Persuasion theories

Cognitive Dissonance
Explanation of Theory: This theory of Cognitive Dissonance says that human beings often have conflicting beliefs with actions they take, or other beliefs they have. This dissonance creates a tension and tension reduction is automatically sought by changing our evaluations by some degree. Cognitive Dissonance is when you have two good choices and you make your decision then you find yourself unsure or in doubt about the choice you made. You might have to downplay the other choice in order to reassure yourself. Theorist: Leon Festinger Date: !"# Primary Article: $ Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. %tanford, C$. %tanford &niversity 'ress.

Social Judgement Theory

Explanation of Theory: Social Judgement theory states that you have a statement or message and you accept it or reject it based on your cognitive map. You accept or reject a message based on one's own ego-involvement and if it falls within their latitude of acceptance. Theorist: Mu afer Sherif! Carolyn Sherif! Carl "ovland Date: #$%# Primary Article: %herif, (., ) *ovland, C.+. , !" -. %ocial .udgement. /ew *aven, CT0 Yale &niversity 'ress. &ndividual &nterpretations: My interpretation of this theory is that when people receive messages (verbal or nonverbal they immediately judge where the message should be placed on a scale in their mind through comparing the message with currently held views. Metatheoretical Assumptions: %ocial .udgement theory is a scientific theory. 1pistemologically there is one universal interpretation ,one truth- in that people 2udge the messages they receive. 3ntologically, this theory is deterministic in that an individuals behavior can be predicted. $4iologically, %ocial .udgement theory is value5neutral in that the theoretical propositions are ob2ective and not biased. This theory e4plains how individuals 2udge the messages they receive. +t predicts that individuals accept, or re2ect specific attitudes and messages. %ocial .udgement theory has relative simplicity in that it is a fairly simple study. +t can be tested and proved false in that an individual can test the theory through reflecting on statements, which evoke various opinions. The theoretical propositions within the theory are consistent with one another. %ocial .udgement theory generates new hypotheses, e4panding the range of knowledge, and it also has organi6ing power through organi6ing our e4isting knowledge about attitudes in our mind. Criti'ue: %ocial .udgement theory proposes the idea that persuasion is a two5step process. The first step involves individuals hearing or reading a message and immediately evaluating where the message falls within their own position. The second step involves individuals ad2usting their particular attitude either toward or away from the message they heard. &deas and &mplications: +ndividuals have three 6ones in which they accept or re2ect specific messages or attitudes. The latitude of acceptance 6one is where individuals place attitudes they consider acceptable. The latitude of re2ection 6one is where individuals place attitudes they consider unacceptable or ob2ectionable. The latitude of noncommitment is where people place attitudes they find neither acceptable nor re2ectable. Example: 14ample of %ocial .udgement theory0 7ead through these statements and recogni6e the variety of opinions they represent8 . %tudent athletes should be given e4tra time to complete assignments.

#. %tudent athletes are for the most part la6y when it comes to schoolwork. 9. %tudent athletes should receive more time to complete assignments because their schedule is more hectic than the average student. :.%tudent athletes should be treated like every other student. ;. $thletes should be able to skip class because they are tired from practices or games. ". 'rofessors should take e4tra time to tutor those student athletes who miss class. /ow, reread through these <uestions again and underline the statement that most closely represents your opinion, and run a line through the statement that is most ob2ectionable. Circle the statements you think are reasonable, and cross out the statements you re2ect. %ocial .udgement theory predicts that people hear a message and they immediately decide whether they accept, re2ect, or remain noncommitted on the message.

