Theory Research Paper #2

1

Social Judgment Theory

The social judgment theory was created by the social psychologist Muzafer Sherif. This

theory follows the objective approach, as it unveils the truth about how we judge a message.

More specifically, the social judgment theory falls under the socio-psychological tradition, as it

is considered communication as how a message influences our judgment.

The social judgment theory itself is defined as the instant perception of a message. When

people hear this message, they instantly compare it to their present point of view (Griffin,

Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015). Sherif believed that multiple responses or reactions to multiple

statements were necessary in creating an individual's attitude toward a certain topic. So, Sherif

sees someone's attitude as a latitude. Sherif did not believe that a single statement alone defines

an attitude, but a latitude of statements over a broader range defines what the person believes.

Sherif believed someone's attitude fell into three different areas, the first being the latitude of

acceptance. The latitude of acceptance consists of thoughts and ideas that person considers

acceptable and falls along their own line of thinking. The second are is the latitude of rejection.

In contrast to the latitude of acceptance, the latitude of rejection consists of statements that a

person disagrees with and does not fall into their own line of thinking. Finally, the last area is the

latitude of noncommitment. Statements that the person is undecided on or does not have an

opinion on falls into their latitude of noncommitment (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).

In order to fully know a person's attitude structure, we must know the location and width

of all of the latitudes. Also, we must know how important the issue is to this person. This

importance is defined as ego-involvement. Ego-involvement is whether someone cares about the

issue, or how important the issue is to that person's life (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015). When

a person has a high ego-involvement, they have membership in a group with a known stand.

Commented [CZ1]: Brief introduction about the origin of the theory

Commented [CZ2]: Detailed explanation of the theory, try to be as inclusive as possible

2

People that are highly ego-involved have a few typical characteristics. Firstly, they have a nearly

nonexistent latitude of noncommitment. This means that they always have an opinion on

statements regarding issues they care about. Secondly, they have a wide latitude of rejection.

This again means that they are very strongly opinionated, and in turn have a lot of statements

they disagree with. Finally, since they hold extreme views, these people care deeply (Griffin,

Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).

Sherif believed people have an anchor statement for all issues. This anchor statement is

the statement that anchors all of our other thoughts about the topic, or it is the statement that we

agree with the most (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015). So, with highly ego-involved people, the

anchor statements are usually located at one end of the scale, since highly ego-involved people

are usually going to hold extreme views. People who are highly ego-involved have a large

anchor, and it would be hard to convince them of new ideas since they hold strong opinions.

However on the other hand, if the person was not very highly ego-involved, then that person

would have a small anchor statement. In turn, this small anchor could be more easily dragged

into a new position by means of a persuasive argument (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).

Sherif details that when we hear a message, we assess the message with a two-step

mental process. First, the person judges the message. Upon hearing a message, that person asks

himself how far is this statement away from my anchor statement? Then, the person will adjust

the anchored attitude towards or away from the new message (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).

Typically, people that are highly ego-involved have very large latitudes of rejection. So, a

message that falls in their latitude of rejection is seen as more discrepant to their own ideas than

they actually are. This message is pushed away. This is known as contrast, and it is a perceptual

error (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015). As stated before, contrast error is most likely to happen

3

to people with a high ego-involvement. So, when these individuals hear a message that falls

within their latitude of rejection, they can possibly adjust their attitude away from it. This is

known as the boomerang effect. This means that messages that are intended to persuade them

and fall in their latitudes of rejection have an opposite effect than the communicator intended

(Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).

On the other hand, once a person judges a new message to be in their latitude of

acceptance, that person will shift their anchor to accommodate the new ideas. These messages

have the power to somewhat persuade us and slightly shift our anchor ideas towards this new

message. Sherif claims that the greater the discrepancy between the new statement and the

anchor idea, the more that person will adjust their attitude (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015). So,

with this logic, the most persuasive message will be a statement that still falls within the person's

latitude of acceptance, but it is the furthest it can possibly be from the person's anchor statement

while remaining in the latitude of acceptance or even the person's latitude of noncommitment.

This is known as assimilation, which is a perceptual error, and it is the exact opposite of the

boomerang effect (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015).

One pro of the social judgment theory is that it holds practical utility. It is a common

occurrence in our lives today that we wish to convince other people of some ideas or actions.

