|
|
Social
Judgment/
Involvement Theory
Social
Judgment/Involvement Theory
The
Nature of Social Judgment/Involvement Theory
Research
on Social Judgment/Involvement Theory
Strengths and
Weaknesses of Social Judgment/involvement Theory
Glossary
Further Readings
Self-Test
|
The
Nature of Social Judgment/Involvement Theory
Here I will
discuss the audience’s own attitudes and the three
latitudes: acceptance, non-commitment, and rejection.
Then I will describe two processes of perceptual errors,
assimilation and contrast. Finally, I will explain what Social
Judgment/Involvement says about involvement.
First we have to understand the audience’s attitudes. Then
we can see how this relates to the listeners’ perceptions
(judgments) of persuasive messages. As indicated above, each
audience members’ current attitude on the message topic is
his or her anchor point. However, most people are reasonable
and flexible, willing to easily tolerate a little
disagreement. There are a range of positions that are not
objectionable. 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. Sherif and
Sherif (1967)
explain that “The latitude of acceptance is
simply [the] most acceptable position plus other positions the
individual also finds acceptable.”
On both sides of the latitude of acceptance are two
latitudes of non-commitment. These are positions that disagree
moderately with the person’s own attitude (anchor), but
aren’t so discrepant that he or she actually rejects them.
Sherif and Sherif define these as “the positions that [the
individual] does not evaluate as either acceptable or
objectionable.” On
the outside are two latitudes of rejection, including message
positions that the person actively rejects as wrong: “the
position most objectionable to the individual . . . plus the
other positions also objectionable” (Sherif &
Sherif,
1967, p. 115).
If we map out potential message positions on a topic, like gun
control, we can visualize these three latitudes. Figure 1 is
an attitude/message diagram, which displays the possible
attitude and message positions on a given topic. In this case,
the topic is gun control and this particular listener has an
attitude of +. 3 toward gun control, a very mild positive
attitude. The capital “A” represents this person’s own
attitude (before listening to the message) and each lower case
“a” represents a message position that is acceptable to
this listener, but not exactly his or her own position.
Together, these a’s describe this individual’s latitude of
acceptance. Each “r” is a possible message position that
falls in the latitude of rejection. In this case, the listener
rejects both extremes: messages advocating no controls on gun
control and messages advocating strict gun control. The two
latitudes of non-commitment, on each side of the latitude of
acceptance, are represented by “nc.”
Technically, there shouldn’t be any spaces (every
potential message position falls into one of these latitudes),
but I thought that spaces would help identify the distinct
latitudes. Notice that because this individual has a slightly
positive attitude, the left latitude of rejection is somewhat
larger than the right latitude of rejection.
Figure 1. Latitudes for a Slightly Positive Attitude toward
Gun Control
Gun Control
(no controls)
(no opinion) (strict controls)
-3
-2
-1 0
+1
+2 +3
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
ncncnc aaaaaaAaaaaaaaaaa
ncncnc rrrrrrrrrrrrr
In the second example, illustrated in Figure 2 below, we have
a listener who has an extremely positive attitude (about +2.8)
toward gun control. 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.
Figure 2. Latitudes for a Extremely Positive Attitude toward
Gun Control
Gun Control
(no controls)
(no opinion) (strict controls)
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2 +3
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
ncncnc aaaaaAaaaaa
In the third example, Figure 3, we have a person with a
moderately negative attitude toward gun control (-2.1). We can
see that this person has two latitudes of non-commitment and
one each of latitudes of acceptance and rejection.
Figure 3. Latitudes for a Moderately Negative Attitude toward
Gun Control
Gun Control
(no controls)
(no opinion) (strict controls)
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2 +3
ncnc aaaAaaaaa
ncncnc rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
We can create four simples rules for these latitudes. There is
only one latitude of acceptance, and the listener’s own
attitude is always at the center of the latitude of
acceptance, anchoring it. 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).
Now we can consider how a listener’s own attitude (anchor),
and his or her latitudes of acceptance, non-commitment, and
rejection influence perception of message positions. 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. I’ve used numbers to
indicate three different messages that this person could
listen to. Message 1 falls into this listener’s latitude of
acceptance and is likely to be at least somewhat persuasive.
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. Neither
message 2 nor message three is likely to be very persuasive;
both would probably be rejected by this listener, although
they would probably be rejected for different reasons (each is
too discrepant from the listener’s own attitude, although in
opposite directions). 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.
Figure 4. Four Possible Messages for a Person with a Slightly
Positive Attitude toward Gun Control
Gun Control
(no controls)
(no opinion) (strict controls)
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2 +3
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
ncncnc aaaaaaAaaaaa
ncncrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Messages:
3
1
4
2
From these predictions -- that message 1 should be somewhat
persuasive and messages 2 and 3 would be unpersuasive -- we
can see one of Social Judgment/Involvement’s predictions.
