Ordinarily people like to hold the correct attitudes about everything in themselves but sometimes some people immediately change their mind after see the advertising while other doesn’t. What happen to them? And how could that be? Anyway in order to change their minds, they must to endeavor for processing the given information as well as the existing knowledge.
According to the Consumer Behavior studies, for example ELM by Petty & Cacioppo in 1986, they have found that people under high involvement condition will be more likely influenced to the strong argument(s) and try to avoid the weak argument, moreover their attitude will be positive. On the contrary, when the arguments are weak, their attitude will be changed to the negative. Later in 2006, Kang and Herr had discovered the new knowledge called “Kang and Herr’s theory”. Their research summarized that under the same condition, the negative attitude will be shown when the advertising is presented the irrelevance between the attractive endorser and target product. That is, people under high involvement condition will be more favorable toward the product when the endorser is an average person than the attractive endorser. In additional Chiu’s study in 2008, she had researched the results of the conflict between ELM (Petty & Cacioppo) and Kang and Herr’s theory by providing the central merit information of the target. Under this condition, the high involvement people will consider the attractive endorser with irrelevant source as bias, in consequence the correction will be ignited.
Regarding to the doubt and related researches as mentioned above, this current study will focus on the high involvement people and use the argument strength as the mediator to find out in which situation high involvement people will change their minds, under 3 different conditions; providing absolutely strong, neutral and absolutely weak arguments in the advertisements.

Ordinarily people like to hold the correct attitudes about everything in themselves but sometimes some people immediately change their mind after see the advertising while other doesn’t. What happen to them? And how could that be? Anyway in order to change their minds, they must to endeavor for processing the given information as well as the existing knowledge.
According to the Consumer Behavior studies, for example ELM by Petty & Cacioppo in 1986, they have found that people under high involvement condition will be more likely influenced to the strong argument(s) and try to avoid the weak argument, moreover their attitude will be positive. On the contrary, when the arguments are weak, their attitude will be changed to the negative. Later in 2006, Kang and Herr had discovered the new knowledge called “Kang and Herr’s theory”. Their research summarized that under the same condition, the negative attitude will be shown when the advertising is presented the irrelevance between the attractive endorser and target product. That is, people under high involvement condition will be more favorable toward the product when the endorser is an average person than the attractive endorser. In additional Chiu’s study in 2008, she had researched the results of the conflict between ELM (Petty & Cacioppo) and Kang and Herr’s theory by providing the central merit information of the target. Under this condition, the high involvement people will consider the attractive endorser with irrelevant source as bias, in consequence the correction will be ignited.
Regarding to the doubt and related researches as mentioned above, this current study will focus on the high involvement people and use the argument strength as the mediator to find out in which situation high involvement people will change their minds, under 3 different conditions; providing absolutely strong, neutral and absolutely weak arguments in the advertisements.

Ajzen, I. (1987). A new paradigm in the psychology of persuasion. Contemporary Psyshology, 32, 1009-1010.
Chiu Yu-Chi (2008) The moderating role of argument sufficiency on the Judgmental correction for the contextual bias. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing
Hua University, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan.
Chiang Fei-Yin (2009) the differential role of absolute vs. relative argument strength on the instigation of judgmental correction. Unpublished master’s thesis,
National Tsing Hua University
Herr, P. M., Yong-Soon Kang (2006). Beauty and the beholder: toward an integrative model of communication source efFects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 1.
Petty, R. E. (1977). A cognitive response analysis of the temporal persistence of attitude changes induced by persuasive communications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Petty, Richard E. & Cacioppo, J. T.(1983). The role of bodily responses in attitude measurement and change. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp.51- 101). New York: Guilford.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. (1984b). Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668-672.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York:Academic Press.
Petty, Richard E. and Duane T. Wegener (1999), The elaboration likelihood model: current status and controversie . Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology,
Eds: Chaiken and Trope, The Guilford Press.
Pratkanis, A. R. (1989). Advances in social psychology during the Postcrisis Era. Contemporary Psychology, 34, 547-548.
Sears, D. O. (1988). Review of Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 262-265.