CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
The idea of "two routes to persuasion" was introduced several years ago, in the role of the Elaboration Likelihood Model or ELM. The principle concept of ELM is about the processes that focus on the attitude changes toward the perceptions of objects;
for every variable will have the influence to the processes in a different level of perceptions resulting and evaluative judgments (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986a).
The Elaboration Likelihood Model, it determined that there are two routes of the perception process – central route and peripheral route that depended on how does effortful processing about the products. Central route to persuasion refers to attitude changes with high-effort cognitive to process product information. Under the central route, the information process activity related extensively and effortful to try to assess and scrutinize the central merits of the supportable situation. With the low-effort of attitude changed is presented by the peripheral route to persuasion. Under a peripheral route, the process depended on a capability that less cognitive method than the central route.
In the conceptualization of ELM suggests that people probably accept the
information that based on their existing knowledge and evaluates them superficially when the elaboration likelihood decreases. The resultant of this process is lacked the careful consideration of relevant information; it is formed on (a) the result that affiliated with positive or negative cues and unrelated to the attitude stimulus or (b) the implication based on different cues in persuasion context. Contrarily, in case that the elaboration
likelihood is high, the acceptable or rejectable from the cognitive method is predicted (a) to be relative with the issue-relevant thinking and more likely to related to their earlier experience and knowledge about that object; (b) the recipients will have more confidence and willingness to process over their attitudes. (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984).
In Elaboration Likelihood Model also described the elaboration continuum that is defined by how motivation and ability estimate the central merits of attitude object as shown in figure 1. There are not only two points – central route and peripheral route - in the model, but there are also the continuums from each point.
At the upper end of the central route continuum, the attitude change and the elaboration get higher than the continuum of a peripheral route. It means that the
recipients, who have a cognitive method through central route, they will have more effect from attitude change and have more responsibility than another who process through peripheral route.
The influence of confidence
Confidence is a critical mainly factor for people to convert their thinking into evaluations or judgments. It can be representative of a sense of one's beliefs and thinking.
(Petty, Brinol, &Tormala, 2002; Wegener, 2007). Moreover, the confidence in people's thoughts also can be the primary factor that impacts people's persuasion. (Petty, Brinol, &
Tormala, 2002).
Brucks (1985) described that the self- confidence could measure the level of subjective knowledge that is it high or low. Besides, when people receive some information, self-confidence may influence their information perceiving and their evaluation. For instance, compare with the actual knowledge level, people with a
shortage of confidence may have more motivated to search the related information that people with higher of confidence.
Self-validation Hypothesis. Petty, Brinol, & Tormala (2002) suggested that there are only thoughts that people have the confidence to accurate and form their attitude. The more holding of confident though, the more effect on their judgments.
The main idea of Self-validation Hypothesis is that thought confidence is a relevant cause of thought predicts attitudes, while attitude confidence is a relevant cause of attitudes predicts behavior (Petty, Brinol, &Tormala, 2002; Wegener, 2007).
Gross, Holtz, and Miller (1995) recommended that this self-validation hypothesis concept between thought confidence and attitude have related to the concept of attitude confidence and behavior. Petty, Brinol, &Tormala (2002) explained the attitude
confidence as "a subjective sense of conviction or validity regarding one's attitude" (Page 560).
In meta-cognitive also mentioned that in one's thoughts are composed of the degree of confidence for estimate their thought and the degree of confidence will be ranged from the highest assuredly to the lowest (e.g., highest doubt). Hence, the more confidence in that thought, the more effect on that judgment compare in the same perception. (Brinol & Petty, 2009).
In additional, Self-validation Hypothesis indicated that generating thoughts is not enough to affect their judgments, but they need to have the confidence in that perception.
Moreover, the amount and the valence of thought are also the critical factors to determine thought confidence (Petty et al., 2002).
Correction Model
Set-Reset Model. Initially suggested by Martin in 1986 and later on developed by a number of the researcher, the Set-Reset model becoming one of the fundamental
models for correction cognition as well as consumer research studies. Martin claimed that both negative and positive element might add in a representation of the target. In the model, Martin (1986) argues that augmented processing volume can affect consumers' efficiency to assess the correctness of contextual message.
