TCP - Social Judgement Theory

1. Social Judgment Theory COMM 2378 Theories of Communication and Persuasion Le Thanh Phuong s3298842 Le Vu Thuy Linh s3274932

2. AGENDA Social Judgment Theory Creation The cognitive structure of a person’s attitude Judgment Process Critics

3. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY

4. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY CREATION Muzafer Sherif & Carl Hovland Carolyn Sherif Oklahoma State University n.d. The National Academies Press n.d. The National Academies Press n.d.

5. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY CREATION Attitude change will be influenced by cognitive judgment processes in which a proposed position is compared with a person’s existing system of attitudes. (Sherif & Hovland 1961, cited in Miller 2005) There were no absolute truths. Man is the measure of all things. (Schiappa 1991, cited in Benoit & Benoit 2008)

6. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF ATTITUDE Attitude = single point Latitudes Latitude = the distance of a place north or south of the equator, measured in degrees (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary)

7. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF ATTITUDE Latitudes Latitude of Acceptance The range of message positions that are acceptable or plausible for an listener Latitude of Rejection The range of message positions that a listener actively rejects Latitude of Non-commitment The range of message positions that a listener neither accepts or rejects

8. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF ATTITUDE Anchor The position that most closely represents a person’s point of view In the center of Latitude of Acceptance Comparison point when we hear discrepant message Cultural and social formation Video example

9. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF ATTITUDE Ego Involvement: The importance of an issue to a person’s life High ego-involvement narrow Latitude of Acceptance wide Latitude of Rejection extreme position of anchor Low ego-involvement wide Latitude of Acceptance high rate of attitude change

10. 12manage n.d.

11. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY JUDGMENT PROCESS 1. Judgment Phase Comparing the message to our anchor Locating the message into the latitude zones

12. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY JUDGMENT PROCESS *Perceptual distortion errors Contrast: A perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitudes of rejection as even further from their anchor than they really are Assimilation: A perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitudes of acceptance as even nearer from their anchor than they really are

13. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY JUDGMENT PROCESS 2. Responding phase Shifting our anchor  Latitude of Acceptance shifting along with it  Latitude of Rejection and Non-commitment shifting along with it How much movement?

14. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY JUDGMENT PROCESS Discrepancy = the difference between the position of a message and the listener’s attitude The greater the discrepancy, the more listeners will adjust their attitudes . (Griffin 2008) The relationship between discrepancy and attitude change is curvilinear .

15. SOCIAL JUDMENT THEORY JUDGMENT PROCESS To change a person’s attitude Disagree ENOUGH to change the audience’s attitude, without going so far that you offend them Avoid boomerang effect : Attitude change in the opposite direction of what the message advocated Keep in mind! Persuasion process is: Gradual: The only way to get large-scale change is through a series of small, successive movements Social: Influence from friends and family

16. SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY APPLICATION Vietnam’s Government decides to run an anti-smoking campaign to change smokers’ attitude. You are hired to create a commercial for the campaign Your task: Draft the idea using Social Judgment Theory. Video example 1 Video example 2

17. SOCIAL JUDMENT THEORY CRITICS Strengths: SJT helps explain why two different people may perceive a single message differently. SJT notices the curvilinear relationship between discrepancy and persuasion. SJT includes involvement as an important factor in persuasion.

18. SOCIAL JUDMENT THEORY CRITICS Weaknesses Assimilation/Contrast is not likely to happen with clear message. Eg: “No texting in class under any circumstances” would be difficult to misinterpret SJT ignores other factors that can affect persuasion. The message content & variables Source credibility

19. REFERENCES 12manage n.d., ‘Social Judgment Process (Sherif)’, image, 12manage.edu , viewed 13 July 2011, < http://www.12manage.com/description_sherif_social_judgment_theory.html>. Benoit, WL & Benoit, PJ 2008, Persuasive Messages: The process of Influence , Blackwell Publishing, USA. Griffin, E 2008, A First Look at Communication Theory , 7 th edn, McGraw-Hill, USA. Miller, K 2005, Communication theories: Perspective, processes and contexts , 4 th edn, McGraw-Hill, USA. Oklahoma State University n.d., ‘Carolyn Sherif ’, image, Okstate.edu , viewed 13 July 2011, <http://psychology.okstate.edu/museum/women/page2.html>.

20. REFERENCES Thegauravjain 2008, Smoking – The best ad ever made on anti-smoking , video recording, Youtube , 8 January, viewed 14 July 2011, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p69Q8lTkZTc>. Tibilord 2006, Funny campaign again smoking, video recording, Youtube , 7 November, viewed 14 July 2011, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz0N-jVrRWU&NR=1>. The National Academies Press n.d., ‘Muzafer Sherif’, image, Nap.edu , viewed 13 July 2011, < http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=chovland.html>. The National Academies Press n.d., ‘Carl Hovland’, image, Nap.edu , viewed 13 July 2011, < http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=chovland.html>.