The Theory Of Social Judgment: How Do You Change People’s Opinions?
When we establish interactions with people, debates and conflicting positions or opinions arise. What depends on whether or not we agree with our interlocutor? And what do we think or judge a topic in a certain way?
The theory of social judgment by Muzafer Sherif and collaborators Try to answer all of this. In this article we will see what the characteristics of the theory are, the concept of “anchor” and how this theory influences persuasive processes.
The theory of social judgment was developed by Muzafer Sherif in 1965. Sherif was a social psychologist who was born in Turkey in 1906, and is considered one of the founders of social psychology, as well as one of its main representatives. But…what does the theory say about him?
Social judgment theory predicts that The success of a message depends on the relationship between said message and the beliefs of the recipient
The anchor concept
From social psychology, it was 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 them said “anchor”, they will be seen as more similar to it than they really are. Consequently, These 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 than they really are, and will be confronted and contrasted.
Issuer function
But what function does the sender of the message have according to the theory of social judgment? Your point of view on the topic of the message will serve as the “anchor.” ; In this way, if a sender expresses a moderate opinion on a topic, and the person listening has a more oppositional position on the same topic, this person will tend to interpret the sender’s position as similar to their own (because it is closer to the “anchor”).
On the other hand, the more one is in favor of an opinion and sees that the speaker opposes it, the more likely it is that the person will consider that the speaker has a more extreme opinion than you actually have (because it moves away from the “anchor”).
Thus, in other words and by way of synthesis, the theory of social judgment establishes that basically we accept assimilated messages (close to the “anchor”) and reject contrasted messages (away from the “anchor”).
Conditions to assimilate or contrast a message
Do we know under what conditions messages are assimilated and under which they are contrasted? As a result of this, we could also ask ourselves: why do some people with the same opinion on a topic react differently to the same message (some assimilate it and others contrast it)?
To answer these questions we must understand the concepts of the Theory of Social Judgment: latitude of acceptance, latitude of rejection and latitude of non-commitment
Includes all statements that a person considers acceptable (that is, likely to be accepted). They include their favorite stance or opinion: the anchor.
2. Rejection latitude
Encompasses all rejected or objected positions in relation to an issue about which the person thinks.
3. Latitude of non-commitment
It involves all the positions that the person neither accepts nor rejects ; That is to say, he does not commit to any but he does not exclude them either.
Function of 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 into the rejection latitude, will be judged as more distant and therefore they will be contrasting messages.
An example of one of the problems caused by the difference in latitudes is the constant discrimination that exists 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 “knowledgeable membership in 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.
In contrast, low involvement implies the opposite: a wide latitude of acceptance, where people are willing to accept multiple positions (and different) on the topic in question, outside or far from its “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, which implies that there is not much left to reject, and that if there is anything left, it is not of much importance.
Persuasion
Also We can relate the theory of social judgment to the processes of persuasion The theory explains that the aforementioned assimilation and contrast effects also occur in persuasion processes. Assimilation constitutes persuasion, and the contrast effect, its failure.
Another basic principle of social judgment theory in relation to persuasion is that to change a person’s most accepted position on an issue, It is convenient that the message be oriented towards the latitude of acceptance of said person
Furthermore, a person trying to persuade will try to expand the latitude of acceptance, making an “appeal” from the latitude of non-commitment. That is, she will try to ensure that the latitude of acceptance includes more positions likely to be accepted.
If the persuader is successful, he will expand the latitude of acceptance of the receiver or person receiving the message; This will imply that your “target” increases for a second persuasive attempt.
