Talk:Elaboration likelihood model/Archives/2019

CCT 2018 edition

Hi, I'm a student from CCT Georgetown University. I'm assigned to edit this pages.

The first source I want to add is Te’eni-Harari, Tali, Shlomo I. Lampert, and Sam Lehman-Wilzig. “Information Processing of Advertising among Young People: The Elaboration Likelihood Model as Applied to Youth.”I want to add this to the section of a) Application in Advertising and Marketing, b) Critiques of the Theory, phrased as below: Te’eni-Harari et al. discussed the limation of the scope of ELM. The research looks into advertisements' influence on children and proves that in contrast to adults, children and early adolescents use neither of the routes to process information.

The second source I want to add is Bitner, Mary J., and Carl Obermiller. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Limitations and Extensions in Marketing.” I want to add this to the section of a) Application in Advertising and Marketing. I also want to add an image to the expansion of the model after I worked out the rules of how to upload images of others. Phrased as below: Bitner, Mary J. et al. proposed in the context of marketing, the determinant of routes is more complex. Motivation and ability are under an interlaced mediation of situational variables, person variables, and product categories variables.

The third source I want to add is J. Kitchen, Philip, Gayle Kerr, Rod McColl, Heather Pals, and Don E. Schultz. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Review, Critique and Research Agenda.” this article create a clearer view of critiques of the theory. I want to use it to re-organize the section Critiques of the Theory. The starting would be phrased as below: In terms of concerns towards the ELM throughout the history, J. Kitchen et al. identified four main areas in where the critique lies: a) the descriptive nature of the model, b)the continuum questions, c)the issue of multi-channel processing, and d)the analysis of the different variables which mediate elaboration likelihood.

There will be further refinements. Yvette72 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Yvette

Peer review - Linda

This page is one of the few pages that I've seen, that is really well organized and has really good information in a way that explains it, although it also seems a little too long. Part of it is the Content Menu, since it has a lot of sections. This might be something that you may not be able to change, but it would be great if you can look into it and see if you can change the parameters for the content table.

Structure: I like how the page is divided into small sections, that makes it easy to understand. I would put the Consequences paragraph after the determinant of route section, so it's more of a "cause and effect".

Content: I would suggest that you change the title for the Elements paragraph, or add those parts into the appropriate sections. So for example, the Core Ideas would go after The Routes paragraph. I really like the Applications paragraph, because it really explains the use of this theory in different fields, and makes it more understandable.

Visuals:: I think the visuals help, but I wish they were placed in a different part of the page, especially the ELD diagram. I think it's a useful visual but it needs to be bigger in order to be helpful and read it. --Lb1114 (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Victoria's Peer Review

This theory really interested me for the fact that it can go in different directions. When I first open the Wikipedia page I thought the introduction was very big. I was thinking that maybe in the introduction if it does not explain about the routes would make it smaller. Maybe just mention the two types and briefly describe what they are, like in one sentence. Because in the routes section it already explains them more deeply.

Even though this website is very simple and direct. I really like the way that it explained about the two decisions. It was easy for me to understand. Even though it is saying the same thing as Wikipedia, it was a way simple way that it talked about the ways of making a decision.

I also found this article that applies the theory to social media. It really interested me because I think that social media is such a big part of today’s society. So to try to understand how this different types of theories apply in social media is very fascinating to me. Even though it only mentions Twitter and Facebook I still think its interest to give examples of how communication affects social media in good and bad ways. --Vk1993 (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

References