&noculation Theory
Explanation of Theory: !noculation theory states that inoculation is used to describe the attribution of greater resistance to individuals. "r# the process of supplying information to receivers before the communication process ta$es place in hopes that the information would ma$e the receiver more resistant. Theorist: =illiam (c>uire Date:#$%# Primary Article: (c>uire, =. , !" -. 7esistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments. .ournal of $bnormal and %ocial 'sychology, "9, 9#"599#. &ndividual &nterpretations: (y individual interpretation of +noculation Theory is that the information supplied to the receivers before the communication takes place makes the receiver more resistant. +noculation can be described in a biological sense in that a less harmful disease often gives immunity to a more harmful disease. Metatheoretical Assumptions: +noculation theory is scientific. 1pistemologically there is one truth in that supplying information to receivers before communication makes the receiver more resistant. 3ntologically this theory is deterministic in that an individuals behavior can be predicted. $4iologically it is value5neutral, therefore ob2ective and not biased. Criti'ue: +noculation theory has e4planatory power in that it provides credible e4planations for the concepts. This theory has predictive power, and has relative simplicity. +noculation theory is testable and can therefore be proved false, and is internally consistent. This theory generates new hypotheses, and organi6es e4isting knowledge. &deas and &mplications: +noculation theory says that the nature of the presentation of the message is important. 3ne method involves passive reading in which receivers read the defensive material. $nother method is to read the refutational material and underline the passages relating to the arguments presented in the defense. /e4t, e4perimenters supply an outline where the defensive material is to be written out. The last method is to write out the arguments without any help. Example: (c>uire?s basic method included constructing a persuasive message attacking a cultural truism such as, @$n apple a day, keeps the doctor away.A This message would contain statements like @eating too many apples can cause digestive problems.A 'rior to this message, material would be introduced that should strengthen the belief in the truism.

(alance Theory
Explanation of Theory: Balance theory states that when tensions arise between or inside people, they attempt to reduce these tensions through self5persuasion or trying to persuade others. Theorist:)rit "eider and Theodore *e+com, Date: #$-% Primary Article:

"eider! ). /#$-%0. Attitudes and cognitive organi ation. Journal of Psychology! 1#! #234##1. &ndividual &nterpretations: My interpretation of (alance theory is that individuals have certain attitudes +hich can ,e represented ,y a plus sign /li5e0 or a minus sign /disli5e0. Every individual has their o+n opinions therefore people do not al+ays agree on the same things +hich creates a feeling of discomfort or im,alance. T+o people may feel the same a,out an idea and therefore agree on it so they have a feeling of comfort or ,alance. Metatheoretical Assumptions: (alance theory is "umanistic. Epistemologically this theory has multiple truths in that humans try to reduce tension through self4persuasion or persuading others. 6ntologically this theory represents free +ill in that people choose +hether or not they li5e or disli5e something. Axiologically! this theory is more value4laden in that the theoretical propositions are su,7ective and ,iased. Criti'ue: (alance theory presents analytic consistency in that the theoretical assumptions fit together. The method of investigation in this theory is timely. The theory is practical! and has heuristic value in that it can ,e applied other places. &deas and &mplications: (alance theory proposes that there are three +ays in +hich a person can feel ,alance. )irst the source and receiver can ,oth disli5e something and at the same time li5e eachother! so they experience comfort and ,alance. Second! the source and receiver can have a positive attitude to+ard an o,7ect or idea and display positive feelings to+ard one another! therefore experiencing comfort and ,alance. Third! the source and the receiver can disagree a,out an idea or o,7ect and also disli5e eachother! therefore experiencing comfort ,ecause they 5no+ that they disagree a,out the values of certain o,7ects or ideas. Example: Adam li5es to +atch foot,all on television! and Jenah does not li5e to +atch foot,all. 8et Jenah li5es Adam! and values their relationship therefore this system is no+ in im,alance. &f Jenah +ould change her attitude a,out foot,all! this system +ould ,e in ,alance.

9an5:s Persuasion Model

Explanation of Theory: %an$'s model of persuasion states that persuaders use two major strategies to achieve their goals. &hese strategies are nicely set into two main schemas $nown as (' intensify, and (( downplay. Theorist: "ugh 9an5 Date: #$3% Primary Article: 7ank, *. , !C"-. Teaching about public persuasion. +n D. Dietrich ,1d.-, Teaching and Doublespeak. &rbana, +L0 /ational Council of Teachers of 1nglish. &ndividual &nterpretations: My interpretation to this theory is similar to what most other people would interpret from it. !t is a very simplistic and somehwat obvious assessment of techni)ues used in persuasion. !t states the obvious and does little to help e*plain whether we ma$e such decisions consciously or subconsciously. Metatheoretical Assumptions: 7ankDs (odel has mostly positivist <ualities when analy6ing the ontological, epistemological, and a4iological assumptions. 6ntological Assumptions: 7ankDs (odel appears to have one main reality, one truth, and is laid out in a very simplistic manner, that we should all see things the same way when using the model. Epistemological Assumptions: 7ankDs (odel seems to be independent in nature and allows researchers to be separate from what they are observing.

