Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Conceptual and Methodological Issues in the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion: A Reply to the Michigan State Critics

Conceptual and Methodological Issues in the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion: A Reply... Conceptual and Methodological Issues in the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion: A Reply to the Michigan State Critics of this journal, however, Stiff and Bos- ter returned with new misperceptions and criticisms and were joined by some of their Michigan State associates (Hamilton, Hunter & Boster , 1993; Mongeau & Stiff, 1993; Allen & Reynolds, 1993).’ Before providing our comments on the individual critiques, we address some general features of the ELM. The Elaboration Likelihood Modd of Persuasion The ELM assumes that people want to be correct in their attitudes and opinions, but that there are a variety of ways in which a reasonable position may be adopted following exposure to a persuasive message.’ In particulx, the ELM focuses on the extent to which people’s attitudes are deter. mined by their careful scrutiny of all of the available information in the persuasion environment along the dirnensions central to the perceived merits of the issue (central route to attitude change), versus their reliance on relatively simple “cues” in the persuasion setting that determine attitudes via simpler association (e.g., Staats &: Staats, 1958), on-line inference (e.g., Bem, 1972), or memory-based heuristic (e.g., Chaiken, 1987) processes (peripheral route to attitude change). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Communication Theory Oxford University Press

Conceptual and Methodological Issues in the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion: A Reply to the Michigan State Critics

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/conceptual-and-methodological-issues-in-the-elaboration-likelihood-U0TQ4VIzLa

References (63)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
1050-3293
eISSN
1468-2885
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-2885.1993.tb00078.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Conceptual and Methodological Issues in the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion: A Reply to the Michigan State Critics of this journal, however, Stiff and Bos- ter returned with new misperceptions and criticisms and were joined by some of their Michigan State associates (Hamilton, Hunter & Boster , 1993; Mongeau & Stiff, 1993; Allen & Reynolds, 1993).’ Before providing our comments on the individual critiques, we address some general features of the ELM. The Elaboration Likelihood Modd of Persuasion The ELM assumes that people want to be correct in their attitudes and opinions, but that there are a variety of ways in which a reasonable position may be adopted following exposure to a persuasive message.’ In particulx, the ELM focuses on the extent to which people’s attitudes are deter. mined by their careful scrutiny of all of the available information in the persuasion environment along the dirnensions central to the perceived merits of the issue (central route to attitude change), versus their reliance on relatively simple “cues” in the persuasion setting that determine attitudes via simpler association (e.g., Staats &: Staats, 1958), on-line inference (e.g., Bem, 1972), or memory-based heuristic (e.g., Chaiken, 1987) processes (peripheral route to attitude change).

Journal

Communication TheoryOxford University Press

Published: Nov 1, 1993

There are no references for this article.