Overview
Social judgment theory was put forward by the Turkish-born American social psychologist Muzafer Sherif and Yale's Carl Hovland in Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change (1961). It applies psychophysical findings, such as the way an initial reference weight or brightness shapes later judgments, to social attitudes. People do not evaluate messages objectively; they compare them with their own position (anchor).
Three latitudes
- Latitude of acceptance: the positions a person finds acceptable, including the most preferred one.
- Latitude of noncommitment: positions the person neither accepts nor rejects.
- Latitude of rejection: positions the person finds objectionable.
Persuasion is most likely when a message falls in the latitude of acceptance or noncommitment. A message in the latitude of rejection is likely to fail and may even produce a boomerang effect that strengthens the original position.
Ego-involvement
Carolyn Sherif, Muzafer Sherif and Roger Nebergall (1965) emphasized ego-involvement, how closely an issue is tied to one's identity and values. Highly involved people have a wide latitude of rejection and a narrow latitude of noncommitment, so they reject most opposing messages; people with low involvement have a wide latitude of noncommitment and are more open to persuasion.
Assimilation and contrast
- Assimilation effect: messages within the latitude of acceptance are perceived as closer to one's own position than they really are.
- Contrast effect: messages in the latitude of rejection are perceived as further away and more extreme than they really are.
This distortion helps explain why people on opposite sides can each see the same news report as biased against them, and it connects with confirmation bias.
Implications for persuasion
The theory suggests that rather than asking for a big change at once, persuaders should aim at the edge of the audience's latitude of acceptance and move them step by step. A message too close offers nothing to change, and one too far is rejected, so a moderate discrepancy produces the most attitude change. Gauging the audience's level of involvement comes first.
Limitations
Measuring the three latitudes is cumbersome, and the theory focuses on the distance between positions rather than on message content or argument quality. It is best read together with the elaboration likelihood model (argument quality and processing routes), the theory of reasoned action (how attitudes lead to intention and behaviour) and cognitive dissonance theory (attitude–behaviour inconsistency).
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-16
References
- Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgment-Involvement Approach. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
- Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.