1.) Can you think of five different words or phrases that capture the idea of message
elaboration?
Reciprocation- “If you do this for me, then I’ll do that for you, but you have to do this first.”
Consistency-”If it isnt broken, dont fix it.”
Social Proof- “Just go with the flow.”
Liking-”Just listen to me and trust my intentions.”
Authority-”It’s my way or the highway!”
2.) What peripheral cues do you usually monitor when when someone is trying to influence
you?
I definitely consider the speaker's credibility and whether or not they have anything to gain
from my decision of something (I know, terrible.) I really analyze the way others consider what
the speaker recommends as well and determine the “pro’s and con’s” of the situation.
3.) Petty and Cacioppo want to persuade you that their elaboration likelihood model is a
mirror of reality. Do you process their arguments for its accuracy closer to your central
route or your peripheral route? Why not the other way?
I would definitely take Petty and Cacioppo’s theory into consideration and somewhat “compare”
the theory to mine to attempt to determine which theory is best. The only way to really know that
your theory is true and valid is to test the theory and consider the facts that might possibly
disprove your theory.
4.) Students of persuasion often wonder whether high credibility or strong arguments sway
people more. How would ELM theorists respond to that question?
Elm views strong arguments as strong if people are persuaded, but weak if folks remain
unmoved. Consider the “never miss shot” in the beginning of our textbook, where the theory
was extremely biased and picked and choosed when the theory was implemented and not
implemented. I think that ELM theorists would do the same and take “advantage” of the
situation.