When a message falls in the latitudes of acceptance or in the
latitudes of non-commitment, it predicts that the greater the
difference between the message and the listener’s existing
attitude (called discrepancy), the more persuasion. However,
when messages are so discrepant that they fall in the
listener’s latitude of rejection, they are not expected to
be persuasive. And we can see that this makes sense. We are
less likely to be persuaded by people who take extreme
positions in their messages. In fact, Social
Judgment/Involvement theory predicts that messages which fall
into the latitude of non-commitment, like message 4, are
likely to be most persuasive. Specifically, it predicts that
the more discrepant a message is from a listener’s own
attitude (the greater the difference between the audience
attitude and the position adopted in the message), as long as
the message doesn’t fall into the latitude of rejection, the
more persuasive that message will be.
Furthermore, when a listener’s attitude changes, after
seeing or listening to a message, his or her latitudes will
shift. The latitude of acceptance is always centered around
the individual’s attitude. So, if the attitude changes, the
latitude of acceptance will shift along with it. The latitudes
of non-commitment and rejection will also change. See Figure
5, when the latitudes shift after a person’s attitude
changes to favor stricter gun control. This person’s
attitude, and his or her latitudes are displayed before and
after a persuasive message.
Figure 5. Effects of Successful Persuasion on the three
Latitudes
Gun Control
(no controls)
(no opinion) (strict controls)
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2 +3
before:
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ncnc
aaaAaaaa
ncnc rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
after:
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
ncnc aaaaAaaaa ncnc rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
However, there is more to the process of perceiving, or
judging, a message position that determining which latitude
that message falls into. Social Judgment/Involvement theory
also discusses two different perceptual distortion processes,
called assimilation and contrast. These two effects occur when
a messages is very close to the listener’s own attitude
(assimilation) or disagrees (is highly discrepant) with the
audience (contrast). In a way, the choice of name is
unfortunate, because “assimilation” sounds like it might
be a good thing. If I “assimilate” a message, doesn’t
that mean I accept or integrate it into my own beliefs?
No, in this case it doesn’t. As Social
Judgment/Involvement theory uses the term, it is an error in
judgment that actually works to reduce a message’s
persuasiveness.
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). The letter “s” refers to
the message as stated by the persuader, while the letter
“p” stands for the message as perceived by the listener.
Social Judgment/Involvement theory predicts that when a
message actually (as stated by the persuader) falls in the
latitude of acceptance, near the listener’s own attitude, it
will be assimilated, or perceived by the listener as being
nearer to his or her own attitude than it really is. This
perceptual error minimizes differences between the message and
the listener’s own attitude. Thus, in Figure 6, the “p”
or perceived message is nearer to the A of this person’s own
attitude than the “s” or the messages as stated. This
means that assimilation is an error, a process of
misperception. After the listener has judged the message’s
position, that message then has the possibility of creating
attitude change. However, relatively little discrepancy
between the (perceived) message and the listener’s own
attitude will mean very little attitude change. Thus, this
person can think to him or her self something like “Hey,
this person’s message [p] is almost exactly the same as my
own attitude [A], so I don’t really have much reason to
change my attitude.” If
a listener believes that a message basically echoes his or her
own attitude, there is no reason to change that attitude (in
fact, that message probably reinforces the listener’s
existing attitude, rather than changes it). The theory
predicts that the closer the actual message (s) is to the
listener’s own attitude (A), the more assimilation will
occur.
Figure 6. The Process of Assimilation
Gun Control
(no controls)
(no opinion) (strict controls)
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2 +3
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
ncnc aaaaAaaaa ncnc
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Message Position:
ps
In Figure 7, the other process of perceptual distortion,
contrast, is depicted. Social Judgment/Involvement theory
predicts that when a message’s actual position (s) falls
into the latitude of rejection, it will be contrasted, or
perceived as even further away from the listener’s own
attitude (A) than it really is. This perceptual error
exaggerates the difference between the message and the
listener’s own attitude. Because messages falling into the
latitude of rejection are unlikely to be persuasive, this
means that contrast does not help the persuader either. This
theory also predicts that the farther an actual message (s) is
from the listener’s own attitude (A), the more contrast will
occur.
Figure 7. The Process of Contrast
Gun Control
(no controls)
(no opinion) (strict controls)
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2 +3
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
ncnc aaaaAaaaa ncnc rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Message:
p
s
So, assimilation and contrast are both perceptual processes in
which the listener decides the position advocated in a
persuasive message. Both are errors in perception: in
assimilation, a message is perceived to be closer to the
listener’s own attitude than it really is; in contrast, a
message is perceived to be further away from the listener’s
own attitude than it really is. All messages are not
contrasted: only those that are near to the listener’s
attitude (which are assimilated) and those that are rather far
away from the listener’s own attitude (which are
contrasted). Furthermore, neither is helpful to the persuader.
