Social Judgement Theory

“You won’t do it,  not even to do say your own life!” my friend asks. “But there have been so many medical advances that prevent those mishaps so  it is so safe and easy now” she continues. Now matter how many times we have this conversation my friend will never be able to convince me that blood transfusions are acceptable. Any talk about transfusions I completely just reject. Yes I know that modern medicine has assured that it is a safe practice but that will not move me from my stance on the matter. Therefore it always leads to big arguments between my friends. and I. Being raised as a Jehovah’s Witness blood transfusions go against core principles. Even after leaving the organisation some persons still do not consent to blood transfusions. The idea of a blood transfusion is completely unacceptable and the fact that it may mean the difference between life and death will not change a Jehovah Witness’ mind.

Using this situation we can see how the Social Judgement Theory works .This theory seeks to explain how influence in communication occurs. According to this theory how we will respond to a message or new idea is determined by our latitude of attitude. Our anchor or stance we take on a particular issue serves as the basis for how any new ideas are weighed whether they be close to or far away from  our current position. The stances we take are largely dependent on how we have been socialized  and the social groups that we identify with.

Messages that fall into to our latitude of acceptance will be viewed as reasonable  and we may be open to consideration. Therefore for a Jehovah Witness a message about blood transfusions being wrong or holidays being Pagan festivals would be considered reasonable as it is one of their core beliefs thus that message falls in to their latitude of acceptance.

However should the message fall in to our latitude of rejection it would be views as objectionable. Messages that we not determined as reasonable or unreasonable fall in to our latitude of non-commitment. That is why messages in favour of blood transfusion will always be viewed as unreasonable and objectionable because they fall into their latitude of rejection.

Whether we will accept or reject a message depends on how strongly we feel about it or what importance the issue plays in our lives. This is called ego involvement. Groups with known stands tend to have high ego involvement thus they also have wide latitudes of rejection and are not easily influenced. Given this, it is evident that trying to persuade a Jehovah’s Witness to accept blood transfusion would be quite difficult. In fact trying to persuade persons with wide latitudes of rejection can produce a “boomerang” effect” where messages to influence may drive them further away from what the speaker is advocating for.

This boomerang effect is a result of “contrast” which is a perceptual error where by people judge messages that fall within their latitude of rejection as  more discrepant or further away from their anchor than they really are. This may explain why when Jehovah’s Witness try to preach to persons of other religious denominations that they are not even open to considering anything they say when in fact they do have some shared principles.

The Social Judgement Theory of Muzafer Sherif is characterized a scientific theory. Let us see how this conclusion was reached.

Good Scientific Theory Check List

Explanation of Data

Does it explain the event or human behaviour that has occurred?

Yes. Sherif’s analysis of perceptual distortions such as assimilation and contrast and the role that ego involvement plays in the judging of the message helps us to form a comprehensive understanding of what happens when we hear  a message.

Does it describe the process?

Yes. Sherif describes to two-step mental process which is triggered when we hear a new message.

Predictability

Does it predict what will happen?

Yes. This theory allows us to be able to predict the mental process that unfolds when someone hears or sees a message that falls into their latitude of acceptance or rejection.

Relative Simplicity

Is the theory no more complex than it needs to be?

Yes.

Testability

Can the hypothesis be tested?

Yes. There are specific predictions of the social judgement theory that have been supported for instance the Bochner and Insko sleep experiment.

Is it falsifiable? Is hypothesis be stated in such a way that it can be tested and disproved if it is wrong?

Yes. The “boomerang effect” has not been realized in some experiments.

Practical Utility

Can the theory be related to everyday  life?

Yes. At some point and time we may need to persuade or convince someone of something. Using the social judgement theory one can see the importance of crafting message to ensure efficacy in persuasion.

Is the theory grounded in quantitative research?

Yes.