The effects of language complexity in a counterattitudinal appeal to laypeople : an application of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion to a legal issue
Abstract
The effects of a complexly worded counterattitudinal appeal on laypeople's attitudes
toward a legal issue were examined, using the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of
persuasion as a theoretical framework. This model states that persuasion can result from the
elaboration and scrutiny of the message arguments (i.e., central route processing), or can result
from less cognitively effortful strategies, such as relying on source characteristics as a cue to
message validity (i.e., peripheral route processing). One hundred and sixty-seven undergraduates
(85 men and 81 women) listened to eitller a low status or high status source deliver a
counterattitudinal speech on a legal issue. The speech was designed to contain strong or weak
arguments. These arguments were 'worded in a simple and, therefore, easy to comprehend
manner, or in a complex and, therefore, difficult to comprehend manner. Thus, there were three
experimental manipulations: argument comprehensibility (easy to comprehend vs. difficult to
comprehend), argumel11 strength (weak vs. strong), and source status (low vs. high). After
listening to tIle speec.J] participants completed a measure 'of their attitude toward the legal issue,
a thought listil1g task, an argument recall task,manipulation checks, measures of motivation to
process the message, and measures of mood.
As a result of the failure of the argument strength manipulation, only the effects of the
comprehel1sibility and source status manipulations were tested. There was, however, some
evidence of more central route processing in the easy comprehension condition than in the
difficult comprehension condition, as predicted. Significant correlations were found between
attitude and favourable and unfavourable thoughts about the legal issue with easy to comprehend
arguments; whereas, there was a correlation only between attitude and favourable thoughts
11
toward the issue with difficult to comprehend arguments, suggesting, perhaps, that central route
processing, \vhich involves argument scrutiny and elaboration, occurred under conditions of easy
comprehension to a greater extent than under conditions of difficult comprehension.
The results also revealed, among other findings, several significant effects of gender. Men
had more favourable attitudes toward the legal issue than did women, men recalled more
arguments from the speech than did women, men were less frustrated while listening to the
speech than were ,vomen, and men put more effort into thinking about the message arguments
than did women. When the arguments were difficult to comprehend, men had more favourable
thoughts and fewer unfavourable thoughts about the legal issue than did women. Men and
women may have had different affective responses to the issue of plea bargaining (with women
responding more negatively than men), especially in light of a local and controversial plea
bargain that occurred around the time of this study. Such pre-existing gender differences may
have led to tIle lower frustration, the greater effort, the greater recall, and more positive attitudes
for men than for WOlnen.
Results· from this study suggest that current cognitive models of persuasion may not be
very applicable to controversial issues which elicit strong emotional responses. Finally, these
data indicate that affective responses, the controversial and emotional nature ofthe issue, gender
and other individual differences are important considerations when experts are attempting to
persuade laypeople toward a counterattitudinal position. The effects of a complexly worded counterattitudinal appeal on laypeople's attitudes
toward a legal issue were examined, using the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of
persuasion as a theoretical framework. This model states that persuasion can result from the
elaboration and scrutiny of the message arguments (i.e., central route processing), or can result
from less cognitively effortful strategies, such as relying on source characteristics as a cue to
message validity (i.e., peripheral route processing). One hundred and sixty-seven undergraduates
(85 men and 81 women) listened to eitller a low status or high status source deliver a
counterattitudinal speech on a legal issue. The speech was designed to contain strong or weak
arguments. These arguments were 'worded in a simple and, therefore, easy to comprehend
manner, or in a complex and, therefore, difficult to comprehend manner. Thus, there were three
experimental manipulations: argument comprehensibility (easy to comprehend vs. difficult to
comprehend), argumel11 strength (weak vs. strong), and source status (low vs. high). After
listening to tIle speec.J] participants completed a measure 'of their attitude toward the legal issue,
a thought listil1g task, an argument recall task,manipulation checks, measures of motivation to
process the message, and measures of mood.
As a result of the failure of the argument strength manipulation, only the effects of the
comprehel1sibility and source status manipulations were tested. There was, however, some
evidence of more central route processing in the easy comprehension condition than in the
difficult comprehension condition, as predicted. Significant correlations were found between
attitude and favourable and unfavourable thoughts about the legal issue with easy to comprehend
arguments; whereas, there was a correlation only between attitude and favourable thoughts
toward the issue with difficult to comprehend arguments, suggesting, perhaps, that central route
processing, \vhich involves argument scrutiny and elaboration, occurred under conditions of easy
comprehension to a greater extent than under conditions of difficult comprehension.
The results also revealed, among other findings, several significant effects of gender. Men
had more favourable attitudes toward the legal issue than did women, men recalled more
arguments from the speech than did women, men were less frustrated while listening to the
speech than were ,vomen, and men put more effort into thinking about the message arguments
than did women. When the arguments were difficult to comprehend, men had more favourable
thoughts and fewer unfavourable thoughts about the legal issue than did women. Men and
women may have had different affective responses to the issue of plea bargaining (with women
responding more negatively than men), especially in light of a local and controversial plea
bargain that occurred around the time of this study. Such pre-existing gender differences may
have led to tIle lower frustration, the greater effort, the greater recall, and more positive attitudes
for men than for WOlnen.
Results· from this study suggest that current cognitive models of persuasion may not be
very applicable to controversial issues which elicit strong emotional responses. Finally, these
data indicate that affective responses, the controversial and emotional nature ofthe issue, gender
and other individual differences are important considerations when experts are attempting to
persuade laypeople toward a counterattitudinal position.