The importance of how individuals interact with others is recognized in the field of communication, considering their social role, career, and relationships. Communication involves sharing information about ourselves as well as others. Due to its significance, several researchers have created theories to enhance our skill in effectively persuading others.
Both Social Judgment Theory and Elaboration Likelihood Model are theories that I will outline. Despite their usefulness in organizing, clarifying processes, and predicting outcomes, these theories have limitations that affect their accuracy. The tourism industry in Nepal is currently facing a threat due to the ongoing violence since the murder of most members of the royal family in July 2002. As a result, tourists from other countries no longer consider the environment safe.
The current situation in Nepal is not only causing a decline in its economy but also negatively impacting its tourism industry. Consequently, the question arises: how can Nepal revive its tourism sector? The Social Judgment Theory offers valuable insights into the challenges faced by individuals in such circumstances. This theory presents three primary benefits. Firstly, it aids in comprehending people’s responses. Secondly, it provides an understanding of the obstacles encountered during persuasion efforts. Lastly, it offers practical guidance for successful persuasion in real-life scenarios.
According to Social Judgment Theory, each position for a topic can be categorized into one of three zones: the latitude of acceptance, the latitude of non-commitment, and the latitude of rejection. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) suggests that there are two routes to persuasion: the central route and the peripheral route. The central route involves carefully thinking about issue relevant arguments in a persuasive communication, while the peripheral route offers a shortcut to accepting or rejecting a message without active thinking. (Page 198).
The Tourism Minister in Nepal can gain valuable insights from this theory in order to persuade individuals and foster a change in their attitudes. He does not believe that the country’s political affairs should have any impact on tourism. However, how can he convince people of this notion? Let’s start by evaluating both theories and examining their potential effectiveness. According to Anderson and Ross, it is crucial for us to determine if the theories are unnecessarily complex. Some individuals question whether we should compare every new idea with our current perspective, as this makes the Social Judgment Theory appear more intricate (Class Discussions: Hydra). Nevertheless, in reality, even if not consciously, we automatically evaluate each idea before making a decision.
The rapid nature of events often goes unnoticed by us, according to the students’ response. The Elaboration Likelihood Model, on the other hand, is a bit more intricate. Elaboration can be hindered by distractions (page 201), subsequently impacting the central route. Furthermore, the peripheral route relies on six cues, complicating the theory and making it harder to accomplish. If the recipient engages in favorable thoughts or rehearses them, lasting persuasion is more probable.
The likelihood of a boomerang effect, where the subject moves away from the advocated position, increases if they rehearse unfavorable thoughts about the message or if the message is ambiguous. I believe that the Social Judgment Theory is more reliable and applicable than the boomerang effect. The Criterion of consistency assesses the consistency of both theories. Both theories are consistent and do not have any unexplained inconsistencies. Although different experiments yield different results, they can all be well explained by these two theories. The third evaluation is the Criterion of refutability.
The Social Judgment Theory is highly applicable and testable. When individuals receive messages, they promptly assess their placement on a mental scale. In the given example, the Minister must contemplate the concerns of tourists who no longer visit the country. Consequently, he must persuade a sizable group of people who share similar apprehensions.
The Tourism Minister can create a persuasive message focused on encouraging optimism about flying for people from other countries. To effectively utilize the Elaboration Likelihood Model, the Minister needs to identify topics of high and low personal importance and evaluate which approach is most effective. If the recipients of the message are motivated and capable of analyzing and considering the message’s content, and if there are convincing arguments available, then the central route to persuasion should be employed. However, if the recipients are unlikely to engage with or analyze the message, or if the arguments presented are weak, then the peripheral route to persuasion should be utilized. Considering that the Minister may not possess enough information to guarantee security in the country, it may be appropriate to utilize the peripheral route in this particular scenario.
Both the Social Judgment Theory and the Elaboration Likelihood Model offer imaginative and captivating insights. The Social Judgment Theory delves into the intriguing concept of three latitudes of attitudes. It has caught the attention not only of researchers and theorists but also of students and readers, who are prompted to apply the theory to a variety of situations and problems. In contrast, the Elaboration Likelihood Model explores the persuasive strategies people can employ, highlighting two distinct paths. This theory seeks to elucidate how individuals behave when attempting to influence others.
Both theories appear to have practical usefulness and are regarded as scientifically valid due to meeting most of the criteria (Works Cited:1. A First Look at Communication Theory-by Em Griffin. (Pg 186-Pg 207)2. Group Questions and Student Responses. 3.).
According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, there are two paths to persuasion: the central path and the peripheral path. The central path is used when the recipient is motivated and capable of thinking about the message. If the person is invested in the subject and has undisturbed access to the message, they will engage with it. The longevity of persuasion is probable if the recipient thinks positively or rehearses favorable thoughts about the message. Conversely, the boomerang effect, where one moves away from the advocated position, is likely if unfavorable thoughts about the message are rehearsed.
If the message is unclear but aligns with the receiver’s attitudes, persuasion is likely. If the message is unclear but contradicts the receiver’s attitudes, a boomerang effect is likely. If the message is unclear but has no influence on the receiver’s attitude or if the receiver is unresponsive or uninterested in listening to the message, the receiver will seek peripheral cues. Peripheral cues consist of communication strategies like connecting the advocated position with things the receiver already has positive thoughts towards (e.g., food, money, sex), utilizing an expert appeal, and attempting a contrast effect where the advocated position is presented after several other positions that the receiver strongly dislikes.
Accepting the peripheral cue association can lead to a temporary attitude change and potential future elaboration, while rejecting or not having the association results in the retention of the initial attitude.
