Since antiquity, people have tried to answer that question. It is occupied the time and efforts of some of the best minds civilization has produced. Frankly, no one has yet discovered the ultimate and final answer to the question. We truly cannot explain all the causes and consequences of influence.
As a result, if you take the time to read widely in this area, you will be struck by the diversity and range of answers that social scientists have given to our question. If you have even taken a moment to scan the chapters of this book, you were probably surprised at the number of different approaches. How can we organize all these different ideas?
In this chapter you will find the current answer to this question. The main point of this new approach is aptly suggested by what could be the subtitle of this chapter, "Hmmmm, I'm thinking, maybe." The dual process approach claims that a person's mode of thinking determines influence. We are going to use the Dual Process as our major blueprint in this book, so pay close attention to this chapter. You may want to read it carefully a couple of times to make sure you've got it.
I also want to forewarn you about the terminology here. In class
I use the language of the Elaboration Likelihood Model by Rich Petty and
John Cacioppo. In the ELM we talk about the central and peripheral routes,
arguments and cues, and elaboration likelihood, moderators, and processing.
In this chapter I use the language of Shelly Chaiken and her Heuristic Systematic
Model. There are important similarities and differences between the two
models, but for our purposes I want to introduce you to both models so that
you see the basic concept of the dual process approach to persuasion. If
you take a more advanced look at the ELM and HSM, then the differences will
become more interesting.
Assumption 1: There are two relatively distinct modes of thinking that a person may employ.
Updated October 1, 2008; Copyright © SBB, 2008