Talk:Elaboration likelihood model/Archives/2015

Possible Images for inclusion

Hi, I'm currently working as part of a team to try and contribute to this Wiki page. The team has produced some images that we'd like some feedback on from the wider community before we include them in the live page.

Image 1

Diagram to help illustrate the two cognitive routes from ELM theory

Image 2

Image 3

Comments I am responsible for the creation of the first image and can guarantee that the photographs used copyright free (Red car image, White Smart Car. The team member responsible for the other 2 images has indicated that he took the photograph included in the second image and is responsible for the illustrations in both the second and third image. Joe1992w (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe1992w. Nice to see some attention toward the article and I hope you enjoy your assignment. I do have some concerns with the suggested images. With regard to image 1 and image 2, my concern is that the examples you give do not provide clarity as to the differences between the ELM's peripheral and central route processing. For example, depending on the situation, "sexy girls", "speed", and "color" could all be aspects of an elaborated decision making process. Conversely, "safety rating", "the price is great" and "insurance costs" could all be cues in less elaborated decision making.

With regard to image 3, I do not think it communicates the ELM well. Many terms are ill-defined and there is no indication as to what is a process and what is an annotation. My suggestion would be to follow more closely the diagram that Petty and Cacioppo provided in their statement of the theory. Does this resonate with you at all? Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for the feedback. I had originally had the intended to do as you have suggested but wasn't entirely sure how close I could get to the Petty-Cacioppo diagram before it became a problem. I would certainly agree with your concerns. Thanks for the advice! Joe1992w (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Diagram to illustrate the differences between ELM routes.

Would this image be too similar to include on the page? Joe1992w (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joe1992w. I won't pretend to be an expert on copyright law across jursidictions, but I think you might be being overly cautious. My feeling is that you could use quite a close replication of the Petty-Cacioppo diagram under the banner of fair use. And anyway, the worst case scenario would be that the copyright holder would notify Wikipedia of the perceived violation of copyright and the image would be removed. Although this would be slightly disappointing for the artcile, presumably it would have no baring on your assignment.

In terms of the most recent image you posted, that looks much better, although I still think there are some ambiguities and stray processes. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have changed the image format from svg to jpg. This will stop text overlapping shapes. I have also removed excess whitespace. Joe1992w (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing as Part of Georgetown CCT

Hello! I'm Leo, a student at Georgetown University in Professor Jeanine Turner's Communication Theory and Frameworks course. I've been assigned to expand on the subject of this page throughout 2015 Fall semester. I am new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any direction as to appropriate steps for making edits to existing pages. Thank you for your understanding and support. Feel free to create a new section with title like "Peer Review from XXXX". Thanks! St798 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There's a list of sources at the bottom of this page. What's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvlysenbei (talk • contribs) 09:13, 18 June 2007

• Please sign posts.

The problem is that non-Petty & Cacioppo citations are needed. Because Petty and Cacioppo developed the theory, they are thought of as primary sources in Wiki-land. Secondary sources are considered more reliable and verifiable than primary sources.

I know there are loads of articles testing this theory, so all you need to do is add a few academic articles that weren't written by Petty and Cacioppo. I think it's good to leave the citations you have as academics will want the original citations, as they appear here.

Good luck! Renee --Renee 03:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi there! I like your usage of images. They illustrate your thoughts nicely but you have to make sure you cite the source of the images and get authorization for it, if needed. I think you can add a more explicit "Overview" section for the theory summarizing what's the theory is about. The "Assumptions" section can go better under the "Origins" section. This way you can relate the background sequentially from origins to assumptions. I think you can expand more in the critiques and references sections. The Methodological Consideration section is not clear to me. Maybe you can reconsider that title? Hope this helps! Fna8 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leo! These are my comments for your page thus far: The introduction and first few sections are really great! They explain your theory well and I think a nonacademic reader would be able to understand the theory based off of this. The applications section that you mentioned you worked on the most is good. You've chosen good examples to illustrate the theory and I think a reader will find these interesting. They are quite relevant. Be sure to proofread the sections when you are writing them. There are some subject/verb agreement mistakes that can be easily fixed. Also, be aware of using run on sentences. This might confuse the reader as to what exactly you are trying to say. Let me know if you have any other questions about anything. Rsp53 (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by St798 (talk • contribs)