Persuasion Theory Essay

One of the most deeply-debated, and researched, fabrics of belief is the ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model). Developed by Petty and Cacioppo (1981 to 1986). Based on cognitive processes, it portrays liquidators as active participants in the persuasion process. Receivers produce cognitions ( prospects, elaborations) in response to the stimulus of persuasive communion (Stephenson Benoit Tschida 2001). Petty and Cacioppo bespeak there are two routes to persuasion substitution and fringy.The central route to persuasion consists of thoughtful consideration of the arguments (ideas, circumscribe) in the message, and occurs lone(prenominal) when a receiver possesses two the expect and ability to think roughly the message and topic. The peripheral route occurs when the receiver lacks ability and/or motivation to engage in much thought on the issue. Using the peripheral route, the listener decides whether to agree with the message based on other cues in addition the strength of the arguments in the message, such as whether the source is credible or attractive, the number (but non the quality) of arguments in the message, or length of the message. Petty and Cacioppo argue that subjects produce more favorable cognitive responses to messages with strong than weak arguments. Mitigating factors imply source credibility, the state of the recipients thinking when the message is received, and regularity and medium engaged to deliver the message (i. e. , verbal or written print or electronic), There is a considerable body of work, both pro and against the ELM. However, from the literature it appears we are once again left with the thought that the processes involved have yet to be rigorously tested as they relate to communication scheme, let alone their effect on the eye mask Model.There have been relatively few rigorous tests of this assumption via thoroughfare analysis or structural equation modeling (Stephenson, Benoit, Tschida). American in writing(pr edicate) designer Katherine McCoy suggests that persuasion might be considered more than serious nerve-racking to convince an audience of the senders intention The receivers motivation might also be an important factor. We know persuasion is necessary for distracted, unmotivated users. nevertheless it can also increase reapingiveness for motivated users, for instance, through and through the use of prompts and cues for accurate use of spreadsheet software.In product design, persuasion/seduction can clarify operation sequences for smart products and better the users product experience. Persuasion provides motivation for those unmotivated through disinterest, unfamiliarity with the content, or lack of competence for a software wight or a products operation. There is a difficult interaction between the senders intentions, message content, the audience/receivers motivations and the communications context. Here, the receivers motivation is paramount (McCoy, 2000). that how accurat ely can we predict motivation? An airport monitor would seem to be purely instructional. A traveler hurrying to catch a plane is highly motivated and will make full use of the flight monitor no need to persuade this audience member. But when a driver in a hurry encounters a violate sign, that driver has a low motivation level. Although the content is informational, the driver whitethorn ignore it, making only a rolling stop. Thirdly, what happens when a detritus food enthusiast encounters a food package with nutritional information?This audience member has low motivation and probably ignores message content completely. In order to achieve persuasion, an audience has to be motivated to want to absorb knowledge, miscellanea attitude and, in turn, have their behaviour reckoned. The American Marketing Association found that later a study of the major persuasion theories to date, no single scheme or framework that has been genuine has been able to account for all the change an d sometimes conflicting persuasion findings.Presumably, this is because the complex process of persuasion is intricately dependent on a myriad of contextual, situational, and individual difference factors, whereas the theories persist relatively simplistic and narrowly developed. The inability of existing theories to accommodate all persuasion findings need not suggest, however, that these theories are inaccurate. Rather, these theories simply may represent pieces of persuasion processes that operate in certain conditions that are not always clearly specified.(Meyers-Levy, 2001). For unspoilt measure, highlighting the difficult nature of this area of study, the Association added an additional dodging that people are likely to employ in processing information. a third fundamental processing strategy in response to an advertisement, referred to as an experiential processing strategy. where judgments are not based on thoughts prompted by message content per se but rather on sensatio ns or feelings prompted by the very act of processing (cited in Strack, 1992).The eye mask model is certainly simplistic, as it assumes that attitudes, and then behaviour, will be altered after information is provided. However, it doesnt recognise that attitudes are formed early in our development and are inherently difficult to change (why is it that drink-driving, anti-smoking and domestic military group programs dont seem to work? ). So it cant be assumed that all people will change their attitudes just because they receive information. In fact, many people may not charge receive knowledge from the initial message, particularly if they already have perceive the message.Given the number of persuasion theories (and they are just that theories) it is difficult to attempt with any certainty their effect on the Domino model. The simplicity of the Domino Model is probably a result of the fact that public relations is, for the most part, an inexact science a practice that relies o n the foibles of serviceman nature. It also flawed in that what applies to a target group, does not necessarily apply to all individuals in that group. Clearly, more quantifiable research is demand before either the Domino Model, or any persuasion theory can be considered exact.In fact to date, no single theory or framework that has been developed has been able to account for all the varied and sometimes conflicting persuasion findings. Presumably, this is because the complex process of persuasion is intricately dependent on a myriad of contextual, situational, and individual difference factors, whereas the theories remain relatively simplistic and narrowly developed (Meyers-Levy, 1999). As Carl Hovland stated to change attitude you have to change opinion. That requires communication. Whether any of the above theories affect the Domino model remain to be truly tested.