Validez y extensiones del modelo de la probabilidad de elaboración (ELM)para una teoría persuasiva de campo en publicidad

  1. León Sáez de Ybarra, José Luis
Revista:
adComunica: revista científica de estrategias, tendencias e innovación en comunicación

ISSN: 2174-0992

Año de publicación: 2014

Título del ejemplar: Tecnocreatividad

Número: 8

Páginas: 169-188

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: adComunica: revista científica de estrategias, tendencias e innovación en comunicación

Resumen

El principal modelo de persuasión, el modelo de la probabilidad de elaboración (ELM), es sometido a revisión, más allá de un verificacionismo experimental, desde el análisis de marcos (framing). Se exponen las reglas de problematización de la psicología social cognitiva, de donde nace el modelo, se compara su valor explicativo y su pragmática con el que resulta del método inductivo (propuesto por Glaser), y se pone en relación con los modelos implícitos de los realizadores publicitarios y las necesidades persuasivas publicitarias. De todo ello se extrae una evaluación de conjunto de ELM. Conforme a la heurística de integración disciplinar, propuesta por el nobel Herbert Simon, y desde el análisis anterior, se propone una vía integradora para la extensión del modelo ELM, en forma de nueva metateoría que pueda contribuir al avance de la teorización persuasiva en publicidad.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Citas Ainslie, G. (1993). A picoeconomic rationale for social construccionism. En: Behavior and philosophy review, vol. 21, nº 2, 63-75.
  • Andrews, C.; Shimp, T. (1990). Effects of Involvement, Argument strength and source characteristics on Central and Peripheral Processing of Advertising. En: Psychology & Marketing, vol.7, nº 3, 195-214.
  • Apter, M. J. (2007). Reversal Theory. The Dynamics of Motivation, Emotion and Personality. 2nd. Edition. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
  • Arceneaux, K.; Johnson, M. y Cryderman, J. (2013). Communication, Persuasion, and the Conditioning Value of Selective Exposure. Like Minds May Unite and Divide but They Mostly Tune Out. En: Political communication, vol. 30, nº 2, 213-231.
  • Areni, Ch. (2003). The effects of structural and grammatical variables on persuasion. An elaboration likelihood model perspective. Psycology & Marketing, vol. 20, nº 4, 349-375.
  • Armstrong, J.S. (2010). Persuasive advertising. Londres: Mcmillan.
  • Aronson, E; Wilson, T.D. y Brewer, M. (1998). Experimentation in Social Psychology. En: Lindzey, G., Gilbert, D. y Fiske, S. T. The Handbook of Social Psychology. Oxford University Press, 99-142.
  • Bickhard, M.H. (2003). An integration of motivation and cognition. En: Rogers y Tomlison (eds.) Development and Motivation. Joint perspectives. Monograph series. Leicester University, 41-56.
  • Bitner, M. y Obermiller, C. (1985). The elaboration likelihood model. limitations and extensions in marketing. En: Hirchsman y Hoolbrook (eds). Advances in consumer research, vol. 12. Association for consumer research, 420-425.
  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. En: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, nº 39, 752-756.
  • Coulter, K. (2005). An examination of qualitative vs. quantitative elaboration likelihood effects. En: Psychology & Marketing, vol. 22, nº 1, 31-49.
  • Eckert, James A., Goldsby, Thomas J. (1997). Using the elaboration likelihood model to guide customer service-based segmentation. En: International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 27, nº 9-10, 600-615.
  • Fishbein, M. y Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading: MA. Addison-Wesley.
  • Fodor, Jerry A. (2003). La mente no funciona así. Alcances y límites de la psicología computacional. Barcelona. Siglo XXI.
  • Fulton, B. (2002). Beyond psychological theory. Getting data that improves games. Game developers conference, S. Jose, CA.
  • Gigerenzer, G. (1991). From tools to theories. A heuristic of Discovery in cognitive psychology. En: Psychological Review, vol. 98, nº2. 254-267.
  • Glaser, B. y Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago Aldine.
  • Greco, Alberto (1986). Heuristic value of simulation models in Psychology. En: Atti del Congresso Logica e Filosofia della Scienza, oggi S.Gimignano, Italy, 7-11 December 1983. Vol. II. Bologna: CLUEB, 299-303.
  • Hayek, F. (1974). La pretensión del Conocimiento. En: Los Premios Nobel de Economía 1969-1977. México: FCE.
  • Hershberger, E. (2003). Eelm: a replication and enhancement of the elaboration likelihood model computer mediated environments. Georgia: Georgia state university.
  • Hovland, C.I., Janis, I. L. y Kelley, H.H (1953). Communication and persuasion. psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Joannis, H. (1992). El proceso de la creación publicitaria. Bilbao. Deusto.
