routeto processingis basedon an individualassessinga cognitiveor affective
(emotional)cue associated withthe persuasivemessage. Thispermits themto
decidewhether and howto process the information,and whether and howthe
arguments containedin the information can be assessedas to theirmerits,
without recourse to complex processing of the information(Pettyand Cacioppo,
1986).If an attitudechangeis the consequenceof suchperipheral processing,it
is likelyto resultin temporary attitudeshifts that are also moresusceptibleto
counter-persuasion,leadingto less predictablebehaviour.
A central themein all dual-processtheories is that elaborate processingof all
arguments is relativelycostlyin cognitiveresources,leadingto, for example,
fatigue. So the mainaim of these models is to givean ideawhen thesecostly
processes are applied and when and howthe simpler peripheralsolutionsare
conducted. The elaboration likelihood modelassumesthat someonewants to
basedecisions on a solution that is as good as possible (accuracy motivation),
therefore it assumesthat consumers embracethe centralrouteto persuasion
unlessthe motivational or abilitydemandsare not met (Petty and Wegener,
1999).Anotherdual-processmodel,the heuristicsystematic model(Chenand
Chaiken, 1999),is verysimilar but has two majordifferences. Firstly, it assumes
the central route(or systematic processingas Chenand Chaikennameit) will not
be chosen whenheuristics (peripheral processes) lead to satisfactory solutions.
Thissparinguse of cognitiveresourcesis oftenlabelled as thecognitive miser
assumption. Althoughthe assumptions underlyingthe selection of the processes
are different, both models similarly define the effect of motivation and
availabilityof cognitiveresourceson the processingof information.
A second more structural differencelies in the assumptionof the heuristic
systematic model that heuristics are usedthroughoutthe processunlessthereis a
needfor cognition;whichmeansthat in realityoften a mix of heuristic and
systematic processesoccurs. Theelaborationlikelihood model,on the other
hand,assumesthat processingis heuristiconlywhencognitiveprocessingis not
possible at all, so that eitherthe centralor the peripheral routeto attitude change
is taken.It should be notedthat heuristiccuescan lead to the centralprocessing
of information,thusaccountingfor a sequentialmix of the processingmodes
(Pettyand Wegener, 1999).
For risk communication about hygiene-related foodsafety issues to be
successful in the longrun, it would be best to designthe communicationstrategy
in sucha way that it enforces the centralor systematic process to run its course.
So the question of risk communicationwithregard to the dualprocess approach
is: what sortof information should be given, or in what wayshouldthe
information be supplied to influence the selectionof eitherthe centralor the
peripheral modeof informationprocessingby the messagereceiver?
6.4.2 Communicatinginformationfollowing the dual-processapproach
If information is highlyrelevant to the person receiving the information,
motivationto process this informationelaborately is likelyto be high(Fazio and
Consumerperceptionsof risksfromfood 109