Ayrıntılandırma Olasılığı Modeli ve Uygulama Alanları

Öz

İkna kavramını açıklayan önemli modellerden biri, ikna sürecinde merkezi ve çevresel ikna yolu olmak üzere iki süreç bulunduğunu savunan Ayrıntılandırma Olasılığı Modeli’dir. Türkçe yazında modeli kapsamlı bir şekilde ele alan bir çalışmaya rastlanılmamış olması dolayısıyla, modelin detaylı anlatımını ve modelle ilgili literatür taramasını içeren çalışmanın bu konuda bir boşluğu doldurduğu düşünülmektedir. Yapılan literatür taraması bulguları modelin en fazla pazarlama ve reklam alanlarındaki çalışmalarda kullanıldığını; ayrıntılandırma olasılığını etkileme düzeyi açısından en fazla sayıda araştırmaya konu olan özelliğin ilgilenim olduğunu; ayrıntılandırma sürecinde yer alan ve etkisi en fazla sayıda araştırmada ele alınan faktörlerin ise iddia gücü ve kaynak inanılırlığı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Yapılan tarama, modelin ve modelde yer alan değişkenlerin kullanımının bütüncül olarak görülmesine imkân vermesi açısından faydalı bilgiler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İkna, Ayrıntılandırma Olasılığı Modeli, Literatür Taraması

Elaboration Likelihood Model and an Analysis of the Contexts of Its Application

Öz

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), which supports the existence of two routes to persuasion: central and peripheral routes, has been one of the major models on persuasion. As the number of studies in the Turkish literature on ELM is limited, a detailed explanation of the model together with a comprehensive literature review was considered to be contributory for this gap. The findings of the review reveal that the model was mostly used in marketing and advertising researches, that the concept most frequently used in elaboration process was involvement, and that argument quality and endorser credibility were the factors most often employed in measuring their effect on the dependant variables. The review provides valuable insights as it presents a holistic view of the model and the variables used in the model.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Persuasion, Elaboration Likelihood Model, Literature Review

Kaynakça

1. AMICHAI-HAMBURGER, Y., MIKULINCER, M., ZALTS, N. (2003), “The Effects of Learned Helplessness on The Processing of a Persuasive Message”, Current Psychology, 22, 1, 37-46.
2. ANDREWS, L. W., GUTKIN, T. B. (1994), “Influencing Attitudes Regarding Special-Class Placement Using A Psychoeducational Report - An Investigation of The Elaboration Likelihood Model”, Journal of School Psychology, 32, 4, 321-337.
3. ARENI, C. S. (2003), “The Effects of Structural and Grammatical Variables on Persuasion: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective”, Psychology and Marketing, 20, 4, 349-375.
4. BITNER, M. J., OBERMILLER, C. (1985), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Limitations and Extensions in Marketing”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, Issue 1, 420-425.
5. BORDIA, P., DIFONZO, N., HAINES, R., CHASELING, E. (2005), “Rumors Denials as Persuasive Messages: Effects of Personal Relevance, Source, and Message Characteristics”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 6, 1301-1331.
6. BRADLEY, S. D., MEEDS, R. (2004), “The Effects of Sentence-Level Context, Prior Word Knowledge, and Need For Cognition on Information Processing of Technical Language in Print Ads”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 3, 291-302.
7. BRIÑOL, P., PETTY, R. E., TORMALA, Z. L. (2004), “Self-Validation of Cognitive Responses to Advertisements”, Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 4, 559-573.
8. CHAIKEN, S., LIBERMAN, A., EAGLY, A. H. (1989), “Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing Within and Beyond the Persuasion Context”, Unintended Thought, (Eds. James S. Uleman ve John A. Bargh) (s. 212-252). Guliford Press, New York.

