Editing Persuasion (section)

===Elaboration likelihood model===
{{Main|Elaboration likelihood model}}
Persuasion has traditionally been associated with two routes:<ref name="Petty & Cacioppo (1986)">{{cite journal|last=Petty|author-link=Richard E. Petty|author2=Cacioppo|author2-link=John T. Cacioppo|title=The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion|journal=Advances in Experimental Social Psychology|year=1986|volume=19|issue=1|pages=123–205|doi=10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2|hdl=10983/26083|s2cid=14259584 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>
* Central route: Whereby an individual evaluates information presented to them based on the pros and cons of it and how well it supports their values
* Peripheral route: Change is mediated by how attractive the source of communication is and by bypassing the deliberation process.<ref name="Petty & Cacioppo (1986)"/>

The Elaboration likelihood model (ELM) forms a new facet of the route theory. It holds that the probability of effective persuasion depends on how successful the communication is at bringing to mind a relevant mental representation, which is the elaboration likelihood. Thus if the target of the communication is personally relevant, this increases the elaboration likelihood of the intended outcome and would be more persuasive if it were through the central route. Communication which does not require careful thought would be better suited to the peripheral route.<ref name="Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann (1983)">{{cite journal|last=Petty |author-link=Richard E. Petty |author2=Cacioppo|author2-link=John T. Cacioppo |author3=Schumann|title=Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement|journal=Journal of Consumer Research|year=1983|volume=10|issue=2|pages=135–146|doi=10.1086/208954|url=http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/kim/2010/readings%20for%20winter%202010/elm%20petty.pdf|citeseerx=10.1.1.319.9824 |s2cid=14927806 }}</ref>