Exploring Three Key Theories in Social Psychology with Real-Life Examples
180301057: Fadahunsi Jeremiah
Department of Sociology, University of Lagos
PSY 223: Introduction to Social Psychology
Mr Oyogho Oscar
April 17, 2023
ABSTRACT
Since changing one's attitude is a complicated process that involves many different
circumstances, social psychologists have been researching it for a long time. In order to explain
how attitudes are created, maintained, and changed, numerous theories have been established.
This assignment seeks to provide an overview of the three main theories of attitude change: the
consistency theory of prejudice, the social judgment theory, and the cognitive dissonance theory.
We can better understand how attitudes are influenced and perhaps changed by knowing these
theories.
INTRODUCTION
A significant area of research in social psychology is attitude change. The Social Judgment
Theory, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, and Consistency Theory of Prejudice are a few
hypotheses that help explain how attitudes evolve over time.
According to Muzafer Sherif's Social Judgment Theory, people should evaluate new information
in light of their preexisting attitudes and ideas before classifying it as neutral, acceptable, or
undesirable. When the new knowledge is accepted or when the discrepancy between the new
information and preexisting views is minimal, attitudes can shift.
According to Leon Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory, people want to hold consistent
beliefs and attitudes, and when they are presented with contradictory information, they feel
uncomfortable, which is referred to as cognitive dissonance. People alter their attitudes, beliefs,
or behaviors to reduce this dissonance.
According to the Consistency Theory of Prejudice developed by Fritz Heider, people strive to
keep their attitudes and beliefs in line. Prejudices are negative views that can be kept alive
through justification and rationalization, such as placing the blame on the victim or blaming
entire social groups for their shortcomings.
In conclusion, these theories present unique viewpoints on the processes underlying attitude
change. Consistency Theory of Prejudice suggests that unfavorable attitudes can be maintained
through justifications and rationalizations, while Social Judgment Theory emphasizes the
influence of preexisting attitudes on the acceptance of new information.
SOCIAL JUDGEMENT THEORY
According to the Social Judgment Theory, people frequently classify new information based on
their preexisting attitudes and views about a certain subject or issue. This theory stresses how
people interpret new information as acceptable, unacceptable, or neutral by comparing it to their
preexisting attitudes and ideas. According to SJT, attitudes can change when the gap between
new knowledge and preexisting attitudes is narrow or when the new information comes within
the latitude of acceptance.
According to SJT, people have a collection of attitude anchors that they can use as a guide when
classifying various attitudes or beliefs. These anchors have an impact on how people receive and
interpret new information as well as how they generally feel about a subject. When new
information is consistent with their attitude anchor points, people are more likely to accept it;
when it is not, they are more likely to reject it.
Also, SJT suggests that people have a latitude of acceptance, which is the range of attitudinal
claims or attitudes that a person accepts. Within this range, attitudes are more likely to be
accepted because they are seen as being comparable to the person's current attitudes. In contrast,
SJT contends that people possess a latitude of rejection, or the range of attitudes or ideas that
they deem unacceptable. Positions on the spectrum of attitudes are rejected because they are seen
as in opposition to the person's preexisting attitudes and beliefs.
In SJT, the idea of ego-involvement is especially crucial since it clarifies the degree to which
people invest themselves in a certain problem or subject. When a subject is personally relevant,
people are less willing to embrace new information because they are more skeptical of it. The
latitude of acceptance, on the other hand, increases when a subject has little personal relevance
since people are more open to learning new things.
The contrast effect is another idea offered by SJT, which describes how people react to attitudes
that are vastly dissimilar from their attitude anchor points. This phenomenon is referred to as the
"effect," whereby attitudes that are outside of a person's acceptance range are viewed as being
even more away from their own attitude anchor points. People frequently reject ideas or opinions
that are too far outside of their comfort zone of acceptance as a result.
In SJT, the function of social influence is also crucial. Without much consideration for the source
of the view or the content of the argument, people tend to be more open to and inclined to accept
opinions that fit within their latitude of acceptability. Moreover, SJT contends that people form
skewed social judgments because they tend to think their opinions and beliefs are more
widespread than they actually are.