9. CHANG, C. (2002), “Self-Congruency as a Cue in Different Advertising-Processing Contexts”, Communication Research, 29, 503-536.
10. CHEBAT, J., FILIATRAULT, P., PERRIEN, J. (1990), “Limits of Credibility - The Case of Political Persuasion”, Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 2, 157-167.
11. CHOU, H., LIEN, N., LIANG, K. (2011), “The Antecedents and Belief-Polarized Effects of Thought Confidence”, Journal of Psychology, 145, 5, 481-506.
12. CHRISTENSEN, T. P., ASCIONE, F. J., BAGOZZI, R. P. (1997), “Understanding How Elderly Patients Process Drug Information: A Test of a Theory of Information Processing”, Pharmaceutical Research, 14, 11, 1589-1596.
13. COLE, C., ETTENSON, R., REINKE, S., SCHRADER, T. (1990), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM): Replications, Extensions and Some Conflicting Findings”, Advances in Consumer Research, 17, 231-236.
14. COOK, A. J., MOORE, K., STEEL, G. D. (2004), “The Taking of a Position: A Reinterpretation of the Elaboration Likelihood Model”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 34, 315-331.
15. CRUTZEN, R., NOOIJER, J., BROUWER, W. (2009), “Effectiveness of Online Word of Mouth on Exposure to an Internet-Delivered Intervention”, Psychology & Health, 24, 6, 651-661.
16. DOTSON, M. J., HYATT, E. M. (2000), “Religious Symbols as Peripheral Cues in Advertising: A Replication of the Elaboration Likelihood Model”, Journal of Business Research, 48, 1, 63-68.
17. ESCALAS, J. E., LUCE, M. F. (2004), “Understanding the Effects of Process-Focused versus Outcome-Focused Thought in Response to Advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 2, 274-285.
18. EVANS, J. St. B.T. (2008), “Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgement, and Social Cognition”, Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278.
19. FREWER, L. J., HOWARD, C., HEDDERLEY, D., SHEPHERD, R. (1999), “Reactions to Information About Genetic Engineering: Impact of Source Characteristics, Perceived Personal Relevance, and Persuasiveness”, Public Understanding of Science, 8, 1, 35-50.
20. GAMMOH, B. S., VOSS, K. E., CHAKRABORTY, G. (2006), “Consumer Evaluation of Brand Alliance Signal”, Psychology & Marketing, 23, 6, 465-486.
21. GARRETSON, J. A., BURTON, S. (2005), “The Role of Spokescharacters as Advertisement and Package Cues in Integrated Marketing Communications”, Journal of Marketing, 69, 4, 118-132.
22. GAWRONSKI, B., CREIGHTON, L. A. (2012), “Dual-Process Theories”, The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition, (Ed. D. E. Carlston), Oxford University Press, New York.
23. GELINAS-CHEBAT, C., CHEBAT, J. C. (1992), “Effects of 2 Voice Characteristics on the Attitudes Toward Advertising Messages”, Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 4, 447-459.
24. GELINAS-CHEBAT, C., CHEBAT, J. C., VANINSKY, A. (1996), “Voice and Advertising: Effects of Intonation and Intensity of Voice on Source Credibility, Attitudes toward the Advertised Service and the Intent to Buy”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 1, 243-262.
25. GOTLIEB, J. B. (2006), “Communicating Price-Quality Relationships”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 5, 404-423.
26. HELWEG-LARSEN, M., HOWELL, C. (2000), “Effects of Erotophobia on the Persuasiveness of Condom Advertisements Containing Strong or Weak Arguments”, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 2, 111-117.
27. HOMER, P.M., KAHLE, L.R. (1990), “Source Expertise, Time of Source Identification, and Involvement in Persuasion: An Elaborative Processing Perspective”, Journal of Advertising, 19, 1, 30-39.
28. HONG, S., TONER, J. F. (1989), “Are There Gender Differences in the Use of Country-Of-Origin Information in The Evaluation of Products”, Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 468-472.
29. HOVLAND, C.I., JANIS, I.L., KELLY, H.H. (1953), Communication and Persuasion, Yale University Press, New Haven.
30. HOWARD, D.J. (1997), “Familiar Phrases as Peripheral Persuasion Cues”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 231-243.
31. HOWARD, D. J., KERIN, R. A. (2006), “Broadening the Scope of Reference Price Advertising Research: A Field Study of Consumer Shopping Involvement”, Journal of Marketing, 70, 4, 185-204.
32. JAE, H., DELVECCHIO, D. (2004), “Decision Making by Low-Literacy Consumers in The Presence of Point-of-Purchase Information”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38, 2, 342-354.
