Judgments of Alternative Positions on an Issue On any given persuasive issue, a number of different positions or points of view are likely to be available.
Subsequent sections discuss receivers’ reactions to persuasive messages, how social judgment theory suggests adapting messages to recipients, and some weaknesses of social judgment theory. Hence the next section discusses the nature of persons’ judgments of theĪlternative positions on an issue. But this suggests that, in order to understand a message recipient’s reaction to a given message, it is important to understand how the receiver assesses the various positions on that issue (that is, the various different stands that a message might advocate). The plausibility of this general approach should be apparent: Our reaction to a particular persuasive communication will depend (at least in part) on what we think of-how favorable we are toward-the point of view that it advocates. Then attitude change occurs after this judgment-with the amount and direction of change dependent on that judgment. Hence attitude change is seen as a two-step process: First, the receiver makes an assessment of what position is being advocated by the message.
More specifically, the claim is that the effect of a persuasive communication depends upon the way in which the receiver evaluates the position it advocates. The central tenet of social judgment theory is that attitude change is mediated by judgmental processes and effects that is, messages produce attitude change through judgmental processes and effects. 238-301 for additional discussions, see Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, pp. Sherif & Hovland, 1961 for a classic review, see C. Social judgment theory is a theoretical perspective most closely associated with Muzafer Sherif, Carolyn Sherif, and their associates, particularly Carl Hovland and Roger Nebergall (C.
0 kommentar(er)
