The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion¶
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Narrative Persuasion
- The two have different signatures, different defenses, different ethics, and different appropriate contexts; a single word for both makes them invisible to each other, a fusion Petty and Cacioppo (1986) had to break in formulating the elaboration likelihood model's distinction between central and peripheral routes to persuasion.
This sourceFoundational ELM: formalizes the distinction between the central route (effortful evaluation of message arguments) and the peripheral route (low-elaboration cue-based processing) to attitude change; supplies the conceptual baseline against which narrative-persuasion researchers later carve out transportation as a third processing mode.
- The two have different signatures, different defenses, different ethics, and different appropriate contexts; a single word for both makes them invisible to each other, a fusion Petty and Cacioppo (1986) had to break in formulating the elaboration likelihood model's distinction between central and peripheral routes to persuasion.
Mechanisms¶
- Post-Story Reflection Prompt
- Its strength is durability and legitimacy: an audience that has consciously elaborated a story's point — engaging the central route rather than being carried on affect alone — holds the resulting attitude more stably and is less prone to later backlash or regret at having been moved.
This sourceDescribes a central persuasion route based on issue-relevant elaboration that can produce more persistent and resistant attitudes.
- Its strength is durability and legitimacy: an audience that has consciously elaborated a story's point — engaging the central route rather than being carried on affect alone — holds the resulting attitude more stably and is less prone to later backlash or regret at having been moved.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:9e15a6b76f07 · see in the full table