Dual routes or a one-way to persuasion? The elaboration likelihood model versus the unimodel

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), as a dual-process approach to theorizing attitude formation and persuasion phenomena, has garnered popularity and praise since its inception by Petty and Cacioppo in 1979. Nevertheless, several accounts pointing to some deficiencies of the ELM have ultimately emerged. Particularly, the ELM limitations paved the way for the introduction of an alternative model of persuasion, namely the unimodel. In this paper, by confronting these two competing persuasion models, we endeavor to bring about an answer to the ubiquitous question of whether the attitude change phenomenon is better explained by a single- or dual-process. The main outcomes of this confrontation are: (1) the unimodel cannot rectify the alleged conceptual limitations of the ELM, (2) the unimodel does not explain aspects of persuasion that cannot be allowed by the ELM, (3) the qualitative distinction between persuasion processes is very instrumental in understanding when and how attitude change occurs, (4) a single-process view cannot actually advance our understanding the persuasion phenomenon, and (5) the so-called conceptual limitations of the ELM are invalid. Accordingly, the article concludes in favor of the ELM as a major contribution to explaining attitude change and persuasion phenomena.