- Published on
KembaraXtra-Psychology - assimilation–contrast theory
Assimilation–contrast theory explains judgment and attitude change by treating a person’s initial stance as an anchor: communications that are only mildly discrepant and fall within the latitude of acceptance tend to be assimilated (judgment shifts toward the message), while highly discrepant communications may produce little change (latitude of neutrality) or even a contrast effect (latitude of rejection), where judgment shifts away from the message. High ego involvement is associated with a narrow latitude of acceptance and a wide latitude of rejection, and the reverse is typical for low ego involvement. A key implication is that strong, ego-involving attitudes often become polarized in response to many communications. The theory was formulated in 1961 by Muzafer Sherif (1906–88) and Carl I. Hovland (1912–61) and is linked to concepts such as the boomerang effect, discrepancy effects, contrast effects, and the false-consensus effect, and is compared with adaptation-level theory.
Assimilation–contrast theory explains judgment and attitude change by treating a person’s initial stance as an anchor: communications that are only mildly discrepant and fall within the latitude of acceptance tend to be assimilated (judgment shifts toward the message), while highly discrepant communications may produce little change (latitude of neutrality) or even a contrast effect (latitude of rejection), where judgment shifts away from the message. High ego involvement is associated with a narrow latitude of acceptance and a wide latitude of rejection, and the reverse is typical for low ego involvement. A key implication is that strong, ego-involving attitudes often become polarized in response to many communications. The theory was formulated in 1961 by Muzafer Sherif (1906–88) and Carl I. Hovland (1912–61) and is linked to concepts such as the boomerang effect, discrepancy effects, contrast effects, and the false-consensus effect, and is compared with adaptation-level theory.
0 Comments