Social Judgment Theory
Even though the Greek work “ego” was used by others before and after Freud, research investigating the latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and noncommitment has In the earlier research, these relationships were discovered through. In the middle of these opposites lies the latitude of noncommitment, a range of. these issues has been limited to testing the relationship between various scales used in the evaluation process and (2) the apparent relative relationship among of rejection, or objectionability), and neutrality (latitude of noncommitment).
The center of a range of acceptable or plausible attitudes is called the latitude of acceptance, and the anchor point is in the center of this latitude. If we map out potential message positions on a topic, like gun control, we can visualize these three latitudes.
Social Judgment/Involvement Theory
In this case, the listener rejects both extremes: Notice that because this individual has a slightly positive attitude, the left latitude of rejection is somewhat larger than the right latitude of rejection. Notice that this individual has only one of each of the three potential latitudes, and the latitude of rejection is quite large for this individual. We can see that this person has two latitudes of non-commitment and one each of latitudes of acceptance and rejection.
There must be at least one latitude of non-commitment and at least one latitude of rejection. There may be two latitudes of non-commitment one on each side of the latitude of acceptance. There may be two latitudes of rejection, but if so, there must be two latitudes of non-commitment as well and the latitudes of rejection must be outside the latitudes of non-commitment.
In Figure 4, we have a listener with a slightly positive attitude who listens to a persuasive message advocating a slightly more positive message toward gun control. Message 2, which advocates fairly, but not very, strict gun control, falls into the right latitude of rejection. Message 3, which advocates few controls but not no gun controls at all falls into the right latitude of rejection.
Probably the most persuasive message would be one at position 4 -- it does not disagree enough with the audience to fall into the latitude of rejection and be dismissed. It disagrees enough, though, that even if only accepted partially, it should create a reasonable amount of attitude change. And we can see that this makes sense.
We are less likely to be persuaded by people who take extreme positions in their messages. So, if the attitude changes, the latitude of acceptance will shift along with it.
The latitudes of non-commitment and rejection will also change. In Figure 6, we have one message that is plotted in two places on the continuum of message positions the two letters used are placed are right next to each other because they are meant to be just a little different.
This means that assimilation is an error, a process of misperception. Because messages falling into the latitude of rejection are unlikely to be persuasive, this means that contrast does not help the persuader either. Both are errors in perception: All messages are not contrasted: Furthermore, neither is helpful to the persuader.
Messages that are contrasted fall well into the latitude of rejection and for that reason are not persuasive. People vary in the extent to which they are involved in a topic. Development[ edit ] SJT arose from social psychology and was based on laboratory findings resulting from experiments.
These experiments studied the mental assessment of physical objects, referred to at the time as psychophysical research. Subjects were asked to compare some aspect of an object, such as weight or color, to another, different object. The researchers discovered that, when a standard was provided for comparison, the participants categorized the objects relative to the aspects of the standard.
- Social Judgment Theory
- Social judgment theory
SJT focuses the conceptual structure of the framework and traces its development from the roots in Brunswik's probabilistic functionalism to its present form. For example, if a very heavy object was used as the standard in assessing weight, then the other objects would be judged to be relatively lighter than if a very light object was used as the standard.
The standard is referred to as an "anchor". This work involving physical objects was applied to psychosocial work, in which a participant's limits of acceptability on social issues are studied. The traditional view of attitude neglects an individual's emotional and motivational influences as well as the social context in which the attitude s are formed. Meaning an individual is more likely to assume a speaker with authority will be informative, truthful, relevant, and clear.
With regard to social stimuli specifically, judgment processes incorporate both past experiences and present circumstances. The behavior can be in response to arranged or naturally occurring stimuli. This method requires research participants to place statements into piles of most acceptable, most offensive, neutral, and so on, in order for researchers to infer their attitudes.
How to Deal With a Non Committed Relationship: 15 Steps
This categorization, an observable judgment process, was seen by Sherif and Hovland as a major component of attitude formation. Therefore, attitudes are acquired.
Aside from having their personal opinion, individuals hold latitudes of what they think is acceptable or unacceptable in general for other people's view. Furthermore, even though two people may seem to hold identical attitudes, their "most preferred" and "least preferred" alternatives may differ. Thus, a person's full attitude can only be understood in terms of what other positions he or she finds acceptable or unacceptable, in addition to his or her own stand.
There is the latitude of acceptancewhich is the range of ideas that a person sees as reasonable or worthy of consideration; the latitude of rejection, which is the range of ideas that a person sees as unreasonable or objectionable; and, finally, the latitude of noncommitment, which is the range of ideas that a person sees as neither acceptable nor questionable.
Sherif and Hovland define the latitude of acceptance as "the range of positions on an issue On the opposite end of the continuum lies the latitude of rejection. This is defined as including the "positions he finds objectionable including the one 'most objectionable" to him ". The greater the rejection latitude, the more involved the individual is in the issue and, thus, harder to persuade. In the middle of these opposites lies the latitude of noncommitment, a range of viewpoints where one feels primarily indifferent.
Sherif claimed that the greater the discrepancy, the more listeners will adjust their attitudes. Thus, the message that persuades the most is the one that is most discrepant from the listener's position, yet falls within his or her latitude of acceptance or latitude of noncommitment.
The opposite of contrast is assimilationa perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitude of acceptance as less discrepant from their anchor than they really are. When a discrepant viewpoint is expressed in a communication message within the person's latitude of acceptance, the message is more likely to be assimilated or viewed as being closer to person's anchor, or his or her own viewpoint, than it actually is.
When the message is perceived as being very different from one's anchor and, thus, falling within the latitude of rejection, persuasion is unlikely, due to a contrast effect. The contrast effect is what happens when the message is viewed as being further away than it actually is from the anchor.
Messages falling within the latitude of noncommitment, however, are the ones most likely to achieve the desired attitude change. Therefore, the more extreme an individual's stand, the greater his or her latitude of rejection and, thus, the harder he or she is to persuade.
According to the Sherif and Hovland work, the level of ego involvement depends upon whether the issue "arouses an intense attitude or, rather, whether the individual can regard the issue with some detachment as primarily a 'factual' matter" p.
No label dating: can you have love without commitment?
Religion, politics, and family are examples of issues that typically result in highly involved attitudes. They contribute to one's self-identity. In short, Sherif et al.Ralph Smart - Overcoming Relationship Doubts And Commitments Issues
People who have a deep concern or have extreme opinions on either side of the argument always care deeply and have a large latitude of rejection because they already have their strong opinion formed and usually are not willing to change that.