Axiological Assumptions: 7ankDs (odel is value5free, and appears to be unbiased to those who adapt the model into practice. Criti'ue: 7ankDs (odel is a non5scientific model that is high in methodological rigor. =hile the model appears to be <uite simplistic on the e4terior, it is also formulated <uite precisely and has the ability to be applied carefully. The model seems to make relative sense in communication practices and is easily applied. &deas and &mplications: The basic premise of the model stresses that people will either intensify or downplay certain aspects of their own product, candidate, or ideology, or those of their receiverDs. The persuader will do this in one of four methods. - +ntensify their own strong points. #- +ntensify the weak points of the opposition. 9- Downplay their own weak points. :- Downplay the strong points of the opposition. Example: =hile arguing about their favorite movies, .oe continues to insist to (att that the Die *ard movies were much better than the Lethal =eapon movies. 7ankDs (odel contends that .oe will use one of four main strategies to argue his point to (att. .oe will either0 - %tress the stunning performances that were given by Die *ard lead actor Bruce =illis, while pointing out the acclaim that =+llis received for the movies. 37 #- %tress what he beleived was poor acting by Lethal =eapon lead actor (el >ibson, while pointing out the negative reviews >ibson may have received for the movies. 37 9- Downplay the weak plotlines which were often critici6ed in the Die *ard movies. 37 :- Downplay the terrific performance by Lethal =eapon actor Danny >lover, as well as downplay the acclaim >lover received for the movies. 6ther Scholars ;ho "ave <sed This Theory: /one +dentified 9elevant 9esearch: /one Found

Source Credi,ility Theory

Explanation of Theory: &he Source +redibility theory states that people are more li$ely to be persuaded when the source presents itself as credible. &he theory is bro$en into three models that can be used to more aptly apply the theory. &he names of those models are, the factor model# the functional model# and the constructivist model. Theorist: "ovland! C.! Janis! &.! =elley! ". Date: #$>? Primary Article: *ovland, C.+., .anis, +.L., ) Eelley, *.*. , !;9-. Communication and 'ersuasion. /ew *aven, CT0 Yale &niversity 'ress. &ndividual &nterpretations: My interpretation of the Source +redibility theory is that on the outside it seems to be selfevident# and barely worth studying. -ut# it is interesting to note that many studies have also revealed no relationship between attitude change and source credibility. .lthough it seems obvious to me that a more credible source would be much more li$ely to affect the attitudes of others# ! also feel that this concept is worthy of study since it is regularly being proven and disproved. &hat is what helps to ma$e the general concept of source credibility a very interesting phenomena. Metatheoretical Assumptions: %ource credibility theory takes what appears to be a naturalistic slant on things metatheoretically. 6ntological Assumptions: The source credibility theory has multiple realities because there are numerous different ways of looking at things from within the theory.

Epistemological Assumptions: %ource credibility theory is an approach that allows different individuals to look at things from their own perspective, thus, it is dependent. Axiological Assumptions: %ource credibility theory deals with communication study in a way that is value5laden, and takes into considersation that different researchers will have their own opinion. Criti'ue: $ criti<ue of the source credibility theory shows the theory to be scientific in nature. +t is high level of falsifiability, as many researchers have found ways to disprove what the theory states. The theory also has high level of internal consistencies, while its three main models also allow the theory to have much organi6ing power. &deas and &mplications: The three models help to narrow the wide scope of the source credibility theory, while also making it a much more focused strategy to use when studying communication. The factor model ,a covering laws approach- helps determine to what e4tent the receiver 2udges the source as credible. The functional model ,a covering laws approach- views credibility as the degree to which a source satisfies a receiverDs individual needs. The constructivist model ,a human action approach- analy6es what the receiver does with the sourceDs proposal. Example: .eff is trying to persuade (att that FCheersF is the best television show that was ever aired. (att is beginning to believe .eff because .eff knows all the statistics of how well the show did when it was played. But, when he begins <uestioning .eff about the showDs specific content, he finds him to be baffled. *e later finds out from Chris that .eff has never even watched the show himself. This is an e4ample of source credibility working against the persuader. +n this e4ample, the person who is being persuaded, (att, has found reason to <uestion the integrity of the persuader, .eff. 6ther Scholars ;ho have <sed This Theory: Baudhin, %. Berlo, D. Davis, (. Lemmert, .. (cCroskey, .. 9elevant 9esearch: Baudhin, %., ) Davis, (. , !C#-. %cales for the measurement of ethos0 $nother attempt. %peech (onographs, 9!, #!"59G . Berlo, D. Lemmert, .., ) Davis, (. , !"!-. Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. 'ublic 3pinion Huarterly, 99, ;"95;C". (cCroskey, ..C. , !"I-. %cales for the measurement of ethos. %peech (onographs, 99, "C5 C#.

