Elaboration Likelihood Model

Max Browning
April 8, 2015
Observation #1

I am currently in an Argumentation and Debate class for my major.  During this class, we have had to participate in and observe multiple debates involving the demilitarization of local law enforcement agencies.  Throughout these debates, we are required to flow the debate and note the arguments that we find most appealing and persuasive before deciding on who we believe has won the debate; however, I do not really care about the militarization of local law enforcement.  Because of this, I was forced to base my decision on peripheral aspects of the debate such as how many arguments I heard, how well the people spoke, and how the debaters presented themselves instead of basing my decision on the merit of their arguments.

This situation shows the theory of the Elaboration Likelihood Model and its idea that there are two routes we use when trying to persuade others.  The central route is the ideal route to take as it leads to longterm changes in opinion; however, the peripheral route is more often used and leads to short-term changes in mindset.  In this situation, the debaters were hoping to appeal to central route of persuasion, but this would require two separate conditions to be met: that I am able to process the arguments and that I am motivated to process the arguments.  Though I was able to process the arguments, I was by no means motivated to listen to their persuasive efforts.

As is stated in the theory, this led me to turn to the peripheral method of being persuaded.  Since I was not listening to the merit of the arguments, I was forced to turn to more superficial means of persuasion.  This did not result in a longterm change in my opinion towards the matter, but rather a short-term decision that was made and soon forgotten about.  I preferred one side because they were easier to understand and seemed to present more arguments; however, I cannot actually remember which side I chose to vote for.