This paper examines Social Judgment Theory as a framework for understanding persuasion in advertising. It outlines the theory's five core elements: the use of judgment categories (latitudes of acceptance, non-commitment, and rejection), the active categorization of incoming information, the role of ego involvement, the distortion of information through assimilation and contrast, and the conditions under which attitude change can occur. The paper then applies these principles to advertising strategy, discussing how effective ads must target the latitude of acceptance to avoid triggering rejection. An empirical study on individual aesthetic judgment is reviewed, and a sample military recruitment advertisement concept is proposed to illustrate how the theory guides real-world ad design.
The world revolves around the ability to persuade. If one can get another to think the way he thinks, believe what he believes, or adopt a new opinion, then change becomes possible. The art of persuasion is one of the most powerful tools available for overcoming resistance and convincing people to make a particular choice (Boller, 1991). This holds true in many areas of life, including politics, employment, and advertising. There are several theories of persuasion commonly used in the field of advertising to convince consumers to purchase a service or product. Social Judgment Theory is one such framework, using five key elements to elicit a desired response from an audience.
Before one can understand how Social Judgment Theory works as a tool of persuasion, it is important to understand the theory itself and its various elements. Social Judgment Theory uses five different components to convince others of a particular idea, whether that idea concerns advertising, political views, employment issues, or other areas of life.
The first element is that everybody uses categories of judgment by which they evaluate persuasive positions. The list of possible opinions should include a wide range from positive to negative, which can later be placed in one of three distinct zones:
The latitude of acceptance — the zone of positions a person accepts;
The latitude of non-commitment — the zone of positions a person neither accepts nor rejects;
The latitude of rejection — the zone of positions a person rejects.
Within the latitude of acceptance are contained all positions on a particular topic that the individual finds acceptable. Within this latitude there is one special position called the "anchor" — the single position a person finds most acceptable of all. It may be the most extreme position, but the anchor could also be a milder one. The latitude of non-commitment holds positions about which the person has no strong opinion. For instance, if one is discussing whether to raise teacher pay and one of the answer choices is "Not really sure," this would represent most teachers' latitude of non-commitment.
The second element is that once a person receives persuasive information, he or she generally places it into one of these categories of judgment. This element has a very direct practical foundation: if one only provides information that people will place in the "reject" category, one will not be very successful in persuading them. In advertising, for example, emphasizing only that one's product is more expensive than the competition's — without any information about its superior quality — would most likely fail to persuade people to buy it.
People do not passively take in information and then make judgments afterward. Instead, they make these judgments as they receive the information. Because of this, the first step toward persuasion lies in understanding how people judge. It is easier to persuade someone who has a larger latitude of acceptance than a larger latitude of rejection, because there is a greater statistical probability of hitting acceptance points (Boyd, 2006). When a person has a larger latitude of rejection, there are more things that person will reject about the topic, leaving fewer openings for persuasion.
The third element involves ego involvement. According to the theory, the degree to which an issue is important to a person's self-identity plays a significant role in determining which latitude a position falls into. Consider the following example: a claim is made that "social security payments must increase to cover the cost of living each year." Compare how two different people would react — a young adult just entering the workforce versus someone surviving entirely on social security benefits. If someone depends solely on social security for their entire income, there is likely only one acceptable answer. For a person with additional income, however, there may be several acceptable positions. Understanding the range of latitudes among the target audience is therefore essential when designing a persuasive advertising message.
The fourth element holds that people generally distort incoming information to fit the categories of judgment they have already established. A classic illustration of this is a person sitting still who feels chilly, then begins housecleaning and subsequently feels warmer — the judgment has changed, not the actual temperature. In persuasion, if incoming information falls within the latitude of acceptance and is close to the anchor position, people will "assimilate" the new position, pulling it even closer to themselves and making it seem more acceptable than it really is. Conversely, if incoming information falls outside the latitude of acceptance, the person will automatically push it toward rejection and convince themselves it is worse than it actually is. Through assimilation and contrast, people alter the perceived position of incoming information, making it seem either closer to or farther from their anchor than it truly is. When this kind of distortion occurs, no genuine persuasion results.
The fifth and final element states that people will change their position more readily when there is only a small discrepancy between the new information and their anchor position. Persuasion is difficult to accomplish within the narrow boundaries described by Social Judgment Theory: if new information falls within the latitude of rejection, it is not accepted; if the person is ego-involved, the latitude of rejection will feel even larger than it is; and people are prone to distorting newly received information through assimilation and contrast, which dilutes its persuasive power.
Social Judgment Theory holds that three key conditions must be met for persuasion to occur:
1. The new information must fall within the latitude of acceptance.
2. The new information must differ from the anchor position.
3. The new information, while discrepant from the anchor, must not be so far removed that it triggers assimilation or contrast distortions.
"Theory applied to ad strategy and empirical research review"
"Invented military recruitment ad demonstrates theory in practice"
Boller, Gregory W., and Jerry Olson. "Experiencing Ad Meanings: Crucial Aspects of Narrative/Drama Processing." Advances in Consumer Research 18 (1991): 172–75.
Burnkrant, Robert E., and H. Rao Unnava. "Effects of Self-Referencing on Persuasion." Journal of Consumer Research 22, no. 1 (1995): 17–26.
Debevec, Kathleen, and Jean B. Romeo. "Self-Referent Processing in Perceptions of Verbal and Visual Commercial Information." Journal of Consumer Psychology 1, no. 1 (1992): 83–102.
Deighton, John, Daniel Romer, and Josh McQueen. "Using Drama to Persuade." Journal of Consumer Research 16, no. 3 (1989): 335–43.
Edell, Julie A., and Richard Staelin. "The Information Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements." Journal of Consumer Research 10, no. 1 (1983): 45–60.
Friestad, Marian, and Peter Wright. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts." Journal of Consumer Research 21, no. 1 (1994): 1–31.
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.