Implemented specifically as a method of theory development, computer simulation allows clarification of a theory and investigation of its implications. Using Petty and Cacioppo's (1986a, 1986b) Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), the use of simulation in formalizing a theory, testing the simulation model, and conducting simulation experiments is demonstrated. With formalization of the theory in the form of a block diagram, the entire pattern of causal effects in the ELM core statements becomes visible at a glance. The simulation model was tested through comparing simulated individuals' reactions to stimuli with the experimental and statistical observed reactions of real participants in experiments. The simulation experiments revealed a dynamic attitude shift in dependency on the development of processing intensity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abelson, R. P. (1968). Simulation of social behavior. In E. Aronson & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 274-356). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Abelson, R. P., & Bernstein, A. (1963). A computer simulation model of community referendum controversies. Public Opinion Quarterly, 27, 93-122.
3.
Ammann, F. (1997). Modellierung und validierung einer computersimulation des Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) [Modeling and validating a computer simulation of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)]. Unpublished master's thesis, Psychological Institute of the University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
4.
Biek, M., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1996). Working knowledge, cognitive processing, and attitudes: On the determinants of bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 547-556.
5.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive responses, recall and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
6.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
7.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
9.
Cohen, B. P. (1963). Conflict and conformity: A probability model and its application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
Coleman, J. S. (1965). The use of electronic computers in the study of social organizations. European Journal of Sociology, 6, 89-107.
11.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
12.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-281.
13.
Gilbert, N., & Doran, J. (Eds.). (1994). Simulating societies / The computer simulation of social phenomena. London: University College London Press.
14.
Hägerstrand, T. (1965). A Monte Carlo approach to diffusion. European Journal of Sociology, 6, 43-67.
15.
Henss, R. (1989). Zur Vergleichbarkeit von Ratingskalen mit unterschiedlicher Kategorienzahl [On the comparability of rating scales with different numbers of categories]. Psychologische Beiträge, 31, 264-284.
16.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
17.
Kantowitz, B. H. (1992). Selecting measures for human factors research. Human Factors, 34, 387-398.
18.
Latané, B., Nowak, A., & Liu, J. H. (1994). Measuring emergent social phenomena: Dynamism, polarization, and clustering as ordering parameters of social systems. Behavioural Science, 39, 1-24.
19.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
20.
Messick, D. M. (Ed.). (1988). [Special issue]. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 24(5).
21.
Mosler, H.-J., Ammann, F., & Gutscher, H. (1998). Simulation des Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) ein beispiel zur entwicklung und analyse von umweltinterventionen [Using simulation of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) to develop and analyze environmental interventions]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 29, 20-37.
22.
Nemeth, C. J., & Endicott, J. (1976). The midpoint as an anchor: Another look at discrepancy of position and attitude change. Sociometry, 39, 11-18.
23.
Nowak, A., & Latané, B. (1994). Simulating the emergence of social order from individual behavior. In N. Gilbert & J. Doran (Eds.), Simulating societies (pp. 63-84). London: University College London Press.
24.
Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97, 362-376.
25.
Ostrom, T. (1988). Computer simulation: The third symbol system. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 381-392.
26.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
27.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
28.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123-205). New York: Academic.
29.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
30.
Petty, R. E., Priester, J. R., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Cognitive processes in attitude change. In R. S. J. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 69-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
31.
Shannon, R. E. (1975). Systems simulation. The art and science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32.
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
Stahlberg, D., & Frey, D. (1993). Das Elaboration-Likelihood-Modell von Petty und Cacioppo [The Elaboration Likelihood Model by Petty and Cacioppo]. In D. Frey & M. Irle (Eds.), Theorien der sozialpsychologie. Band 1: Kognitive theorien (pp. 327-360). Bern, Switzerland: Hans Huber.
34.
Stanislaw, H. (1986). Tests of computer simulation validity. What do they measure?Simulation & Games, 17, 173-191.
35.
Stasser, G. (1988). Computer simulation as a research tool: The DISC model of group decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 392-422.
36.
Wedell, D. H., & Parducci, A. (1988). The category effect in social judgement: Experimental ratings of happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 341-356.
37.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood and message processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 5-15.
38.
Whicker, M. L., & Sigelman, L. (1991). Computer simulation applications. An introduction. London: Sage.
39.
Wood, W., Kallgren, C. A., & Preisler, R. (1985). Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 73-85.
40.
Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Biek, M. (1995). Working knowledge and attitude strength: An information-processing analysis. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 283-313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
