Testing the mediating role of cognitive responses in the elaboration likelihood model

Communication Studies

Volumn 52, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 324-337

  Stephenson, Michael T ^a   Benoit, William L ^a   Tschida, David A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041565574     PISSN: 10510974     EISSN: 17451035     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10510970109388567     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Allen, M., and Preiss, R. W., 1997. Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta‐analysis. Communication Research Reports, 14: 125–131.
2. Andrews, J. C., and Shimp, T. A., 1990. Effects of involvement, argument strength, and source characteristics on central and peripheral processing in advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 7: 195–214.
3. Baesler, E. J., 1997. Persuasive effects of story and statistical evidence. Argumentation and Advocacy, 33: 170–175.
4. Benoit, W. L., 1987a. Argument and credibility appeals in persuasion. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 52: 181–197.
5. Benoit, W. L., 1987b. “ Argument evaluation ”. In Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline, Edited by: van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J. A., and Willard, C. A., 189–297. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
6. Benoit, W. L., 1991. “ A cognitive response analysis of source credibility ”. In Progress in communication sciences, Edited by: Dervin, B., and Voigt, M. J., vol. X, 1–19. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7. Benoit, W. L., and Kennedy, K. A., 1999. On reluctant testimony. Communication Quarterly, 47: 376–387.
8. Boster, F. J., Cameron, K. A., Campo, S., Liu, W., Lillie, J. K., Baker, E. M., and Yun, K. A., 2000. The persuasive effects of statistical evidence in the presence of exemplars. Communication Studies, 51: 296–306.
9. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., and Morris, K., 1983. Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 805–818.
10. Chaiken, S., 1980. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 752–756.
11. Chaiken, S., The heuristic model of persuasion. Social influence: The Ontario Symposium. Edited by: Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. M., and Herman, C. P., Vol. 5, pp. 3–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Eagly, A. H., and Chaiken, S., 1993. The psychology of attitudes, Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
13. Gillig, P. M., and Greenwald, A. G., 1974. Is it time to lay the sleeper effect to rest?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29: 132–139.
14. Greenwald, A. G., 1968. “ Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change ”. In Psychological foundations of attitudes, Edited by: Greenwald, A. G., Brock, T. C., and Ostrom, T. M., 147–170. New York: Academic Press.
15. Hale, J. L., Lemieux, R., and Mongeau, P. A., 1995. Cognitive processing of fear‐arousing message content. Communication Research, 22: 459–474.
16. Hamilton, M. A., 1997. “ The phase interfaced omnistructure underlying the processing of persuasive messages ”. In Advances in communication science, Edited by: Barnett, G. A., and Boster, F. J., 1–42. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
17. Hamilton, M. A., 1998. Message variables that mediate and moderate the effect of equivocal language on source credibility. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17: 109–143.
18. Hamilton, M. A., Hunter, J. E., and Boster, F. J., 1993. The elaboration likelihood model as a theory of attitude formation: A mathematical analysis. Communication Theory, 3: 50–65.
19. Hample, D., 1981. “ What is a good argument? ”. In Dimensions of argument, Edited by: Ziegelmueller, G., and Rhodes, J., 875–893. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
20. Hass, R. G., 1981. “ Effects of source characteristics on cognitive responses and persuasion ”. In Cognitive responses in persuasion, Edited by: Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., and Brock, T. C., 44–72. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
21. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., and Kelley, H. H., 1953. Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22. Hunter, J. E., Danes, J. E., and Cohen, S., 1984. Mathematical models of attitude change, 1: Change in single attitudes and cognitive structures, New York: Academic Press.
23. Johnson, B. T., and Eagly, A. H., 1989. Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta‐analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106: 290–314.
24. Johnson, B. T., and Eagly, A. H., 1990. Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 375–384.
25. Loehlin, J. C., 1992. Latent variable models, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. McKerrow, R. E., 1977. Rhetorical validity: An analysis of three perspectives on the justification of rhetorical argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13: 133–141.
27. Mongeau, P. A., and Stiff, J. B., 1993. Specifying causal relationships in the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Communication Theory, 3: 65–72.
28. O'Keefe, D. J., 1987. The persuasive effects of delaying identification of high‐ and low‐credibility communicators: A meta‐analytic review. Central States Speech Journal, 38: 63–72.
29. O'Keefe, D. J., 1998. Justification explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta‐analytic review of the effects of varying supporf articulation in persuasive speeches. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35: 61–75.
30. Perloff, R. M., and Brock, T. C., 1980. “ ‘And thinking makes it so’: Cognitive responses to persuasion ”. In Persuasion: New directions in theory and research, Edited by: Roloff, M. E., and Miller, G. R., 67–99. Beverly Hills: Sage.
31. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T., 1979. Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message‐relevant cognitive processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 1915–1926.
32. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T., 1981. Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches, Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
33. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T., 1984. The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46: 69–81.
34. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T., 1986a. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change, New York: Springer‐Verlag.
35. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T., 1986b. “ The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion ”. In Advances in experimental social psychology, Edited by: Berkowitz, L., vol. 19, 123–205. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
36. Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T., 1990. Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 367–374.
37. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Goldman, R., 1981. Personal involvement as a determinant of argument‐based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41: 847–855.
38. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Schumann, D., 1983. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10: 135–146.
39. Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P., and Smith, S. M., 1995. “ Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior ”. In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, Edited by: Petty, R.E., and Krosnick, J. A., 93–130. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Petty, R. W., Harkins, S. G., and Williams, K. D., 1980. The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 81–92.
41. Petty, R. E., Kasmer, J. A., Haugtvedt, C. P., and Cacioppo, J. T., 1987. Source and message factors in persuasion: A reply to Stiffs critique of the elaboration likelihood model. Communication Monographs, 54: 233–249.
42. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Kasmer, J. A., and Haugtvedt, C. P., 1987. A reply to Stiff and Boster. Communication Monographs, 54: 257–262.
43. Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., and Strathman, A. J., 1993. Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high‐ and low‐elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64: 5–20.
44. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., Fabrigar, L. R., Priester, J. R., and Cacioppo, J. T., 1993. Conceptual and methodological issues in the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: A reply to the Michigan State critics. Communication Theory, 3: 336–362.
45. Rowland, R. C., 1985. On argument evaluation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 21: 123–132.
46. Stiff, J. B., 1986. Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta‐analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes. Communication Monographs, 53: 75–89.
47. Stiff, J. B., 1994. Persuasive communication, New York: Guilford.
48. Stiff, J. B., and Boster, F. J., 1987. Cognitive processing: Additional thoughts and a reply to Petty, Kasmer, Haugtvedt, and Cacioppo. Communication Monographs, 54: 250–256.
49. Tasaki, K., Kim, M‐S., and Miller, M. D., 1999. The effects of social status on cognitive elaboration and post‐message attitude: Focusing on self‐construals. Communication Quarterly, 47: 196–212.