Congruity Theory
Explanation of Theory: &he +ongruity theory predicts that if there are two contradicting people# sets of information# or concepts on which a judgment must be made by a single observer# the observer will e*perience pressure to change his or her judgment on one of the sides. /owever# if the two sets of information are similar or congruent# then there will be no problem# and the observer will not e*perience pressure of any form. Theorist: 6sgood! C.! @ Tannen,aum! P. Date: #$>> Primary Article: 3sgood, C., ) Tannenbaum, '. , !;;-. The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. 'sychology 7eview, "#, :#5;;. &ndividual &nterpretations: My interpretation of the +ongruity theory is that only the observer will determine whether or not they will feel pressure. &he observer alone must decide the level of congruence between the two sides# before doing one of two things, (' ta$ing a stance in the middle and viewing the e*change as one without problem# or (( changing their viewpoint of one of the sides. Metatheoretical Assumptions: Through the analysis of the ontological, epistemological, and a4iological assumptions, it can be dervied that the congruity theory is naturalistic.

6ntological Assumptions: Congruity theory appears to have multiple realities, and there are numerous ways to view things when using the theory to conduct a study or perform an analysis. Epistemological Assumptions: Congruity theory takes a dependent view of things, as things could change to each observer, depending on the way they view what is going on between the two main parties involved. Axiological Assumptions: Congruity theory appears to value5laden in nature, and it takes into account that separate observers may be biased. Criti'ue: Congruity theory is a scientific model because it is predictive of how third5party observers will react to an argument between two main parties. +t does little to e4plain why people do what they do necessarily in such a situation, but simply states how their actions and views might change. &deas and &mplications: The basic premise of the theory is to help determine the levels of congruence between two sides. +f a third5party observer feels pressure to take a side or change a viewpoint, there must be low levels of congruence between the two sides. +f the third5party observer feels no pressure, than there must be a high level of congruence between the two immediate parties. Example: Dan and 'atty are having a discussion regarding what movie they feel is the best of all time. +f Dan argues that %tar =ars is much better than 7eturn of the .edi, and that the two are not similar in any fashion, it is less likely that an independent observer will gauge the two movies to be similar. The two movies will remain on opposite spectrums to the observer. Conse<uently, if 'atty argues that the two movies are very similar, but that 7eturn of the .edi was much better, an on5looker to the discussion will begin to view the movies on more of an e<uilibrium. 6ther Scholars ;ho "ave <sed This Theory: Brown, 7. Eerrick, .. (oss, C. %tachowiak, .. 9elevant 9esearch: Brown, 7. , !"#-. (odels of $ttitude Change. +n 7.Brown, 1. >alanter, 1. *ess, ) >. (andler ,Contributors-, /ew Directions in 'sychology. /ew York0 *olt, 7inehart and =inston. , 5I;Eerrick, .. , !;I-. The effect of relevant and non5relevant sources on attitude change. .ournal of %ocial 'sychology ;5#G. %tachowiak, .. ) (oss, C. , !";-. *ypnotic alterations of social attitudes. .ournal of %ocial 'sychology CC5I9.

(elief Congruency
Explanation of Theory: There are a hierarchy of beliefs, attitudes and values. Beliefs are the building blocks of attitudes, so an attitude can be comprised of many beliefs and many attitudes merge to create a value. Theorist: (.7okeach Date: !"; Primary Article: 7okeach, (. and 7othman >. , !";-. The principle of belief congruence and the congruity principle as models of cognitive interaction. 'sychological 7eview, C#, #I5 :#. Metatheoretical Assumptions: &nterpretation: $ person has countless beliefs, fewer attitudes and a limited number of true values. The beliefs must be congruent with attitudes they comprise. Beliefs, attitudes and values are interwoven and ranked as a single belief system. Criti'ue: %cientific Theory This theory claims that there is a hierarchy of beliefs, attitudes and values and e4plains how changes are made in each andpredicts how the change will occur.

