Social judgement theory

Abstract

This report examines Muzafer Sherif’s Social Judgement Theory (SJT) by examining and reviewing pertinent literature related to SJT. The findings section contains a brief history of Muzafer Sherif who is the founding father of SJT, how the SJT theory can be applied in the present day and an evaluation of the theory using the five scientific standards.

It was found that; it’s essential to have a well established structure of an individual’s attitude before one can predict and or coin up any kind of persuasive message, whether it be verbal or non verbal. This attitude structure is made up of three zones also referred to as latitudes, the latitude of acceptance, rejection and non-commitment. The latitude of acceptance is a zone that an individual places messages in they would consider acceptable. The latitude of rejection is a zone that individuals place messages in they consider objectionable or unacceptable, and the latitude of non-commitment is where individuals place messages they consider neither acceptable nor unacceptable, but rather just have no opinion on the matter. Ego-involvement is a concept that refers to how important a certain issue or topic is to an individual.

Once the attitude structure has been identified and a message has been passed onto the receiver/s, a two part mental process occurs. In the first stage the receiver will judge the message/s he or she receives in relation to their own anchoring point or sense of self. At this stage two effects can take place, assimilation and contrast. Assimilation is when a message or idea appears to be more close to the individuals anchor than it actually is, and contrast is when the idea or message appears to be further away from the anchor than it actually is. In the second stage the receiver will adjust their anchor point either closer or further away depending on the message they received.

Applications of the theory are examined and evaluated using the five scientific standards. The conclusion consists of a summary of key points and a critique of SJT.

Introduction

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to examine, assess and critique the Social Judgment Theory and explain how the SJT theory can be applied to everyday life, also more importantly to gain a better understanding of the SJT theory itself.

Scope

The scope of research for this report is limited to the online Proquest Database as well as books obtained from the Whitireia Library. The Google search engine was used extensively to obtain online E-Journals, E-Books and various articles from the web.

Limitations

The majority of online databases allowed limited access to most articles, as users are required to either; register and/or pay in order to gain full access to the article.

Research Methods

Most of the information regarding the SJT theory was obtained from online databases and Google books. Whitireia’s Online database Proquest was also used but provided little help as the majority of articles only contained abstracts and not the full article.

Structure

This report contains a brief literature review, which consists of summaries and examinations of accuracy of the information provided by certain sources. The findings section has a brief history regarding Muzafer Sherif and an explanation of his Social Judgment Theory. Day to day application of SJT is also discussed and an evaluation of the theory is also included. The conclusion of this report consists of summary of information and my critique of the Social Judgment Theory.

Literature Review

Books

Heath, R. L., & Jennings, B. (2000). Human communication theory and research: concepts, contexts, and challenges. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.

Summary

This book addresses the dynamics of social influence and persuasion. Rather than seeing information and persuasion at odds, this book demonstrates how leading theories treat them as interdependent parts of social influence and decision making.

Accuracy

This book reinforces most concepts from Muzafer Sherif’s Social Judgment Theory by explaining in detail how the theory works and provides an example to support the theory. It also contains a critique of the theory which provides evidence that further research has been conducted on this topic. The author mentions Sherif and his work throughout the book thus providing credibility and validity. Robert Lawrence Heath is one of the academic pioneers in examining the history and theoretical foundations of strategic issues management. In addition to strategic issues management, he has written on rhetorical theory, social movements, communication theory, public relations, organizational communication, crisis communication, risk communication, terrorism, and reputation management. He edited the Encyclopedia of Public Relations and the Handbook of Public Relations. He has lectured in many countries, to business and non-profit groups, and for various professional organizations.

Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: communication and attitudes in the 21st century. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Summary

This book explores the dynamics of persuasive communication and its intriguing and powerful effects in modern-day society. It also presents an up-to-date, comprehensive introduction to persuasive communication and attitude change. Richard Perloff systematically explores the impact of persuasive communication on attitudes toward a host of topics, including; health, politics, and racial prejudice.