33. JO, S. (2004), “Effect of Content Type on Impact: Editorial vs. Advertising”, Public Relations Review, 30, 4, 503-512.
34. KANG, Y., HERR, P. M. (2006), “Beauty and the Beholder: Toward and Integrative Model of Communication Source Effects”, Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 1, 123-130.
35. KIDWELL, B., JEWELL, R. D. (2010), “The Motivational Impact of Perceived Control on Behavioral Intentions”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 9, 2407-2433.
36. KIM, D., BENBASAT, I. (2009), “Trust-Assuring Arguments in B2C E-commerce: Impact of Content, Source, and Price on Trust”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 3, 175-206.
37. KIM, J. U., KIM, W. J., PARK, S. C. (2010), “Consumer Perceptions on Web Advertisements and Motivation Factors to Purchase in the Online Shopping”, Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 5, 1208-1222.
38. KIRBY, S. D., UREDA, J. R., ROSE, R. L., HUSSEY, J. (1998), “Peripheral Cues And Involvement Level: Influences on Acceptance of a Mammography Message”, Journal of Health Communication, 3, 2, 119-135.
39. KRUGLANSKI, A. W., Thompson, E. P. (1999), “Persuasion by a Single Route: A View from the Unimodel”, Psychological Inquiry, 10(2), 83-109.
40. LAMMERS, H. B. (2000), “Effects of Deceptive Packaging and Product Involvement on Purchase Intention: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective”, Psychological Reports, 86, 2, 546-550.
41. LEE, S. (2009), “How Do Online Reviews Affect Purchasing Intention?”, African Journal of Business Management, 3, 10, 576-581.
42. LIN, C., LEE, S., HORNG, D. (2011), “The Effects of Online Reviews on Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of Need for Cognition”, Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 1, 71-81.
43. LIU, Y., SHRUM, L.J. (2009), “A Dual-Process Model of Interactivity Effects”, Journal of Advertising, 38, 2, 53-68.
44. LORD, K.R., LEE, M., SAUER, P.L. (1995), “The Combined Influence Hypothesis: Central and Peripheral Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad”, Journal of Advertising, 24, 1, 73-85.
45. MARTIN, S. S., CAMARERO, C., José, R. S. (2011), “Does Involvement Matter in Online Shopping Satisfaction and Trust?”, Psychology & Marketing, 28, 2, 145-167.
46. MASICAMPO, E.J. (2007), “Dual Processes”, Encyclopedia of Social Psychology, (Eds. Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen D. Vohs), (s.172-172). Sage Publications, California.
47. MAYNARD, M. L., SCALA, M. (2006), “Unpaid Advertising: A Case of Wilson the Volleyball in 'Cast Away'”, Journal of Popular Culture, 39, 4, 622-638.
48. MEYERS-LEVY, J., MAHESWARAN, D. (1992), “When Timing Matters: The Influence of Temporal Distance on Consumers' Affective and Persuasive Responses”, Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 3, 424-433.
49. MEYERS-LEVY, J., PERACCHIO, L. A. (1995), “Understanding the Effects of Color: How the Correspondence between Available and Required Resources Affects Attitudes”, Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 2, 121-138.
50. MINIARD, P.W., BHATLA, S., LORD, K.R., DICKSON, P.R., UNNAVA, H.R. (1991), “Picture-Based Persuasion Processes and the Moderating Role of Involvement”, Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 1, 92-107.
51. MINIARD, P. W., BHATLA, S., ROSE, R. L. (1990), “On the Formation and Relationship of Ad and Brand Attitudes: An Experimental and Causal Analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 3, 290-303.
52. MONGEAU, P.A., STIFF, J.B. (1993), “Specifying Causal Relationships in the Elaboration Likelihood Model”, Communication Theory, 3(1), 65-72.
53. PARK, D., KIM, S. (2008), “The Effects of Consumer Knowledge on Message Processing of Electronic Word-of-Mouth via Online Consumer Reviews”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7, 399-410.
54. PARK, D., LEE, J. (2008), “E-WOM Overload and Its Effect on Consumer Behavioral Intention Depending on Consumer Involvement”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7, 4, 386-398.
55. PARK, D., LEE, J., HAN, I. (2007), “The Effect of On-Line Consumer Reviews on Consumer Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of Involvement”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11, 4, 125-148.
56. PENTONY, J. P. (1986), “Relation Between Involvement in an Issue and Quality of the Argument”, Psychological Reports, 59, 1, 191-198.
57. PERLOFF, R. M. (2007), The Dynamics of Persuasion Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century, 3rd ed., Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, New York.
