Persuasion in ELM and Cognitive Dissonance

 

In order to persuade someone to hold the same beliefs or values as you it can help to understand the person and their existing beliefs first. In our COMM 321 class, we have discussed two theories that aid in this process: the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and Cognitive Dissonance Theory.

 

The ELM helps us understand the way messages are processed by listeners and the ability of messages to influence. The central route is the path of cognitive processing where the message holds some sort of significance to the listener, whereas the peripheral route is the opposite and is considered a "mental shortcut" for irrelevant messages.

 

The Cognitive Dissonance Theory defines cognitive dissonance as the mental state cause by inconsistency between a person's two beliefs or a belief and an action. In other words, as humans we feel dissonance when a message conflicts with our existing ideas. The theory goes on to explain the ways we reduce this dissonance and how we reassure ourselves when we makes decision in moments of dissonance.

 

In class we primarily discussed both of these theories in regards to cognitive processing and the receivers to messages. Much like I highlighted above, we focused on the way listeners process messages (ELM) and the dissonance felt by listeners when messages go against existing ideals. As Communication students, however, it is also important to understand the message senders and the way they adapt these messages to ultimately have some sort of influence on listeners.

 

In looking at these two theories from the perspective of the message senders, we can see the importance they serve to persuasion. In ELM, we learn the receiver has the ability to process information via central route or peripheral route. As the message sender, it becomes important to understand how to shape messages, in order for them to be processed centrally. Message elaboration is another element of ELM that we discussed which demonstrates the sender's ability to carefully select issue-relevant arguments. In Cognitive Dissonance Theory, we learn that receivers experience somewhat of an internal chaos within them when messages go against their current beliefs. The theory also explains Minimal Justification hypothesis, which claims that the best way to stimulate an attitude change in others is to offer just enough incentive to elicit counter-attitudinal behavior. As a message sender, this becomes a key ingredient for persuasion through dissonance.

 

 

Check out this clip from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, one of my favorites. It highlights many different elements of persuasion, but note its connection to our discussion above. Mac does a great job of using message elaboration in the beginning stating that he put everyone "on the fence" and highlighting the existing values held by the group. He knows by putting them on the fence, the group will make their opinion known; and they do, by placing themselves on the side of Evolution. Additionally, by stating their existing values, Mac assists the message in being processed centrally. We also see an example of minimal justification hypothesis when Charlie begins to influence the group.