&deas and &mplications: 3ur values, attitudes and belief system can often be looked at as a layer of an onion. The outer layers are much easier to alter than those closer to the center. $s we come closer to the center,it is nearly impossible to create a change. %hifts in our attitudes or beliefs may serve as short5term changes of behavior, but only values serve as life guides that dictate a lifelong set of behaviors. Example: =hen any type of company markets a product that is controversial, they have a goal to change the beliefs of the consumer concerning the aspects of their products so that the consumer will purchase the product. They reali6e that they are not able to change consumer values with a mere advertisement, but they may change a surface belief that could result in a sale. For instance, a candy manufacturer could make the claim that their candy, unlike other candy, is actually healthy and promotes a longer life. The consumer, who previously thought the candy was unhealthy, changes this belief and purchases the candy. There is no change in value, the consumer will still not purchase what is bad for them, but the change in their belief of that specific product creates a change of action.

9einforcement Theory
Explanation of Theory: .ttitude changes result from an opinion change produced through reinforcement in areas such as attention# comprehension and acceptance. Theorist: "ovland! Janis and =elly Date: #$%3 Primary Article: *ovland, .anis ) Eelly. , !"C -7einforcement Theory. +n 1lliot, 7.(., Lind6ey, >.,(acCor<uodale, E., ,1ds-, Theories of $ttitude Change, #5"9. &ndividual &nterpretations: $ttention, comprehension and acceptance are considered by the audience before a new opinion is adopted. The message must be attention5getting and easy to understand. (ore importantly, it must be presented in a way that reinforces the ideaDs validity. Metatheoretical Assumptions: 6ntological Assumption: The theory is very deterministic and therefore scientific. +t seeks to predict a group or individualDs reaction to reinforcement. Epistemological Assumption: 7einforcement theory falls along the scientific side of the spectrum. +t presents persuasion as a process with right and wrong steps. Axiological Assumption: Being scientifically well5rounded, 7einforcement theory maintains a value neutral stance. The steps given are seen as applying to the population as a whole with little e4ception. Criti'ue: =hile very thorough, 7einforcement Theory does not take into account other possible motivators than those presented by the researcher. *owever, it provides a fairly reliable method of predicting attitude changes though the e4planation can be vague. &deas and &mplications: 7einforcement Theory does not define what constitutes a reinforcement. The e4amples of reinforcement cited in the research cover such a broad range, from an D$D to a verbal Fnice shirt,F that the only commonality appears to be their positive nature. This is highly individualistic in that what is positive to one person may be an insult to another. Example: $ public relations practitioner is conducting a week long campaign for F3rgan Donation $wareness =eekF. %Jhe conducts a pre5campaign phone survey providing positive reinforcement for pro5organ donation answers for two groups and no reinforcement for the other two groups. $ll groups have an opposing position to organ donation. 3ne group from each, reinforcement and no reinforcement, are in the target area of the campaign. $ccording to 7einforcement Theory, the people in the areas that received the reinforcement and the campaign will have the greatest change in attitude toward organ donation. The ne4t should be the group that received the reinforcement without the campaign closely followed by those who received the campaign but not the reinforcement.

The group with the least amount of attitude change would be those who reached no reinforcement and did not receive the campaign. 9elevant 9esearch: %lade, '.D., ) 3wens, 7.>. , !!I-. $ dual process model of perfectionism based on reinforcement theory, -ehavior Modification, ,##-9, 9C#59! .

