Which of our opinions never change
A question that continues to preoccupy researchers into communication is
this: when do people allow themselves to be persuaded about something
and when not? Why is it that some of our attitudes are deeply ingrained
and not up for discussion (e.g. allegiance to a particular football club),
while we change others at the drop of a hat (favourite TV series, for
example)?
An explanation is offered by the Social Judgement Theory. According to
this theory, there are three factors that play a role in persuading us to
change our opinion:
- The anchor point: this is our basic preferred attitude. This attitude is
hard to budge, and we are unlikely to change it, regardless of what
information we are given. So, for example, if we were to discover that
the players of our favourite football team were manipulating games, we
might be shocked, but it wouldn’t put an end to our long love affair.- Room for manoeuvre: here it is about which alternative attitudes we
find acceptable, regardless of our own. These are attitudes that we can
accept without having to hoist our anchor. This approach can lead to a
change of opinion in the long term.- Ego involvement: the most complicated part: what does our ego have to
say? Take the death penalty, for example, which clearly contradicts the
anchor point ‘human rights’, leaving little room for manoeuvre. But it is
conceivable that if we were personally affected by a murder, we might
feel vengeful towards the perpetrator and change our mind, at least
briefly.The stronger our anchor, i.e. our firm position on an issue, the harder it
is to be persuaded by a different opinion. The stronger you pull at another
person’s anchor, the stronger their resistance. (How can you can succeed
anyway? See ‘Six Principles of Persuasion’.)
If you can’t change your mind, then you’re not using it.