Title

The Effectiveness of Both the Central and Peripheral Paths of Persuasion in Persuading High School Students to Participate in Blood Drives

Author(s)

Ali T. El-Ali

School Name

Spring Valley High School

Grade Level

11th Grade

Presentation Topic

Psychology and Sociology

Presentation Type

Non-Mentored

Written Paper Award

1st Place

Abstract

The Elaboration Likelihood Model, or ELM for short, is a model which details two different persuasive paths, one involving persuasion based on appeal to facts and logic while the other appeals to more peripheral cues. Various amounts of situations have been applied to this model, each yielding different results on how certain populations react to each of the two persuasive messages. In this experiment, the central and peripheral paths of persuasion were tested on upper high school students in order to persuade them to donate blood at a blood drive. It was hypothesized that the central path of persuasion would persuade more students to participate in the blood drive. Experimentation was accomplished by putting the junior and senior population at Spring Valley High School in random order, and then dividing this large population into two different groups. Two emails were then developed, with one corresponding to the central path of persuasion using facts on blood donation, and the other corresponding to the peripheral path of persuasion and dealing with the peripheral cue of social responsibility. The emails were then sent to one of each of the two groups. At the end of the blood drive, the numbers of people from each group that participated in the blood drive were determined. Both groups were then compared to each other through a two sample t-test. The results showed 56 students persuaded from Group A (Central) and 68 from Group B (Peripheral). The hypothesis that the central path would produce more persuaded students was rejected with a p=0.876 > α = 0.05. However, a smaller p-value was observed when determining whether Group B produced a greater amount than Group A, with a p=0.124 > α = 0.05. In conclusion, there is not sufficient data to say that the central path of persuasion produced significantly more students than the peripheral path of persuasion.

Start Date

4-11-2015 11:15 AM

End Date

4-11-2015 11:30 AM

COinS
 
Apr 11th, 11:15 AM Apr 11th, 11:30 AM

The Effectiveness of Both the Central and Peripheral Paths of Persuasion in Persuading High School Students to Participate in Blood Drives

The Elaboration Likelihood Model, or ELM for short, is a model which details two different persuasive paths, one involving persuasion based on appeal to facts and logic while the other appeals to more peripheral cues. Various amounts of situations have been applied to this model, each yielding different results on how certain populations react to each of the two persuasive messages. In this experiment, the central and peripheral paths of persuasion were tested on upper high school students in order to persuade them to donate blood at a blood drive. It was hypothesized that the central path of persuasion would persuade more students to participate in the blood drive. Experimentation was accomplished by putting the junior and senior population at Spring Valley High School in random order, and then dividing this large population into two different groups. Two emails were then developed, with one corresponding to the central path of persuasion using facts on blood donation, and the other corresponding to the peripheral path of persuasion and dealing with the peripheral cue of social responsibility. The emails were then sent to one of each of the two groups. At the end of the blood drive, the numbers of people from each group that participated in the blood drive were determined. Both groups were then compared to each other through a two sample t-test. The results showed 56 students persuaded from Group A (Central) and 68 from Group B (Peripheral). The hypothesis that the central path would produce more persuaded students was rejected with a p=0.876 > α = 0.05. However, a smaller p-value was observed when determining whether Group B produced a greater amount than Group A, with a p=0.124 > α = 0.05. In conclusion, there is not sufficient data to say that the central path of persuasion produced significantly more students than the peripheral path of persuasion.