Persuasion: The psychoeducational report and the Elaboration Likelihood Model

This investigation was conducted to determine if a psychoeducational report written by a school psychologist might persuade educators to change their attitudes about the placement of a student in need of special services. The study examined the validity of the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) regarding the central and peripheral routes of persuasion for a psychoeducational report. Argument quality, source credibility, and response involvement were analyzed in relationship to an attitude change measure. Following a pilot study in which strong and weak arguments were developed, participants read the same psychoeducational report. Prior to reading the recommendation section of that report, participants indicated their attitude about placing a behavior disordered student in either a mainstreamed or self-contained program. Participants then read the recommendation section from the psychoeducational report containing arguments running counter to their attitudes regarding a mainstreamed or self-contained placement. Two hundred thirty-two teachers-in-training were randomly assigned to one of eight treatment conditions for either: (a) strong or weak counterarguments, (b) high or low source credibility, operationalized by single versus multiple professional endorsements of the recommendation section, and (c) high or low response involvement, operationalized by asking only those in the high response condition to summarize the recommendation section to an educational psychology professor. Following exposure to the counterarguments contained in the recommendation section of the psychoeducational report, participants completed an attitude questionnaire. A factor analysis of that questionnaire exhibited the existence of three factors, labeled Persuasion, Teaching, and Consultation. A MANOVA indicated significant effects for each factor. For the Persuasion and Teaching Factors, ANOVAs demonstrated that participants reading strong as opposed to weak counterarguments stated they would change their attitude to a more neutral position. A significant three way interaction for the Consultation Factor was obtained. Manipulation checks were conducted to distinguish if participants attended to the independent variables. Furthermore, strength of opinion, gender, and teaching level were analyzed. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Limitations and implications for further research are presented