Elaboration likelihood model | Psychology Wiki

Содержание

Основые уроки
(pdf) source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion
(pdf) the coo-elm model: a theoretical framework for the cognitive processes underlying country of origin-effects
Accessing the data model
Application of the elaboration likelihood model to hiv prevention[edit | edit source]
Central route processing-
Changing the data model
Creating a data model
Интеграция в приложение
Отступление: оживление вашего приложения с помощью сигналов
Функция мутации

Основые уроки

Базовый приём — Всё строится вокруг типа Model, функции update для её обновления и функции view для отображения. Дальше идут только вариации этого приёма.

Вложенные модули — Адрес пересылки позволяет с лёгкостью углублять основной приём, полностью скрывая детали реализации. Мы можем строить какие угодно глубокие компоненты и каждый уровень должен знать только о том, что находится непосредственно внутри него.

Добавление контекста — Иногда требуется дополнительная информация для обновления или отображения модели. Мы всегда можем добавить в эти функции контекст, не загружая основной тип Model.

На каждом уровне вложенности мы можем определить тот Context, который нужен для внутренних компонентов.

Простота тестирования — Все функции являются чистыми. Это позволяет их очень просто тестировать – не требуется никакой особой инициалиазции или искуственного окружения, просто передайте им аргументы, которые вы хотите опробовать.

(pdf) source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion

taining weak and specious arguments. The results of this

study indicated that when the elahoration likelihood was

low (low personal

relevance),

the expert source v;as bene–

ficial in enhancing persuasion regardless of argument

quality, ¡ihen the elaboration likelihood was high,

however, the expertise of the source had no effect as a

simple cue, but the nature of the issue-relevant arguments

had a large impact on agreement (see also Chaiken, 1980) .

In a recent study, we attempted to extend our analysis of

source effects to advertising communications. In this

study (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann,

1983),

we varied

elaboration likelihood by leading some subjects to believe

that a new product (a disposable razor) was going to be

test marketed soon in their local area and that at the end

of the experiment the^^ would be given an opportunity to

select a disposable razor from several brands available.

Other subjects were led to believe that the new disposable

razor would be test marketed in a distant city and that

they would be selecting hrands of toothpaste at the end of

the experiment. Our goal was to have one group of sub–

jects highly involved with the disposable razor product

and have another group of subjects have low involvement

with the product. In addition to this manipulation of

involvement we also varied source and message characteris–

tics.

Specifically, some subjects were exposed to ads

featuring well known and liked athletes (one male and one

er.ale),

whereas other subjects were exposed to ads

featuring middle-aged average citizens. Some subjects were

exposed to ads featuring cogent arguments, others vjere

exposed to ads featuring weak arguments. Similar to the

study just described, in this experiment we found that when

the elaboration likelihood was low, using famous athletes

in the advertisement led to n;ore favorable product

atti–

tudes regardless of the strength of the product attributes

presented. Ivlien elaboration likelihood was low, however,

only the argument strength manipulation affected attitudes.

Source Factors Under High and Low Ability to Process

In the studies described briefly in the previous section,

when the elaboration likelihood was low, experts

i;ere

persuasive than non-experts, and celebrities were more

persuasive than average citizens. When elaboration likeli–

hood was high, however, these source factors did not serve

as simple acceptance or rejection

cues.

Although the two

studies employed very different specific manipulations of

elaboration likelihood (personal relevance, anticipation of

product

choice),

both manipulations were concerned with

affecting

person’s motivation to think about a persuasive

m.essage.

However, as noted earlier, elaboration likelihood

is also determined by a person’s ability to process a per–

suasive message (Cacioppo & Petty, 1979, 1980; Wood,

1982).

According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, manipula–

tions of ability should produce a pattern of effects that

is similar to the pattern produced for motivational

mani–

pulations

Perhaps the most studied ability variable in the persuasion

literature is distraction.

I^íhen

distraction is high, the

potential for elaboration is quite low.

