When we establish interactions with people, debates and conflicting positions or opinions arise. On what does it depend whether we agree with our interlocutor or not? And what do we think or judge about a subject in a certain way?

The theory of social judgment of Muzafer Sherif and collaborators tries to answer all this. In this article we will see what are the characteristics of the theory, the concept of “anchor” and how this theory influences the persuasive processes.

Muzafer Sherif’s theory of social judgment

The theory of social judgment was developed by Muzafer Sherif in 1965. Sherif was a social psychologist born in Turkey in 1906, and is considered one of the founders of social psychology , as well as one of its main representatives. But… what does his theory say?

The theory of social judgment predicts that the success of a message depends on the relationship between that message and the beliefs of the receiver .

The Anchor Concept

From social psychology it was studied and observed how in people who have certain established beliefs (according to Sherif, “anchors”) when it comes to making judgments regarding a particular case, the ideas, proposals and objects that are found near that “anchor”, will be seen as more similar to it than they really are. Consequently, such proposals or ideas will be assimilated .

On the contrary, ideas, proposals and/or objects that are far from the “anchor” will be perceived as more different than they really are, and will be confronted and contrasted.

Function of the transmitter

But what is the function of the sender of the message according to the theory of social judgment? His point of view on the subject of the message will serve as an “anchor” ; in this way, if a sender expresses a moderate opinion on a subject, and the person listening has a more opposing position on the same subject, this person will tend to interpret the sender’s position as similar to his own (because he approaches the “anchor”).

On the other hand, the more in favour of an opinion and seeing that the issuer opposes it, the more likely it is that the person will consider that the issuer has a more extreme opinion than he or she actually has (because he or she is moving away from the “anchor”).

Thus, in other words and by way of synthesis, the theory of social judgment establishes that basically we accept the assimilated messages (near the “anchor”) and reject the contrasted messages (far from the “anchor”).

Conditions for assimilating or contrasting a message

Do we know under what conditions the messages are assimilated and under what conditions they are contrasted? As a result, we could also ask ourselves: why do some people with the same opinion on a subject react differently to the same message (some assimilate it and others contrast it)?

To answer these questions we must understand the concepts of the Theory of Social Judgement: latitude of acceptance, latitude of rejection and latitude of non-commitment .

1. Latitude of acceptance

It includes all statements that a person considers acceptable (i.e. likely to be accepted). They include his or her favourite position or opinion: the anchor.

2. Latitude of rejection

It includes all the rejected or objected positions in relation to a topic on which the person has an opinion.

3. Latitude of non-commitment

It implies all positions that the person neither accepts nor rejects ; that is to say, he or she does not commit to any but neither does he or she exclude them.

Function of latitudes

These three latitudes will determine whether a person finally assimilates or contrasts a message.

Thus, messages that enter or fall into the latitude of acceptance or non-commitment will be judged as closer to the favorite position (belief “anchor”), and this means that they will be assimilated messages.

In contrast, messages that enter or fall into the latitude of rejection, will be judged as more distant , and therefore will be contrasted messages.

An example of one of the problems caused by the difference in latitudes is the constant discrimination experienced throughout the world.

Latitudes: degree of involvement

Latitudes also refer to the degree to which people are involved in an issue. According to M. Sherif, involvement is the “membership of an informed group”.

1. High involvement

Thus, high involvement implies that there is a narrow latitude of acceptance: the person’s opinion is the only acceptable one .

It also implies that the latitude for rejection is wide: any different opinion is rejected. And finally, it includes a narrow latitude of non-commitment: one is hardly neutral, although one can be for some opinions.

2. Low involvement

In contrast, low involvement implies the opposite: a wide latitude of acceptance, where people are willing to accept multiple (and different) positions on the subject in question, outside or far from their “anchor”.

It also includes a broad latitude of commitment, allowing for many opinions to which the person is neutral, and finally a narrow latitude of rejection, which implies that there is not much left to reject, and that if there is anything left, it does not matter much.

Persuasion

Also we can relate the theory of social judgment with the processes of persuasion . The theory explains that the mentioned effects of assimilation and contrast also occur in the processes of persuasion. Assimilation constitutes persuasion, and the contrast effect, failure of persuasion.

Another basic principle of the theory of social judgment in relation to persuasion is that in order to change the most accepted position on a subject of a person, it is convenient that the message is oriented towards the latitude of acceptance of that person .

In addition, a person trying to persuade will try to broaden the latitude of acceptance by making a “call” from the latitude of non-commitment. That is, he will try to make the latitude of acceptance include more positions that are likely to be accepted.

If the persuader is successful, it will broaden the latitude of acceptance of the receiver or person receiving the message; this will mean that their “target” will increase for a second persuasive attempt.

Bibliographic references:

  • Morales, J.F. (2007). Social Psychology. Editorial: S.A. MCGraw-Hill / Interamericana de España
  • Muzafer Sherif (1906-1988). (1989). Latin American Journal of Psychology, 21(3), 457-458.

    • .

  • Rivera, V .(2009). Political communication, a theoretical approach.