Social judgment theory: how do you change people’s opinions?

A theory about persuasion and about changing opinions through communication.

When we interact with people, debates and conflicting positions or opinions arise. What does it depend on whether or not we agree with our interlocutor? And whether we give an opinion or judge an issue in a certain way?

The social judgment theory of Muzafer Sherif et al. attempts to provide an answer to all this. In this article we will see what are the characteristics of the theory, the concept of "anchor" and how this theory influences persuasive processes.

Muzafer Sherif's social judgment theory

The social judgment theory was developed by Muzafer Sherif in 1965. Sherif was a social psychologist who was born in Turkey in 1906, and he is considered to be one of the founders of social psychology, as well as one of its main representatives.as well as one of its main representatives. But... what does his theory say?

The theory of social judgment predicts that the success of a message depends on the relationship between the message and the beliefs of the receiver..

The anchor concept

Social psychology has studied and observed how in people who have certain established beliefs (according to Sherif, "anchors") when making judgments regarding a specific case, the ideas, proposals and objects that are close to that "anchor" will be seen as more similar to it than they really are. Consequently, such proposals or ideas will be assimilated.

On the other hand, ideas, proposals and/or objects that are far from the "anchor" will be perceived as more different from what they really are, and will be confronted and contrasted.

Function of the sender

But what is the role of the sender of the message according to social judgment theory? His or her point of view on the subject of the message will serve as an "anchor".Thus, if a sender expresses a moderate opinion on a topic, and the listener has a more oppositional position on the same topic, the listener will tend to interpret the sender's position as similar to his own (because it is close to the "anchor").

On the other hand, the more one is in favor of an opinion and sees the sender as opposing it, the more likely the person is to consider the sender as holding more extreme opinion than he really has in reality (because he moves away from the "anchor"). (because it moves away from the "anchor").

Thus, in other words and by way of synthesis, the theory of social judgment states that basically we accept assimilated messages (close to the "anchor") and reject contrasted messages (far from the "anchor"). (far from the "anchor").

• You may be interested in "What are the most influential theories in behavioral science?"

Conditions for assimilating or contrasting a message

Do we know under which conditions messages are assimilated and under which conditions they are contrasted? Following this we could also ask ourselves: why do some people with identical opinions on a subject, react differently to the same message (some assimilate it and others contrast it)?

To answer these questions we must understand the concepts of social judgment theory: latitude of acceptance, latitude of rejection and latitude of non-commitment..

1. Latitude of acceptance

It includes all statements that a person considers acceptable (i.e. prone to acceptance) (i.e., likely to be accepted). They include his or her favorite position or opinion: the anchor.

2. Latitude of rejection

Encompasses all the rejected or objected positions in relation to a topic on which the person about which the person has an opinion.

3. Non-commitment latitude

Implies all positions that the person neither accepts nor rejects; i.e., he/she neither commits to any of themi.e., he/she does not commit to any of them but does not exclude them either.

Function of the latitudes

These three latitudes will determine whether a person finally assimilates or contrasts a message.

Thus, messages that enter or fall in the latitude of acceptance or non-commitment will be judged as closer to the favorite position ("anchor" belief), and this means that they will be assimilated messages.

On the other hand, messages that enter or fall in the rejection latitude will be judged as more distant, will be judged as more distantand will therefore be contrasted messages.

An example of one of the problems caused by the difference in latitudes is the constant discrimination that is experienced throughout the world.

Latitudes: degree of involvement

Latitudes also refer to the degree to which people are involved in an issue. According to M. Sherif, involvement is the "knowing membership of a group".

1. High involvement

Thus, high involvement implies that there is a narrow latitude of acceptance: the person's opinion is the only acceptable one.

It also implies that the latitude of rejection is wide: any different opinion is rejected. And finally, it includes a narrow latitude of non-commitment: one is hardly neutral, although one can be neutral for some opinions.

2. Low involvement

By contrast, low involvement implies the opposite: a wide latitude of acceptance, where people are willing to accept multiple positions. willing to accept multiple (and different) (and different) positions on the issue in question, outside or away from their "anchor".

It also includes a wide latitude of commitment, allowing for many opinions to which the person is neutral, and finally a narrow latitude of rejection, implying that there is not much left to reject, and that if there is anything left, it does not matter much.

Persuasion

Also we can relate the theory of social judgment to the processes of persuasion.. The theory explains that the aforementioned effects of assimilation and contrast also occur in persuasion processes. Assimilation constitutes persuasion, and the contrast effect constitutes persuasion failure.

Another basic principle of social judgment theory in relation to persuasion is that in order to change a person's most accepted position on an issue, it is desirable for the message to be oriented to a specific topic, it is desirable that the message be oriented toward that person's latitude of acceptance..

In addition, a person trying to persuade will try to broaden the latitude of acceptance, making a "call" from the latitude of non-commitment. That is, he will try to make the latitude of acceptance include more positions prone to be accepted.

If the persuader succeeds, he will widen the latitude of acceptance of the receiver or person receiving the message; this will imply that his "target" will increase for a second persuasive attempt.