Which Of The Following Concepts Are Used In Social Judgment Theory To Explain Attitude Change?

Social Judgment Theory; For Me or Agin Me

[Read more examples of Social Judgment on the Persuasion Web log.]

Virtually every teacher can tell you a story about that parent, yous know, the one that was thrown out of the edifice during an argument in a parent-teacher briefing. Or the parent that had to exist escorted from the gym later on a "bad telephone call" in a basketball game. Or the parent who sued the school commune over the dress code. It is hard to understand what gets into peoples' minds sometimes.

The best theory which addresses just how hard people tin exist in these and other situations is Social Judgment Theory. This theory is quite useful for three primary reasons. Offset, it explains why people get so agitated. Second, it explains why persuasion is so difficult to accomplish. Third, it offers a expert common sense plan for doing persuasion in the real world.

The Theory can exist described in five basic principles. Subsequently we acquire these principles, we will apply them to our instruction experience. Then perchance we'll share stories about wild parents.

Principles of Social Judgment Theory

At that place are five key principles in Social Judgment Theory. The principles are straightforward and take a lot of common sense in them.

Principle 1. We take categories of judgment by which nosotros evaluate persuasive positions.

Consider this example. The topic is " Should Nosotros Increase Teacher Pay?" The range of positions ane could have on this topic might wait something like this:

1. It is absolutely essential from all considerations that teachers' pay should be increased.
2. It about certain from many angles that teachers' pay should exist increased
3. It is highly likely that things would be better if teachers' pay was increased.
4. It is possible that information technology would be amend if teachers' pay was increased.
5. It is difficult to say whether teachers' pay should exist increased.
6. It is possible that it would be ameliorate if teachers' pay was not increased.
7. It is highly probable that teachers' pay should not be increased.
8. Information technology is almost certain from most angles that teachers' pay should non be increased.
9. It is absolutely essential from all consideration that teacher'south pay non exist increased.

These 9 statements appear to express a reasonable range of pro- to anti- positions a person could take on this topic. Now, according to Social Judgment Theory, nosotros can categorize each position into 1 of three zones:

1. the latitude of credence (zone of positions nosotros accept);
2. the latitude of non-commitment (zone of positions we neither accept nor reject); and
3. the breadth of rejection (zone of positions we turn down).

Within the breadth of acceptance is contained all the positions on a particular topic that nosotros find adequate. For many teachers the first two or three statements in our case are probably acceptable and hence would fall into their latitude of acceptance. Inside this latitude there is ane special position called the "anchor." This is the single position that a person finds the most acceptable of all. It may exist the nigh extreme position ("absolutely essential"), just the anchor could likewise be a milder position ("highly likely").

At some edge point, we no longer accept some position, only nosotros don't refuse it either. Nosotros are now in the breadth of non-commitment. This contains things about which we accept no existent opinion. With our example, it is probable that many teachers would rate the heart position ("hard to say") as being in their latitude of non-commitment. Peradventure one surrounding argument might also fall into this latitude. These are simply the positions that are neutral for the person.

Every bit we move out of the latitude of not-commitment, we attain the second border. As we cross this edge we begin to enter the latitude of rejection. This contains the positions on an issue that we reject. In our running example, nearly teachers would doubtless find the "anti" pay heighten positions as unacceptable and place them in the breadth of rejection.

The adjacent question is, how do we apply these categories?

Principle 2. When we receive persuasive information, we locate information technology on our categories of judgment.

Quite just, we decide which category a given position belongs in. When we read an editorial that advocates a teacher pay raise, we will first determine which latitude it belongs in. Most teachers would probably find this editorial to be amusing and would put information technology in their latitude of acceptance.

The implication of this principle is direct. Judgment is crucial to persuasion. If yous offer positions that people approximate as "turn down," yous are not going to be persuasive. And, according to the theory, this judgment happens very apace. People do not passively take in information, and so brand judgments. No, instead, people are making these judgments as they receive the data.

Thus, how people judge is the key beginning step in the persuasion process. Judgments of rejection make influence extremely difficult. Judgments of non-commitment and acceptance offering the only run a risk for modify.

If you think about this, an important implication arises. All other things being equal, it is easier to influence someone with a larger latitude of acceptance than a larger latitude of rejection. From a simple statistical viewpoint, you have more chances to influence someone with a larger latitude of acceptance. The odds are better that y'all volition express a position that the receiver tin can live with. By dissimilarity, with a large latitude of rejection, what tin can you lot practise? There are just a limited number of things this receiver would accept and you lot accept to exist careful. There are a lot of things you could say that would be extremely offensive.