58. PETTY, R. E., BRINOL, P. (2008), “Persuasion: From Single to Multiple Metacognitive Processes”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 2, 137-147.
59. PETTY, R. E., CACIOPPO, J. T. (1981), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, IA.
60. PETTY, R. E., CACIOPPO, J. T. (1986), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (Ed. L. Berkowitz ) (s.123-193). Vol.19.
61. PETTY, R. E., CACIOPPO, J. T. (1996), Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Westview Press, Colorado.
62. PETTY, R. E., CACIOPPO, J. T., SCHUMANN, D. (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement”, Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 2, 135-146.
63. PETTY, R. E., WEGENER, D. T. (1999), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current Status and Controversies”, Dual – Process Theories in Social Psychology (Eds. Shelly Chaiken, Yaacıv Trope ) (s.37-72). Guilford Press, New York.
64. RICE, D. H., KELTING, K., LUTZ, R. (2012), “Multiple Endorsers and Multiple Endorsements: The Influence of Message Repetition, Source Congruence and Involvement on Brand Attitudes”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 2, 249-259.
65. SANBONMATSU, D. M., KARDES, F. R. (1988), “The Effects of Physiological Arousal on Information Processing and Persuasion”, Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 3, 379-385.
66. SCHOLTEN, M. (1996), “Lost and Found: The Information-Processing Model of Advertising Effectiveness”, Journal of Business Research, 37, 2, 97-104.
67. SCHUMANN, D. W., PETTY, R. E., CLEMONS, D. S. (1990), “Predicting the Effectiveness of Different Strategies of Advertising Variation: A Test of the Repetition-Variation Hypotheses”, Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 2, 192-202.
68. SENGUPTA, J., GOODSTEIN, R. C., BONINGER, D. S. (1997), “All Cues are not Created Equal: Obtaining Attitude Persistence under Low- Involvement Conditions”, Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 4, 351-361.
69. SHER, P. J., LEE, S. (2009), “Consumer Skepticism and Online Reviews: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective”, Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 1, 137-143.
70. SOLOMON, M. R. (2009), Consumer Behavior Buying, Having, and Being. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
71. SWASY, J. L., MUNCH, J. M. (1985), “Examining the Target of Receiver Elaborations: Rhetorical Question Effects on Source Processing and Persuasion”, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 4, 877-886.
72. SWINYARD, W. R. (1993), “The Effects of Mood, Involvement, and Quality of Store Experience on Shopping Intentions”, Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 2, 271-280.
73. TANG, L. (Rebecca), JANG, S. (Shawn), MORRISON, A. (2012), “Dual-Route Communication of Destination Websites”, Tourism Management, 33, 1, 38-49.
74. TARRANT, M. A., OVERDEVEST, C., BRIGHT, A. D., CORDELL, H. K., ENGLISH, D. B. K. (1997), “The Effect of Persuasive Communication Strategies on Rural Resident Attitudes toward Ecosystem Management”, Society & Natural Resources, 10, 6, 537-550.
75. TENG, C.-I, HUANG, L.-S., HSIEH, P.-C. (2010), “How to Use Technical Terms in Ads? An FCB Grid Perspective”, British Journal of Management, 21, 4, 1044-1056.
76. VERPLANKEN, B. (1991), “Persuasive Communication of Risk Information: A Test of Cue versus Message Processing Effects in a Field Experiment”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 2, 188-193.
77. WHITE, P. H., HARKINS, S. G. (1994), “Race of Source Effects in the Elaboration Likelihood Model”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5, 790-807.
78. WORKMAN, M. (2008), “Wisecrackers: A Theory-Grounded Investigation of Phishing and Pretext Social Engineering Threats to Information Security”, Journal of the American Society For Information Science and Technology, 59, 4, 662-674.
79. YANG, S., HUNG, W., SUNG, K., FARN, C. (2006), “Investigating Initial Trust toward E-Tailers from the Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective”, Psychology and Marketing, 23, 5, 429-445.
80. ZHANG, Y., BUDA, R. (1999), “Moderating Effects of Need for Cognition on Responses to Positively versus Negatively Framed Advertising Messages”, Journal of Advertising, 28, 2, 1-15.
81. ZWIER, S., BOLINK, W. (2011), “'Betaserc (R) is Better'. The Third-Person Effect in Reactions to Direct-to-Consumer Advertising”, Psychologie & Gezondheid, 39, 4, 224-231.