The elaboration likelihood model : review, critique and research agenda

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to review, critique and develop a research agenda for the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). The model was introduced by Petty and Cacioppo over three decades ago and has been modified, revised and extended. Given modern communication contexts, it is appropriate to question the model’s validity and relevance. Design/methodology/approach: The authors develop a conceptual approach, based on a fully comprehensive and extensive review and critique of ELM and its development since its inception. Findings: This paper focuses on major issues concerning the ELM. These include model assumptions and its descriptive nature; continuum questions, multi-channel processing and mediating variables before turning to the need to replicate the ELM and to offer recommendations for its future development. Research limitations/implications: This paper offers a series of questions in terms of research implications. These include whether ELM could or should be replicated, its extension, a greater conceptualization of argument quality, an explanation of movement along the continuum and between central and peripheral routes to persuasion, or to use new methodologies and technologies to help better understanding consume thinking and behaviour? All these relate to the current need to explore the relevance of ELM in a more modern context. Practical implications: It is time to question the validity and relevance of the ELM. The diversity of on- and off-line media options and the variants of consumer choice raise significant issues. Originality/value: While the ELM model continues to be widely cited and taught as one of the major cornerstones of persuasion, questions are raised concerning its relevance and validity in 21st century communication contexts.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

The effects of language complexity in a counterattitudinal appeal to laypeople : an application of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion to a legal issue

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.

Elaboration d'une boîte à outils pour les archives audiovisuelles

Travail réalisé à l'EBSI, Université de Montréal, sous la direction de M. Yvon Lemay dans le cadre du cours SCI6111 - Politique de gestion des archives, à l'automne 2012.

Effect of pH, temperature and surface contact on the elaboration of fimbriae and flagella by Salmonella serotype Enteritidis

Survival of enteric pathogens exposed to various environmental stresses depends upon a number of protective responses, some of which are associated with induction of virulence determinants. Flagella and fimbriae are putative virulence determinants of Salmonella spp, and ELISAs specific for the detection of flagella and SEF21, SEF14 and SEF17 fimbriae were used to assess the effect of temperature and pH upon their elaboration by isolates of Salmonella serotype Enteritidis in planktonic growth and on the surface of two-dimensional gradient agar plates, For three phage type 4 isolates of Enteritidis of comparative clinical provenance, similar phenotypes for the elaboration of these surface antigens were observed. SEF14 fimbriae were elaborated in planktonic growth at 37 degrees C, but not 20 degrees C, at pH 4.77 and above but not at pH 4.04; whereas on agar gradient plates SEF14 fimbriae were elaborated poorly but with best yields at pH 4.04, SEF17 fimbriae were elaborated in planktonic growth at 20 degrees C, but not at 37 degrees C, at pH 6.18 and above but not at pH 5.09 or below; whereas on agar gradient plates SEF17 fimbriae were elaborated well even at pH 4.65, SEF21 fimbriae were expressed very poorly under all conditions tested, Planktonic growth at 37 degrees C induced least flagella whereas growth at 20 degrees C, and particularly surface growth at lower pH values, induced a 'hyper-flagellate' phenotype, Single colonies allowed to form on gradient agar plates were shown to generate different colonial morphologies which were dependent on initial pH. These results demonstrate that the physicochemical environment is an important determinant of bacterial response, especially the induction of putative virulence factors.