Intricacies of the Elaboration Likelihood Model

Abstract

We have now presented the major postulates of the Elaboration Likelihood Model and the evidence for these postulates. In reviewing the evidence for the ELM we have focused deliberately on variables and instances that were straightforward and relatively unambiguous in interpretation. Although it would be nice if we could have provided an exhaustive list of variables that serve as peripheral cues and variables that affect message processing in either a relatively objective or a biased manner, we have already seen that this is not possible. For example, we have argued that the effects on information processing of some variables may shift from relatively objective to relatively biased as the variable reaches very high levels. Thus, although increasing personal relevance and message repetition may generally enhance subjects’ motivation and/or ability to see the merits of strong arguments and the flaws in weak ones, we have suggested that when personal relevance or message repetition reach very high levels, the initially objective processing may become biased as the person becomes motivated to reject the advocacy (Cacioppo & Petty, 1979b; Petty & Cacioppo, 1979b). In short, some variables have multiple effects on information processing. In addition, we have seen that some variables may affect information processing under certain conditions, but serve as peripheral cues in other contexts.