Social Judgment Theory: How do you change people's minds?

When we establish interactions with people, debates and conflicting positions or opinions originate. What does it depend on whether or not we agree with our interlocutor? And that we think or judge a subject in a certain way?

The social judgment theory of Muzafer Sherif and collaborators try to answer all of 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.

• Related article: "Persuasion: definition and elements of the art of convincing"

Muzafer Sherif's social judgment theory

The social judgment theory was elaborated 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 says his theory?

Social judgment theory predicts that the success of a message depends on the relationship between the message and the beliefs of the recipient.

The anchor concept

From social psychology, it was studied and observed how 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 said "anchor" will be seen as more similar to it than they are in reality. reality. Consequently, said proposals or ideas will be assimilated.

On the other hand, the 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.

sender function

But, what function does the sender of the message have according to the theory of social judgment? His point of view on the subject of the message will serve as an "anchor"; In this way, if an issuer expresses a moderate opinion on a subject, and the person listening has a more opposition on the same topic, this person will tend to interpret the sender's position as similar to his own (because he approaches the "anchor").

On the other hand, the more you are in favor of an opinion and see that the sender opposes it, the more likely it is that the person considers that the sender has a more extreme opinion than he actually has (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”).

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

Conditions to assimilate or contrast a message

Do we know under what conditions the 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 subject react differently to the same message (some assimilate it and others contrast it)?

To answer these questions we must understand the concepts of the Social Judgment Theory: latitude of acceptance, latitude of rejection and latitude of no commitment.

1. Acceptance Latitude

It includes all the statements that a person considers acceptable (that is, likely to be accepted). They include your favorite posture or opinion: the anchor.

2. reject latitude

encompasses all rejected or objected positions in relation to an issue about which the person thinks.

3. Latitude of no compromise

involves all positions that the person neither accepts nor rejects; that is to say, it does not commit itself to any of them but it does not exclude them either.

function of latitudes

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

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

On the other hand, the messages that enter or fall in the latitude of rejection, will be judged as farthest, and therefore they will be verified messages.

An example of one of the problems caused by the difference in latitudes is the constant discrimination 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 "knowledgeable group membership."

1. high involvement

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

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: it is difficult to be neutral, although it can be for some opinions.

2. low involvement

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

It also includes a wide latitude of commitment, allowing for many opinions to exist with which the person is neutral, and finally a narrow rejection latitude, which implies that there is not much left to reject, and that if there is something left, it does not have much to reject. importance.

Persuasion

As well we can relate the theory of social judgment with the processes of persuasion. The theory explains that the mentioned effects of assimilation and contrast also occur in persuasion processes. Assimilation constitutes persuasion, and the effect of contrast, the failure of it.

Another basic tenet 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 is oriented towards the latitude of acceptance of said person.

In addition, a person who tries to persuade will try to widen the latitude of acceptance, making a "call" from the latitude of non-commitment. That is, she will try to make the acceptance latitude include more positions likely to be accepted.

If the persuader is successful, it will broaden the latitude of acceptance of the recipient or person receiving the message; this will imply that his “target” increases for a second persuasive attempt.