Thus,

people

should be less affected by the quality of the argum.ents in

a message when distraction is high rather than when dis–

traction is low or ahsent. The available literature is

consistent with this expectation (see Petty & Brock, 1981,

for a

review).

On the other hand, the ELM predicts that

simple source cues should be more effective when distrac–

tion is high rather than low. In a study reported in 1968,

Kiesler 6. Mathog manipulated distraction along with the

credihility of the message source. A major result of their

study was that the source credibility effect was signifi–

cant only under conditions of high distraction. Under low

distraction, where subjects were better able to process the

message,

the credibility effect was not significant. Other

variables that enhance a person’s ability to process a per–

suasive message should also reduce the operation of source

factors as simple

cues.

For example,source factors appear

to be less important as cues when messages are presented

via a self paced medium (e.g., print) rather than an

externally paced medium (e.g., television; Chaiken &

Eagly, 1983; Worchel, Arnold, & Baker,

1975).

In sum, the available research evidence indicates that

positive sources appear to be effective as simple cues

when motivation and/or ability to thinK about a message

are low.

î-ilien

motivation and ability are high, source

factors appear to be relatively unimportant in their role

as simple acceptance or rejection

cues.

It is interesting

to note that although the formal statement of these ideas

about source cues is of relatively recent vintage (e.g..

Petty & Cacioppo, 1979, 1981; Chaiken,

1980),

evidence

consistent with this view has been available for over 30

years.

For example, this is true of one of the earliest

studies on source expertise conducted by Carl Hovland and

Walter Weiss

(1951).

In their classic study, subjects

read a message and then learned the source of the communi–

cation.

The source was either of high credibility (e.g..

The Mew England Journal of Medicine) or of low credibility

(e.g.,

Pravda)

Four different communication topics were

used in the experiment. Although Hovland & Weiss in col–

lapsing their data across the four topics concluded that

the high credibility sources produced more change than the

sources of low credibility, an analysis of the credibility

effect for the individual topics indicates that the credi–

bility effect was reasonably strong for two topics (“Can a

practicable atomic-powered subm.arine be built in the

present time (1950)?“ and “Is the steel industry to blame

for the current shortage of steel?”) but rather weak and

insignificant for two other topics

(“Should

antihistamine

drugs continue to he sold without a doctor’s prescription?“

and “As a result of TV, will there be a decrease in the

number of movie theaters in operation by

1955?”).

The two topics for which source credibility made a dif–

ference appear to differ from the two topics for which

credihility effects were weak in two theoretically meaning–

ful

ways.

First, the two topics for which credibility had

weak effects have greater personal relevance than the

topics for which credihility had strong effects. In

addi–

tion,

the subjects undoubtedly had less knowledge about

the first two than the second two topics making it diffi–

cult for them to evaluate the message even if they desired

to do so.

Thus,

for the first two topics, the elaboration

likelihood would be quite low, but for the second two

topics the elaboration likelihood would be considerably

higher.

Consistent with the ELM analysis of persuasion,

source credibility acted as a sim.ple acceptance cue only

when the topics were relatively uninvolving and subjects

had little ability to evaluate the arguments.

Source Factors Under ííoderate Motivation to Process

It appears that the cases of high and loxí elaboration like–

lihood are quite clear. Source factors tend to affect

agreement with a message by serving as simple acceptance or

rejection cues when the elahoration likelihood is

lov?,

but

do not serve as simple cues when elaboration likelihood is

high.

However, these conclusions are only a small part of

the story of how source factors impact on persuasion.

Importantly, we view elaboration likelihood as a continuum

anchored at one end by what we call the “peripheral route“

to persuasion and at the other end by what we call the

“central route’“ to persuasion. In all of our research

described in the previous sections we have attempted to

create relatively pure cases of central and peripheral

routes to persuasion.

Thus,

for example, in our research

on motivation to process, subjects Viere either highly

involved vrith the topic or were very uninvolved. In the

high involvement conditions subjects were confronted w:th

an issue that had immediate personal implications for their

own graduation (Petty et al., 1981) or they faced an

impending choice about a particular brand of product (Petty

-669–

2001.

