Research on Social Judgement Theory



By: Kellie Green

ABOUT THE ARTICLE

According to Muzafer Sherif, there are three "attitudes as latitudes" that we use to judge a message when we first hear it. The three are acceptance, rejection, and non-commitment. When we hear something, we immediately judge where it should go within our attitude scale in our minds. After reading about Sherif's theory, I decided to follow up research by reading an article written by Stephen Bochner and Chester A. Insko. Their article, "Communicator Discrepancy, Source Credibility, and Opinion Change" underwent a study that Sherif, Carl Hovland, and Leon Festinger conducted. This article which is a section pulled from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology will help you to better understand the Social Judgement Theory.

THE EXPERIMENT
With the social judgement theory, Sherif, Hovland, and Festinger wanted to test a group of people to see how accurate the theory was. They took a group of 202 college students and asked them questions about how many hours of sleep is efficient per night. They used 8, 7, 6, 5 ,4 ,3, 2, 1, or 0 hours and attached to each of the hours one of two men (later explained who). They were then asked questions to see whether it was the predicted "curvilinear relationship between communicator-communicatee discrepancy and influence"(p.614). Curvilinear meant to have a medium credibility source while linear meant to have a high credibility source. A curvilinear source would be like a college student taking a course on a certain subject while linear would be the professor of that subject.

In English here is what they did and meant. They first of all used the question, "For maximum health and well being, how many hours sleep per night should a person get, " to see people's different opinions (dependent variable). Halfway through the experiment, they used two people to try to persuade the students. They used the names Sir John Eccles, Nobel prize winning physiologist and Mr. Harry J. Olsen, director of the Fort Worth YMCA (independent variable). The reason they chose these two names was to see how well a high credible versus a medium credible person could affect an audience. The more credible you are, the more you can persuade an audience and that is exactly what they were testing.

THE RESULTS
After testing these 202 college students, they had some findings that were expected and some that were astounding. The Nobel prize winner was significantly more credible than the YMCA director. Were they right with their prediction? Yes and no. The Nobel prize winner (high credibility) was more persuasive but continued more on the linear line. The YMCA director was more curvilinear and linear. Their hypothesis was not supported by the data found, but overall the findings support the theory.

What does this mean? "They both (medium and high credibility) contributed by the superiority of the high credibility source at the extreme discrepancies and by inferiority of the high credibility source at the moderate discrepancies." Meaning that the students believed the Nobel prize winner at the extreme or "national" levels and the YMCA manager at moderate or "local" levels. Now you are probably wondering what I mean by local and national. Let me explain it to you this way so it is easier to understand. When the Nobel prize winner spoke, he was like the president. He understood every technical thing attached to getting enough sleep and also knew this information through a generalized national level. While the YMCA manager was like a Superintendent. He knew somewhat about the technical side, but knew more about the personal levels and what helped actual people out. Therefore, what they found was that the students believed the Nobel prize winner when it came to technicality but believed the YMCA manager when it came to feelings and emotions.

MY THOUGHTS ON THIS
I think that the Social Judgement Theory is an important aspect on everybody’s lives. There comes a point in time when somebody persuades you to think in a certain way because of how credible they are. However was this research really all that credible? The three researchers only used college students. Does this support all of society? Even though Sherif, Hovland, and Festinger's findings may not have followed their initial research strategy, overall I learned a lesson that I will never forget. When it comes to persuading, I do listen to a credible person and I also listen to those who have the actual one on one experience. I think that this form of listening and being persuaded goes for just about anyone. That is why when you are trying to persuade someone of something, it is important to have both high and medium credibility. With both of these qualities, you will be able to explain the data (high) and reason with what the data actually means to everyday life (moderate).

To return to the Homepage click here.

To see web pages by other InCo 234 students click here.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory helps to better grasp the idea of social judgement. It further explains the reasons why interactions happen as they do.

References: Griffin, Em. A First Look At Communication Theory: New York: McGraw-Hill 1997

S. Bochner adn C. Insko, "Communicator Discrepancy, Source Credibility and Opinion Change," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 4, 1966, pp. 614-621.