Consequences of the Route to Persuasion

Abstract

In the preceding chapters of this monograph we have outlined how the Elaboration Likelihood Model accounts for the initial attitude changes induced by persuasive messages, and we have reviewed the evidence for the ELM. We have seen that there are two qualitatively different routes to persuasion, which are moderated by a continuum of elaboration likelihood. When the elaboration likelihood is high, people follow the central route to persuasion as they attempt to scrutinize the issue-relevant information presented. This processing may proceeed in either a relatively objective or a relatively biased manner. When the elaboration likelihood is low, people follow the peripheral route to persuasion. Under this second route, attitudes are influenced by relatively simple cues in the persuasion context that either become directly associated with the advocacy or allow an inference as to the likely correctness or desirability of a particular attitude position without necessitating a personal evaluation of the issue-relevant arguments presented. The last postulate of the ELM proposes that there are at least three important consequences of the route to persuasion: attitudes formed or changed via the central route will show greater temporal persistence, resistance to counterpropaganda, and prediction of behavior than attitudes formed or changed via the peripheral route. In Chapter 1 we provided the justification for this postulate. In this chapter we review the evidence for this proposition.