ABC2205
Introduction to Communication Theory University of Perpetual Help System Laguna
ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL
ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL
Overview of the theory
Elaboration Likelihood Model developed by Richard Petty, John Cacioppo, and their
collaborators is an example of a “dual process” approach to persuasion. The theory suggests
that important variation in the nature of persuasion is a function of the likelihood that receivers
will engage in elaboration of information relevant to the persuasive issue. Depending on the
degree of elaboration, two 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.
Persuasion Processes
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.
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 to evaluate the advocated position. For
example, receivers might be guided whether they like the communicator or by whether they
find the communicator credible. That is, receivers may rely upon various peripheral cues as
guides to attitude and belief, rather than engaging in extensive issue-relevant thinking.
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Page 1 of 2
ABC2205
Introduction to Communication Theory University of Perpetual Help System Laguna
Influences on the Degree of Elaboration
A number of factors have been found to influence the amount of elaboration. 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 (the receiver’s degree of “involvement” in the topic) increases; the motivation to engage in
elaboration also increases. 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.
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.
So, for example, when a topic is personally relevant to a receiver, the receiver is generally
predisposed to engage in care thinking, the receiver has extensive relevant background
knowledge, and the receiver is undistracted, elaboration will presumably be high – and the
central route to persuasion will be engaged. By contrast, on a topic that is not especially
relevant, with a receiver who does not enjoy thinking hard and has little information about the
topic and in a context where there is considerable distraction, elaboration will presumably be
low – and peripheral persuasion processes will be activated.
Although persuasion can be accomplished at any point along the elaboration continuum,
differing degrees of elaboration will make for corresponding differences in the nature of the
persuasive outcomes obtained. Where people’s attitudes are shaped through central-route
processes, those attitudes are likely to be more persistent over time, more directive of behavior,
and more resistant to counter-persuasion (compared to attitudes influenced through
peripheral-route processes). That is to say, central route processes create persuasion that is
more enduring and more integrated with a person’s belief system – as might be expected, given
the greater amount of issue-relevant thinking involved in central-route persuasion. Persuasion
accomplished through peripheral-route processes is likely to be more evanescent.
Reference:
O’Keefe, D. (2008) Elaboration Likelihood Model, Northwestern University
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Page 2 of 2