&nformation Manipulation Theory

Explanation of Theory: . spea$er purposefully and covertly violates one of the conversational ma*ims of )uantity# )uality# relation and manner with the intention of deceiving his0her listener. Theorist: Steve A. McCornac5 Date: #$$1 Primary Article: (cCornack, %.$. , !!#-. +nformation manipulation theory, Communication (onographs, ,;!-, 5 ". &ndividual &nterpretations: +nformation (anipulation Theory presents four ma4ims. The ma4im of 1uantity refers to a personDs e4pectations that a conversation will be as informative as possible. =e do not e4pect information to be left out. The ma4im of 1uality refers to a personDs e4pectation of being presented with information that is truthful and complete. The ma4im of %elation illustrates the e4pectation of contributing relevant information to a conversation. The ma4im of Manner relates to how things are said rather than what is said. Metatheoretical Assumptions: 6ntological Assumption: +(T predicts the methods of deception a person uses by determining what information will be eliminated. Epistemological Assumption: +(T is scientific in nature and offers set guidelines for producing and identifying deceptive messages. Axiological Assumption: +(T is value conscious because the researcher must 2udge is a deception. =hile violations of the ma4im of <uality and <uantity are factually driven, violations of relation and manner are largely opinion based. For this reason the researcher must be aware of hisJher own values when making these 2udgments. Criti'ue: +(T provides an e4planation for and the multiple ways in which deception can occur. *owever, it does not predict what ma4ims a person may violate only that the violation will occur within the certain realm of possibilities provided. &deas and &mplications: +(T e4plains different types of deception. This information can be useful if a person is in a situation like the following. The theory is used fre<uently my teenagers trying to convince their parents to let them go to a party for the weekend. For e4ample, saying an adult will be there but failing to mention that the adult is the friendDs # 5year5old brother who is supplying the beer which violates the ma4ims of <uantity and <uality. Example: .ohn has a ten page paper due =ednesday that is worth ;GK of his final grade. (onday night he went to the basketball game and didnDt start on the paper. Tuesday night he went the library and fell asleep at the computer. Fortunately, the paper was almost finished and saved. .ohn did, however, wake up ten minutes after his class was over and his professor does not accept late papers. *e goes to see his professor immediately. *ow will he answer when his professor asks him why he wasnDt in class to turn in his paperL Huantity0 F+ am so sorry professor. + overslept.F Huality0 F(y roommate didnDt pay the electric bill so our power got cut off and my alarm clock didnDt go off.F 7elation0 F+Dve 2ust had a really bad week. (y girlfriend broke up with me, the power turned off my electricity and my boss says if +Dm late one more time heDll fire me.F (anner0 F+ really need a good grade in this class. *onestly, my paper was already done + 2ust oversleptF said while rolling eyes and looking disgusted.

9elevant 9esearch: Dawson, 1..., ) Brashers, D. , !!"-. +nformation manipulation theory0 $ replication and assessment. Communication (onographs, "9, -, CG5I9. (c Cornack,%.$., Levine, T.7., %olowc6uk, E.$., Torres, *.+. )Campbell, D.(. , !!#-. =hen the alteration of information is viewed as deception0 $n empirical test of information manipulation theory. Communication (onographs, ;!, -, C59G.

Ela,oration Ai5elihood Model

Explanation of Theory: &here are two routes to persuasion -- the central route and the peripheral route. &he central route uses message elaboration# and can produce a major positive attitude change# while the peripheral route uses si* different message irrelevant cues to illicit a )uic$ response with a minor shift in attitude. Theorist: Petty and Cacioppo Date: #$B% Primary Article: Ba4ter, L.$. , !II-. $ dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. +n %. Duck ,1d.-, *andbook of 'ersonal 7elationships, pp.#;C5#C9. &ndividual &nterpretations: The central route involves message elaboration and is used to scrutini6e ideas, determine their merit and contemplate possible conse<uences. The peripheral route provides a <uick accept or re2ect decision without deep consideration. %i4 cues automatically lead a person to the peripheral route0 reciprocation 5F+ did you a favorF, consistency 5 FThis is the way itDs doneF, social proof 5F1veryone does itF, liking 5FYou like me and my ideaF, authority 5FBecause + said soF, and scarcity 5FThis offer ends in five minutesF. Metatheoretical Assumptions: 6ntological Assumption: 1L( is a scientific theory that charcteri6es humans as reactors to a stimulus making a desired reaction or attitude change achievable. Epistemological Assumption: This theory provides the most effective way to persuade an audience or produce an attitude change. These guidelines fit with the scientific perspective of one truth or one best way to do approach a situation. Axiological Assumption: 1L( is a value conscious theory. $ speaker must communicate hisJher message in the most effective way for the audience not for the speaker. Criti'ue: 1laboration Likelihood (odel, though scientific, is difficult to criti<ue according to traditional scientific standards. The theory clearly and simply e4plains both routes of persuasion and the ideal circumstances for each. *owever, as a model, it is difficult to determine its falsifiability and internal consistency. &deas and &mplications: 1L( is a fairly accurate model of how attitude changes are achieved and the difficulty in producing a ma2or or long5term attitude change. =hile it is not a blanket for all situations, the guidelines set forth in the model provide an invaluable framework to the fields of public speaking and persuasion. Example: 'erfume ads rely on the peripheral route while infomercials use the central route to persuade a person to buy their products. During a 9G5second perfume commercial the audience has no motivation to process information. Their concentration becomes none4istent during commercial breaks therefore advertisers must grab their attention the <uickest and easiest way possible. $n infomercial has the time and the audience interest to use the central route. +t is common knowledge that most infomercials last 9G minutes. Therefore, if a person is watching the producers can assume that the viewer has an interest in their product. Testimonial from a reliable looking host helps to bring about the positive attitude change and therefore the sale hoped for. *owever, to capture the transient viewer producers resort to the peripheral route by lighting a car hood on fire. 9elevant 9esearch:

