In “Theories of Communication” by Littlejohn and Foss, the authors discuss the
two “persuasion” theories of the several sociopsychological approaches to individual
communicators. They are the social judgement theory and the elaboration likelihood
theory. Throughout this essay I will be referring to them in the following abbreviations
SJT and ELT. Furthermore, I’ve included the charts that I made to help clarify the
theories. These theoretical approaches are to help people understand the thinking
processes that are involved in the acts of persuasion.
Social Judgement Theory Vs. Elaboration Likelihood Theory
First off, there is the SJT, which essentially just evaluates the message. Once the
message is received, we think about it and then judge it based on our personal
experiences, personal beliefs, anchors, and ego involvement. Anchors act as like a point
of reference and reflect our knowledge. Ego involvement is your sense of personal
relevance, it ranges from high to low, high meaning it has high relevance, and low
meaning it has low relevance. Next, you have to determine whether the message is
acceptable, neutral, or non-acceptable according you personally. They are also called the
latitude of acceptance, latitude of non-commitment, and latitude of rejection, but the
other way is easier for me to remember. An assimilation effect will occur if the message
is close to your view, in which you will then assimilate the message and may have a
change in attitude. However, if the message was far from your view a contrast effect
occurs in which you reject the message.
The ELT is the degree to which we closely analyze information and therefore line
up our beliefs with ideas represented to us. It starts off by determining the degree of
personal relevance or involvement. This is divided into two parts: motivation and ability,
which both range from high to low. This degree of relevance branches off into the
peripheral route and central route. If you don’t feel it’s relevant the message will take the
peripheral route, whereas if you feel it’s relevant the message will take the central route.
The peripheral route has less critical thinking, which the central route has more critical
thinking. Often there are combinations of peripheral and central routes. Upon taking the
central route you have to think about the message based on what you know. As a result, a
long lasting change in behaviour is predicted. On the other hand, if you take the
peripheral route a temporary change in behaviour is predicted. After, in determining
behaviour, if the message is less favorable to your view, it will be evaluated negatively,
opposed to having a message more favorable to your view and is evaluated more
positively.
As for similarities between the two theories, the changes in attitude are heavily
influenced by a person’s sense of personal relevance towards a message Also, both
revolve around the notion of knowledge, whether someone has it or not. And in the end it
is generally a person’s initial view on the message that will determine the outcome.
There are differences between the two theories. The ELT tries to predict change in
behaviour, while the SJT organizes and assorts messages into the categories of for a
person to agree or disagree. The SJT is based on ego involvement and anchors, while the
1
ELT expands on involvement in the direction of motivation and ability. In the ELT the
degree of personal relevance comes first, while in SJT it comes later on. SJT is about the
influence of individual traits and attitudes on communication behaviour. ELT is about the
role of info and communication in shaping individual attitudes and beliefs.
Applying the Theories to Persuade
If one was to persuade someone, you may have to adjust your message so that it’s
relevant and makes sense to that person. You can’t control their beliefs or experiences,
but if you have some understanding of their beliefs or experiences, you can use that to
help sell them the message. In a sense, it is like you are a producer selling a product,
packaging it, and marketing it in a way that a consumer will buy.
If I had to sell a message using SJT I would first consider that persons personal
experiences and personal beliefs. Is it a product they can relate to and make use of? Then
I will worry about their anchors, I may need to adjust the message so it is knowledgeable
to them. The next step would be to make sure their ego involvement or sense of personal
relevance is high enough so they feel that my message is a necessity. Once they feel
confident that my product awesome, I must keep their loyalty somehow so their social
perception falls into the category of latitude of acceptance. As long as my message is
close to their view the assimilation effect will undoubtedly occur and the person will
assimilate the message and buy the product.
Selling the message to a person using ELT tactics to persuade someone would be
obviously different then SJT. Once again I’d start off with a message, only t his time I’ll
have to adjust the message so their degree of personal reference is high. The message
would have to be clear enough so the person has the ability to understand it clearly. Also,
the message will have to account for the motivation and maintain it at a high level.
Within motivation there are three things that I will have to be aware of. Firstly, there is
involvement; it is essential to make the message on an important and relevant topic to the
person so they will think more critically. Secondly, is the diversity of the argument; my
message will have to come from many sources so the person will think more. Lastly, is
personal disposition toward critical thinking; I’ll find out if they enjoy looking at
different perspectives. My message will surely be adjusted to fit their views. Now that
I’ve hooked the person onto the central route, they will think the message based on their
knowledge, and change their attitude. Of course my message will be said in a way that
seems more favorable to their view, in which they will evaluate the message positively.
When I was coaching roller hockey last year, my team made it to the finals only
to play the number one ranked team in our division. That same team annihilated us before
beating us by like 9-3. Other teams were even worse off, losing by double digits. My
team’s spirits were down knowingly they had to play this team. Unknowingly using the
SJT, I tried to raise their spirits by persuading them that there was hope. Focusing on
their beliefs and experiences (how much better the other team was and bad they would
do), I reminded them of how well they’ve played lately as a team. We had had a lot of
success against the other teams and that our skill and smarts are getting better. The kids
2
brought up the anchor, which was that I couldn’t compare this team to the others because
they’re much more skilled. I turned to their ego involvement and toned it down to low by
saying that we have nothing to lose and lets just play our game. Many of the kids were
still in between acceptance and neutral in that we had even a remote chance of winning.
By the warm up the assimilation effect had caught on and by game time the assimilation
effect was slowly entering their minds. I could see it in their faces and body language. As
the game progressed there confidence was rising and their attitudes changed. They knew
we had a chance at winning. They played their hearts out and eventually lost in overtime.
Say for example the message is “global warming is kinda a big deal?” Through
the concept of ELT I’ve found myself persuaded by it. Now I really like snowboarding
and global warming is a key issue affecting this sport. It is very relevant to me because it
will affect the snow and when I grow up my children and children’s children will be
living in this world. I’d like to teach them how to snowboard but also not ruin the world
my future legacy. Because it is so relevant, it is only natural for me to thinking critically
a.k.a. the central route of the topic. I know that there are ways to slow down the process
of global warming through recycling and reducing green house gas emissions. It has
definitely changed my attitude towards the earth. Evidently, the view that global warming
is a concern is favorable to me and therefore I evaluate it positively.
In conclusion, I feel these two theories accurately portray persuasive activity.
They amaze me how accurate they are and I can relate them to any persuasive matters.
3