The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion Explained

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is a dual-process, or two-fold, model of persuasion that describes how people manage information. It was originated by Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo in the 1980s.

The ELM suggests there are two routes to persuasion.

First is the central route, which involves the motivated processing and evaluation of messages, or the peripheral route, which involves more superficial aspects of the message. The central route involves thinking about the merits of the argument and weighing the pros and cons. Persuasion via the central route leads to long-lasting change.

Second it the peripheral route, which involves other elements of the argument, such as how attractive the speaker is or their success at articulating the message, not the merits of the argument itself.

Two Routes to Change Someone’s Mind

Though the two routes to persuasion suggest there are only two ways to evaluate a message, the theory incorporates the notion of elaboration likelihood, or the likelihood that message receivers are to elaborate on a message. As a result, message receivers actually move along an elaboration continuum from expending considerable effort elaborating on a message to expending no effort on elaboration.

A person may occupy various points in between the two ends of the spectrum, however.. In other words, people may occupy the central route or the peripheral route exclusively, but may also be somewhere in the middle, where the two are combined.

The Central Route to Persuasion

The central route to persuasion is used when elaboration is high. When we think about the merits of an argument, focus on the logic and quality of what’s being said, and carefully weigh the pros and cons of an argument we are persuaded through the central route. This route, according to Avigail Lev, PsyD, founder and director of the Bay Area CBT Center, “involves deep thinking and understanding of the argument.”

This route is used when motivation and ability are high. When people are persuaded through the central route, attitudes are particularly strong.

The Peripheral Route to Persuasion

The peripheral route to persuasion is used when elaboration is low. As elaboration gets lower, we’re more likely to use peripheral cues, such as rules of thumb or the way something looks, in the persuasion process.

That is, we’re influenced by cues “that don’t really have much to do with the argument itself,” says Lev, “like how attractive the speaker is or how confidently they speak, rather than what they’re actually saying.” This creates attitude change that tends not to last.

This route may not seem as good as the central route, however it exists for a valuable reason: it would be impossible to carefully think through every decision that presents itself to us. Not every decision is equally important, and using the peripheral route for decisions that aren’t as important frees up mental space for when a decision must be considered more carefully.

Real-World Examples and Applications of the ELM

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health officials and pundits used a variety of tactics to persuade people to, for instance, wear masks consistently. When health officials used appeals that matched the individual’s values—and those values are important to the individual—they would wear a mask. An example of this might be appealing to the desire to protect vulnerable children or elderly relatives.

However, when using appeals that don’t match the individual’s values, that person would be unlikely to wear a mask. An example of this might be insisting that wearing a mask is actually fashionable.

If, however, the values health officials argue for are unimportant to the individual, they may wear a mask but their willingness to do so may not last long. Because this uses the peripheral route, one’s attitude may be easily persuaded to be against masking if the individual hears another, better argument.

While there is a reason for the peripheral route of persuasion, today there is so much information, we’re picking the peripheral route more and more. “In today’s world,” argues Lev, “with social media, pundits, and a lot of division in the country, it’s getting harder and harder to take that central route.”

Criticisms and Limitations of the Model

There are several criticisms and limitations of the ELM. First the descriptive nature of the model has been critiqued, especially for not clearly articulating its hypothesized processes. This lack of a clear and consistent framework make it very difficult to test and falsify the ELM.

Second, since its introduction in 1983, the elaboration continuum, which claims that the central route and the peripheral route are two sides in a continuum of elaboration, hasn’t undergone comprehensive testing.

Third, the dual-path nature of the model has been an issue since the ELM was first introduced. Specifically, the fact that central and peripheral processing does not appear to take place at the same time in the ELM has led to criticisms and the introduction of other models that account for both routes being used simultaneously.

Finally, mediating variables in the ELM remain an issue. For instance, the variable of affect has been shown to be used in both the central and peripheral route, yet much research still views affect as solely the domain of the peripheral route.