Furthermore, following to the Set-Reset model, it described that when the users (consumers) have the comment about that understanding, they will assess both of their motivation and that factors ("setting"). On the other hand, if the person recognizes that context is as the influence to affect their reception and they have the confidence on it, it will have a bias toward their motivation and will reset their decision from that factor ("reset") (Martin, 1986).
When the individual resets his/her judgment, there are some factors that they believe that it can be identifiable in that context. There are many opportunities occurred that the evaluator could not evaluate the impact of contextual consciously, so they generated the contrast response.
Forehand and Perkins (2005) explained set/reset model in their study with an example that is easier to understand as follows "if an evaluator believes that pleasant weather (a contextual cue) is biasing their evaluation of a new acquaintance, they may estimate how the weather prompts much positive effect and adjust their evaluation of the acquaintance accordingly. If the evaluator overestimates the degree to which positive effect is due solely to the weather, the net effect of resetting is a less positive evaluation
of the acquaintance than is objectively warranted" (p. 436).
Correspondingly, the overestimate of the negative influences the result of the contextual cue and affect more favorable evaluation than justified.
Exclusion Model. Schwarz and Bless presented the Inclusion-Exclusion Model (IEM) in 1992 and become one of the prominent models in context effects to explain assimilation (positive relationship) and contrast (negative) (Bless and Schwarz, 2010). The model claims that individuals have to form two mental
representations to assess the target's evaluation: the first one refers to the target stimulus and the other representation of a standard of comparison to evaluate the target stimulus.
In other words, when the person is in a precise moment, and the information arises to concentration in precisely that moment appeals special consideration. Reliantly on how individuals classify the information, the same access information can outcome in assimilation or contrast effects. The assimilation effects are likely to occur when the accessible information builds the representation of the target, conversely, the contrast effects likely to occur when accessing information used to construct the standard of comparison.
Flexible Correction Model (FCM). The model introduced by Petty and Wegener (1993) called Flexible correction model, focuses more on how the correction works and addressing more into correction view. This model argues that if there are alternatives and adjustments of targets, and if the judgments are motivated to change, flexible correction occurs that depends on their naïve theories of how the context influences the judgment of the target. Briefly, the flexible correction model (FCM) depends on individuals' use of their own biases' understanding to effort in a hypothetical judgment situation.
Basically, the FCM explained that corrections are intended to remove the bias of the individual considers are related to the factors. The FMC assumes that when people believe that there is a bias making their judgments of an object too similar to the context (aware of assimilation effect), they will try to remove it, that is, less like the context. On the contrary, when people convince of some biasing factors rendering their judgments away from the context (aware of contrast effect), they would revise their judgments to be more like the context.
Objective knowledge and Subjective knowledge
In the consumer context, based on individual knowledge's assessment,
consumers' knowledge can be separated into two categories (e.g., Alba & Hutchinson 1987, 2000; Brucks, 1985). Objective knowledge refers to the product-related
information, which is stored in long-term memory and can be retrieved with accurately and validly. Many researchers indicated that objective knowledge affects to consumer's motivation and the ability for searching (Brucks, 1985), processing and evaluating the related information. On the other hand, subjective knowledge refers to consumers' confidence about product-related information that they keep in their memory (Brucks, 1985). Subjective knowledge also influences service quality assessment and searching method for the product.
Knowledge miscalibration. Knowledge miscalibration is a concept that presents the argument between subjective and objective knowledge. It shows how the error
occurred on subjective knowledge. The knowledge miscalibration can be formed into two types: overconfidence and underconfidence. Alba and Hutchinson (2000) noted that a consumer with overconfidence tends to have the less suitable effort for searching the
information; they also think that they knew it already and did not have the motivation to search more information. Conversely, underconfidence consumer has over an effort to collect the information. So they think their existent knowledge is not enough for processing this action.