The next question, then, is what affects the size of the latitudes?

Principle three. Our level of "ego-involvement" affects the size of our latitudes.

Ego-involvement ways how important the outcome is to our self-identity. An ego-involving topic is i that defines who nosotros are and addresses disquisitional aspects of our selves. For example, the quality of life our children have is a critical result. We want our kids to be safety, happy, and productive. Annihilation that affects them is of vital interest to u.s.. Thus, issues revolving around the lives of our children are likely to be ego-involving. Now, what happens to our categories of judgment as we go ego-involved in the topic?

Consider this instance. A claim is made that, "social security payments must increase to comprehend the cost of living each year." At present, compare how each of these 2 different people would charge per unit that claim: A young adult just entering the work force and someone surviving completely on social security benefits.

For the person whose income depends exclusively upon social security, you can bet that in that location volition be only one adequate position. It is absolutely essential that those social security benefits be protected. All other positions, even more moderate ones, are likely to fall into the latitude of rejection.

Information technology is not surprising that equally we become ego-involved in an consequence, our breadth of rejection gets larger and our latitudes of acceptance and non-commitment get smaller. Chances are, because the topic is then of import to us, we have already done a lot of thinking about, decided what we think is the "correct" position, then congenital our cocky-concepts around that position. Nosotros have the Truth on this one and everything else is wrong. Thus, according to Social Judgment Theory, ego-involved people will think in terms of "for me or agin me" with sharply defined categories of judgment.

Principle iv. We tend to distort incoming data to fit our categories of judgment.

I'm certain you lot've had this kind of experience. You lot are sitting in your firm during the winter and y'all are feeling somewhat cold. Later, you do some light housecleaning. Afterwards, the firm feels more comfortable. Even though the real temperature has not changed during day, we can accept very dissimilar ratings of it. What is going on here?

The answer is quite elementary. Our judgments of "hot" and "cold" are comparative judgments. When we have been just sitting around the house and our body temperature is a bit lower, and so the room feels colder. Nosotros warm up when nosotros exercise housework and thus the room at present feels more comfortable.

Interestingly, people make judgments about persuasive topics in much the same style they brand judgments well-nigh hot and cold. The Theory holds that we will distort incoming information depending upon the "anchor position" we hold on a given issue. You lot recall that the anchor is the one position in our breadth of credence that nosotros discover to exist the most acceptable.

Now, follow closely here. If incoming persuasive data falls inside the latitude of credence and it is close to the ballast position, then people will "assimilate" the new position. That is, people will pull the new position closer to themselves and brand information technology seem to be even more adequate than information technology actually is.

By contrast, if incoming persuasive information falls outside of the latitude of acceptance, then people will "contrast" that new position. That is, they volition push the new position even farther away from themselves and make it seem worse than information technology actually is.

Realize that both absorption and contrast distort the "true" position of the new information. Call up the temperature case. The truthful room temperature peradventure lxx degrees, but if our "anchor" is low because we have a common cold trunk, then we will misconstrue our judgment of the room and contrast. That is, we will say that the room is "common cold." Yet if our body temperature is higher due to work, then we volition over again distort our judgment of the room and merits that lxx degrees is "just correct" (assimilation).

At present the cyberspace of result of these baloney processes is subtle, merely quite important. Through assimilation and contrast we alter the "truthful" position of the incoming information and get in seem closer or farther away from our ballast than it really is. When distortions like this occur, no persuasion will issue! The new information cannot persuade us for one of ii reasons. Get-go, if we contrast, we push the new information out of our latitude of acceptance and probably into the latitude of rejection. No persuasion hither. Second, if we digest, nosotros pull the new information to our anchor and make it seem like information technology is already a position we take. No persuasion hither, either.

Politics provides many examples of distortions. Accept perceptions of the President. George Bush is a Republican and most Republican voters support him. And, of form, even among Republican voters, there is a range of liberal to conservative within the party. If yous enquire Republicans to charge per unit George Bush on the dimension of liberal-conservative, you will see assimilation. Liberal Republicans will charge per unit Bush as more than liberal, while conservative Republicans will charge per unit him as more conservative. Thus, the same object is "distorted" to fit the position the voter already holds.

Principle 5. Small to moderate discrepancies between our anchor positions and the one advocated will cause us to change; large discrepancies volition non.