Muzafer Sherif created the Social Judgment Theory in the late 1950s. He performed an
experiment known as the "Autokinetic Effect Experiment," in which he gave participants the
visual illusion of moving light in a pitch-black room. Sherif discovered from this experiment that
people's assessments differ, which he linked to their latitude of acceptance. He proposed that the
range of beliefs or attitudes that a person would find agreeable made up their latitude of
acceptance, whereas their latitude of rejection comprised the spectrum of opinions or attitudes
that they would find disagreeable.
Example
The adoption of the hijab by Muslim women in some regions of Nigeria is a real-life example of
Social Judgement Theory in action. Some people are more likely to view the hijab as an
acceptable and appropriate display of religious devotion if they have a wide tolerance for it. On
the other hand, people who have a high threshold for rejection could see the hijab as a sign of
oppression or an effort to impose their religion on others.
The idea of ego-involvement is also significant in this case since some individuals with strong
religious convictions would have a personal connection to the hijab and its wearing, which
would limit their ability to accept it. Furthermore, social influence is important because people
can be swayed by the viewpoints of people in their social circle, especially if those people have
similar sentiments on the hijab.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY
The cognitive dissonance theory (CDT), is a psychological theory that explains how people deal
with contradictory beliefs and attitudes, argues that when people hold two or more opposing
beliefs or attitudes, they experience a state of mental discomfort or dissonance, which prompts
them to alter their beliefs or attitudes in order to reduce the discomfort.
Leon Festinger first proposed CDT in the late 1950s. Festinger argues that an individual's level
of cognitive dissonance is influenced by the significance of the opposing beliefs or attitudes, the
degree of disagreement between them, and the extent of cognitive elaboration or analysis given
to them. For instance, if a person continues to smoke despite believing that smoking is unhealthy,
they are experiencing cognitive dissonance. To overcome this, they may alter their attitude
toward smoking or give up smoking altogether.
Politics, social psychology, marketing, and other disciplines have all used the idea of cognitive
dissonance. In social psychology, the theory has been applied to clarify how individuals justify
their actions and attitudes in various circumstances. People may rationalize their conduct to
reduce cognitive dissonance, for instance, when they are compelled to act in a way that conflicts
with their ideas or attitudes.
The cognitive dissonance theory has been applied to marketing to explain why customers may
experience post-purchase dissonance. Post-buy dissonance is the term for the unease or
uncertainty that customers feel after making a purchase. Marketers might reduce post-purchase
dissonance by delivering a satisfaction guarantee or additional information that validates the
customer's purchase decision.
The cognitive dissonance theory has been applied in politics in order to explain how people may
alter their attitudes and views on political matters in order to prevent confusion. For instance, if
a person votes for a political candidate who is later found to be corrupt, they may feel dissonance
and may choose to either defend their vote by denying the corruption or alter their opinion of the
individual in an effort to reduce dissonance.
People may reduce cognitive dissonance by employing a variety of techniques. These include
altering their actions, their attitudes or beliefs, looking for evidence to support their attitudes or
views, and downplaying the significance of the opposing beliefs or attitudes. For instance, if a
person experiences dissonance after acting in a way that goes against their values, they might
alter their conduct to match their views or vice versa.
Examples:
1. Corruption is a major problem in Nigeria, where many politicians and public officials are
known to be corrupt; however, despite this, many Nigerians still support these
individuals, which can be explained by cognitive dissonance. People may hold the belief
that corruption is wrong, but continue to support corrupt officials because they believe
that they are doing the right thing.
2. Nigeria still has many gender norms and stereotypes, which might cause cognitive
dissonance. For instance, a male who supports gender equality could nonetheless engage
in behaviors that reinforce gender norms, including expecting women to handle home
duties or childcare. As a result of their beliefs conflicting with their behaviors, this may
cause cognitive dissonance.
3. In Nigeria, cognitive dissonance is also significantly influenced by religion. There are
many Christians and Muslims among the nation's many different religious groups. If a
person's religious convictions conflict with their actions, such as a Muslim who thinks
drinking alcohol is forbidden but gets caught drinking or a Christian who engages in
premarital sex despite thinking it is immoral, cognitive dissonance may result.
The cognitive dissonance theory sheds light on why people in Nigeria could have certain
attitudes and beliefs but behave in ways that go against them. According to the hypothesis, when
beliefs and behaviors are out of sync, people feel discomfort or cognitive dissonance, and they
may attempt to alleviate this discomfort by altering their beliefs or behavior.