With knowledge of the social judgment theory, we are able to identify exactly what to say to

convince them of our ideas, and what not to say so we don't drive them away. So, if someone

wants to persuade another person of an idea, the persuader should communicate a message that

falls at the edge of the other person's latitude of acceptance to have the most effective and

persuasive message, as we are using assimilation in this case. On the other hand, we know we do

Commented [CZ3]: Pros and cons of the theory, you need to critically evaluate the theory

4

not want to convince them of a message that falls within their latitude of rejection, as this

message can have the opposite effect as we intended, known as the boomerang effect.

However, one con of the social judgment theory is that it is a difficult theory to measure.

There is no qualitative data we can assess with this theory, so we need to prove this theory

through experimentation and surveys. These change in attitudes can be difficult to assess, even

with experimentation at times. For example, like discussed previously, a change in attitude after

a presentation of a message could possibly only be fleeting. This change in attitude can possibly

only be brief, and that person can possibly forget about the message presented later on and

morph back into their original views.

The social judgment theory has created many research opportunities for communication

scholars worldwide. Many different scholars have found ways to use the social judgment theory

to better the real world. For example, researchers have applied the social judgment theory to

political campaigning. These researchers aimed to find out what messages to give out to the

general public that would not upset most people and at the same time convince the general public

of their message. The study found that the latitudes in each person were very different and varied

from person to person. They concluded from the social judgment theory that the best messages

would be messages that fell in most peoples' latitude of noncommitment (Smith, Atkin, Martell,

Allen, Hembroff, 2006).

In another instance, social judgment theory helped driving test instructors for the disabled

communicate better with their clients. The social judgment theory helped the instructors find the

disabled person's latitude of agreement and noncommitment in order to make statements that the

disabled were sure to agree with. So, the social judgment theory helped these drivers

communicate better with the disabled people to ensure a more positive relationship (Davied,

Commented [CZ4]: Research findings from two academic journal articles

Commented [CZ5]: Use in-text citation

5

Harries, Unsworth, 2015). In a study very similar to this one, researchers again examined how to

use information when making driver licensing recommendations to the elderly. In this scenario,

researchers found that the most important cues to display to the elderly were careful

interventions, positive behavior, cognitive and perceptual skills, and vehicle handling skills

(Unsworth, 2007).

Musafer Sherif's social judgment theory has truly been a breakthrough in communication

study. This theory allows us to understand better the art of persuasion and how exactly our

messages affect others. This theory has inspired research in many different fields like election

studies in order to better understand others and their reactions to certain messages. With the

social judgment theory, we are able to control our rhetoric better, so it has very practical daily

use. For this reason, social judgment theory is my favorite communication theory.

Commented [CZ6]: Use in-text citation

Commented [CZ7]: Conclusion paragraph

6

References

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A First Look at Communication Theory (9th ed.).

New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Healey, K. M., Penn, D. L., Perkins, D., Woods, S. W., & Addington, J. (2013). Theory of mind

and social judgments in people at clinical high risk of psychosis. Schizophrenia Research, 150(2-

3), 498-504. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2013.08.038

Maxian, W., Wise, W., Siegrist, E., Nutting, B., & Bradley, S. (2008). Is Television's Mean

World Mean Only for Conservatives? The Interactive Effects of Political Affiliation and

Processing Strategy. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-5.

Smith, S. W., Atkin, C. K., Martell, D., Allen, R., & Hembroff, L. (2006). A Social Judgment

Theory Approach to Conducting Formative Research in a Social Norms Campaign.

Communication Theory (10503293), 16(1), 141-152. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00009.x

Unsworth, C. A. (2007). Using social judgment theory to study occupational therapists’ use of

information when making driver licensing recommendations for older and functionally impaired

adults. American Journal Of Occupational Therapy, 61(5), 493-502. doi:10.5014/ajot.61.5.493

Unsworth, C., Harries, P., & Davies, M. (2015). Using Social Judgment Theory method to

examine how experienced occupational therapy driver assessors use information to make fitness-

to-drive recommendations. The British Journal Of Occupational Therapy, 78(2), 109-120.

doi:10.1177/0308022614562396

Commented [CZ8]: Reference list, follow the APA style