Speech Chapter 14 Social Judgment Theory Outline Three Latitudes Acceptance Rejection And Noncommitment Social

CHAPTER 14

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

Outline

I. Three latitudes: Acceptance, rejection, and noncommitment.

A. Social judgment theory says that at the instant of perception, people compare

messages to their present point of view.

B. Individuals’ opinions are not adequately represented as a point along a continuum

because degrees of tolerance around their positions must also be considered.

C. Muzafer Sherif established three zones of attitudes.

2. The latitude of rejection includes items that are unreasonable or objectionable.

3. The latitude of noncommitment represents ideas that are neither acceptable nor

objectionable.

D. A description of a person’s attitude structure must include the location and width of

each interrelated latitude.

E. In order to craft a more persuasive message, social judgment theory recommends

that a communicator try to figure out the location and breadth of the other person’s

three latitudes before further discussion.

II. Ego-involvement: How much do you care?

III. Judging the message: Contrast and assimilation errors.

A. Social judgment-involvement describes the linkage between ego-involvement and

perception.

B. Contrast occurs when one perceives a message within the latitude of rejection as

being more discrepant than it actually is from the anchor point. This perceptual

distortion leads to polarization of ideas.

IV. Discrepancy and attitude change.

A. If individuals judge a new message to fall within their latitude of acceptance, they

adjust their attitude to accommodate it.

2. The greater the discrepancy, the more individuals adjust their attitudes.

3. The most persuasive message is the one that is most discrepant from the

listener’s position, yet still falls within his or her latitude of acceptance or

latitude of noncommitment.

B. If individuals judge a new message to be within their latitude of rejection, they will

adjust their attitude away from it.

1. For individuals with high ego-involvement and broad latitudes of rejection, most

2. This boomerang effect suggests that individuals are often driven, rather than

drawn, to the positions they occupy.

C. Sherif’s approach is quite automatic.

2. Volition exists only in choosing the message the persuader presents.

V. Practical advice for the persuader.

A. For maximum influence, select a message right on the edge of the audience’s

latitude of acceptance or noncommitment.

B. Ambiguous messages can sometimes serve better than clarity.

VI. Attitudes on sleep, booze, and money: Evidence supporting SJT.

A. Research on the predictions of social judgment theory requires highly ego-involved

VII. Ethical Reflections: Kant’s categorical imperative.

A. Social judgment theory focuses on what is effective. But, before we adjust what we

say so that it serves our ends and seems reasonable to others, we should consider

what’s ethical.

E. Kant would have us look at the difference between what we plan to say to influence

others and what we truly believe.

F. We should then ask, What if everybody did that all the time? If we don’t like the

answer, we have a solemn duty not to do the deed.

G. The categorical imperative is a method for determining right from wrong by thinking

through the ethical valence of an act, regardless of motive.

VIII. Critique: A theory well within the latitude of acceptance.

A. The theory has practical utility for persuaders.

B. The theory offers specific predictions and explanations about what happens in the

mind when a message falls within someone’s latitude of acceptance or rejection.

C. Like all cognitive explanations, social judgment theory assumes a mental structure

and process that are beyond sensory observation.

D. Although its falsifiable claims have not been widely tested, the empirical research

has been conducting validates supports the SJT.

E. Despite the small amount of research it’s fostered, social judgment theory is an

elegant, intuitively appealing approach to persuasion.

Key Names and Terms

Muzafer Sherif

A social psychologist associated with the University of Oklahoma who developed social

judgment theory.

Social judgment-involvement

Latitude of rejection

The range of ideas and statements that a person sees as unreasonable or

objectionable.

Latitude of noncommitment

The range of ideas and statements that a person sees as neither objectionable nor

acceptable.

Ego-involvement

Assimilation

A perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitude of

acceptance as less discrepant from their anchor than they really are.

Boomerang effect

Attitude change in the opposite direction of what the message advocated; listeners

driven away from rather than drawn to an idea.

Reference groups

Principal Changes

The treatment of social judgment theory has been edited for clarity and precision. The

chapter-wide illustration has been altered in this edition. Previously, the example involved a

pilot convincing a worried passenger that flying is safe. In this edition, the example focuses on

Kick-off Questions & Interaction Starters

• How do you respond when you encounter a persuasive argument that’s very different

from what you believe?

• What leads you to have high ego involvement regarding an issue?

• How could you figure out someone’s latitudes in real-life circumstances?