CONSISTENCE THEORY OF PREJUDICE
The consistence theory of prejudice, also known as the balance theory, is a social psychology
theory that seeks to explain how attitudes, behavior, and social norms are related. It implies that
people make an effort to keep their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors consistent and in check.
People may suffer psychological pain when these aspects are inconsistent or at odds, which they
will attempt to alleviate by altering their attitudes or behavior to bring them back in line with
their beliefs.
The consistence theory of prejudice suggests that people who have prejudiced views against a
particular group may look for evidence that validates those beliefs while ignoring or rejecting
evidence that defies those beliefs. Their prejudicial ideas are reinforced by this confirmation
bias, which also keeps their attitudes and actions in line. As a result of their biased attitudes,
people may also act in ways that are congruent with those behaviors, for as by avoiding or
treating members of the targeted group unfairly.
In the 1940s, Fritz Heider proposed the consistence theory of prejudice, which Theodore
Newcomb further developed in the 1950s. This idea contends that attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviors are linked and have an impact on one another. Individuals are motivated to adjust one
or more of these parameters in order to relieve the discomfort and restore consistency since the
inconsistencies between these factors lead to psychological distress.
For instance, if a person has prejudices against a certain racial group and comes into contact with
a member of that group who acts favorably or neutrally toward them, their prejudiced attitude
and their interaction with the person become inconsistent. The person may act in ways that are
consistent with their biased attitudes, including avoiding or discriminating against the person, to
lessen the psychological distress. As an alternative, they could adjust how they feel about the
person in order to make their action more consistent with their attitude.
Understanding prejudice and discrimination in society has crucial implications for the
consistence theory. It implies that those with prejudiced attitudes are more inclined to look for
evidence that supports their beliefs and reject evidence that disproves them, leading to a cycle of
prejudice. To make their actions match their attitudes, people may also act discriminatorily,
which helps to maintain prejudice and discrimination.
The theory has been used to analyze how racism and prejudice remain in society, among other
situations in real life. For instance, Gaertner and Dovidio's (1977) study revealed that people
with prejudices towards African Americans were more likely to perceive ambiguous behaviors as
being unfavorable or threatening. Their interpretation bias served to preserve consistency
between their attitudes and conduct as well as to reinforce their biased ideas.
Similar observations were made by Stangor and McMillan in their 1992 study, which showed
that people with prejudices against women were more prone to disregard or discount data that
refuted their views on gender roles. Their prejudicial attitudes were reinforced by this
confirmation bias, which also kept their thoughts and actions in line.
Consistency theory can be used to explain why racial and religious prejudice still exists in
Nigeria. For instance, the Hausa and Igbo ethnic groups in Nigeria have a protracted battle
because each group has unfavorable perceptions and attitudes towards the other. According to
the consistency theory, people who have prejudices against members of the other group are more
prone to look for evidence that supports their beliefs and to disregard that evidence. They could
also act in a way that is prejudiced or discriminatory toward those who belong to the other group
in order to make their actions match their attitudes.
Moreover, Nigerian society places a high value on religion due to the country's sizable Muslim
and Christian populations. People frequently have prejudiced views and prejudices about
members of the opposing religious group, and they tend to ignore evidence that contradicts their
ideas in favor of information that supports their opinions.
Examples:
1. Nigeria has a long history of interethnic strife, with each group harboring unfavorable
opinions and prejudices regarding the others. For instance, there were conflicts between
the Hausa and Yoruba ethnic groups in numerous regions of the nation during the
beginning of the new millennium. Each group's members had unfavorable stereotypes
and attitudes toward the other, which resulted in discrimination and violence. According
to the consistency theory, people who have prejudices against members of the other
group are more prone to look for evidence that supports their beliefs and to disregard that
evidence. They could act in a way that is prejudiced or discriminatory toward those who
belong to the other group in order to make their actions match their attitudes.
2. Religion is very important in Nigerian society because there are many Christians and
Muslims there. People frequently have prejudiced views and prejudices about members
of the opposing religious group, and they tend to ignore evidence that contradicts their
ideas in favor of information that supports their opinions. The purpose of this
confirmation bias is to support prejudiced ideas.