Accuracy

It explains the three latitudes, assimilation, contrast and ego-involvement. Muzafer Sherif and his wife Carolyn Sherif are mentioned and quoted throughout the book thus providing evidence of research conducted on the social judgment theory. Spike Lee’s movie “Do The Right Thing” is also mentioned, and was used to test the theory on a group of predominately white and black students to describe their reactions to the movie. SJT predicted that the perception of whites differed considerably from those of blacks.

Perloff completed a Postdoctoral Fellowship at Ohio State University in social psychology and mass communication after receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in mass communications. He obtained his Master’s at the University of Pittsburgh in speech communication and Bachelor’s at Michigan, where he majored in philosophy and served as an editorial director of The Michigan Daily.

Internet

Schwartzwalder, J. (2001, February 14). Social judgment theory. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Spring 2001 theory workbook: http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/persuasion/socjud.htm

Summary

This web page article, although brief, explains what Social Judgment Theory is about and describes the three latitudes, ego-involvement and how messages are accepted and rejected based on your cognitive map. It provides a critique and an example of how SJT works.

Accuracy

This website mentioned both Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif but it also mentions Carl Hovland which shows that there was research conducted prior to making the site. Also, it gives a full reference for all material and books the information on the site was gathered from. This is indicative of both validity and accuracy of information provided on the site. Dr. Derek R. Lane is an Associate Dean in the College of Communications and Information Studies, Associate Professor in the Department of Communication. His research interests focus on message reception and processing related to how individuals come to understand, organize, and use the information contained in face-to-face and mediated messages, especially in group, health, and instructional contexts.

Benoit, W. L. (2005, July 22). Social judgment involvement theory. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Persuasion: http://www.cios.org/encyclopedia/persuasion/index.htm

Summary

This web page has an extensive collection of information relating to Social Judgment Theory. It presents; the theory itself, research and tests performed, strengths and weaknesses of SJT, a full list of glossary of terms and a self test. This page explains in great detail the SJT theory and how it can be applied in everyday life.

Accuracy

The extensive amount of information and details about the theory on this web site shows that a considerable amount of research has been conducted, thus providing accuracy and validity. William L. Benoit is a Professor of Communication at the University of Missouri. Benoit has published extensively in political communication, including The Clinton Scandals and the Politics of Image Restoration, with Joseph R. Blaney

Online Database

Expert on solving intergroup conflict. (1988). Chicago Tribune , 11.

Summary

This article talks about the famous “Robber’s Cave” experiment that was conducted by Sherif and explains how prejudice can develop within a group and how it can be altered and changed. It also briefly mentions Sherif’s achievements and how he died after suffering a heart attack in Fairbanks Alaska where he lived.

Accuracy

The renowned “Robber’s Cave” experiment, which is widely recognized by social psychologists, is examined. Roger Brown, a social psychologist at Harvard University calls it “the most successful field experiment ever conducted on intergroup conflict.” The fact that other well known social psychologists are referring to the theory and mentioning Muzafer Sherif himself indicates accuracy and validity.

DeCarlo, T. E. (1997). Alcohol warnings and warning labels: an examination of alternative alcohol warning messages and perceived effectiveness. The Journal of Consumer Marketing,448.

Summary

Price perceptions of 120 homemakers were assessed for one product using social judgment theory. In keeping with the theory, the homemakers’ latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and non-commitment were established in a laboratory experiment. Product involvement and price sensitivity were manipulated, and their impact on the respective latitudes was measured. Implications for price strategy based on the analysis are presented.

Accuracy

The publication discusses SJT, Sherif and Hovland. In its introduction it describes ego-involvement and the three latitudes which it refers to as segments. Participants were given questionnaires to fill out and then a cognitive map was created from the analysis of the completed questionnaires. This and the fact that Sherif is mentioned on a regular basis throughout the publication is indicative of the research conducted on the SJT prior to commencing the measurement of price thresholds. Dr. Cummings, dean of the School of Business and Public Administration, joined the University of Houston-Clear Lake in 1998. Dean Cummings received his Ph.D. in business administration from Arizona State University, Tempe; his master’s degree in business administration from Western Illinois University, Macomb; and his bachelor of science in business from Indiana University, Bloomington. Before coming to Texas, Dr. Cummings was interim dean and professor of marketing in the College of Business at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Findings

History

Interest and study of Social Psychology emerged between 1908 and 1924. Muzafer Sherif, the founding father of Social Judgment Theory, stands out as one of the main forces behind the growth of study in the social psychology field in the 30’s. His work with group processes and inner group conflict following social norms still serves as a reference point to researchers studying groups today.

