Do you need help writing an essay? For Only $7.90/page Get your custom sample essay

Interpersonal judgement theory essay

Social wisdom theory retains that when a communication is noticed the device of the communication immediately varieties an opinion within the matter. The person then grouped the opinion into one of three partitions known as attitude zones. From this point on, every new message about the same topic is compared with ones present point of view on the subject.

Social judgment theory was introduced simply by psychologist Muzafer Sherif (Griffin, 2006, g.

We will write a custom essay on On August 6, 1945 the atomic bomb was dropped on t specifically for you
for only $16.38 $13.9/page

Order now

207). As an element of his theory, Sherif, has three categories for reactions to text messages that this individual calls frame of mind zones (Griffin, 2006, g. 207). The first zone is called the latitude of acceptance and represents statements that folks feel are true and/or believable (Griffin, 2006, g. 207). The other attitude sector is the latitude of rejection. This area shows the statements an individual sees while objectionable or perhaps unreasonable (Griffin, 2006, s. 207). The next and last zone may be the latitude of noncommitment. These are the assertions that the individual has no opinion on (Griffin, 2006, l. 207). It is the same as marking a study with undecided or no thoughts and opinions.

The location of this details into zones can help one particular determine anothers ego-involvement, which shows how crucial the issue is to the person.

In my original assumption about social view theory I actually stated it might be interesting to see the different opinions on a single theme. For the purpose of this kind of study, I use selected wagering as the subject. Rather then see those around me and record their actions Choice the outcomes would be more accurate to do interviews. I spoke to three persons and go through them every single the same eight statements We came up with about gambling. I followed the outline and directions provided by Em Griffin in Communications: A First Check out Communication Theory (Griffin, 06\, p. 206). The assertions were the following: a. You have to play to winb. Slot machines are riggedc. The House always winsd. Gamblers are more likely to beverage than non-gamblerse. Anyone fine with taking a loss will make a good gamblerf. Ones chances in gambling are 50/50g.

Gambling helps the nations economyEach subject was then asked to perform three tasks with all the list of claims infront of these; 1) underline the affirmation that mostly closely symbolized their point of view, 2) circle the assertions that seem to be reasonable to them, and 3) combination outthose which can be objectionable. non-e of the participates gave me all their opinion about the main topic of gambling (Griffin, 2006, 206-07). They were advised to only the actual instructions making use of the list of assertions. To keep the information as neutral as possible, I selected 3 subjects from different backgrounds and marital status. Subject #1 is a light female in her mid-twenties (personal communication, October 15, 2006). Subject matter #2 can be described as black girl in her late-thirties (personal communication, August 19, 2006). Subject #3 is white male in the mid-twenties (personal communication, March 24, 2006).

Two away of three of the themes gave similar attitude areas. Subject #1 and #3 selected assertions a, f, and g (you got to play to win, possibilities in gambling 50/50, helping nations economic system, respectfully) since acceptable. When it came to statements that they could decline, subject #1 and #3 both chosen d (gamblers are more likely to drink than non-gamblers), with subject matter # 1 adding elizabeth (anyone alright with losing money will make a fantastic gambler). Subject matter #1 and #3 as well placed assertions b and c (slot machines happen to be rigged and house usually wins, respectfully) into the noncommitment category, with subject #3 adding statement e (anyone okay with losing money could make a good gambler). Subject #1 and #3 had 6 out of seven claims in the same attitude region. The only big difference between the two was affirmation e (anyone okay with losing money could make a good gambler).

By contrast, subject #2 acquired only one assertion in the same attitude sector as subject matter #1 or perhaps #3. Subject #2 positioned statements n, c, and e (slot machines happen to be rigged and house often wins, and anyone ok with losing money will make a fantastic gambler, respectfully) in the approval zone. Inside the attitude sector of being rejected, subject #2 choose transactions d, farrenheit, and g (gamblers are more likely to drink than non-gamblers, ones chances in gambling happen to be 50/50, and helps nations economic system, respectfully), with statement d being the sole similar statement to subject matter #1 and #3. Finally, subject #2 placed statement a (you actually have to enjoy to win) into the noncommitment attitude area. Using the data compiled from the three interviews, I was capable to evaluate every participates level of ego-involvement to get the subject of gambling.

Subjects #1 and #3 had similar attitude specific zones and likewise in regards to ego-involvement. Both subjects reveled to me after I made my personal ego-involvement assumption that they delight in and support gambling (personal communication, March 10, 06\ & personal communication, August 24, 2006). This makes perfect sense just looking at their thinking of popularity. They each had statement g (gambling will help the international locations economy) together in that sector.

On the other hand, it had been apparent that subject #2 did not discover the subject since crucial while subject #1 and #3. Subject #2s attitude areas showed me one of two issues; she either strongly opposes gambling or she just does not care regarding the subject. After making my own hypothesis I spoke to subject #2 about her feelings on the subject. She communicated to me that she was a very depressed person when it comes to gambling (personal communication, August 19, 2006). She declined the notion that gambling allows the nations economy (statement g) since she feels too many people are losing money to acknowledge that it allows the nation (personal communication, October 19, 2006). Another reason your woman gave me was her age group (personal interaction, October 19, 2006). Contrary to subject #1 and #3, subject #2 is almost fourty. She says she’s closer to old age and is will no longer a early spring chicken and wishes to worry more about saving money and less as to what it means to double down on 16 in blackjack (personal communication, August 19, 2006).

As stated inside my assumption, I was curious to see the ranging viewpoints from diverse individuals upon any given subject. I choose betting as my subject since it is a very debatable topic. The info that I received from my personal three selection interviews lead me to believe that the variance about them was because of age which different ages will think differently.


Griffin, E. (2006). Marketing and sales communications: A First Take a look at Communication Theory.

New York, BIG APPLE: McGraw Hill.

one particular

Prev post Next post