(pdf) the coo-elm model: a theoretical framework for the cognitive processes underlying country of origin-effects

Fazio, R.H. (1985), “How do attitudes guide behavior?”, in Sorrentino, R.M. and Higgins, E.T.

(Eds), The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, Foundations of Social Behavior,

Guilford, New York, NY.

Fazio, R.H. and Zanna, M.P. (1981), “Direct experience and attitude behavior consistency”,

in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press,

New York, NY, Vol. 14.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to

Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Fouquier, E. (1988), “Figures of reception: concepts and rules for a semiotic analysis of mass

media reception”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 331-48.

Friedmann, R. and Lessig, V.P. (1986), “A framework of psychological meaning of products”,

Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 338-42.

Friedmann, R. and Zimmer, M.R. (1988), “The role of psychological meaning in advertising”,

Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 31-40.

Gerstner, E. (1985), “Do higher prices signal higher quality?”, Journal of Marketing Research,

Vol. 12, May, pp. 209-15.

¨rhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (2000), “determinants of country-of-origin evaluations”,

Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, June, pp. 96-108.

Hadjimarcou, J. and Hu, M.Y. (1999), “An examination of categorisation and stereotyping

heuristics in global product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15,

pp. 405-33.

Han, C.M. (1989), “Country image: halo or summary construct?”, Journal of Marketing Research,

Vol. 26, May, pp. 222-9.

Han, C.M. (1990), “Testing the role of country image in consumer choice behaviour”, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 24-40.

Heimbach, A.E., Johansson, J.K. and MacLachlan, D.L. (1989), “Product familiarity, information

processing, and country-of-origin cues”, in Srull, T.K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer

Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 460-7, Vol. 16.

Heslop, L.A., Papadopoulos, N., Dowdles, M., Wall, M. and Compeau, D.(2004), “Who controls the

purse strings: a study of consumers’ and retail buyers’ reactions in an America’s FTA

environment”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 10, pp. 1177-88.

Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer

fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-40.

Hong, S-T. and Wyer, R.S. Jr (1989), “Effects of country-of-origin and product-attribute

information on product evaluation: an information processing perspective”, Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 16, September, pp. 175-87.

Hong, S-T. and Wyer, R.S. Jr (1990), “Determinants of product evaluation: effectsof the time

interval between knowledge of a product’s country of origin and information about its

speciﬁc attributes”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, December, pp. 277-88.

Hui, M.K. and Zhou, L. (2003), “Country-of-manufacture effects for known brands”, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 1/2, pp. 133-53.

¨ubl, G. (1996), “A cross-national investigation of the effects of country of origin and brand

name on the evaluation of a new car”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 3 No. 5,

pp. 76-97.

Jacoby, J., Olson, J.C. and Haddock, R.A. (1971), “Price, brand name and product composition

characteristics as determinants of perceived quality”, Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol. 55, December, pp. 570-9.

The CoO-ELM

model

Accessing the data model

Now that we have a nice little opaque data model, we can begin to make parts of the data public. The process of doing that happens in two actions:

add the desired name of our function to what is exposed by the module
create the function, returning the relevant data

Starting with adding our desired functions: name, and level.

(FYI, I like to do this step in isolation just to draw some attention to the awesomeness of the elm compiler )

If we build this file now with elm make, our elm compiler reports the following wonderful message:

λ elm make src/Data/Character.elm
Detected errors in 1 module.                                         
-- UNKNOWN EXPORT --------------------------------------- src/Data/Character.elm

You are trying to expose a value named `level` but I cannot find its definition.

I do not see any super similar names in this file. Is the definition missing?

-- UNKNOWN EXPORT --------------------------------------- src/Data/Character.elm

You are trying to expose a value named `name` but I cannot find its definition.

I do not see any super similar names in this file. Is the definition missing?

