Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

John Cacioppo and Richard E. Petty's elaboration likelihood theory (ELT) deals with the ways in which communicators process persuasive messages. The theory describes two cognitive levels through which communicators process issue-related arguments and explains how these two routes differ. Human beings want to hold correct attitudes and opinions but are not always willing or able to evaluate the merits of the issue-related arguments presented in support of an appeal. The persuasive message recipient evaluates some messages in an elaborate way and deals with others with much less critical thinking, if at all. Relevant to communication theory, ELT acknowledges and tries to explain the two different means by which the recipient evaluates issue-related content. ELT tries to predict when and how the recipient will and will not be persuaded.

Cacioppo and Petty's use of the term elaboration refers to the extent of critical thinking that an audience member gives to the persuasive message. Elaboration likelihood is the two social scientists' metaphor for variable; it can change from little to great, depending on the way the message is evaluated. Cacioppo and Petty posit that a receiver of a persuasive message processes the information through one of two routes—central or peripheral—or sometimes both, toward attitude change.

The Central Route

The central route to persuasion is taken when the recipient is guided by an elaborate amount of critical thinking about what is said in the persuasive message. In the central scenario arguments are considered carefully. The compatibility between the message and the receiver's attitude plays a role in persuasion.

The potency of the message also plays a part. Centrally, the message recipient is identifying weak arguments and is being influenced by strong arguments. When the recipient realizes that the message is significant to his or her life, the likelihood of cognitively elaborating on the message increases. After this increase occurs, attitude changes will likely have a long-lasting behavioral effect.

The amount of critical thinking expended is dependent on two general factors: the receiver's motivation and the receiver's ability, ability meaning being knowledgeable about the issue involved in the persuasive message and not being distracted from the message. At least three components comprise the motivation factor. The first is the relevance of the topic to the receiver; the more relevant the topic, the more likely the receiver will think critically about the issues involved. The second component in the receiver's motivation is the variety of credible sources. When listening to several experts speak about the issue, the receiver will typically tend to centrally process the content. In disagreement with this point, however, Ann Bainbridge Frymier and Marjorie Keeshan Nadler, two persuasion scholars, contend that accountability is a determinant of motivation, not the variety of credible sources.

The third component in the receiver's motivation is the penchant for mulling over arguments. Frymier and Nadler point out that this factor affects motivation, but so does the degree of personal responsibility and incongruent information.

The issue-related message recipient, no matter how motivated, cannot use the central route if the recipient is ignorant of the issue. For example, most college students would probably engage in a high elaboration about an informative speech on downloading music rather than a speech on Beverly Sills.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading