Draft:Social judgment theory

Social Judgment Theory  continues to be a powerful framework for understanding how people process persuasive messages, especially in today’s digitally saturated world. At the core of this theory are three categories: the latitude of acceptance, the latitude of rejection, and the latitude of non-commitment. These concepts describe how individuals respond to new information based on their existing beliefs. If a message aligns closely with what someone already believes, it’s more likely to be accepted. If it strays too far, it's often rejected outright. Research has shown that individuals with strong political identities, for example, tend to resist messages that fall into their rejection zone—even when those messages are supported by facts¹. This concept, introduced by Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif in their foundational research on attitude change, still holds weight in today’s divided political and media environment².

Social media has only amplified the mechanisms SJT describes. Algorithms increasingly deliver content tailored to our preferences, reinforcing what we already believe through a phenomenon called selective exposure³. These “echo chambers” not only limit the diversity of perspectives we encounter but also increase polarization. Hart and Nisbet’s study on the boomerang effect showed that when individuals are exposed to information far outside their belief system, it can backfire—causing them to double down on their original views⁴. A great example of this occurs in climate change discourse. When climate messaging is framed around environmental responsibility, people who identify with conservative ideologies often reject it. However, when the same message emphasizes economic growth or national security, acceptance increases⁵. These findings illustrate that SJT isn’t about the truth of a message—it’s about its perceived distance from the audience’s beliefs.

The theory also intersects with group identity and psychological defense mechanisms. Dan Kahan’s concept of identity-protective cognition adds another layer, showing how people defend ideas that align with their cultural or political group⁶. This means that individuals might reject credible scientific evidence if it threatens their sense of identity. Research by Cohen and colleagues found that using self-affirmation techniques or messages delivered by in-group members helped reduce resistance to new ideas⁷. In essence, these studies confirm Sherif’s original claim that persuasion is filtered through prior beliefs and emotional commitment². When people feel emotionally or socially threatened, even the best evidence may be ignored. By understanding these psychological layers, communicators can move beyond simply presenting facts and instead focus on how messages are framed, delivered, and received.

Trust in institutions and levels of education also shape how messages are processed. People with higher scientific literacy are not necessarily more open-minded—they are just more skilled at defending their beliefs using facts⁸. In a study from the University of New Hampshire, researchers found that education increased polarization on climate issues because it amplified the ability to rationalize one’s position⁹. Similarly, trust in media and institutions like the CDC or WHO plays a major role in whether a person accepts or rejects public health information. The American Psychological Association emphasizes that combating misinformation requires not just better content but stronger credibility and relationship-building with audiences¹⁰. This ties directly to Sherif’s findings on source credibility: people are more likely to accept messages from communicators they find trustworthy and similar to themselves². Without trust, the persuasive impact of a message is greatly reduced.

Emotions also play a critical role in how people receive persuasive messages. While SJT emphasizes cognitive processing, more recent studies suggest that the tone of the message is just as important as its content. Nabi’s work on emotional influence in communication shows that people are more open to ideas when the message feels respectful and empathetic¹¹. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, messages that appealed to community responsibility and shared values were significantly more effective than those that used fear or guilt¹². These emotional cues help move a message from the latitude of rejection into non-commitment, where actual attitude change becomes possible. Wikipedia’s overview of SJT reinforces this by noting that persuasion depends not only on how close a message is to one’s belief system, but also on the communicator’s tone, intent, and relationship with the audience¹³.

In conclusion, Social Judgment Theory remains an essential tool for analyzing how people respond to persuasive messages—especially in the era of algorithms, misinformation, and media bubbles. From politics to public health, the theory explains both why people cling to their beliefs and how we can thoughtfully bridge those gaps. Synthesizing insights from psychology, communication, and sociology reveals that effective persuasion isn’t just about facts. It’s about understanding values, identity, and emotion. In a world where information is constant but trust is scarce, SJT reminds us that changing minds begins with meeting people where they are.

References

1. Pew Research Center. Americans See Differing Threats From Climate Change and the COVID-19 Pandemic. 2020.
2. Sherif, Muzafer, Carolyn Sherif, and Roger Nebergall. Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgment-Involvement Approach. 1965.
3. Stroud, Natalie Jomini. “Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure.” Political Behavior, vol. 30, no. 3, 2008, pp. 341–366.
4. Hart, P. Sol, and Erik C. Nisbet. “Boomerang Effects in Science Communication.” Science Communication, vol. 34, no. 3, 2012, pp. 393–418.
5. Feinberg, Matthew, and Robb Willer. “The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes.” Psychological Science, vol. 24, no. 1, 2013, pp. 56–62.
6. Kahan, Dan M. “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection.” Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8, no. 4, 2013, pp. 407–424.
7. Cohen, Geoffrey L., et al. “Bridging the Partisan Divide: Self-Affirmation Increases Liberal and Conservative Open-Mindedness.” Psychological Science, vol. 18, no. 11, 2007, pp. 957–961.
8. Drummond, Caitlin, and Baruch Fischhoff. “Individuals with Greater Science Literacy and Education Have More Polarized Beliefs on Controversial Science Topics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 114, no. 36, 2017, pp. 9587–9592.
9. Hamilton, Lawrence C. “Education, Politics and Opinions about Climate Change: Evidence for Interaction Effects.” Climatic Change, vol. 104, 2011, pp. 231–242.
10. American Psychological Association. “Confronting Misinformation and Building Trust in Institutions.” 2020.
11. Nabi, Robin L. “The Theoretical versus the Lay Meaning of Discrete Emotions.” Communication Monographs, vol. 69, no. 3, 2002, pp. 289–304.
12. van Bavel, Jay J., et al. “Using Social and Behavioural Science to Support COVID-19 Pandemic Response.” Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 4, no. 5, 2020, pp. 460–471.