Though there are substantial theoretical and research articles available that supports the application of the Elaboration likelihood model (ELM) to explain the effectiveness of advertisements by evaluation of the relationship of the messages and the level of involvement, there still have not been significant research done on the way how central arguments affects subjects under the low elaboration likelihood condition, and the scarce information available is limited on research done only on digital and electronic products categories.
In this study, we controlled involvement and introduced processing fluency as a moderator on a questionnaire that contained four advertisements of non digital or electronic products, to evaluate the product judgment of people on the low involvement condition. Is important to mention that the experiment examined involvement, which is the extent to which an individual is willing and able to ‘think’ about the position advocated in a message and its supporting arguments by manipulation of the ability variable while fixing the willingness or motivation on a low condition for all subjects.
The results of our study suggest that by using processing fluency as a mediator to present the central arguments, it may be possible to make the central arguments easy enough so that the people in the low involvement condition who may have fewer cognitive resources available, to be able to process the central merits of the message and to influence the formation of attitude

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, 752±766.

Chaiken, S. (1987) The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson and C. P. Herman (eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium(Volume 5, pp. 3-39), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S., (1996). “Beyond Accuracy: Defense and Impression Motives in Heuristic and Systematic Processing.” InThe Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior. Eds. Peter M. Gollwitzer and John A. Bargh. New York: Guilford, 553–578.

Chaiken, S., Wood, W., & Eagly, AH (1996). Principles of persuasion. In E.T. Higgins and A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic mechanisms and processes. New York: Guilford Press

Chaiken, S. & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument accessibility, and task importance on judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.

Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and attitude change. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (Volume 32, pp. 357-404).

Durso, F.T. & Johnson, M. K., (1980), “The effects of orienting tasks on recognition, recall, and modality confusion of pictures and words,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19. 416-429.

Eagly & Chaiken, (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th edn., Vol. 1, pp. 269-322). New York:McGraw-Hill

Jacoby, Larry & Dallas, Mark (1981), “On the Relationship Between Autobiographical Memory and Perceptual Learning,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110 (September), 306-340.

Jacoby, Kelley & Dywan, (1989). Memory attributions. In H.L. Roe diger & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory and consciousness: Essays in honor of Endel Tulving (pp. 391-422). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Madigan, S., (1983), “Imagery, Memory, and Cognition,” Yuille, J.C. (Eds.), Honour of Allan Paivio. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 65-89.

Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., Dickson, P. R. & Unnava, H. R. (1991), “Picture-based persuasion process and the moderating role of involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 92-107

Nissen, M., & Bullemer, P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: Evidence from performance measures. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1-32.

Perruchet, P., & Amorim, M. (1992). Conscious knowledge and changes in performance in sequence learning: Evidence against dissociation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 785± 800.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo,J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.

Petty, Richard (1998), “Attitude Change: Multiple Roles for Persuasion Variables,” Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, 4th ed., Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey, New York: McGraw Hill, 323-90.

Petty, Richard & Wegener, T. (1999), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model:
Current Status and Controversies,” Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology, ed. Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Tropes, New York: Guilford, 41-72.

Petty, Richard & Cacioppo, John (1980), “Effects of Issue Involvement on Attitudes in an Advertising Context,” Proceedings of the Division 23 Program, eds. Gerald G. Gorn and Marvin E. Goldberg, Montreal, Canada: American Psychological Association, 75-79 .

Petty, Richard & Cacioppo, John (1986a), “Communication and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches,” Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Petty, Richard & Cacioppo, John (1984), “The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46, No. 1, 69-81.

Petty, Richard & Cacioppo, John (1986b), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 19, ed., Leonard Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press, 123-205.

Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann., (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-146.

Reber & Schwarz, 2001, The hot fringes of consciousness: Perceptual fluency and affect, Consciousness and Emotion 2 (2001), pp. 223–231.

Reber, Fazendeiro & Winkielman, P. (2002), “Processing fluency as the source of experiences at the fringe of consciousness: Commentary on Mangan,” Psyche: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Consciousness, 8(10)

Reber R, Fazendeiro, T. A. & Winkielman, P. (2002). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Manuscript, submitted for publication.

Reber, R., Wurtz, P. & Zimmermann, T. D. (2004). Exploring fringe consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases. Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 47-60.Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., and Rober, R. (2003), “The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment,” In J.

Reimer, T., Mata, R., Katsikopoulos, K. & Opwis, K., (2005). On the Interplay between Heuristic and Systematic Processes in Persuasion. (pp. 1833-1838).

Whittlesea, B. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 1235- 1253.

Whittlesea, B., Jacoby, L., & Girard, K., 1990. Illusions of immediate memory: Evidence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality. Journal of Memory and Language 29, pp. 716–732. Abstract