Application of the elaboration likelihood model to hiv prevention[edit | edit source]

A study performed in 1999 analyzed the effects of different persuasion techniques when trying to raise awareness of HIV prevention in an adolescent population. 298 eighth grade students were included in the study. Prior to the study, the students were categorized as being “information-oriented,” “normative-oriented,” or “diffuse-oriented” (defensive toward new ideas).

The students were randomly assigned to listen to one of four audio messages that ranged from a strong argument, an HIV-infected teenager narrator, to a weak argument, a concerned parent. Upon analyzing their responses to the audio tape and a survey completed after, the “information-oriented” students had a stronger chance at attitude change than the other students.

It was concluded that HIV prevention persuasion has much progress to make and that the information must be presented in a way that will reach all types of individuals. In this study, the Elaboration Likelihood Model was being tested for a particular use, and resulted in being effective but underdeveloped for this case.[7]

↑ ^1.0^1.1^1.2^1.3Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
↑Griffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory. (7 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
↑ ^3.0^3.1Griffin, E. (2021). Communication Communication Communication. McGraw-Hill: New York, (8), 366-377.
↑Berkowitz, 1986
↑O’Keefe, 2009
↑Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought Confidence as a Determinant of Persuasion: The Self-validation Hypothesis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82, 722-741.
↑Metzler, 1999

Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82, 722-741.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The Elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford Press.

Central route processing-

This involves a high level of elaboration. In this case, the audience is motivated to pay attention and think about the details. They are more willing to invest their time while going into details.

To achieve Central processing a few requirements are necessary-

Motivation to process-The audience has to be motivated and should feel a connection with the message.

Ability to process-The audience should not get distracted; as they might be hearing but not listening to anything.

Nature of arguments-If the arguments are strong, valid and well-constructed audience will be more willing to change their attitude.

Usually, the Central route to persuasion leads to an attitude change that is long-lasting and enduring.

Changing the data model

Let’s explore another benefit of the opaque Character type. This time, we’re going to change the data model, without changing how other modules interact with Character. We are going to have total confidence in changing the data model!

Some new data has become available, we introduce a title to the Character

And we’ll change the implementation of the name function (maintaining its input and output types of course).

Without changing any other code, the name would now show as (for example), “Aegon the Conqueror” in our app!

Our final Character.elm will look like this:

That does it for now! Have you experimented using Opaque types in your elm applications? What do you think of the talks, and have they helped you out?

Have fun building up your data models!

Next time we’ll be extending this code to include decoding a character from an external API.

Creating a data model

My Character has the following data: an id, a name, and a level. Jumping into the Character.elm file, we can add the foundations of the data model.

If you’ve only been using type alias up until this point, then the Character type may look a little strange. It’s what’s known as an Opaque type. And they’re really cool for a number of reasons.

No other module is allowed to access the internals of Character directly. We need to declare functions in the Character module, which will act as the public interface. We’re basically saying, all other modules shouldn’t care about our data, only our functions.
Since all other modules only care about our functions, we don’t need to worry about changes to the data model affecting any other module. It gives us the freedom to modify the data model of the Character, without worrying about introducing a breaking change in another module.
We get some nice guarantees. We can create functions in Character which only accept a Character type. If we had used a type alias, anything that has the same shape would compile.

Before we continue, I like to give the data about the character its own type alias. It just makes it easier to refer to later (e.g. when we’re decoding a character from some JSON — that’s in the next part!).

Интеграция в приложение

В примере описано два компонента: Auth и Question. Компоненты описанным выше принципам. Рассмотрим каким образом они могут быть интегрированы в приложение.

Для начала определим то, как наше приложение должно работать. На экране имеется кнопка, при нажатию на которую:

для неавторизованного пользователя отображается форма авторизации, после авторизации — форма размещения вопроса;
для авторизованного пользователя отображается форма размещения вопроса.

Для описания приложения необходимы:

модель (Model);
сообщения (Msg);
точку старта приложения (main);
функция инициализации (init);
функция мутации;
функция представления;
функция подписки.