Suggestions for Discussion

Extreme positions

In the chapter, the authors assert, “extreme positions and high ego-involvement go

together.” This proposition deserves additional scrutiny from your class. A well-known Texas

activist once said that the only things you find in the middle of the road are yellow lines and

dead armadillos. Nevertheless every society contains committed moderates, pragmatists,

centrists, pluralists, and other individuals who feel strongly and believe deeply, but who also

clarifies that “ego-involvement and extremity of most preferred position are distinct concepts”

(Persuasion: Theory and Research, 33). He goes on to report that “one might take an extreme

stand on an issue without being highly ego-involved” and that “one can be highly ego-involved

in a middle-of-the-road position” (33). He admits, however, that “social judgment theory

After the election of 2016, America seems more polarized—fewer voters sitting on the

fence. This amped up political climate isn’t merely an American issue. The same could be said

about the post-Brexit United Kingdom, German splits under Prime Minister Angela Merkel or

the tensions in France after the election of Emmanuel Macron. In each case, avowed centrists

seem to have rapidly disappeared and bipartisan support a distant memory. Is it possible to be

highly ego-involved, care deeply about the issues, be well informed, and yet be a moderate?

Reference groups

Some students may need more explanation of Sherif’s point that “most dramatic cases

of attitude change, the most widespread and most enduring, are those involving changes in

reference groups with differing values”. This complex notion may be better understood if

students consider an example. Within a fraternity or sorority, for instance, there may be liberal

Democrats and conservative Republicans. It is likely that their shared social bond would

norm. This norm is aggregating from the attitudes of their reference groups and their need to

comply with that reference group. It might be worth noting that sometimes reference group

norms can be very powerful, but that in other cases we feel less motivated to conform.

To go one step further, you might engage your students in a conversation about the

motives to conform to a reference group. There is a distinction between being influenced via

Automatic responses

As noted in the chapter, Sherif described these mental processes as “automatic” and

“reduced interpersonal influence to the issue of the distance between the message and the

hearer’s position”. I would encourage you to ask your students to respond to these assertions.

Are they bothered by these claims? What are the consequences of these theoretical

characteristics? Of course, I would encourage you to remind your students of the paradigmatic

assumptions of empirical theorists such as Sherif. Determinism comes with the territory; in this

Ties to constructivism

Both social judgment theory and Delia’s theory of constructivism spotlight the cognitive

capacities of communicators. Although constructivism isn’t covered in the current edition, it’s

still available in the website’s archives at www.afirstlook.com. You might consider introducing

your students to Delia’s concept of cognitive complexity and ask them to consider how a more

cognitively complex person has the ability to create person-centered messages that fall within

prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

others latitude of acceptance that those who have fewer mental schemata. Obviously, a

greater ability to perspective-take would allow a person to more accurately assess someone

else’s position.

Persuasion in public speaking classes

If your students are having a hard time understanding why social judgment theory may

be different from approaches to persuasion they have been taught or from currently practice,

ask them to compare Sherif’s approach to public speaking classes on campus. In most cases,

public speaking texts instruct readers to decide on a specific thesis, and then tailor their

presentation of the argument to the specific audience. For example, in The Art of Public

Persuading the low ego-involved?

The chapter does a fine job of explaining the issues surrounding persuasion in the

context of high ego-involvement, but little is said about those whose ego-involvement would be

classified as low. Such individuals have wide latitude of noncommitment and that they are

Sample Application Log

Toby

Time and time again I find myself easily persuaded. Afterward I wonder, “How did I get talked

into this one?” Credit it to my flexibility, willingness to try, or naive trust in people’s motives. I

Exercises and Activities

Your own latitudes, attitudes, and ranges of acceptability

One of the best ways to engage social judgment theory is to grapple with your own

continua and latitudes of attitude. In addition to exercise about gun control used in the text

that runs throughout the chapter, I recommend you distribute a second set of opinions for

judgment the day you actually discuss the chapter in class. This type of assessment, called an

“Ordered Alternatives Questionnaire” (Sherif & Hovland, 1961), engages students to plot a

variety of belief statements on their acceptability. I’ve done this exercise nearly every time I’ve

taught the chapter. Often, I will tailor statements to reflect less flashpoint topics such as gun

control or the death penalty and make them more specific to our student body. In the past, I

education, the mission of the College (or university), scholarships, and financial aid. After all,

one’s attitude is a cluster of beliefs. Here are 12 attitude statements you could use for the

question: Should there be varsity athletic teams at this school?

A. Athletics are an important part of a holistic education. They are essential to the

mission of this school.

B. Almost every college in America has sports! We would be a joke if we cut back on

teams.

H. Too much money is spent on athletes; it could be designated for other activities that

involve more students such as academics, arts, or student clubs.

I. Lifelong fitness is more important than competition; we need more fitness programing

and less varsity teams.

J. Sports help with local community engagement, keeping us in touch with alumni.

Therefore, it’s fiscally responsible to invest in athletics.

