SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

COMM 2378 Theories of Communication and Persuasion

Le Thanh Phuong s3298842Le Vu Thuy Linh s3274932

AGENDASocial Judgment Theory

1. Creation

2. The cognitive structure of a person’s attitude

3. Judgment Process

4. Critics

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

CREATIONMuzafer Sherif & Carl Hovland

Carolyn SherifOklahoma State University n.d.

The National Academies Press n.d.

The National Academies Press n.d.

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

CREATION

Attitude change will be influenced by cognitive judgment processes in which a proposed position is compared with a person’s existing system of attitudes.

(Sherif & Hovland 1961, cited in Miller 2005)

There were no absolute truths. Man is the measure of all things.

(Schiappa 1991, cited in Benoit & Benoit 2008)

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF ATTITUDE

Attitude = single point

Latitudes

Latitude = the distance of a place north or south of the equator, measured in degrees

(Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary)

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF ATTITUDE Latitudes

Latitude of Acceptance The range of message positions that are acceptable or

plausible for an listener

Latitude of Rejection The range of message positions that a listener actively rejects

Latitude of Non-commitment The range of message positions that a listener neither accepts

or rejects

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF ATTITUDEAnchor

The position that most closely represents a person’s point of view

In the center of Latitude of Acceptance

Comparison point when we hear discrepant message

Cultural and social formation

Video example

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF ATTITUDEEgo Involvement: The importance of an issue to a person’s life

High ego-involvement narrow Latitude of Acceptance

wide Latitude of Rejection extreme position of anchor

Low ego-involvement wide Latitude of Acceptance

high rate of attitude change

12manage n.d.

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

JUDGMENT PROCESS

1. Judgment Phase

Comparing the message to our anchor

Locating the message into the latitude zones

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

JUDGMENT PROCESS

*Perceptual distortion errors Contrast:

A perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitudes of rejection as even further from their anchor than they really are

Assimilation: A perceptual error whereby people judge messages that

fall within their latitudes of acceptance as even nearer from their anchor than they really are

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

JUDGMENT PROCESS

2. Responding phaseShifting our anchor Latitude of Acceptance shifting along with it Latitude of Rejection and Non-commitment shifting along with

it

How much movement?

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

JUDGMENT PROCESSDiscrepancy = the difference between the position of a message

and the listener’s attitude

The greater the discrepancy, the more listeners will adjust their attitudes.

(Griffin 2008)

The relationship between discrepancy and attitude change is curvilinear.

SOCIAL JUDMENT THEORY

JUDGMENT PROCESS

To change a person’s attitudeDisagree ENOUGH to change the audience’s attitude, without

going so far that you offend them

Avoid boomerang effect: Attitude change in the opposite direction of what the message advocated

Keep in mind!Persuasion process is:

Gradual: The only way to get large-scale change is through a series of small, successive movementsSocial: Influence from friends and family

SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

APPLICATION Vietnam’s Government decides to run an anti-smoking

campaign to change smokers’ attitude. You are hired to create a commercial for the campaign

Your task: Draft the idea using Social Judgment Theory.

Video example 1

Video example 2

SOCIAL JUDMENT THEORYCRITICS

Strengths: SJT helps explain why two different people may perceive a single

message differently.

SJT notices the curvilinear relationship between discrepancy and persuasion.

SJT includes involvement as an important factor in persuasion.

SOCIAL JUDMENT THEORYCRITICS Weaknesses Assimilation/Contrast is not likely to happen with clear

message. Eg: “No texting in class under any circumstances” would be

difficult to misinterpret

SJT ignores other factors that can affect persuasion. The message content & variables Source credibility

REFERENCES

12manage n.d., ‘Social Judgment Process (Sherif)’, image, 12manage.edu, viewed 13 July 2011, <http://www.12manage.com/description_sherif_social_judgment_theory.html>.

Benoit, WL & Benoit, PJ 2008, Persuasive Messages: The process of Influence, Blackwell Publishing, USA.

Griffin, E 2008, A First Look at Communication Theory, 7th edn, McGraw-Hill, USA. Miller, K 2005, Communication theories: Perspective, processes and contexts, 4th

edn, McGraw-Hill, USA.

Oklahoma State University n.d., ‘Carolyn Sherif ’, image, Okstate.edu, viewed 13 July 2011, <http://psychology.okstate.edu/museum/women/page2.html>.

REFERENCES

Thegauravjain 2008, Smoking – The best ad ever made on anti-smoking, video recording, Youtube, 8 January, viewed 14 July 2011, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p69Q8lTkZTc>.

Tibilord 2006, Funny campaign again smoking, video recording, Youtube, 7 November, viewed 14 July 2011, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz0N-jVrRWU&NR=1>.

The National Academies Press n.d., ‘Muzafer Sherif’, image, Nap.edu, viewed 13 July 2011, <http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=chovland.html>.

The National Academies Press n.d., ‘Carl Hovland’, image, Nap.edu, viewed 13 July 2011, <http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=chovland.html>.