Brooks5*arris, ..1., *eesacker, (., (e2ia5(illan, C. , !!"-. Changing menDs male gender5role attitudes by applying the elaboration likelihood model of attitude change. %e4 7oles0 $ .ournal of 7esearch, 9;,!5 G-, ;"95;I . *illenbrand5>unn, T.L., *awkins, $.E., *ac<uard, L.L., /ichols, 7.E., DeBord, E.$. ) Brock, E... , !!;-. 14amining se4 differences in altering attitudes about rape0 $ test of the elaboration likelihood model. .ournal of Counseling and Development, C9,"-, ":G5":I. =hite, '.*., ) *arkins, %.>. , !!:-. 7ace of source effects in the elaboration likelihood model. .ournal of 'ersonality and %ocial 'sychology, "C,;-, C!G5IGI.

Attri,ution Theory
Explanation of Theory: .ttribution &heory attempts to e*plain causes of behavior. !t attempts to e*plain the causes of people's behavior and attributing or e*plaining reasons as to why people behave the way they do. Theorists: "eider Date: 1958 Primary Article: Heider, Fritz. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. (New York !iley, "#$%&. Metatheoretical Assumptions: 'ttri()tion Theory is a h)*anistic theory. There is not a direct relationship (etween o)r (eha+ior and its ca)ses. There can (e a +ariety of (eha+iors that are percei+ed res)lting fro* a +ariety of ca)ses. ,eca)se 'ttri()tion Theory is H)*anistic, -piste*ological ass)*ption says that there are *)ltiple realities, or tr)ths as opposed to only one tr)th. H)*anistic .ntological ass)*ption says that o)r h)*an nat)re is of free will and not predeter*ined. /astly, '0iological ass)*ption says that as opposed to o(1ecti+ity, +al)es are i*portant in st)dying the discipline of 2o**)nications. Critique: ,eing a H)*anistic Theory, its criti3)e is (ased on Farrell4s categories that *ake )p a good theory. These categories are, 'nalytic 2onsistency, 5ethodological Rigor, Int)iti+e 2redi(ility, and He)ristic 6al)e ("#%7&. This is good theory (ased on its strong He)ristic 6al)e, (eca)se it is +ery applica(le to *any different sit)ations and can (e percei+ed in *any different ways. It also has Int)iti+e 2redi(ility. The theory *akes sense relati+e to o)r act)al co**)nicati+e practice. In other words, it has practicality. .n the other hand, this theory is not as refined as other h)*anistic co**)nication theories. There e0ists roo* for i*pro+e*ent. Example: 8ay yo) are e0pecting a +ery i*portant phone call ()t yo) ha+e to r)n o)t to the store. Yo)r roo**ate is the only one ho*e and yo) tell her to (e s)re to answer the phone (eca)se of this call. 8he says that she will take a *essage. !hen yo) ret)rn ho*e, yo) ask yo)r roo**ate if she answered the call and took a good *essage, and she said so*eone called, ()t she forgot who and how to reach the*. There are se+eral different reasons that this co)ld ha+e happened. .ne, she co)ld ha+e gotten a call right (efore yo)r call, learning that her grand*other was ill, and she co)ld ha+e (een too )pset to re*e*(er to write it down. .r, the caller co)ld ha+e (een short with her and not wanted to lea+e a *essage, and so on. 's yo) can see, there are se+eral different kinds of ca)sal attri()tions to (eha+ior, for e0a*ple, sit)ation ca)ses, personal effects, a(ility to do so*ething, o(ligation to do so*ething ect. The attri()tion assigned to (eha+ior centers on percei+ed ca)ses. It is i*portant to look +ery caref)lly at the conte0t in which the (eha+ior took place. Communication cholars !ho "a#e Ma$e %se &f The Theory: Hewstone, 5. ("#%9& :elly, H. ("#79& 8illars, '.( "#%;& :assin, 8. < ,aron, R. ("#%$&