The Elaboration Likelihood Theory, Central Route

The controversy over the MMR vaccine started in the late 1990’s when Andrew Wakefield suggested that there was a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism in a scientific paper which he had published with several other co-authors. Although there has not been a proven fact that the MMR vaccine is the causation to autism it has brought concerns to parents and has caused a major drop in immunization rates. For example, Dannetun et al., 2005 states that, “Fear of side effects and beliefs

In order to investigate more about Wakefield’s study, Brian Deer, a journalist of British Medical Journal, carefully talked to the parents of all children who were participated in the study. Interestingly enough, he revealed the fraud behind Wakefield’s research. The Lancet, the journal that reported Wakefield’s study, retracted the paper soon afterwards (Deer). However, the real trouble still exists. Though it has been proved by many researchers that the MRR doesn’t cause autism, many people perceive the vaccine as a threat. Dr.Nemeroff once said “it is quite difficult to get the cognitive sewage out of the water even after the real sewage is gone” (Greene).

Another advantage which is considered as a main is that it was approved to carry out the study and publish it later on. This is because the MMR vaccine was lately popularized and autism cases were increasing in the UK. Therefore a researched article describing the possible connection between MMR and autism have been convenient enough to be approved and viewed to the public, just as no previous reviewer had investigated the links between MMR vaccine and autism in children (Greenhalgh, T., 2004). Besides, the patients Wakefield researched on were anonymous which was an advantage too, as he did not share their unnecessary personal information. Moreover, Wakefield inserted several diagram and many references in his research paper which made it clearer for the reader to understand the cases, observations and sources they could refer to (Wakefield et al,

The parents who choose to vaccinate their children didn’t fall into the minority that questioned it; they went with what were the facts. While the minority decided to find new information and started believing that their child will not endure the side effects of the vaccines

The research has major significance to nursing practice. Nurses are in the forefront of the healthcare field. This unique position grants access to a variety of individuals coming from different backgrounds, with different health issues. One of the potential issues could be a parent who refuses to vaccinate their child out of the fear of it causing autism. Although the nurse’s role is not to force parents

In 1998, the British medical journal called The Lancet published a controversial research paper written by Andrew Wakefield. In the research paper “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, ” Andrew Wakefield et al. attempted to link MMR (Mumps, Measles, Rubella) vaccinations and autism. Nevertheless, the paper seemed to successfully do that. However, this was not known was at the time was Wakefield had tampered with the findings. Furthermore, this was brought to light in 2004 by British journalist Brian Deer. In 2011, thirteen years after The Lancet published the paper, and seven years after Brian Deer exposed the paper. The Lancet finally retracted the article. A common theory

This led to the support of various unproven vaccine-autism theories by parents in both the UK and America. After findings of intestinal disease in children with autism, Wakefield claimed that separating the MMR into three different vaccinations would be safer. Since then, Wakefield’s research has been discredited, he was charged with serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council for violating several ethical practices, and he was investigated for failing to disclose conflict of interest – a pending patent on a rival measles vaccine (Gross, 2009). Although false, many still believe wholeheartedly that vaccines are harmful.

Doctor Andrew Wakefield’s study, published the 28th of February, 1998 in the scientific magazine The Lancet, is constantly cited as being the catalyst for the ongoing debate on whether or not vaccinations have any connections to autism. In the case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s study on the connections between autism and the M.M.R. (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, proper scientific experimental procedures were not seen to, such as his not including a control group. That is to say, in an act transgressing scientific integrity, he documented the cases

Wakefield published a study on the effects of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR)-vaccine, specifically the “mercury” based and the vaccine instigating the onset of autism (Wakefield para 3). Wakefield’s study involved 12 individuals whose medical background was altered in order to support his study (Goodlee para 2). After 12 years of Wakefield’s research being published, his findings were found to be inaccurate. Many doctors and scientists alike have proven his theory wrong, causing the magazine that published the article to fully retract it (Goodlee para 2). However, the damage caused by Wakefield’s false findings has yet to be undone. The number in vaccinations dropped and the number of deadly diseases ultimately rose (Goodlee para 8). Despite study after study proving that Wakefield blatantly falsified his findings, many parents including, celebrities like Jenny McCarthy, continue to advocate against vaccinations and blame the MMR-vaccine for her child’s autism diagnosis.

One such factor helping to manifest these large-scale epidemics is a study from 1998 by Andrew Wakefield, which claimed that there was a direct link between autism and the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine (Smith 1). As a result, many parents refused to vaccinate their children out of fear, and vaccine-preventable diseases like measles began reappearing more in both America and Britain, the place where Wakefield conducted his study (Cohen 2). Although a later investigation by the British Medical Journal discovered that Wakefield had distorted or altered the medical records of all twelve of the study’s participants and that he had been paid $674,000 USD by lawyers attempting to sue vaccine manufacturers, the atmosphere of apprehension surrounding vaccines is still strong among many individuals, and especially parents (Cohen 1-2). But despite all the controversy and the scientifically unsupported arguments of anti-vaccine sympathizers,

This paper discusses the Elaboration Likelihood Model developed by Petty and Cacioppo. The theory discusses the two ways individuals process messages. This paper also discusses how the theory can be used in making public relations campaigns successful.

The Elaboration Likelihood Model has been hailed by some as “unquestionably the most influential recent theoretical development in persuasion research” (O’Keefe, 2002). Even if this is the case, it is by no means a perfect theory. One of the most commonly cited criticisms of the elaboration likelihood model is the vacuous nature of the “argument strength” component. Although this criticism is useful for pointing out an area of the model that can be fine-tuned, any perceived shortcomings due to the argument strength concept can be mitigated through a creative application of other areas of the model.

The current issue I have selected to discuss is vaccinations. In particular, I will be addressing the anti-vaccination movement that has gained popularity in recent years and the contributing biases that influenced its emergence. One event stands out at as a major contributing factor to the growth of the anti-vaccination movement, the 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield that was published by the English medical journal, Lancet. This study claimed to show a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Even though it was just one small study, the media picked it up and it became hugely publicized.

In 1998 a study was published by Andrew Wakefield theorizing that there was a link between autism symptoms and receiving a MMR vaccination. However, his findings are to be inconclusive considering he did not take the proper procedures to conduct a controlled study. First, he did not include control subjects in his study, so the results cannot be compared properly if there were any changes in the subjects. Second, the endoscopic or neuropsychological assessments were not done blind and the data was not collected systematically or completely. Third, the symptoms found between the children with autism and gastrointestinal problems were inconsistent. In reality, many health groups are theorizing that a vaccination does not cause autism by any

Live Science Contributor, Stephanie Pappas tell us that, “Wakefield was getting money from lawyers planning on suing vaccine makers, and he owned a patent on an alternative to the MMR (measles) vaccines,” [2] this statement is clear evidence of fraudulent activity and proves that Wakefield had corrupt reasons for undergoing this study in the first place. The second flaw to Wakefield's paper was the questionable practises of his study, for starters he based his study on twelve children that he “cherry picked,” and “although the paper claimed that cognitive problems developed a few days after the MMR vaccine, a simple investigation of hospital records revealed that wasnt so; and in several cases parents reported problems before the vaccine,” [2]. In summary, the investigation was sloppy and provided no tangible evidence that links autism to the MMR vaccine. Furthermore, it should be noted that the the link between autism and vaccines is purely coincidental, the symptoms of autism typically appear at around the age that vaccines are administered, in fact director of the Vaccine Education Centre at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Dr Paul Offit confirms this says, “Children get their first dose of the MMR vaccine at 12 to 15 months, the age at which autism symptoms typically