For instance, there were reports of bloodshed between Muslims and Christians during the
Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria. Each group's members had unfavorable stereotypes
and attitudes toward the other, which resulted in discrimination and violence.
3. In Nigeria, there are also many gender stereotypes and prejudices that result in
discrimination against women in a variety of spheres of life, including as politics,
business, and education. Confirmation bias, where people seek out evidence that supports
their ideas and disregard information that contradicts them, reinforces prejudices against
women.
For instance, during the 2019 presidential election in Nigeria, female presidential
candidate Oby Ezekwesili experienced sexism and prejudice from both male politicians
and the general public. Many Nigerians had prejudices against women in leadership roles,
which resulted in discrimination and unfair treatment.
The Consistency Theory of Prejudice can provide insight into victim-blaming's prevalence in
Nigeria. Victims of domestic or sexual assault may be blamed for their own victimization, which
is sometimes perpetuated by cultural standards and beliefs. People who hold these ideas may
reject information that challenges them and instead look for evidence to support their prejudices,
which is known as confirmation bias.
The Consistency Theory of Prejudice can generally aid in explaining why some Nigerians harbor
prejudiced attitudes and beliefs toward members of certain religious or ethnic groups, or why
they participate in victim-blaming. Interventions can be created to address these prejudices and
encourage more acceptance and tolerance of diversity by identifying the function of confirmation
bias in upholding these ideas and attitudes.
CONCLUSION
Social judgment theory, cognitive dissonance theory, and consistency theory of prejudice are all
important theories in social psychology that can help us understand how individuals form
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors towards themselves and others.
Understanding these theories can provide insights into the underlying factors that influence our
attitudes and behaviors towards ourselves and others. By recognizing these factors, we can work
towards promoting greater acceptance, tolerance, and positive change in our society.
REFERENCES
1. Abelson, R. P., & Frey, K. P. (2019). Affective attitudes. In J. T. Jost, M. R. Banaji, & D.
A. Prentice (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (2nd ed.,
pp. 443-470). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190224837.013.22
2. Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2017). Elaboration likelihood model. In R. F. Baumeister & K.
D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (3rd ed.,
pp. 135-153). Guilford Press.
3. Devine, P. G. (2019). The social psychology of prejudice. In J. T. Jost, M. R. Banaji, &
D. A. Prentice (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (2nd
ed., pp. 871-900). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190224837.013.45
4. Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (Eds.). (2019). Cognitive dissonance: Reexamining a
pivotal theory in psychology. American Psychological Association.
5. Cooper, J. (2020). Cognitive dissonance theory. In J. M. Levine & R. L. West (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Social Influence (pp. 345-360). Oxford University Press.
6. Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2019). Cognitive dissonance theory. In J. T.
Cacioppo & L. G. Tassinary (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 765-792).
Cambridge University Press.
7. Akinola, A. O., & Akinyemi, O. I. (2017). Corruption and the challenge of democratic
governance in Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention,
6(11), 45-53.
8. Daramola, O. O. (2021). Gender Stereotyping in Nigeria: Addressing a Barrier to
Women's Leadership. Journal of Gender Studies, 30(1), 1-14.
9. Akinwale, A. A. (2018). Exploring cognitive dissonance and moral disengagement in
corruption: The case of Nigeria. Journal of Business and Management, 20(1), 67-75.
10. Agbo, J. C. (2018). The Influence of Religious Beliefs on Behaviour: A Study of Catholic
and Pentecostal Youths in Nigeria. Journal of Religion and Human Relations, 6(1), 1-15.
11. Crandall, C. S. (2017). The psychological foundations of prejudice and discrimination.
Routledge.
12. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup
identity model. Psychology Press.
13. Hewstone, M. (2018). Consequences of diversity for social cohesion and prejudice: The
missing dimension of intergroup relations research. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 461485.
14. Jost, J. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology.
Political Psychology, 38(S1), 167-208.
15. Monteith, M. J. (2018). Social norms: The underestimated precursor of prejudice
reduction interventions. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 492-508.
16. Stangor, C., & McMillan, D. (2018). Changing stereotypes and prejudiced attitudes: The
role of social categorization processes. In Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and
Discrimination (pp. 337-360). Routledge.
17. Tajfel, H. (2018). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press.