  • Jooyoung; J., Baek, Y., Choi, Y.(2012). The structural effects of metaphor elicited cognitive and affective elaboration levels on attitude toward the ad. En: Journal of Advertising, vol. 41, nº 2, 77-96.
  • Kover, A. J. (1995). Copywriters’ implicit theories of communication. an exploration. En: Journal of Consumer Research, nº21, 598–611.
  • Kruglanski, A., Thompson, E. (1999). Persuasion by a single route. A view from the unimodel. En: Psichological inquiry, nº10, 83-109.
  • Krugman, H. (1966). The impact of TV advertising, learning without involvement. Public opinion quarterly, nº 29, 349-356.
  • León, José Luis (1996). Los efectos de la publicidad. Barcelona. Ariel.
  • Littlejohn, S.V. y Foss, K. (2005). Theories of human communication. Wadsworth. Cengage communication.
  • McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and attitude change. An information-processing theory. 171-196. En: Greenwood, A. G. y otros. Psychological functions of attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.
  • O´Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion, theory and research. Newbury. Sage.
  • O´Saugnessy, J. y O´Saugnessy, N. (2004). Persuasion in advertising. Londres. Routledge.
  • Petty, R. y Wegener, D. (1999). The Elaboration Likelihood Model. Current status and controversies. En: Chaiken, S. y Trope, Y. (eds.). Dual Process Theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Petty, R. E. y Briñol, P. (2012). The Elaboration Likelihood Model. En: Van Lange, P. A. M.; Kruglanski, A. y Higgins, E. T. (eds.). Handbook of theories of social psychology (vol. 1). London: Sage.
  • Petty, R. E.; Rucker, D. D.; Bizer, G. Y. y Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. En: Seiter, J. S. y Gass. G. H. (eds.). Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Petty, R. y Cacioppo, J. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. application to advertising. En: Percy, L. y Woodside, A. (eds). Advertising and consumer psychology. Lexington Books, Mass.
  • Petty, R. y Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion, central and peripheral routes to attitude change. N. York: Springer Verlag.
  • Petty, R.; Cacioppo, J. y Schumann, D. (1983). Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness. The Moderating Role of Involvement. En: Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 10, nº 2, 135-147.
  • Petty. R.; Briñol, P. (2014). The elaboration likelihood and meta-cognitive models of attitudes. Implications for prejudice, the self, and beyond. En: Sherman, J.; Gawronski, B. y Trope, Y. (eds.). Dual-process theories of the social mind. New York: NY. Guildford Press.
  • Rucker, D. D.; Tormala, Z. L.; Petty, R. E., y Briñol, P. (2014). Consumer conviction and commitment. An appraisal-based framework for attitude certainty. En: Journal of Consumer Psychology, vol. 24, nº1, 119-136.
  • Sheng, Y. (2011). An experimental investigation of expanding elaboration likelihood model in advertising research. Indiana University: UMI Dissertations Publishing.
  • Sher, P y Lee, S. (2009). Consumer skepticism and online reviews, an elaboration likelihood model perspective. En: Social behavior and personality, vol. 37, nº 1, 137-144.
  • Sherif, C. W.; Sherif, M. t Nebergall, R. E. (1965; reimpresión. 1981). Attitude and attitude change. The social judgment-involvement approach. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
  • Sherif, M. y Hovland, C.I. (1961). Social judgment. Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Simon, H.; Langley, P. y Bradshaw, G. (1981). Scientific Discovery as problem solving. En: Synthese, vol. 47, nº 1, 3-14.
  • Steel, P. y Konig, C. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. En: Academy of management review, vol. 31, nº 4, 889-2013.
  • Stewart, D. y Koslow, S. (1989). Executional Factors and Advertising Effectiveness. A Replication. En: Journal of Advertising, vol. 18, nº 3, 21-32.
  • Stiff, J. (1985). Cognitive processing of Persuasive Message Cues. A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Supporting Information on Attitudes. Michigan: Michigan State University.
  • Tang, Liang (2009). Destination websites as advertising. An application of Elaboration Likelihood Model. Tesis doctoral. Purdue University.
  • Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D.(1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. En: Science, nº 211, 453–458.
  • Tybout, A. M.; Brian S. y Bobby J. C. (1978). A Two-Stage Theory of Information Processing in Persuasion. an Integrative View of Cognitive Response and Self-Perception Theory. En: Kent H. y Arbor, A. (eds), Advances in Consumer Research. MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet