivers will be persuaded by the communicator’s view (and where judged
inexpert, the communicator will be relatively unpersuasive). A second heuristic is based on the
receiver’s liking for the communicator; when this liking heuristic is employed, liked communicators
will be more persuasive than disliked communicators. A third processing shortcut is the consensus
heuristic, in which the receiver’s views are influenced by the reaction of others to the message; when
this heuristic is activated, seeing approving reactions of others enhances the message’s
persuasiveness (and disapproving reactions impair effectiveness).
As elaboration increases, the influence of such heuristics diminishes. When receivers are engaging in
close scrutiny of and thinking about the message, peripheral cues such as the communicator’s
likeability, the communicator’s credibility, and the reactions of other people play smaller roles as
influences on persuasive outcomes. But where receivers are unable or unmotivated to engage in
message scrutiny, these cognitive shortcuts are relied upon.
Complexities and consequences in persuasion processes
Tradeoffs between Central and Peripheral Persuasion Processes
