Back to the directoryFind in the timeline
The Elaboration Likelihood Model
The Elaboration Likelihood Model says persuasion works through careful thought or through simple cues, depending on how much people think. A 1983 student experiment with a fictitious razor brand found argument quality mattered under high involvement and endorsers under low involvement.
- Where it sits
- Academic psychologyResearch published for other researchers and students.
- Evidence level
- Independent experimentIndependent research, with its design and limits stated.
- Sources inspected
- 3 of 32 with the relevant text, company document or archive item checked, 1 as an abstract or reference article, 0 not verified.
What happened
Richard Petty and John Cacioppo set out the Elaboration Likelihood Model in a 1986 chapter, building on their earlier papers. In 1983, with David Schumann, they tested it on advertising. In that experiment 160 undergraduates at the University of Missouri-Columbia viewed a mock magazine ad for a fictitious new product, Edge disposable razors, placed among 11 other ads.
The psychological idea
The model says people think carefully about the merits of a message when they are motivated and able to, which is the central route. Otherwise they rely on simple cues such as an attractive or expert source, which is the peripheral route. In the 1983 study, involvement was raised by telling some students Edge razors would soon be sold locally and that they would choose a free razor brand. Ads varied in argument strength and in endorsers.
In practice
No company use is documented in this study. Under high involvement the strong-argument ad produced attitudes of 1.98 (citizen endorsers) and 1.80 (celebrity endorsers) on a scale from minus 4 to plus 4, against minus 1.10 and minus 1.36 for weak arguments. Under low involvement the endorser mattered more: with weak arguments, celebrities scored 1.21 and average citizens minus 0.12.
Why it mattered
The experiment tested one prediction of the model: that involvement changes which kind of information moves attitudes. The authors said that supporting results would be the first evidence that the model could help explain responses to advertisements. Any reading for brand strategy is interpretation, and the paper itself is about students and one new product.
Limits and qualifications
The sample was 160 undergraduates, the product was fictitious and the ad sat in a booklet presented as a study of ad evaluation, so the setting was artificial. Attitudes and stated purchase intentions were measured once, straight after viewing, so lasting change and purchases are not shown. The authors' thought-listing measure yielded very few thoughts. Kruglanski and Thompson (1999) proposed a single-route unimodel, treating the two routes as equivalent types of evidence. Only that article's abstract and first page were read.
Evidence behind the claims
In the 1983 experiment 160 male and female undergraduates at the University of Missouri-Columbia were randomly assigned, 20 per cell, to a 2 by 2 by 2 design of involvement, argument quality and endorser status.
The ad was for a fictitious new product, Edge disposable razors, embedded in a booklet with 11 other ads, and involvement was manipulated by telling students either that they would choose a razor brand as a free gift (high) or a toothpaste brand (low). The booklet was introduced as a study of the evaluation of magazine and newspaper ads, and attitudes and purchase intentions were measured in a questionnaire completed afterward.
Argument quality had a greater effect on attitudes under high than low involvement, while endorser status had an effect only under low involvement; cell means were minus 1.10 (citizen) and minus 1.36 (celebrity) for weak arguments and 1.98 and 1.80 for strong arguments under high involvement, and under low involvement 1.21 (celebrity) against minus 0.12 (citizen) with weak arguments.
The authors said that supporting results for their two hypotheses would provide the first evidence that the Elaboration Likelihood Model could contribute to understanding attitudinal responses to advertisements.
Subjects listed very few thoughts about the product (mean 1.18) and the manipulations did not affect this measure, so the authors did not discuss it further.
Kruglanski and Thompson's 1999 abstract offers a single-route reconceptualisation that treats the central and peripheral routes as functionally equivalent types of evidence from which persuasive conclusions may be drawn.
Petty and Cacioppo describe the central route as persuasion from careful consideration of the true merits of the information and the peripheral route as change from a simple cue, and say the model attempts to integrate conflicting findings under one framework.
People involved
- Richard E. Petty. Social psychologist, co-developer of the model
- John T. Cacioppo. Social psychologist, co-developer of the model
- David Schumann. Co-author of the 1983 advertising experiment
- Arie W. Kruglanski. Co-author of the 1999 unimodel critique
In the Psy101 course
- OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 12.3: Attitudes and PersuasionChapter 12, Social Psychology. Concept. The section discusses this topic.The page covers the Elaboration Likelihood Model, the central and peripheral routes and advertising examples such as celebrity endorsement.
This is course relevance only. It is not evidence for the historical or corporate claims on this page.See the full course map.
Sources and inspection
3 of 3 sources were opened and read at the level shown. A source marked as not verified supports no claim on this page by itself.
- [1]Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of InvolvementPetty, R. E.; Cacioppo, J. T.; Schumann, D.. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146, 1983. Journal article. Primary source.Relevant text checkedRead pages 1 to 8 of the 12-page scanned PDF as images: abstract, theory, hypotheses, method, manipulation checks, the attitude table and Figure B. The final pages (discussion and references) were not read.
- [2]The Elaboration Likelihood Model of PersuasionPetty, R. E.; Cacioppo, J. T.. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 19, 123-205, 1986. Book. Primary source.Relevant text checkedRead the first four pages of the scanned chapter as images (contents, introduction and Figure 1). The rest of the chapter, including the postulates, was not read.
- [3]Persuasion by a Single Route: A View From the UnimodelKruglanski, A. W.; Thompson, E. P.. Psychological Inquiry, 10(2), 83-109, 1999. Journal article. Critique or replication.Abstract or publisher record onlyRead the title page, the abstract and the first page of the target article as images (a JSTOR copy hosted by the University of Muenster). The rest of the article and the replies were not read.
Access note: The razor brand was a fictitious product, Edge, in a mock ad. The 1983 discussion section, the chapter's postulates and the body of the unimodel article were not read.
Independent source review: Claude review agent, independent of the research agent, 2026-10-21. Verdict: pass-with-edits.