<P> Some researchers have been criticized for misinterpreting the ELM . One such instance is Kruglanski and Thompson, who write that the processing of central or peripheral routes is determined by the type of information that affects message persuasion . For example, message variables are only influential when the central route is used and information like source variables is only influential when the peripheral route is used . In fact, the ELM does not make statements about types of information being related to routes . Rather, the key to the ELM is how any type of information will be used depending on central or peripheral routes, regardless of what that information is . For example, the central route may permit source variables to influence preference for certain language usage in the message (e.g. "beautiful") or validate a related product (e.g. cosmetics), while the peripheral route may only lead individuals to associate the "goodness" of source variables with the message . Theoretically, all of these could occur simultaneously . Thus, the distinction between central and peripheral routes is not the type of information being processed as those types can be applied to both routes, but rather how that information is processed and ultimately whether processing information in one way or the other will result in different attitudes . </P> <P> A second instance of misinterpretation is that processing of the central route solely involves thinking about the message content and not thoughts about the issue . Petty and Cacioppo (1981) stated "If the issue is very important to the person, but the person doesn't understand the arguments being presented in the message, or if no arguments are actually presented, then elaboration of arguments cannot occur....Nevertheless, the person may still be able to think about the issue ." Therefore, issue - relevant thinking is still a part of the central route and is necessary for one to think about the message content . </P> <P> Lastly, a third instance of misinterpretation by Kruglanski and Thompson is the disregard for the quantitative dimension presented by the ELM and more focus on the qualitative dimension . This quantitative dimension is the peripheral route involves low - elaboration persuasion that is quantitatively different from the central route that involves high elaboration . With this difference the ELM also explains that low - elaboration persuasion processes are qualitatively different as well . It is seen as incorrect if the ELM focuses on a quantitative explanation over a qualitative one; however one of the ELM's key points is that elaboration can range from high to low which is not incorrect as data from experiments conducted by Petty (1997) as well as Petty and Wegener (1999) suggest that persuasion findings can be explained by a quantitative dimension without ever needing a qualitative one . </P> <Ul> <Li> Social judgment theory--emphasizes the distance in opinions, and whether it is in the "acceptance latitude" or "rejection latitude" or in the intermediate zone . </Li> <Li> Social impact theory - emphasizes the number, strength and immediacy of the people trying to influence a person to change its mind . </Li> <Li> Heuristic - systematic model </Li> <Li> Extended transportation - imagery model </Li> </Ul>

Explain the difference between direct and indirect methods in the elaboration likelihood model