We're continuing this series on common communication theories in storytelling with Social Judgement Theory. I personally feel this might be one of the most powerful tools that we can use in shaping persuasive stories. If you are performing any story with an agenda - getting people to vote, throw away their dang trash, or be kind to each other - THIS is the theory that can help you map your messages.
According to this theory, people's beliefs live on "latitutdes of acceptance": a term that sounds way fancier than it has any right to. "Latitude" here just means "horizontal line". Your latitude on a map is the horizontal line you are standing on, so you're probably familiar with the concept. To picture a latitude of acceptance, you need to picture a number line (like the ones you used way back in pre-algebra), remove the numbers, and replace those numbers with ideas.
You might be asking why the theorist chose a horizontal line. To be honest, it doesn't matter that much. It's just what they chose. The social sciences are big on horizontal lines because they don't have a higher and lower position which might imply a better and worse idea, and far be it from us to decide right and wrong. Also, "latitude" sounds like a fancy fun word.
The latitude pits different ideas against each other. The ideas on one latitude are all ideas that a person might encounter relating to a certain belief. For example, the left side of someone's latitude of acceptance of pizza topping ethics may start with an extreme idea like "all people who put pineapple on pizza should be unalived". A little closer to the center, you might find the idea that "people who put pineapple on pizza aren't dateable". Closer to the center you'll find "people who put pineapple on pizza have bad food tastes, and you shouldn't trust them to pick where to eat". Almost to the center, you'll find "some people like pineapple on pizza, but I do not". To the right you'll find ideas about liking pineapple on pizza: "as long as you don't call it pizza, it tastes fine", "it actually tastes okay, even though people will tease you a bit", "it tastes amazing", "all pineapple should have pizza", and the most extreme "those selling pizza without pineapple need to be unalived".
If a person has this latitude, and they are currently of the mindset that pineapple pizza eaters aren't dateable, and someone wanted to move them further right across their latitude into a more accepting place, there are some things the persuader, according to the theory, will need to be mindful of. First, some parts of that latitude are OFF-LIMMITS. The furthest, most extreme edges are going to fall into the "latitude of rejection". If the persuader brings up an idea in either far end, the pineapple hater with fully reject the idea. No thought, no consideration, just straight rejection. Second, there are many ideas tucked neatly next to the pineapple hater's current position that they just accept. To them, it's basically what they already believe. This is called the "latitude of acceptance". Finally, there is a range of ideas on the right side, the "latitude of non-commitment" that the pineapple hater might be moved to.
Our fictional persuader should send a message in that latitude of non-commitment AND help the pineapple hater see that the message easily could be seen as part of their latitude of acceptance. Even if the pineapple hater doesn't completely make it to the desired point, they might make it a smidge further than they would have if left alone. HOWEVER, if the persuader makes the pineapple hater uncomfortable, they might induce what is called the "boomerang effect". This is where the pineapple hater starts to hate pineapple pizza MORE than they did before.
Now, as storytellers, we often don't know the beliefs held by our audiences until we're mid-show and say something that causes the instant-silence-of-doom, but when we are partnering with companies and local governments to share messages to the public, we can and SHOULD ask to have a period of time in which we do research and find out where people are and what their latitudes look like. We can do this through empirical (number-based) research, yes, but we can also do this the way we so often learn from our audiences, by talking to them and by reading and listening to the stories they are already putting out into the world.
Once we have what we hope is a good grasp of the general latitude, we can craft our message in a way that moves people closer to our goal. Even if our goal is to move people all the way into their latitude of rejection, we must craft stories that inch them bit-by-bit to the desired side without shoving them backwards or shutting them down.
That, dear friends, is HARD. So, so, so, so hard, because, sometimes, that means telling a story with a moral you do not believe in. That can hurt, and, when we do that, we have to make sure that story stays with the intended audience and does not negatively impact those we love and are trying to help. We also have to find ways in the process to stay true to ourselves. To make sure we aren't lying or miss-represnting our hearts. We must draw a line between the morals of the story and the morals of the teller. We also must accept that change happens over time, and that we may not be there to see the "ah-ha" moment that we so hope for.
To learn more about Social Judgement Theory, check out the book Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgement- Involvement Approach by Muzafar Sharif, Roger Nebergall, and Carolyn Wood Sherif.
Comments