Originally conceived as an explanatory method, SJT seeks to unravel the intricacies of persuasive communication, honing in on attitude change as its central objective.
[3] The SJT researchers claimed expectations regarding attitude change could be based on the message receiver's level of involvement, the structure of the stimulus (and how many alternatives it allows), and the value (credibility) of the source.
As they worked with each other they found that the Social Judgement Theory suggests an individual's position on certain issues depending on the three factors: anchor, alternatives, and ego-involvement.
SJT focuses on the conceptual structure of the framework and traces its development from the roots in Brunswik's probabilistic functionalism to its present form.
[8] Rooted in judgment theory, which is concerned with the discrimination and categorization of stimuli, it attempts to explain how attitudes are expressed, judged, and modified.
[10] Sherif et al. (1965) defined attitudes as "the stands the individual upholds and cherishes about objects, issues, persons, groups, or institutions" (p. 4).
[5] As a judgment process, categorization and attitude formation are a product of recurring instances, so that past experiences influence decisions regarding aspects of the current situation.
Campaigns can offer relatable and unambiguous reference points to help people form their own opinions about social norms.
For example, presenting anecdotes or data regarding abstainers of alcohol or tobacco use can act as anchor points to solidify this idea.
[5] This latitude of rejection was deemed essential by the SJT developers in determining an individual's level of involvement and, thus, his or her propensity to an attitude change.
Charlie, the main character, first finds it difficult to embrace this new course for his family's failing shoe factory, illustrating the difficulties in broadening one's acceptance range.
[16] Furthermore, as characters like Charlie and Lola go through personal journeys of overcoming societal expectations and embracing their authentic selves, the theme of self-acceptance is central to the plot.
The opposite of contrast is assimilation, a perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitude of acceptance as less discrepant from their anchor than they really are.
[citation needed] The SJT researchers speculated that extreme stands, and thus wide latitudes of rejection, were a result of high ego involvement.
In short, Sherif et al. (1965) speculated that individuals who are highly involved in an issue are more likely to evaluate all possible positions, therefore resulting in an extremely limited or nonexistent latitude of non-commitment.
As the threat perceived by the audience increases and the capacity to produce the desired effect is low, people will tend to do the opposite of what is advocated.
Successful persuasive messages are those that are targeted to the receiver's latitude of acceptance and discrepant from the anchor position so that the incoming information cannot be assimilated or contrasted.
Conversely, if a message is deemed to be within the "latitude of rejection," the audience may still undergo an attitude adjustment, but in the opposite direction of the advocated stance.
Furthermore, the theory suggests that persuasion is not a one-time event but a cumulative process, with attitudes potentially evolving over time through exposure to multiple messages.
SJT has mainly been tested in small experimental settings, only rarely in more extended ways that include an investigation of opinion changes on a collective level in modeling studies.
Their study unfolded as a substantial simulation rooted in the attitudes of 1302 Swiss citizens toward the construction of a deep-ground repository for nuclear waste.
The study by Stefanelli and Seidel not only expanded the application of SJT beyond controlled settings but also provided insights into the diverse manifestations of opinions within a real-world context.
A recent study by Melike Acar [24] uses SJT to evaluate Turkish teachers’ social judgments on students with special needs being excluded and included in primary schools.
[26] Findings suggest once the bounded confidence model was adapted to include negative responses, those with like-minded opinions had a higher likelihood of persuading.
[26] An Ohio State University tested the study participants' moral judgment of characters in media through the lens of SJT.
The concept of conservatism and the political spectrum have a strong connection to the anti-vaccine sentiments observed in social judgment theory.
Tweets and other social media content can give important information about how the general public feels, thinks, and behaves in relation to vaccination campaigns.
Researchers can learn about a variety of factors influencing people's opinions, including misinformation, personal experiences, cultural beliefs, and political ideologies, by looking at tweets about vaccines.
But it's crucial to proceed cautiously when analyzing social media data and to be aware of the presumptions that underlie this kind of study.
Similarly, the theory would not be able to elegantly include such a set of facts if there were a U-shaped function between disagreement and opinion change in response to a communication.