Given a theory as ambitious and complex as the ELM, it could not be tested in a single

study, or two or ten. Instead, the research on ELM proceeded in a series of stages, and our
discussion today will follow these phases in a roughly chronological order. We call these stages
the Six Phases of ELM Research.
Phase 1: EXPLORING THE ELABORATION CONTINUUM
It is also called the thinking continuum. It is a linear graph which ranges from high to low
degree of thought or thinking. The different processes of change occur along this continuum,
hence, it was important early on to determine the situational and individual difference variables
that place people along this continuum.
But how are the points along the continuum determined? How do we know when we get
from 1 to 2? Points along the continuum are determined by how motivated and able people are
to assess the fundamental merits of a person, issue, or position.
The ELM assumes that when making an evaluative judgment, the default goal is to
determine how good or bad the object truly is. This is in the receiver’s perspective. A receiver,
when listening to and evaluating arguments, wants or chooses to accept the argument that is
subjectively correct to him/her.
However, as receivers, we do not have the desire nor the ability to attain equal
confidence in every attitude. Take for example, me. I am an engineering student and I have a
friend who is a Pol Sci major. More often than not, our conversations center on politics and the
administration. Obviously, as someone coming from eng’g, I’m not as interested and I don’t
know as much as he does. So when he asks whether or not I’m convinced about his arguments,
I often nod without thought. These places me in the low degree of thought. Thus, from this
situation we can conclude that the amount of thinking we do depends on how interested we are
on the issue and how much we know about the issue.
The ELM holds that there are two factors which can affect attitude: (1) amount of
thinking; and (2) biases in thinking. Note that the ELM believes that the amount of thinking a
person does can provide an explanation for the persuasive effects of variables. Also, that
variables can affect the extent of thinking which explains how any one variable can both
increase or decrease persuasion.
Let’s take a variable like distraction as an example and to further explain, let us consider
three different situations with 2 receivers for each situation each belonging to opposite ends of
the elaboration continuum: (1) 8 easily acceptable arguments, and no distraction, (2) 8 easily
acceptable arguments, and distraction such as noise, and lastly, (3) weak instead of strong
arguments and no distraction.
Given the first situation: 8 easily acceptable arguments and no distraction, it was
observed that the high elaboration processor had more favorable attitudes compared to the low
elaboration processor. This is because the high elaboration processor generated more positive
implications toward the issue than the low elaboration processor because he/she was thinking
more than the low elaboration processor.
Now, let us consider the 2nd situation where distraction is present and arguments are
still easily acceptable. Distraction reduces processing, hence, it is associated with reduced
persuasion because fewer favorable thoughts will be generated.
 However, if the message contains weak rather than strong arguments, the high
elaboration processor might think of many unfavorable implications of the arguments, whereas
the low elaboration processor might think of only a few. This will result to the high elaboration
processor having less favorable attitudes toward the issue than the low elaboration processor
because he/she has generated more unfavorable implications than the low elaboration
processor.
When these situations were tested, it was concluded that distraction reduced persuasion
when the arguments were strong but increased persuasion when the arguments were weak.
The most studied variable is the personal relevance of communication. That is, linking
the message to virtually any aspect of the self appears to increase motivation to think about it.
Let’s apply this to real life events such as the jeepney phase out to be implemented next
year. Perhaps, those who aren’t well-informed of the consequences of such change will be
nonchalant about the issue because they don’t see yet how this phase out will affect them. They
will side with those who want to implement the phase out as it promises better transportation
services, according to the government. At this point, they fall closer to the low degree of thought
in the continuum. However, an issue that the minimum fare of 20 php will also be implemented
along with the phase out arises and people suddenly are hesitant to agree with its
implementation. Doubt will then make the people think more of the situation as doubt tends to
be uncomfortable to many and they relieve this discomfort by thinking more which will result in
them going up the elaboration continuum. In line with this, the ELM states that increasing
personal relevance tends to increase persuasion when the arguments are strong but to
decrease persuasion when the arguments are weak.