Messages that are assimilated are thought to be quite similar
to the listeners’ attitude, so there is little reason for
listener’s to change their attitudes. 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. Some people are highly involved in a topic: The topic
is very important to them and it may affect them personally.
Others may not care about a given topic (or may not care very
much), and they are said to be less involved in that topic.
For example, in 1999 two high school students killed thirteen
people in Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado (and
then committed suicide themselves). Although there are of
course exceptions, gun control is probably more relevant to
people who live in the area, probably causing them to be
involved in the topic of gun control. Those who attend
Columbine High School, or whose children attend it, and who
knew the victims of this tragedy, are probably very involved
in this topic. In other states, those with children in high
school are probably less involved in the topic of gun control
than those who live in Littleton, but they are probably more
involved than their neighbors who don’t have school aged
children. The point is, people vary in the extent to which
they are involved in a topic.
Social Judgment/Involvement theory realizes that listeners
vary in involvement and makes specific predictions about
involvement and persuasion. Specifically, those listeners who
are less involved in a topic will have wider latitudes of
acceptance and narrower latitudes of non-commitment than those
who are highly involved. Figure 8 depicts an individual who is
relatively uninvolved in gun control. The latitudes of
rejection are much smaller, and the latitudes of acceptance
and non-commitment are wider. Figure 9, in contrast, shows
someone who is highly involved in gun control. The involved
person has a much smaller latitude of non-commitment and
correspondingly larger latitudes of rejection (Sherif &
Hovland, 1967).
Figure 8. A Listener with Relatively Low Involvement
Gun Control
(no controls)
(no opinion) (strict controls)
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2 +3
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
ncnc aaaaaaAaaaaaa
ncnc rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Figure 9. A Listener with Fairly High Involvement
Gun Control
(no controls)
(no opinion) (strict controls)
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2 +3
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
nc aaaAaaa nc rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
This prediction means that persuaders, who should not want
their messages to fall into an listener’s latitudes of
rejection, have to take less extreme positions to be
persuasive with those who are highly involved in a topic. This
is a reasonable prediction: those who don’t care much about
a topic (who are uninvolved in that topic) are probably more
willing to tolerate a difference of opinion, or a discrepant
message, than those who care greatly about that topic. It also
means that those who try to persuade people who are highly
involved in a topic may have to settle for smaller levels of
persuasion than those who persuade the uninvolved.
This theory explicitly recognizes that listeners perceive
messages -- messages are not clear and objective statements of
the persuader’s exact position. Sometimes people make
mistakes when they perceive a message. Furthermore, different
listeners will perceive the same message differently (even if
they aren’t making a mistake). These statements are common
sense, but Social Judgment/Involvement theory explains how
these processes work.
Listeners judge a message’s position according to their own
attitudes, which serve as anchor points. The closer a message
is to a listener’s own attitude, the more likely it will be
assimilated or perceived as closer to the listener’s
attitude than it really is. The further a message is from the
listener’s attitude (the more discrepancy between message
and listener’s attitude), the more likely it is to be
contrasted, or perceived as more discrepant than it really is.
Once a listener has judged a message position, we can
determine how much persuasion is likely to occur. The more
discrepancy between a perceived message position and the
listener’s attitude, the more attitude change is likely
unless the perceived message falls in the latitude of
rejection. Messages that appear to fall in the latitude of
rejection are not persuasive.
This means that Social Judgment/Involvement theory predicts a
curvilinear relationship between discrepancy and attitude
change. With little discrepancy, there is little reason to
change one’s attitude. This is exacerbated by the process of
assimilation: if a message is close to the author’s own
attitude, it will be assimilated or perceived as even less
discrepant than it really is. Because discrepancy is viewed as
necessary for attitude change to occur, messages that have
been assimilated offer very little reason for the listener to
change his or her attitudes.
As the perceived discrepancy of the message increases, the
pressure to change attitudes increases. However, once
discrepancy becomes so great that the message falls into the latitude of
rejection, persuasion begins to drop off. Again,
this tendency for discrepant messages to be less persuasive is
exacerbated by the process of contrast. Messages that disagree
sharply with the listener’s own attitude are contrasted, or
misperceived as being even more discrepant -- and less
persuasive -- than they really are. Thus, a little bit of
discrepancy creates little attitude change. As discrepancy
increases, attitude change increases. However, when
discrepancy becomes so much the message falls into the
latitude of rejection, persuasion decreases.
|
|
|