On July 29, 1906 in Odemis, Izmir, Turkey, Muzafer Serif Basoglu, who later changed his name to Muzafer Sherif, was born. His family was a well-to-do, Muslim family, located in Western Anatolia within the borders of the Ottoman Empire. Contrary to his family’s religious orientation, Sherif attended a Christian school managed by missionaries. The region where he was raised witnessed the First World War during 1914-1918 and the invasion by European countries. This was followed by the Turkish War of Independence during 1919 and 1922. The country was full of ethnic and religious conflicts, especially among Turks, Greeks and Armenians. In retrospect of these years, Sherif wrote, “I was profoundly affected as a young boy when I witnessed the serious business of transaction between human groups.” (Sherif, 1967)

Sherif goes on to describe the processes of in-group loyalty and out-group destructiveness that were to preoccupy him for many years, and then concluded; “at that early age, I decided to devote my life to studying and understanding the causes of these things. Of course for some years I did not know how to go about it, but I started reading whatever I could lay my hands on about history and social problems.” (Sherif, 1967)

In 1927 Sherif attended the American International College in Izmir and obtained his Bachelor of Arts, later he received his first MA in 1929 at the University of Istanbul. Sherif then traveled to America where he earned his second masters at Harvard University in 1932. Before Sherif returned to Turkey he traveled around Europe and visited Berlin, where he spent some time attending lectures under Kohler. In 1935 he submitted his thesis Some Social Factors In Perception earning his Ph.D. under Gardner Murphy at Columbia University.

Sherif returned to Turkey to teach at Ankara University, where with the help of students he translated important psychology works into Turkish. His outspoken opposition to the Nazi movement landed him in a Turkish prison. Four months later, at the insistence of his graduate students in America, the U. S. Department of State arranged for his release and return to America in 1944. Once in America, he stayed a few days as a guest in the Blair House in Washington D.C. before moving on to Princeton as a Fellow of the U.S. State Department.

Sherif met and married Carolyn Wood a social psychologist in 1945, together they carried out much of the research together. With the help of Carolyn, Sherif coined the social judgment involvement theory, which is more widely known as the social judgment theory. (Stock, 1999)

Theory Outline

The central idea of social judgment theory is that attitude change is mediated by judgmental processes and subsequent effects which can and do persuade people.

The first major assumption of Social Judgment Theory involves attitude structure, and this structure can be broken down into a series of three latitudes. Peoples own beliefs or stands on a particular subject fall within a zone called the latitude of acceptance. The latitude of acceptance is a zone that consists of opinions, beliefs and stands that are perceived as acceptable in the sense they are contiguous to the persons own beliefs or opinions on the matter.

A person’s latitude of rejection is a zone that consists of opinions, beliefs and stands that are perceived as objectionable. The messages that fall into the latitude of rejection zone are perceived as objectionable or undesirable because they are furthest from the persons stand on the subject.

Messages that neither fall in the latitude of acceptance or the latitude of rejection are deemed to be within the latitude of non-commitment. In other words if the person feels undecided about an idea or opinion it falls into the latitude of non-commitment.

As O’Keefe et al. (1990) advised, “Only understanding the person’s judgment of the various alternative positions – only understanding the person’s latitudes of acceptance, rejection, and non-commitment – will permit one to understand the individual’s reactions to persuasive messages on the issue”.

The second major assumption is that ego-involvement provides an important anchor for a person’s attitude on an issue. Ego-involvement is referring to an individual’s involvement with an issue. Thus, a person is deemed to be ego-involved when; the issue has personal significance to the individual, the person’s stand on the issue is central to his or her sense of self, the issue is important to the person, the person intensely holds a given position, the person is strongly committed to the position. Ego-involvement is issue-specific. A person might be highly involved in one issue but not involved in another. Once the three latitudes and ego-involvement have been identified, a cognitive map can be constructed which consists of a scale that represents the relationship between each of the three latitudes.