If you think about it, according to the Theory, persuasion is a very hard process. First of all, persuasion cannot occur if new data is judged to fall within the latitude of rejection. Second, if the person is ego-involved in the effect, then the latitude of rejection is larger than usual and persuasion is even more difficult. Third, people tend to distort new information through assimilation and dissimilarity which dilutes the persuasive potential of new information. There is not much room left for change.

According to Social Judgment Theory, then, for persuasion to occur the following must happen:

1. the new information must fall in the breadth of acceptance.
2. the new information must be different from the ballast position.
3. the new information, while discrepant from the ballast, can't be assimilated or contrasted.

Thus, alter is likely to be modest and difficult to obtain. (And this certainly is consistent with common sense. Nigh people most of the time are resistant to alter and movement to a new position slowly.) The amount of alter that can happen has an interesting property. It follows what is called an "upside-downwards U" curve. To sympathize this belongings simply visualize and inverted, or upside-downward U.

A practiced illustration of this upside-downwardly U is with medicine. When you get a prescription for medicine it tells y'all how much and how ofttimes to take it. You get the maximum benefit when you take the right amount at the right time. If you lot take as well little medicine, you won't become better. And, if you take as well much medicine you won't get amend either (may even get worse).

The same thing occurs with persuasion. Equally long as there is the "prescribed" amount of discrepancy between the ballast position and the new position, then persuasion can occur. If the amount of discrepancy is as well small or also large, then persuasion volition not happen.

A Quick Summary

In that location are five principles of Social Judgment Theory.

• Principle i. Nosotros accept categories of judgment by which we evaluate persuasive positions.
• Principle two. When we receive persuasive information, nosotros locate information technology on our categories of judgment.
• Principle 3. Our level of "ego-interest" affects the size of our latitudes.
• Principle 4. We tend to distort incoming information to fit our categories of judgment.
• Principle 5. Small to moderate discrepancies betwixt our anchor positions and the i advocated volition cause u.s. to alter; large discrepancies will not.

Implications

This Theory offers some powerful guidelines for persuasion.

i. Work in the latitude of credence and avoid the breadth of rejection.

According to this Theory, change cannot occur inside the breadth of rejection. When new data is put in this zone, the receiver substantially stops listening to information technology or, even worse, responds to it in an extremely negative and belligerent manner. The last thing an constructive persuader wants is a listener who is turned off or aroused. Thus, direct attacks are often doomed to failure according to the Theory.

The task we face is difficult, only exceedingly realistic. We must find a common ground in the areas upon which nosotros can agree. We must work within the breadth of acceptance or, possibly, the latitude of non-commitment. The best mode to find these latitudes is through communication and careful observation of our receivers.

2. Expect alter to happen in many small steps over a long time menstruation.

Influence is virtually likely to occur nether three conditions. Showtime, we must work in the breadth of credence. Second, we must produce some discrepancy between the new position and the anchor position. Third, we must avoid assimilation and dissimilarity effects. These three conditions plain limit both our short- and long-term effectiveness. It is but silly to look influence miracles where our receivers undergo massive, firsthand change.

iii. Sentinel out for ego-involvement.

The best example of this danger is the parent-teacher conference. For some parents every bit soon as the discussion revolves around their child, bang, y'all take very stiff ego-interest. All of a sudden very reasonable people, get very unreasonable when the teacher mentions anything that sounds remotely critical of the kid.

Nosotros know what is happening according to the Theory. The child is an ego-involving issue. Immediately nosotros are dealing with people who have small-scale latitudes of acceptance and large latitudes of rejection. Therefore, most anything the instructor says is likely to autumn into the breadth of rejection. It is also likely that if the parents distort anything the teacher says, the baloney will be dissimilarity and not assimilation. Thus, the dissimilarity will brand the parents see the teacher comments as being much worse than the "really" are.

Of course, anybody, not just parents, are susceptible to this style of thinking. You can see it in your friends. Criticize a friend's parents or brothers or sisters. Ridicule their close friends. Tease them about the way they desire to wear their dress or pilus. Blindside, you can run into ego-involvement right away. You have crossed an important line and you are no longer dealing with reasonable people.

References and Recommended Readings

Sherif, M., Sherif, Chiliad., & Nebergall, R. (1965). Attitude and attitude modify: The social judgment-involvement arroyo. Philadelphia: Saunders.

Which Of The Following Concepts Are Used In Social Judgment Theory To Explain Attitude Change?,

Source: http://healthyinfluence.com/wordpress/steves-primer-of-practical-persuasion-3-0/feeling/social-judgment-theory/

Posted by: laforestoulds1946.blogspot.com

Share this post