Отступление: оживление вашего приложения с помощью сигналов

Теперь разберём часть кода с Signal.Address.

До этого мы говорили только о чистых функциях и неизменяемых данных. Это здорово, но нам надо также и реагировать на события из внешнего мира. В Elm этим занимаются сигналы. Сигнал это значение, которое изменяется со временем, что позволяет нам говорить о том, как будет изменяться наша модель.

В принципе все программы будут иметь этот небольшой кусочек кода, который обслуживает всё приложение. В примере №1 он выглядит вот так:

Хочу обратить ваше внимание на несколько деталей:

Мы начинаем с 0 в качестве стартового значения модели.
Мы используем функцию update для продвижения состояния модели.
Мы реагируем на поступающие в канал actions действия (Action).
Мы выводим всё это на экран через функцию view.

Вместо того, чтобы сразу пытаться понять что же тут происходит на каждой строке, я предлагаю сначала взглянуть на схему происходящего на высоком уровне.

Голубая часть это наша программа, т.е. ровно те модель/обновление/отображание, о которых мы говорили. Большую часть времени вы можете работать, не выходя за границы этого поля.

Новым тут являются “каналы” и то, как они позволяют новым действиям (Action) возникать в ответ на пользовательский ввод. На картинке они изображены пунктирными линиями от монитора к вашей программе. Когда мы назначаем определённые каналы в функции view, мы определяем, каким образом действия пользователя будут попадать в наш код.

Функция мутации

Исходный код функции

update : Msg -> Model -> ( Model, Cmd Msg )
update msg model =
 case (msg, model.ui) of
   (OpenPopup, Nothing) ->
     case Component.Auth.init model.user of
       (authModel, commands, Just (Component.Auth.Authenticated userData)) ->
         let
           (questionModel, questionCommands, _) = Component.Question.init userData
         in
           ( { model | ui = Just <| QuestionUi questionModel, user = User userData }, Cmd.batch [Cmd.map AuthMsg commands, Cmd.map QuestionMsg questionCommands] )

       (authModel, commands, _) ->
         ( { model | ui = Just <| AuthUi authModel }, Cmd.map AuthMsg commands )

   (AuthMsg authMsg, Just (AuthUi authModel)) ->
     case Component.Auth.update authMsg authModel of
       (_, commands, Just (Component.Auth.Authenticated userData)) ->
         let
           (questionModel, questionCommands, _) = Component.Question.init userData
         in
           ( { model | ui = Just <| QuestionUi questionModel, user = User userData }, Cmd.batch [Cmd.map AuthMsg commands, Cmd.map QuestionMsg questionCommands] )

       (newAuthModel, commands, _) ->
         ( { model | ui = Just <| AuthUi newAuthModel }, Cmd.map AuthMsg commands )

   (QuestionMsg questionMsg, Just (QuestionUi questionModel)) ->
     case Component.Question.update questionMsg questionModel of
       (_, commands, Just (Component.Question.Saved record)) ->
         ( { model | ui = Nothing }, Cmd.map QuestionMsg commands )

       (newQuestionModel, commands, _) ->
         ( { model | ui = Just <| QuestionUi newQuestionModel }, Cmd.map QuestionMsg commands )

    _ ->
     ( model, Cmd.none )

Т.к. модель и сообщения приложению связаны, будем обрабатывать пару сообщение (Msg) и тип интерфейса (model.ui: Ui).

update : Msg -> Model -> ( Model, Cmd Msg )
update msg model =
 case (msg, model.ui) of

Код ошибки: Бортовой компьютер для автомобиля универсальный

Elaboration likelihood model | Psychology Wiki | Fandom

Основые уроки

(pdf) source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion

(pdf) the coo-elm model: a theoretical framework for the cognitive processes underlying country of origin-effects

Accessing the data model

Application of the elaboration likelihood model to hiv prevention[edit | edit source]

Central route processing-

Changing the data model

Creating a data model

Интеграция в приложение

Отступление: оживление вашего приложения с помощью сигналов

Функция мутации