Download Social Judgment Theory Paper

COMM 250A
Theory Application
Professor Gregory
2/25/2013
Jake Tilleczek
Social Judgment Theory
The Social Judgment Theory of Muzafer Sherif is one of many communication
theories that explain why we react to information the way we do. Sherif believes that
when we hear a message we immediately judge where it should be placed on an attitude
scale in our minds. This subconscious action occurs at the instant of perception (Sereno).
We as humans weigh every new idea by comparing it with our present point of view on
the subject. In other words, Social Judgment Theory is the perception and evaluation of
an idea by comparing it with current attitudes.
Sherif measures these attitudes as latitude rather than a single statement. He
believes this because many people share the same position on certain topics but their
tolerance may differ considerably around the topic. Individuals hold both a personal
position on an issue and latitudes of what they think is acceptable or unacceptable in
general for other people (Sereno). Sherif divided up latitudes into three zones, the first
one being the latitude of acceptance. This latitude suggests that there is a range of ideas
that a person sees as reasonable or worthy of consideration (Griffin). These ideas are
similar to your present point of view, thus allowing you to reason with them or consider
allowing them to fall into your present point of view. For example, someone believes that
Queens is the best school in North Carolina. They then hear on television that a degree
from Queens is the best degree to have. The person will definitely consider what they just
heard on television because it so closely suggests what they already thought about
Queens. In similar meaning, our latitude of acceptance is made up of positions we accept.
The second latitude is the latitude of rejection. This latitude suggests that there is a range
of ideas that a person sees as unreasonable or objectionable. For example, the person still
believes that Queens is the best school in North Carolina. They then hear on television
that graduates from UNC should be paid higher salaries upon graduation. The person will
completely disagree and disregard what they just heard on television. In short, our
latitude of rejection is made up of positions we reject completely. The third and final
latitude is the latitude of noncommitment. This latitude suggests that there is a range of
ideas that a person sees as neither acceptable nor objectionable (Griffin). In essence the
subject holds no attitudes that strongly come into play. For example, Tim is told that
Professor Gregory is a fantastic teacher. However, they have never had her as a teacher
personally. Thus they don’t agree or disagree on the subject. These are the ideas that
simply have no effect on you positively or negative. We are not sure what to think about
these ideas so we are almost passive/neutral minded when we see them. This latitude acts
as the median of the three latitudes.
These three latitudes mainly determine how you process and categorize the
information that you hear everyday, whether it is from the television, radio, family
member, or close friend. Subconsciously your mind goes through that cycle and will
ultimately put a level of importance on that subject, thus determining your response and
feeling towards it. The other main factor Sherif discusses is the Ego’s involvement. The
Ego Involvement is the importance or centrality of an issue to a person’s life (Sherif). For
example, someone does allot of commuting to work and they hear that gas prices are
going up. They already place allot of importance on gas prices in their life due to the
commuting so this news is of huge importance to them. This forces their ego to represent
a strong, concrete position on the matter. This person will believe that no matter what the
circumstance is, gas prices should not be raised. They have this strong opinion because
the importance of gas prices and how it effects their daily lifestyle. These strong positions
are classified as anchors. They are opinions that are extremely hard to persuade due to
your ego’s involvement (hence the name anchor). Your anchor is your concrete position
that has been built up due to the importance the subject has in your life. This part of the
theory only applies to things that are crucial issues to your life, something you think
about allot, or is central to your well being.
Sherif’s theory also discusses errors people make when judging the messages they
encounter. Contrast and assimilation errors are prominent in human behavior when we
judge messages. A contrast error is a perceptual error where people judge messages that
fall within their latitude of rejection as further from their anchor than they really are
(Sherif). For example, Bob tells his friend Fred that Joes Burger bar is the best place in
town because of their buns. Fred replies by saying Joes is the best because of the quality
of there meat. Bob rejects Fred’s opinion when in fact their opinions are more similar
than bob thinks. However determining the size of this “gap” between the two may be
different depending on who is looking at it. The person may see the gap as huge due to
their strong belief but someone may see more correlations and “tighten” the gap if they
have a more non-commitment view on the matter. Assimilation is a perceptual error
where people judge messages that fall within their latitude of acceptance as less
discrepant from their anchor than they really are (Sherif). In other words this effect draws
an idea toward the hearers anchor so it seems that he/she and the speaker share the same
opinion. For example, Bob also thinks Joe’s burger bar is great because it is never
packed. Fred tells Bob he thinks it is great because of the quick service. Bob then drew
Fred’s opinion closer to his anchor because there opinions compliment each other.
Another interesting aspect of the Sherif’s Social Judgment Theory is the
“Boomerang effect”. This effect is an attitude change in the opposite direction of what
the message advocates (Griffin). In other words, the listener is driven away from rather
than drawn to the idea. This occurs when people are highly ego involved in a topic and
have a broad range of rejection towards it. Most messages are aimed to persuade them but
are actually in danger of driving them further away. Once we judge a message to be
within our latitude of rejection, we will also adjust our attitude, but in this case away
from what we think the speaker is preaching. For example, Nancy recently got into a car
accident. She believes cars are unsafe due to her injuries (mentally and physically). The
public speaker is speaking to her work about how safe cars are in present day America.
Due to her experience, the more the speaker attempts to persuade, the stronger Nancy’s
opposing opinion grows.
The main goal of this theory is to explain our subconscious thinking when we are
presented with someone else’s viewpoint, idea, or information on a topic. The theory
aims to answer/predict why we place more importance on certain subjects than we do
others. It also attempts to explain how we categorize information we hear and how our
mind places them on a grand scale. The one unanswered and ethical consideration of this
theory is how we determine the gap size between our anchor and what we think to be in
our acceptance or rejected categories. Of course, everyone is different, thus everyone will
view these gaps in different depths. If someone is a more non-commitment type than their
gaps may be closer knitted together? However if someone voices strong opinions of
acceptance or rejection on a topic, then there gaps will tend to be bigger. The question is
who’s to say that there cant be a mixture of either latitude? The usual difference occurs in
persuasion. The person trying to persuade will see the gap as narrow and use that
perspective in trying to draw the listener’s anchor closer and closer. The listener will
most often view the gap as wide and draw little to no correlations between their beliefs
and the persuaders.
The Social Judgment Theory adds to the study of interpersonal communication. It
does this by answering how we communicate in different ways to construct and negotiate
a social reality. Everyone’s realities are different as this theory points out, however it
does a great job of answering how we build our realities by establishing viewpoints on
every day life information. These viewpoints are then used as our weapons and strong
holds during persuasion that takes place on the television or in face-to-face contact.
In conclusion, this theory is important because it explains the unconscious battles
we have with incoming information in every day life. In essence this theory is what
makes us who we are. It explains the levels of importance we place on certain subjects
and how we chose to categorize all the information we hear. It explains why we have
extremists on subjects as well as impartiality. The theory helps develop a general
understanding on how we process information and chose to act upon it, something that
we has humans do every single day.
References
Original conception: Carolyn Sherif, Muzafer Sherif, and Roger Nebergall,
Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgment- Involvement Approach, W. B.
Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, 1965.
Communication: Em Griffin, A First Look At Communication Theory: Social
Judgment Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2012.
Attitudes as Latitudes: Kenneth Sereno and Edward Bodaken, “Ego-Involvement
and Attitude Change: Toward a Reconceptualization of persuasive Effect,” Vol. 39, 1972,
pp. 151-158.