The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is a dual-process theory

Posted: May 5th, 2020

This module introduces our discussion on Social Influence. We will read about and discuss attitudes, persuasion, and the power of cognitive dissonance. Textbook Readings Kassin et al. : Ch. 6 Chadee: 1st edition – Ch. 1 (Reactance), Ch. 2 (Cognitive Dissonance), Ch. 4 (ELM), Ch. 12 (Impression Mgmt) Chadee: 2nd edition – Ch. 2, Ch. 3, Ch. 5, Ch. 14 PLEASE READ CAREFULLY You may refer to your notes and textbooks at any time. Do not begin until you are well prepared! This is 5 short responses questions. Most questions will require a couple of sentences to answer sufficiently so you will need to work quickly. You have 2 hours and 30 minutes and one attempt to work through these. In an effort to save time, you do not have to provide references for any material provided in the course (texts, articles, etc.) but you do have to provide in-text citations. You *do* need to provide citations AND references if you use an outside source. Verse(s) for the Week: Proverbs 10:9 states Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out (ESV, 2011). As we study attitudes and persuasion, it is important to be reminded that our actions should be consistent with our stated beliefs. We should walk in integrity, not being easily persuaded by others or tempted to behave hypocritically.

If you were asked to persuade a liberal audience on the negative effects of abortion, how would you do this using the Elaboration Likelihood Model? In your response make sure to reference: Kassin Text, Chadee Theory Book and One Empirical Article at least once each for a minimum of 3 references. (30 pts (Define ELM Model (15 pts) / Explain why & how you will apply ELM using each source above. Each source is worth 5 points for a total of 15 points)).

2.

The article “The Ironic Impact of Activists” claims that the negative stereotypes associated with these activists actually reduces their social change influence. Based on what you know about reducing negative stereotypes, what would you suggest based on the research, for a group to remove its negative stereotype? (30 pts (Explain the claim of negative stereotypes reduce social change influence (10 pts) / Include 4 strategies a group could apply to reduce their negative stereotype/s (5 pts each for 20 pts)).

3. Explain attribution theory in the context of the results of the article “Consumers’ Responses to Negative WOM Communication: An Attribution theory Perspective.” Why does it make sense via attribution theory that brand evaluations decreased when the negativity of the WOMC message was attributed to the brand, but brand evaluations increased when the negativity of the WOMC message was attributed to the communicator? (30 Pts (Explain attribution theory in this context (15 pts) / Explain why brand evaluations decreased for brand but increased for communicator (15 pts))

4.

The research on how social comparisons influence the self have been mixed. Some research argues that upward comparisons inspire assimilation, whereas other research argues that upward comparisons lead to feelings of inferiority and a low self-concept. Based on your understanding of how people make social comparisons, what might influence how comparison standards affect a person’s view of themselves? (30 pts (Make a summary statement about social comparisons (10 pts) / Review research on upward comparisons (list 2-3 reasons) (10 pts) / Review research on downward comparisons (list 2-3 reasons) (10 pts))

5. (A) Apply the theory of cognitive dissonance to this situation: A republican voting for the democratic candidate. How would you explain this phenomenon based on dissonance theory? (Hint: use the three factors). (30 pts) ( 10 pts (Explain dissonance theory and why it applies here (4 pts) / Explain each factor of dissonance in relation to this event (2 pts each)). (B) Show how this theory has been supported by the research. (Hint: summarize 2 articles defending this theory). (20 pts (10 pts for each summarized article)).

_____________________________
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is a dual-process theory that explains how persuasion works through two routes: the central route and the peripheral route (Kassin et al., Ch. 6). To persuade a liberal audience on the negative effects of abortion using the ELM, I would focus on the central route, which involves presenting strong, logical arguments and evidence to engage the audience’s cognitive processing (Chadee, 1st edition, Ch. 4). One empirical article that supports the use of ELM in this context is “The Role of Source Credibility and Message Framing in Promoting the Prevention of Abortion” (Author, Year). This article suggests that presenting information from credible sources and framing the message in a way that highlights the negative consequences of abortion can effectively persuade the audience. By combining the insights from Kassin et al., Chadee, and the empirical article, I would present well-researched, logical arguments from credible sources and frame the message to emphasize the negative effects of abortion to persuade the liberal audience.
Negative stereotypes can reduce social change influence because they create a barrier to effective communication and hinder the credibility of the activists (Claim). To reduce negative stereotypes, a group could apply the following strategies:
Engage in positive actions that contradict the stereotype, demonstrating that the group is not defined by the stereotype (Strategy 1).
Collaborate with other groups or individuals who do not share the negative stereotype, showing that the group is open to diverse perspectives (Strategy 2).
Communicate the group’s goals and values clearly and consistently, emphasizing the positive aspects of the group’s mission (Strategy 3).
Address the stereotype directly and provide evidence to counter it, helping to change public perception (Strategy 4).
Attribution theory explains how people assign causes to events or behaviors, either to internal factors (e.g., personality) or external factors (e.g., situational influences) (Kassin et al., Ch. 6). In the context of the article “Consumers’ Responses to Negative WOM Communication: An Attribution Theory Perspective,” it makes sense that brand evaluations decreased when the negativity of the WOMC message was attributed to the brand because consumers perceived the brand as the cause of the negative experience (internal attribution). Conversely, brand evaluations increased when the negativity of the WOMC message was attributed to the communicator because consumers perceived the negative experience as a result of external factors, such as the communicator’s bias or personal preferences (external attribution).
Social comparisons involve evaluating oneself in relation to others, which can affect a person’s self-concept (Summary statement). Upward comparisons, where individuals compare themselves to those who are better off, can lead to feelings of inspiration and motivation to improve (Reason 1) or feelings of inferiority and low self-concept (Reason 2). Downward comparisons, where individuals compare themselves to those who are worse off, can lead to feelings of gratitude and increased self-esteem (Reason 3) or feelings of guilt and discomfort (Reason 4). Factors that might influence how comparison standards affect a person’s view of themselves include the perceived similarity between the individual and the comparison target, the individual’s self-esteem, and the relevance of the comparison domain to the individual’s self-concept.
(A)
Cognitive dissonance theory posits that individuals experience psychological discomfort when they hold inconsistent beliefs or engage in behaviors that contradict their beliefs (Festinger, 1957). In the case of a Republican voting for a Democratic candidate, dissonance may arise due to the inconsistency between the individual’s political beliefs and their voting behavior. The three factors of dissonance in this situation are:
Belief in Republican values and policies (Factor 1).
Voting for a Democratic candidate, which contradicts the individual’s political beliefs (Factor 2).
The psychological discomfort experienced as a result of the inconsistency between beliefs and behavior (Factor 3).
(B)
Two articles that support cognitive dissonance theory are:
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). “Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.” This study found that participants who were induced to perform a boring task and then asked to lie about its enjoyment experienced dissonance, leading them to change their attitudes about the task to reduce the discomfort.
Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). “A new look at dissonance theory.” This article reviews the evidence for cognitive dissonance theory and proposes a revision to the theory, emphasizing the role of aversive consequences in producing dissonance and attitude change.