用來解釋消費者態度的推敲可能性模型自從1980年代開始被廣泛的應用在行銷的領域。在本研究中，定義了強弱論點以及中立論點的論點診斷性，並進一步探討了論點品質及論點診斷性之間的關係。
本研究的結果指出，高論點診斷性的論點能幫助消費者判別不同品牌產品之間的優劣，且如果論點診斷性是低的，高涉入程度的消費者則無法依此論點來判別產品的品質優劣，對於產品的態度也會是負向的；反之亦然。
關鍵字:推敲可能性模型，論點品質，論點診斷性，修正模型

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) which explained the consumer’s attitude formation process has been widely used by the marketing industry since 1980s. In this study, we define argument diagnosticity of strong, weak and neutral argument. To further explore the relationship between argument quality and argument diagnosticity.
In this study, we found that high argument diagnosticity did assist high involvement customers to differentiate the quality of different brand’s products. And if the argument diagnosticity is low, then high involvement customers are unable to distinguish the product’s quality through this argument and the attitude toward the product is unfavorable.
Keywords: elaboration likelihood model, argument quality, argument diagnosticity, correction

吳文元(2000)。訊息典型性與處理動機對消費者評估過程之影響。國立臺灣大學商學研究所。台北市。
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(5), 752.
Chen, Serena, and Shelly Chaiken. "The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context." Dual-process theories in social psychology 15 (1999): 73-96.
Chiu, Yu-Chi. "The moderating role of argument sufficiency on the Judgmental correction for the contextual bias." 清華大學科技管理研究所學位論文 (2008): 1-100.
Darby, Michael R., and Edi Karni. "Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud." The Journal of law and economics16.1 (1973): 67-88.
Duane T. Wegener and Richard E. Petty (1995). Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgement: The Role of Naïve Theories in Corrections for Perceived Bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.68, No.1, 36-51.
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of applied Psychology, 73(3), 421.
Greenwald, A. G. and Leavitt, C., 1984, “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, No. 1, 581-593.
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of consumer research, 17(4), 454-462.
Krugman, H. E., 1965, “The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning without Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3, 349-356.
Nelson, Phillip. "Information and consumer behavior." Journal of political economy 78.2 (1970): 311-329.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of consumer research, 10(2), 135-146.
Priester, J., Wegener, D., Petty, R., & Fabrigar, L. (1999). Examining the psychological process underlying the sleeper effect: The elaboration likelihood model explanation. Media Psychology, 1(1), 27-48.
Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & White, P. H. (1998). Flexible correction processes in social judgment: Implications for persuasion. Social cognition, 16(1), 93-113.
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. "The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion." Communication and persuasion. Springer New York, 1986. 1-24.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 41(5), 847.
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141-208). Academic Press.
Zaichkowsky, J. L., 1986, “Conceptualizing involvement,” Journal of Advertising, Vol. 5, No. 2, 4-14.
Zaichkowsky, J. L., 1985, “Measuring the involvement construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, 341-353.