Elaboration Likelihood Model

A highly objective theory in the tradition of socio-psychological (almost the most objective one)

Theorists: Richard Petty & John Cacioppo

Key question: How do you get someone to listen to you when you are making an argument?

1. There are two routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route

Central: high mental effort

Peripheral route: low mental effort

The mental effort is what the listener gives to the speaker

1）The central route is based on elaboration

Elaboration: “the extent to which a person carefully thinks about issue-relevant arguments contained in a persuasive communication.” (p. 152)

2. Elaboration likelihood is based on motivation, ability, and type

1）Motivation: personal relevance + need for cognition

Personal relevance: the topic is relevant to me.

Need for cognition: You have strong need for cognition on a daily basis.

2）Ability: Free from distraction + Sufficient knowledge

3）Type

Objective + Bias

Based on the speech quality and your initial attitude

• Objective elaboration: bottom-up thinking.

• Bias elaboration: top-down thinking. You bias attitude is covering from top to bottom, covering everything the speaker is going to say.

3. Outcomes

• favorable case
• unfavorable case
• neutral case
• Only central path cause strong attitude change, but peripheral route causes weak/no attitude change.

4. Peripheral Route

Most of the time we make quick judgements, using the peripheral routes.

Cues for us to use the peripheral route. e.g., they dress well; they look professional; etc.

However, the attitude change is weak/no attitude change.

If you use peripheral route, you might experience attitude change several times.

• Reciprocation. “You owe me.”
• Consistency. “We always use it.”
• Social proof. “Everybody is doing it.” （kind of peer pressure)
• Liking. You are persuaded by the person, not the message. “You love me, and you love my ideas."
• Authority. Someone in the authority role, and they are guiding you in the correct direction.
• Scarcity. Pressure convince us to buy something. If we don’t do it now, we will never do it again.

The cues might overlap and happen simultaneously.

5. Critique

difficule to test.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

A highly objective theory in the tradition of socio-psychological

In the section on social influence/persuasion

Theorist: Leon Festinger

Interested in the dissonance between what people know and what people do.

Assumption: People will do everything to reduce dissonance, for the reason of safety.

Cognitive Dissonance: A distressing mental state caused by inconsistency between a person and the person’s beliefs, or a belief and an action.

We have a human need to avoid this distress. Therefore, we accept one or reject the other (whichever is easier).

e.g., the sour grape – if the fox cannot have the grape on the tree, he will believe that it’s sour. It’s unable to change the action (to get the grape), so he changes his belief.

1. Mental Mechanisms to ensure their actions & attitudes are in harmony

1）Selective exposure prevents dissonance.

We avoid any information that may go against the action.

2）Post-decision dissonance creates a need for reassurance

This usually happens when people make a close-minded decision.

e.g., People read the reviews after they purchase some items. The more life-changing decisions there will be, the more dissonance there will be, so there will be more need for seeking reassurance.

3）Minimal justification for action induces attitude change

Minimal Justification: Minimal incentive will provide longer change.

Minimal justification: too much justification won’t have a long-standing attitude change. Just enough to change the attitude. When you offer someone too much justification, they will be sensitive, but not change their attitudes.

Experiment: Would I lie for a dollar?

2. Major revisions to CDT

• Self-consistency: Our actions should be consistent with who we believe we are. If you want to persuade others not to smoke, you’d choose to tell them that smoking is not their style.
• Personal responsibility for bad outcomes: People experience dissonance when their actions have unnecessarily hurt someone. People are afraid that their behaviors will affect their children, and they will change their behavior.
• Self-affirmation: dissonance drive people to justify their actions by changing their attitudes.