Elaboration likelihood model
Persuasion depends partly on how much a person scrutinizes message-relevant arguments.
Model The classification describes how this account is used here; it is not an evidence rating.
Central claim
Persuasive messages influence attitudes through a continuum of processing depth, ranging from effortful scrutiny of argument quality on the central route to reliance on heuristic cues on the peripheral route.
Proposed mechanism
When motivation and ability to elaborate are high, argument quality becomes more influential. At lower elaboration, cues can guide judgment. Elaboration is a continuum, and the same cue can play different roles.
Evidence: (Spielman et al., 2020)
What would it predict?
Changing argument quality should have a stronger effect when recipients are motivated and able to examine the message. Distraction provides one way to vary processing while controlling content.
An original test formulation derived from the account, not a claim that this exact study was performed.
Evidence and status
OpenStax explains Petty and Cacioppo's (1986) central and peripheral routes to persuasion, with examples of how audience motivation and ability change processing and attitude durability. The model organizes experimental questions about message and recipient conditions.
Evidence: (Spielman et al., 2020)
Major contributors
Richard Petty; John Cacioppo
A selective attribution, not a complete intellectual genealogy or a sole-founder claim.
Apply the explanation
Original teaching scenario
A buyer carefully compares evidence for an expensive purchase but relies on a familiar brand for a minor purchase made while distracted.
Constructed for learning. This scenario does not report an empirical result.
Common confusion: Treating central processing as guaranteed accuracy
High elaboration means thinking extensively about message arguments, which can still be biased by prior commitments, and the same feature (such as source expertise) can act as a cue or an argument depending on context.
Evidence: (Spielman et al., 2020)
Limits and alternatives
- A prestigious source is not always a peripheral cue: expertise can itself be relevant evidence. High effort also does not guarantee accurate reasoning, and two routes should not be treated as two fixed kinds of person.
Evidence: (Spielman et al., 2020)
Textbook connection
Direct coveragePsychology 2e: 12.3 Attitudes and Persuasion
This section directly discusses the account presented here. The profile is an original synthesis, not a reproduction of the textbook.
Related explanations
Sources and inspection notes
Checked October 21, 2026. An inspection date is not a publication date. Original experiments described by a textbook are not individually re-audited unless a separate primary source is listed.
- Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-3-attitudes-and-persuasionTextbook section inspected, October 21, 2026
Supports the introductory account and historical framing. Does not independently verify every original experiment cited by the textbook.