Thank you for this amazing work! I appreciate it a lot.<br /><br />One thing I ask you is the part that you mentioned "you've said all of this already on. 4. You don't need to it in twice".<br /><br />That was my advisor's request. So.. could you please look through that part once more?&nbsp;<br /><br />I've attach that part here just in case.<br /><br />Thank you.<br />Hanyoung<br /><br />
<p>Models of persuasion (Chaiken, 1980; Petty &amp; Cacioppo, 1983) have suggested that people with different levels of involvement in an issue are likely to have different motivations and capacity to process issue relevant information (Chaiken, 1980; Petty &amp; Cacioppo, 1983). Particularly, the ELM (Petty &amp; Cacioppo, 1984) proposes that individuals employ either a central or a peripheral route when processing information according to their levels of involvement. Specifically, people who regard an issue to be critical to their lives (i.e., high issue involvement) are likely to be motivated use a central route in which they exert the cognitive effort required to evaluate the issue-relevant arguments presented to them. Under such conditions, people tend to focus more on highly diagnostic cues such as quality and validity of the message (Petty &amp; Cacioppo, 1986). On the other hand, people with low involvement with an issue are likely to engage in less motivated and the peripheral information processing in which people evaluate information based on some superficial analysis of simple and available cues (i.e., peripheral cues (Petty &amp; Cacioppo, 1984) such as general impressions to help them in processing information.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>