The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Limitations and Extensions in Marketing

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty and Cacioppo 1981) is discussed as a framework for understanding attitude formation and change with regard to products :ind services. The model has a number of limitations, some general and some specifically relevant to applications in consumer behavior and marketing. These limitations are presented and discussed along with suggestions for research. Despite its underspecification, the tnodel is seen as a useful framework and the authors propose a number of specific marketing modiatars of elaboration Iikelihood. in marketing a great deal of attention has been focused on attitude formation, attitude change and attitude measurement with respect to products and services. Since 1970, the literature reflects strong interest in the application and development of tnultiattribute attiLude models (Wilkie and Pessemier 1973; Lutz 1981). Lndustry applications have also relied heavily on survey methodologies and multiattribute approaches to measure . ittitudes toward and preferences for products and servii:es. The multiattribute method assumes that consumers s.an and do base their choice decisions on beliefs about [iroduct/service attributes. Marketing strategies evolving out of this approach to attitude formation focus on analyzing and communicating information about important product/service attributes. At the same time there has been substantial research in marketing to suggest that there are external cues or inLernal psychological processes quite separate from careful consideration of specific product/service attributes Lhat may influence consumers' attitudes. Halo effect phenomena (Beckwith and Lehmann 1975; Mitchell and Olson 1981), attitude change via classical conditioning (Gorn 1982), behavior modification (Nord and Peter 1980), mere fxposure effects (Obermiller 1984), self-perception theory (Reingen and Kernan 1977), and the application of simple decision rules are examples of this view of attiLude formation and change. Marketing strategies evolving out of this approach focus less on specific product/ service attributes and more on understanding the effects of contextual cues and heuristics on evaluation and decision making. These two approaches to attitude formation and change can be classified under what Petty and Cacioppo (1981; 1983) refer to in their Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) as central and peripheral routes to persuasion. The model proposes that neither route alone can account for the diversity of observed attitude change phenomena, and that the important question is when each route is most likely to be followed. This paper discusses the ELM and its usefulness to the field of marketing as a framework for predicting how attitudes will be formed and changed in various situations. Limitations of the model are discussed and specific marketing mediators of elaboration likelihood are suggested. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) The ELM provides a framework for accounting for the diverse results observed in attitude change research. The model suggests that there are two routes to persuasion— the c::ntral route and the peripht:ral route—and that Lhese two categories can account for all of the various theories of attitude change. In the central route, attitudes are formed and changed by careful consideration and integration of information relevant to the attitude object or issue. In the peripheral route, on the other hand, attitudes are formed and changed without active thinking about the object and its attributes, but rather by associating the object with positive or negative cues or by using cognitive "short cuts. " "The accunulated research on persuasion clearly indicates that neither the central nor the peripheral approach alone can account for the diversity of attitude-change results oberved" (Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983, p. 136). The question thus becomes under what conditions is persuasion most likely via each of the two routes. In their model. Petty and Cacioppo suggest the persuasion will occur via the central route when elaboration likelihood is high, that is vrtien a person is both motivated and able to process informatif^n about the attitude object. Elaboration likelihood will be low if either or both of the above conditions (motivation or ability) are not met and persuasion will then be more likely via the peripheral route. Support for these hypotheses can be found in both the marketing and psychology literature. Most work -to date has addressed the role of motivation as a mediator of elaboration likelihood, and thus the route to persuasion (Chaiken 1980; Gorn L982; Johnson and Scileppi 1969; Petty and Cacioppo 1981, 1984; Petty, Cacioppo and Goldman 1981; Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann 1983). A few studies have addressed ability as a mediator of elaboration likelihood (Wood 1982; Chaiken and Eagley 1976; Regan and Cheng 1973; Cacioppo and Petty 1981; Petty, Wells and Brock 1976). In addition to ability and motivation, and individual difference variable, "need for cognition," has been shown to be a mediator of elaboration likelihood (Cacioppo, Petty and Morris 1983). Petty and Cacioppo also hypothesize that there are differing consequences resulting from persuasion via the two routes. They believe that persuasion via the central route is both more enduring and more predictive of subsequent behavior than persuasion via the peripheral route. The source of these hypotheses is their analysis of past studies and there is at this point only weak support from indirect tests of hypotheses (Chaiken 1980; Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann 1983). Limitations of the Model Although we acknowledge the usefulness of ELM as a framework for conceptualizing attitude formation and change, we wish to argue for several limitations of significance in consumer research. These limitations are not intended as criticisms of the development of the ELM. Rather they indicate underspecifications of the model that leave important questions as yet unanswered. (One reviewer of this paper suggested that the FLM in its current form is an "anatomy" whereas we are pursuing a "physiology" of attitude formation and change. We presume this comment to mean that the ELM describes and categorizes, but lacks sufficient detail of the process to afford explanation. Our criticism may well be directed at the current state of understanding as a whole rather than specifically at the ELM.)