When an individual first receives a message, whether it be verbal or non verbal, a two part mental process occurs. The first mental process involves interpreting the message and deciding where the message falls in direct relation to their anchoring position. The second mental process consists of adjusting the anchoring position, thus promoting attitude change.

In the first mental process when we first receive a message we instantly compare it to the anchoring point, or our current point of view. At this point perceptual errors called contrast and assimilation can occur. For example if we receive a message that falls into the latitude of rejection, we would judge this message as further from our anchor than it actually is. Similarly, if the message we receive falls into the latitude of acceptance we would judge this message as if it were less discrepant from our anchor than it actually is.

The second mental process involves the individual adjusting their anchoring position to accommodate the newly received message. But in order for the message to be persuasive it is required to fall in the latitude of acceptance rather than the latitude of rejection. If the receiver perceives the message to be close to their anchor then a small change in attitude can be expected, but if the message falls near the edge of the latitude of acceptance than the attitude change can be expected to be more significant. If on the other hand the message falls into the latitude of rejection, attitude change is to be expected but in the opposite direction. Any message that doesn’t fall into the latitude of acceptance or rejection will fall into the latitude of non-commitment and will be interpreted as intended. This can make it reasonably difficult for the persuader to send persuasive messages to receivers who have high ego-involvement, as they usually have large latitudes of rejection and small latitudes of acceptance. For a persuader to achieve a large attitude shift he/she will be required to make lots of small steps.

Theory Application

Since the social judgment theory deals with communication and persuasion in social circumstances, it can virtually be applied to any every day situation. For example, businesses can use it to obtain knowledge and information about their stakeholders. The United States used the social judgment theory to gauge consumer perceptions regarding the effectiveness of government mandated alcohol warning labels.

This study examines consumer perceptions regarding the effectiveness of government-mandated alcohol warning labels and organizational efforts to promote responsible drinking from the perspective of social judgment theory. It investigates receiver involvement as a predictor of perceived effectiveness for alcohol warnings and warning labels. It was found that the relationship between levels of alcohol consumption and perceptions and warning-label effectiveness to be insignificant; and that health consciousness to be ineffective in predicting perceptions of label effectiveness. However, health consciousness was related to the tendency to read product warning labels. Additionally, the source credibility and language intensity of the message for their perceptions of alcohol warning effectiveness is examined. The findings demonstrated that when highly credible sources use intensely worded alcohol warnings, the message is perceived to be more effective than when high-credibility sources use less intensely worded warnings or when messages are presented by low-credibility sources. (The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1997)

Alcohol and drugs are one of the major contributing factors to road related trauma in New Zealand. According to the New Zealand Crash Analysis System (CAS), in 2007 driver consumption of alcohol or drugs was a contributing factor in 117 fatal traffic crashes, 402 serious injury crashes and 1,182 minor injury crashes. These crashes resulted in 128 deaths, 559 serious injuries and 1,777 minor injuries. The social cost is estimated at $838 million, approximately one fifth of the social cost associated with all traffic related injury crashes. (NZ Statistic, 2009)

The results of the alcohol warning label research conducted in the United States could be used to produce more effective label warnings regarding alcohol. This could possibly reduce the number of fatal traffic crashes caused by excessive drinking, and also decrease the wastage of medical resources that could be used more productively elsewhere. Ultimately this can be used to promote safer drinking and quell the excessive drinking culture here in New Zealand.

Social judgment theory can also be applied to product development and manufacturing, as it can be used to determine customer’s perceptions. This can be used as feedback during design and development stages which will in turn affect the manufacturing process. The goal of this customer feedback gathering would be to create more efficient and better performing products, thus increasing profitability and customer satisfaction. SJT can also be applied to the selection of team members for group projects. By understanding each member’s attitude structure and their acceptance to new ideas, teams can be made in such a manner as to ensure a correct mix of individuals has been selected preventing possible interpersonal conflict in the future.

