Communication- Argumentation and Persuasion
uthej19
COM470_Week6_Tuesday_Fall2020withnotes.pptxCOM 470: Argumentation and Persuasion
Week 6, Tuesday, 9/29
Agenda
Discuss social judgement theory
Latitudes of Acceptance, Non-Commitment, and Rejection
Ego-involvement
Assimilation and Contrast Effect
Boomerang effect
Reminders:
Exam 2 is on 10/13
Review will be on 10/8
Review guide posted on Blackboard
Social Judgment Theory
Assessing a person’s judgments on positions
Ego-involvement
Reactions to Messages
Attitude change effects
To begin…..
Think about the issue of consuming animal products. What are the range of positions one could have on the issue?
Animals are life and don’t take life; animals products are important to health; indifferent towards – everyone does it; don’t really have choice (get fed or not fed animal products as a child); being vegetarian is less extreme than vegan; religious reasons to not have animal products; animals considered in less emotional way; hunting for sport, not food
Social Judgment Theory
Theory credited to Sherif & Sherif
Posits that the effect of persuasive communication depends on the way in which the receiver evaluates the position it advocates
Attitude change is a two-step process
Receiver first makes an assessment of the position
Based on that assessment, attitude change occurs
1. Judge a message in relation to present position held
2. Change as a function of the discrepancy between the judged message and present position
5
Judgment of positions
To assess a person’s judgments of positions researchers developed the Ordered Alternatives Questionnaire
Statements of all of the available positions are ordered from one extreme to the other
Respondent is asked to identify the statement he/she finds most acceptable
Then respondent identifies any statements that are acceptable
Then identifies the statement that is most objectionable
Then identifies which statements are unacceptable
Do not need to mark every statement
Judgment of positions
Ordered Alternatives measures a person’s judgmental latitudes on the issue
Latitude of acceptance—range of positions found acceptable
Latitude of rejection—range of position found unacceptable
Latitude of noncommitment—positions neither accepted or unaccepted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4MtyUf2L6g
Latitudes can vary from person to person with some having wider latitudes
Start clip at :48
7
Social Judgment Theory
Example: Public authorities should distribute free condoms to teenagers:
Agree or Disagree
Latitude of Acceptance
Those who agreed:
More likely to agree that condom machines should be made available in public restrooms
More likely to agree that condoms should be discussed as a ‘safer’ sex option
9
Anchor plus all messages judged to be acceptable or tolerable with one’s present position
Latitude of Rejection
Those who disagreed:
More likely to reject proposals to make condoms available in public restrooms or anywhere else that teens might get access
More likely to reject proposals to talk about condoms to teens
10
Messages judged as intolerable or opposed to present position
Latitude of Non-commitment
Who cares?
Evidence is needed to inform, reduce conflict, or reduce apathy
Efforts to link to other attitudes in a system of beliefs are needed: e.g., responsibility/obligation of parenting
Efforts to link to values are needed
11
No strong attitude or uncertainty about where a message falls
Ego-Involvement
Various explanations:
Degree to which an issue is central to a person’s sense of self
Degree to which an issue is important to a person
Person takes a strong stand on the issue
Person is strongly committed to the issue
Sherif and Sherif argue: It is a distinct concept from position extremity.
Ego Involvement
Commitment or identity with an issue or attitudinal object; similar to intensity of an attitude
What are some attitudes you have that have a high level of ego-involvement? Club on campus (Best Buddies; hobby; die hard sports fan); religion
What are some attitudes you hold that have lower levels of ego-involvement? Not very involved in politics; not into fashion; reality TV shows; religion
Ego Involvement and the Latitudes
As level of ego-involvement INCREASES,
Size of Latitude of Rejection will INCREASE
Size of Latitude of Acceptance will DECREASE
Size of Latitude of Noncommitment will DECREASE
Highly involved person will find many positions objectionable, and have a large attitude of rejection
Assimilation Effect
Different reactions occur when judging a position and your ego-involvement
Assimilation Effect
Receiver perceives the position being advocated for as being closer to his or her position than it actually is
A position communicated in the latitude of acceptance is more likely to be assimilated
Effect increased with high ego-involvement
Contrast effect
Different reactions occur when judging a position and your ego-involvement
Contrast Effect
Receiver perceives the position being advocated for as being further from his or her position than it actually is
A positon in the latitude of rejection is more likely to be impacted by the contrast effect
Effect increased with high ego-involvement
Both effects are minimized when a message’s position is clearly stated.
Example
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Questions:
How does Cheryl communicate to Larry that she is upset?
What reasons does she give to Larry to explain that she saw his behavior as unacceptable?
Do Larry’s reasons fall into Cheryl’s latitude of acceptance or latitude of rejection?
Do we see an assimilation or contrast effect occurring?
Attitude Change Effects
Attitude change depends on what position the message is perceived to be advocating
Messages within the latitude of acceptance will produce change in the advocated direction
Attitude Change Effects
Messages in the latitude of rejection will produce no change and may even have a boomerang effect
The discrepancy between the persuader and receiver’s position influences attitude change
Within the latitude of acceptance, a greater discrepancy will produce more attitude change, but outside of this latitude, it is likely to produce unfavorable change
Your turn…
Imagine you are working on a campaign to promote students volunteering at least 15 hours a semester? How could you use Social Judgment theory to plan the campaign?
Thoughts?
Are there any potential downfalls to being intentionally ambiguous in a persuasive message such as a political ad?
Does purposeful ambiguity put the message receiver at a disadvantage?
Next time…
Apply what we know about Social Judgement Theory with an activity
Reminders:
Exam 2 is on 10/13
Review will be on 10/8
Review guide posted on Blackboard
.MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Fill { fill:#1CADE4; } .MsftOfcThm_Accent1_Stroke { stroke:#1CADE4; }
