Social Judgement Theory

Social judgment theory, or SJT, posits that information and opinions people encounter are immediately categorized before being rejected, accepted or considered, based on one's own preconceived notions. Individuals must be persuaded to believe an argument even slightly different from their own position. People can have conscious or subconscious reactions to newly introduced concepts.

History

Yale professors Muzafer Sherif and Carl Hovland developed social judgment theory in 1961, adding to work already being done in psychology. Experiments showed that test subjects could be led to certain conclusions if they accepted changes in standard definitions. For instance, given a sheet of light blue paper and told that it was the standard color for blue, they would judge other shades of blue as darker or lighter based on that standard.

Sherif and Hovland said the same applies to an individual's belief system, which is anchored in religious, political, national and cultural traditions. Following Hovland's death in 1961 from cancer, Sherif began working closely with his wife, Carolyn Sherif, on this theory.

Theory

People have varying degrees of openness toward new ideas depending on how close an argument is to a person's already-established belief system. This is called the latitude of acceptance. Assimilation occurs when a person accepts this new idea and makes that his belief. An individual's rejection of a contradictory or substantially different opinion is defined as her latitude of rejection. Moving away from this new idea is called contrast. The latitude of non-commitment occurs when a person neither accepts nor rejects an idea. Non-commitment does not mean that an individual is undecided, only that he is ambivalent toward the new argument and keeps his original opinion.

Ego-Involvement

A person's dedication to his opinion can change if situations change. In a crisis needing a quick decision, a person might accept or reject an argument immediately with no time for debate. Non-commitment disappears entirely. A religious zealot or political ideologue also sees no room for compromise because he is closely tied to an issue or belief. The higher one's ego-involvement with an issue, the more black and white she sees the world.

Sometimes, in the case of an emergency, a person might abandon thought and go with what feels like the right course of action even if rational debate suggests another approach. The subconscious can overrule the conscious mind.

Groupthink

Individuals who join large social, political or professional groups often develop groupthink. Once inside a group, an individual will agree with the majority opinion more often than not. This is a result of high ego-involvement, or taking on the group's concerns as one's own. Members will even defend the group's position while away from it.

Significance

Social judgment allows people to predict someone else's behavior or response based on the other's background. Finding common ground by understanding another individual's position creates dialogue. It is an opportunity to bring people together. It does not mean a definite change in opinion, or agreement with new truths or standards, but it could lead to a smaller latitude of rejection and a greater acceptance of other beliefs.

References

• CASOS

Resources

• University of Kentucky