Theory Evaluation

Griffin’s five scientific standards from A first look at communication theory have been used to evaluate the social judgment theory and they are as follows;

Scientific Standard 1: Explanation Of The Data

Human behavior is explained in the social judgment theory by grouping and arranging individual’s responses into the latitude of acceptance, latitude of rejection and latitude of non-commitment. From there a cognitive map can be assembled that represents the person’s attitude structure. SJT conforms to the first standard as it explains human behavior through its cognitive map, as without it you would not be able to create effective persuasive messages.

Scientific Standard 2: Prediction Of Future Events

Griffin states that “a good objective theory predicts what will happen.” Thus it is of utmost importance to have a well established cognitive map in order to identify which types of messages will be persuasive and which will not. Griffin’s SJT theory does to some degree conform to the second standard, meaning if one has a correct cognitive map of an individual, can better predict what messages will be persuasive. (Griffin, 2008)

Scientific Standard 3: Relative Simplicity

Griffin (2008) states that, “a good objective theory is as simple as possible-no more complex than it has to be.” The SJT theory conforms to the third scientific standard as it’s only composed of the three latitudes, ego-involvement, anchoring point, assimilation and contrast. The theory is very simple and easy to comprehend.

Scientific Standard 4: Hypotheses That Can Be Tested

Griffin (2008) states that, “a good objective theory is testable. If a prediction is wrong, there ought to be a way to demonstrate the error.” To test whether the sender’s message was indeed persuasive and did cause an attitude shift in the receiver, simply rebuild the cognitive map and reanalyze it to see the current attitude structure.

Scientific Standard 5: Practical Utility

Griffin (2008) states that, “a good objective theory is useful. Since an oft-cited goal of social science is to help people have more control over their daily lives, objective theories should offer practical advice for those facing thorny social situations.” The social judgment theory is very useful and is used on a regular basis by big corporations especially for advertising and marketing campaigns, for example Coca Cola is very effective in persuading consumers to buy their products through their various advertisements. It can also be used for many other situations, such as resolving interpersonal conflict through the use of persuasion.

The social judgment theory meets the requirements of Griffins five scientific standards, which shows that it’s a well researched and well tested objective theory.

Conclusion

Summary Of Points Of Information

Muzafer Sherif a Turkish academic is the founding father of the social judgment theory. The central idea of social judgment theory is that attitude change is mediated by judgmental processes and effects used to persuade people. The main purpose of the theory is to discover which messages will have a profoundly persuasive effect on a particular receiver or receivers. Every message an individual receives, regardless of whether it is verbal or non-verbal, falls into one of three latitudes; the latitude of acceptance, latitude of rejection and the latitude of non-commitment. The anchoring point is used to represent the position that most closely represents ones point of view or perception also known as ego-involvement. Ego-involvement is referring to someone’s direct involvement with an issue. Thus, a person is said to be ego-involved when the issue has personal significance to the individual. Once ego-involvement and the three latitudes have been identified a cognitive map can be created and used to coin up a persuasive message. This is where contrast and assimilation errors may occur. When ideas or messages appear to be more like the anchor than they actually are, the shift toward the anchor is called assimilation. When the other ideas or messages appear to be less like the anchor than they actually are, the shift away from the anchor is called contrast. For a message to be considered persuasive it needs to be aimed away from the anchor but not so far that it falls outside the latitude of acceptance. Attitude change can be expected but in small steps, large attitude shifts require significantly more time.

The social judgment theory can be applied to many situations and industries such as the information technology field. For example it can be used to gauge what stakeholders like and dislike in software, which in turn could be used to develop better versions. Since the social judgment theory deals with communication and persuasion in social circumstances, it can virtually be applied to any situation every day.

Critique

Despite all the positive aspects of the social judgment theory there are some limitations and weaknesses. First Sherif has not included message content; message variables such as evidence or even argument quality. Social judgment theory does not take into account any of these important variables. For example it is possible that a message might fall into the latitude of rejection but not be rejected if it has a strong argument. Social judgment theory also omits and ignores source credibility, another factor that can greatly influence attitude change.