We’ve covered amount of thinking. Let’s move on to biases in thinking. In ELM, just
because a person is thinking intently doesn’t mean that the thinking will totally be objective. The
ELM holds that the variables not only affect how much thinking a person is doing, but also
whether the thoughts are relatively objective or biased.
If the message is consistent and supportive of the receiver’s beliefs, it will lead to
positively biased processing. However, if it takes a position that is counter to or threatening to
one’s beliefs, it will lead to negatively biased processing. As an example, by simply using our
personal preferences to counter an argument, we already express our bias which in turn affect
our attitude towards said object. It had nothing to do with the fundamental merit of the object.
Another kind of motivational and ability variables that result from bias processing is when
putting pressure on a person to convince him/her that my arguments are correct. Because of so
much pressure that I put on him/her, he/she will be motivated to resist and therefore
counter-argue the message without considering the fundamental merit of the argument.
To elaborate about bias processing, let’s consider three motives: balance motives,
impression management motives, and self-affirmation motives. Balance motives is when you
choose to side with the position that you like and stay away from position you dislike.
Impression motives is when you choose the position that would please others and avoid
positions that would make you look bad. Self-affirmation motives is when you choose the
position that would make you feel best about yourself.
 To sum it all up so far, the ELM holds that 2 factors can affect attitudes: (1) amount of
thinking; and (2) bias in thinking. The amount of thinking is affected by motivation and ability
while biases in thinking depends on what a person’s motives are.
Phase 2: CENTRAL AND PERIPHERAL ROUTES TO PERSUASION
First, we differentiate the central route from the peripheral route. The central route
focuses on assessing information central to the merits of the attitude object. It falls under the
high degree of thought. On the other hand, the peripheral route falls under the low degree of
thought.
For example, consider a situation wherein both a Princeton University professor and a
local high school student give arguments about an educational issue. Research showed that
under high relevance conditions, attitudes were determined by the quality of the arguments and
the expertise of the source mattered little when thinking was very high. While, under low
relevance conditions, argument quality made little difference and attitudes were only affected by
source expertise with more attitude change to the high than the low expert source. Hence, it
was concluded that attitudes were determined by a high thought process--evaluation of the
arguments presented--when motivation to think was high, but by a low thought process--reliance
with expertise cue--when motivation to think was low. These are the central vs peripheral routes
to persuasion, respectively.
Phase 3: Elaboration Affects Attitude Strength
According to the ELM, attitudes that are changed in relatively high degree of thought are
stronger than attitudes that are changed to the same extent as a result of low degree of thought.
Stronger meaning attitudes are more likely to persist over time, resist change, and have an
impact on other judgments and behavior. It holds for both biased and unbiased thought. Why?
First, as thinking increases during attitude change, people should acquire more support for their
knowledge and their attitudes should become more accessible and internally consistent.
Another reason would be that people should become more confident in their views as a result of
thinking.
However, it is important to note that persistence over time and resistance to change can
be independent of one another. For instance, when a set of knowledge receives constant
support over time, it leads to persistence over time, but it does not help it resist attack. Have you
ever held a belief in life when all the while you thought it to be true because situations supported
the claims of your beliefs and then all of a sudden, one instance makes you realize, you’ve been
living a lie all this time? It’s basically what ELM means when saying persistence is independent
from resistance to change. Constant support makes the belief memorable, but it doesn’t make
the belief bulletproof to counter arguments.
Once a person’s attitude or belief has changed, this change will guide a person’s
actions. And if this new belief is a result of high degree of thought, then the person will have to
think less when faced with a situation because this belief is held with more certainty and people
are more willing to act on a belief they are more confident with. This is because link between
thinking and confidence is so strong that people do not have to engage in more thinking to attain
confidence--the only have to believe they have engaged in more thinking.