Social judgment theory (SJT)

Social judgment theory (SJT) attempts to explain how people understand and judge persuasive arguments. The theory derives its methodology from a number of social theories relating to judgment and decision-making. SJT posits that when presented with a new idea, a person will gauge the acceptability of this idea by comparing it to his or her existing views. A number of factors then determine how the person judges the new idea and integrates it into his or her attitude about a given topic.

Background

Social judgment theory emerged from the probabilistic functionalism theories of psychologist Egon Brunswik. Probabilistic functionalism argued that the psychology of an organism relies as much on its external environment as it does on its internal environment. Since an organism's external environment is rife with uncertainty, an organism must learn to adapt to these uncertainties and utilize indefinite evidence to achieve its goals. Brunswik's theories were based on the philosophy of probabilism, a form of academic skepticism that originated in ancient Greece.

The details of Brunswik's theory were primarily concerned with the problem of perception, however. Starting in the 1950s and 1960s, researchers began extending Brunswik's analysis to areas of human judgment and decision. Social judgment theory arose from studies that applied probabilistic functionalism to these areas, specifically those examining human judgment in social situations.

The foundational research that gave rise to social judgment theory occurred in the 1950s. Researchers began applying probabilistic functionalism to clinical judgment theory, which examined how clinical atmospheres give rise to judgments. Researcher Kenneth Hammonds's studies emphasized the necessity of understanding the clinician-patient relationship when regarding how judgments are formed. Hammonds noted that alongside the clinician's reaction to the patient, the patient is also affected by the activities of the clinician. Additional research led to statistical models for analyzing such judgments, which further enhanced research efforts.

Social judgment theory also derived its concepts from earlier theories of learning and social circumstances. Further studies related to Brunswik's research examined how people identify cues in learning. Through the use of the multiple-cue probability learning experiment, researchers were able to better understand how people learn to notice cues and the importance of these cues in forming judgments. In one study, subjects were tasked with comparing certain aspects of two objects. When provided with a standard of comparison, participants were more likely to categorize an object in relation to the aspects of the given standard rather than categorize the object independently.

Later studies in clinical judgment combined human judgment statistical models with multiple-cue probability learning experiments, which helped researchers distinguish between levels of performance in learning as well as how linear and nonlinear aspects of learning affected performance. The results of these studies gave researchers a broader understanding of how people use their inductive reasoning to form judgments and make predictions.

Overview

By the mid-1960s, researchers had effectively utilized Brunswik's theories to develop new methodologies for human judgment analysis as well as new approaches to learning. These frameworks were used to analyze human judgment in social circumstances. Two specific studies relating to the analysis of interpersonal conflict and the problem of interpersonal learning served as the final catalyst to the advent of social judgment theory.

The first study analyzed the possible judgments involved in future international conflict. The researchers argued that advanced weapons technology would make wars obsolete. International conflict would have to be dealt with through cooperation rather than warfare. The researchers believed cooperation between policy makers would be difficult due to their cognitive differences and diverse backgrounds, even if a solution acted in both nations' interests. Researchers referred to this type of conflict as cognitive conflict. They argued that cognitive conflict must be resolved before political cooperation is possible.

The second study focused on understanding how social environments can affect learning. Up until this point, most studies focused on how a person learned something without the help of others. This study examined interpersonal learning, a concept that analyzed how people learn from and about other people. The results were an important development for judgment theorists, who acknowledged that people are more likely to learn their judgment skills from other people rather than rely on their own devices.

These studies and the many previous developments in social theory inspired the research of Carolyn Sherif, Muzafer Sherif, and Roger Nebergall. The trio had been studying the way humans interact and influence one another. They were attempting to understand why and how people interpreted information differently. If people were told a piece of information in the exact same way, how was it possible that different meanings could be derived from the information? Utilizing concepts from judgment and decision theories, the team of researchers developed what they called social judgment theory. The theory argued that people's interpretation and stance on a given issue are determined by three factors: their anchor, their alternatives, and their ego involvement.

A person's anchor is his or her preferred position on an issue. Alongside the anchor, the person also holds related alternative stances, or latitudes. Latitudes relate to other positions the person views as acceptable or unacceptable in regard to other people's positions on a topic. The latitudes are divided into three subcategories: acceptance, rejection, or non-commitment. The latitude of acceptance includes ideas a person finds reasonable and suitable to his or her own views. The latitude of rejection involves stances a person objects to and finds unreasonable. Lastly, the latitude of non-commitment involves ideas that a person neither agrees nor disagrees with.

The final component of a person's stance on an issue is personal ego involvement. A person's ego can affect how significant a particular issue is to that person. A person's level of ego involvement depends on his or her attitude about a particular issue. If the matter at hand arouses intense feelings in a person, more ego is present in his or her judgment abilities. If the person can detach from the issue and review it on a factual basis, less ego involvement occurs in the judgment process. Researchers have often found high ego involvement in individuals with extreme viewpoints. High ego involvement also correlates with low persuasion susceptibility while the opposite is true for low ego involvement. The possibility of an attitude adjustment depends on each of these three components, but particularly on the individual's latitudes. The more extreme a person's viewpoint is, the greater the person's rejection latitude, which often prevents changes in attitude. Viewpoints within a person's acceptance and non-commitment latitudes are more likely to achieve attitude changes.

Bibliography

Brehmer, Berndt, and C.R.B. Joyce, editors. Human Judgment: The SJT View. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1988.

Cooksey, Ray W. "The Methodology of Social Judgement Theory." Thinking & Reasoning, vol. 2, no. 2–3, 2010, pp. 141–74.

Doherty, Michael E., and Elke M. Kurz. "Social Judgement Theory." Thinking & Reasoning, vol. 2, no. 2–3, 2010, pp. 109–40.

"An Examination of Ego-Involvement as a Modifier of Attitude Changes Caused from Product Testing." Association for Consumer Research, www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=5701. Accessed 7 Mar. 2018.

Hardman, David K. Judgment and Decision Making: Psychological Perspectives. BPS Blackwell, 2009.

"The Nature of Social Judgment/Involvement Theory." Communications Institute for Online Scholarship, www.cios.org/encyclopedia/persuasion/Esocial‗judgment‗4strengths.htm. Accessed 7 Mar. 2018.

"Social Judgment/Involvement Theory." Communications Institute for Online Scholarship, www.cios.org/encyclopedia/persuasion/Esocial‗judgment‗1theory.htm. Accessed 7 Mar. 2018.

Suedfeld, Peter, editor. Attitude Change: The Competing Views. Routledge, 2007.

"What Is Social Judgment Theory?—Definition & Examples." Study.com, study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-social-judgment-theory-definition-examples.html#transcriptHeader. Accessed 7 Mar. 2018.