Before any kind of persuasive messages can be coined, one has to have a cognitive map. But what if the person has been dishonest; you would have an incorrect attitude structure, further you would have an incorrect cognitive map thus your attempts to send persuasive messages would most probably fail. What this means is that human nature cannot be controlled, which to some degree restricts the effectiveness of the theory.

Personally I would recommend reading the social judgment theory and researching it as it’s a good theory. It was extremely informative and it was easy to comprehend.

Glossary Of Terms

Anchor – A representation of the position that most closely represents a person’s point of view

Assimilation error – A perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitudes of acceptance as less discrepant from their anchor than they really are.

Cognitive map – Map of a person’s attitude structure.

Contrast error – A perceptual error whereby people judge messages that fall within their latitudes of rejection as further from their anchor than they really are

Ego-involvement – The importance or centrality of an issue to a person.

Latitude of acceptance – This zone consists of alternatives which are regarded as acceptable in the sense that they are closest to the person’s own attitudes about the subject.

Latitude of rejection – Within this zone, lie alternatives that are considered undesirable because they are farthest away from the person’s outlook on the subject.

Latitude of non-commitment – If the person feels undecided about or has no opinion on the issue or topic, it falls within the latitude of non-commitment.

References

Books

Griffin, E. A. (2008). Communication: A first look at communication theory. New York: Frank Mortimer.

Heath, R. L., & Jennings, B. (2000). Human communication theory and research: concepts, contexts, and challenges. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.

Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: communication and attitudes in the 21st century. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Internet

Benoit, W. L. (2005, July 22). Social judgment involvement theory. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Persuasion: http://www.cios.org/encyclopedia/persuasion/index.htm

NZ Statistic. (2009, August 30). Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Resources : http://www.alcohol.org.nz/NZStatistic_170204.aspx

Schwartzwalder, J. (2001, February 14). Social judgment theory. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Spring 2001 theory workbook: http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/persuasion/socjud.htm

Online Database

DeCarlo, T. E. (1997). Alcohol warnings and warning labels: an examination of alternative alcohol warning messages and perceived effectiveness. The Journal of Consumer Marketing , 448.

Expert on solving intergroup conflict. (1988). Chicago Tribune , 11.

Bibliography

Books

Eysenck, M. W. (2004). Psychology: An International Perspective. New York: Psychology Press.

Jahoda, G. (2007). A history of social psychology: from the eighteenth-century enlightenment to the second world war. New York: Viking.

Kenneth S. Bordens, I. A. (2001). Social psychology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

O’Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: theory & research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Perloff, R. M. (2007). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century (Second ed.). New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Robert, L. H., & Jennings, B. (2000). Human communication theory and research: concepts, contexts, and challenges. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Sherif, M. (2008). Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences. New Jersey: Aldine Transaction

Sherif, M. (1967). Social interaction: Process and Products. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.

Internet

Asliturk, E., & Cherry, F. (2006, April 05). Muzafer Sherif: The interconnection of politics and profession. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Tarih, Felsefe ve Psikoloji: http://www.geocities.com/tfpsikoloji/asliturk/01.htm

Booth-Butterfield, S. (1996, September 15). Social judgment theory. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Healthy Influence: http://130.18.140.19/persuasion/judge.htm

Flores, M. T. (2001, March 5). Social judgment theory and working assets. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Department of Communication, University of Arizona: http://www.ic.arizona.edu/~comm300/mary/interpersonal/Social_Judgement_ Utne.html

Green, C. D. (2007, September 14). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Classics in the history of psychology: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/

Krebs, K. (1999, March 10). Social judgment theory research. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~kk413797/SJ.htm

Muzafer Sherif. (2008, September 13). Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Open Library: http://openlibrary.org/a/OL4625399A/Muzafer-Sherif

Social judgment theory. (2002, August 24). Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Changing Minds: http://www.changingminds.org/explanations/theories/social_judgment.htm

Stock, R. (1999, December). Muzafer Sherif. Retrieved August 30, 2009, from Psychology history: http://fates.cns.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/sherif.htm