After students have chosen their anchor point (mark with a star) and which statements

fall within their latitudes of acceptance (circle), rejection (cross out), and noncommitment

(leave blank), have them sketch cognitive maps similar to the figure in the chapter. I ask a few

students to volunteer their ranks and I note them on the board in the three clusters along with

their anchor. As you discuss the exercise, you may find that students choose diverse anchor

points and latitudes. Based on the widths of their latitudes and placements of their anchor

As you discuss their rankings, it becomes clear that the latitudes of acceptance,

rejection, and noncommitment established by some students require an entirely different

arrangement of the statements. On the other hand, students who generally see eye to eye on

this issue occasionally expressed strong disagreement on one or two statements.

Correspondingly, they located them in very different places along the continuum. The

I end the activity by asking students who (of my student volunteers) they would attempt

to persuade and who they might avoid or see as a challenging target. Guide their discussion

Used car prices and persuasion on the margins of acceptability

If you desire to explore further this kind of experimentation with your students, conduct

a similar test with used car prices. Choose a car ad from a current paper that includes a

thorough description and a reasonable asking price. Duplicate the ad for each student, but

vary the price. For one-fourth of the students, list the price actually given in the ad. For the

second-fourth, inflate the price by $1,000. For the third-fourth, add $2,000 to the price. For

the final fourth, raise the price by $5,000. Distribute the ads and ask the students to write

whether or not they believe the price is appropriate. If they feel the price is too high, ask them

The discussion that arises from the exercise may develop into an interesting debate

about the ethical assumptions of social judgment theory. Similar experiments can also be

conducted with apartment rentals or housing prices, depending on the knowledge and

interests of your students. Incidentally, some students may suggest that optimal hours of

sleep and fair prices of cars may not be appropriate variables for testing social judgment

theory because high ego-involvement is not suggested. This criticism is worth careful

consideration. Perhaps it is unfair to look for a boomerang effect in cases in which a strong

emotional or value component is probably absent.

(We estimate the effect as approximately the same as the relatively reasonable assertion that

students need five hours of sleep.)

Feature film illustration

The film Little Miss Sunshine has an excellent example of perspective-taking as vital to

social influence. About 25 minutes into the film, the family is eating breakfast in a diner. After

the young daughter (Olive) orders waffles a la mode, her disapproving father tries to change

her mind about her breakfast choice. While we don’t agree with his tactics, it is an excellent

example of appealing to your audience using their frame of reference formed by the three

latitudes SJT names.

In the animated film Frozen (2013), Anna fails in her attempts to persuade her sister

Elsa in the musical number, “For the First Time in Forever (Reprise)”). Anna tries to convince

her sister to come home from the ice palace but her appeals fall into the latitude of rejection.

Elsa’s high ego-involvement may be the result of being a high self-monitor and concerns over

Further Resources

For the original statement of the theory, see Muzafer Sherif and Carl Hovland, Social

Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change, Yale

University, New Haven, CT, 1961.

Healthcare

Nili Ben-Avi, Sharon Toker, and Daniel Heller, “‘If Stress is Good for Me, It’s Probably Good for

You Too’: Stress Mindset and Judgment of Others’ Strain,” Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology, Vol. 74, 2018, pp. 98-110.

Politics

Matthew Barnidge, “Exposure to Political Disagreement in Social Media Versus Face-to-Face

and Anonymous Online Settings,” Political Communication, Vol. 34, pp. 302-321.

Christina Mölders, Niels Van Quaquebeke, and Maria Paola Paladino, “Consequences of

Politicians’ Disrespectful Communication Depend on Social Judgment Dimensions and

Voters’ Moral Identity,” Political Psychology, Vol. 38, 2017, pp. 119-135.

Organizations and business

Alex Bitektine, “Toward a Theory of Social Judgments of Organizations: The Case of Legitimacy,

Reputation, and Status,” Academy Of Management Review, Vol. 36, 2011, pp. 151–

179.

Theoretical comparisons

Hee Sun Park, Timothy R. Levine, Catherine Y. Kingsley Westerman, Tierney Orfgen, and Sarah

Foregger, “The Effects of Argument Quality and Involvement Type on Attitude Formation

and Attitude Change: A Test of Dual‐Process and Social Judgment Predictions,” Human

Other applied contexts of SJT

Nancy DiTunnariello and Laura C. Farrell, “‘Your Life Sucks,’ But I Think ‘You Deserved It’:

Social Approval and Disapproval of Messages on FMyLife.com,” Computers in Human

Behavior, Vol. 44, pp. 220-229.

Gerard T. Kyle, James D. Absher, and Alana R. Graefe, “The Moderating Role of Place

Attachment on the Relationship Between Attitudes Toward Fees and Spending

Preferences,” Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 25, 2003, pp. 33-50.

Other teaching ideas for SJT

Jessica Mallard, “Engaging Students in Social Judgment Theory,” Communication Teacher, Vol.

24, 2010, pp. 197-202.

prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Leslie Ramos Salazar, “Changing Resistant Audience Attitudes Using Social Judgment Theory’s

‘Anchor’ Point Perspectives,” Communication Teacher, Vol. 31, 2017, pp. 90-93.