Contrast Effects and Attitude Change: A Test of the Two-Stage Hypothesis of Social Judgment Theory

Ideological group persuasion: A within-person study of how violence, interactivity, and credibility features influence online persuasion

“…Individuals who viewed websites high in violence felt higher negative affect, viewed the websites as less credible, and expressed less agreement with the ideology in response to the pro-ideology prompt, suggesting that, overall, violent websites elicit negative reactions in individuals. As proposed earlier, this finding can be explained by social judgment theory (Sarup et al, 1991;Sherif & Hovland, 1961), in that the violent messages are falling within the zone of rejection of the individuals for our mainstream student population. Given the rise of terrorist groups such as ISIS successfully using blatant violence to recruit like-minded individuals, this is an important finding, in that it shows that for most individuals this tactic is perceived in a negative way.…”

“…Calls for violence and other related imagery are also likely to evoke disgust, fear, anger, and other negative emotions. Another explanation of the impact that violence may have is found in Social Judgment Theory (Sarup, Suchner, & Gaylord, 1991;Sherif & Hovland, 1961). Social Judgment theory proposes that when people are presented with persuasive messages that attempt to change established attitudes, their pre-existing attitudes act as an anchor against which new information is compared and evaluated (Hovland, Harvey, & Sherif, 1957).…”

Elaboration of the Hostile Media Phenomenon

“…In Hovland et al's (1957) study, people holding moderate positions tended to have more favorable reactions to moderate communication, whereas those with extreme positions tended to see it more negatively. Sarup, Suchner, and Gaylord (1991) also reported that individuals highly involved in a social issue interpreted the position of the message in a more oppositional way than did those less involved. With this rationale, we can predict that for people with high value-relevant involvement, media coverage will fall into the latitude of rejection, resulting in more HMP.…”

A meta‐analytic investigation of contrast effects in decision making

“…Sherif and Hovland (1961) posit an assimilation-contrast effect claiming that if the message or stimulus falls within an acceptable range (latitude of acceptance), it is likely to be assimilated or absorbed as further justification for the individual's attitude. If the message or stimulus is outside the acceptable range, or in a range of rejection, it is likely to be contrasted, thus reducing the influence of the message (Sarup, Suchner, & Gaylord, 1991). Herr et al (1983) offer similar logic in their presentation of the standard of comparison model.…”