Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 435–448 | Cite as

Semantic differential for the twenty-first century: scale relevance and uncertainty entering the semantic space

  • Jan StoklasaEmail author
  • Tomáš Talášek
  • Jana Stoklasová
Article
  • 173 Downloads

Abstract

We propose an interval-valued version of the semantic differentiation method originally proposed by Osgood et al. (The measurement of meaning, University of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1957). The semantic differential is a tool for the extraction of attitudes of respondents towards given objects or of the connotative meaning of concepts. Semantic-differential-type scales are also frequently used in social-science research. The proposed generalisation of the original method is better suited for the reflection of perceived scale relevance and provides a possible solution to specific aspects of the concept–scale interaction issue and some other issues recently identified in the literature in connection with the use of semantic differential or semantic-differential-type scales. Lower appropriateness of scales as perceived by the respondents is translated into uncertainty regions and neutral answers can be distinguished from answers where the scale is perceived to be irrelevant. We suggest a modified data collection procedure and describe the calculation of the representation of the attitude towards an object as a point in the semantic space surrounded by an “uncertainty box”. The new method introduces uncertainty to the semantic space and allows for a more appropriate reflection of the meaning of concepts, words, etc. in formal models. No restrictions are introduced in terms of the availability of results—standard semantic-differential outputs including the position of objects in the semantic space and their semantic distance are available. The new method, however, reflects the uncertainty stemming from linguistic labels of the scale endpoints and from lower perceived appropriateness of the scales in the process.

Keywords

Semantic differential Scale relevance Concept–scale interaction Interval-valued Uncertainty 

Supplementary material

11135_2018_762_MOESM1_ESM.m (4 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (M 5 kb)

References

  1. Back, K.W., Bunker, S., Dunnagan, C.B.: Barriers to communication and measurement of semantic space. Sociometry 35(3), 347–356 (1972).  https://doi.org/10.2307/2786499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckmeyer, J.J., Ganong, L.H., Coleman, M., Stafford Markham, M.: Experiences with coparenting scale: a semantic differential measure of postdivorce coparenting satisfaction. J. Fam. Issues 38(10), 1471–1490 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16634764 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter, R.F., Ruggels, W.L., Chaffee, S.H.: The semantic differential in opinion measurement. Public Opin. Q. 32(4), 666–674 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Darnell, D.K.: Concept scale interaction in the semantic differential. J. Commun. 16(2), 104–115 (1966).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1966.tb00022.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dombi, J.D., Kertész, A.: Advanced scheduling techniques with the pliant system for high-level grid brokering. In: Filipe, J., Fred, A., Sharp, B. (eds.) Agents and Artificial Intelligence Second International Conference, ICAART 2010, pp. 173–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  6. Fennell, J.G., Baddeley, R.J.: Reward is assessed in three dimensions that correspond to the semantic differential. PLoS ONE 8(2), 1–15 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Friborg, O., Martinussen, M., Rosenvinge, J.H.: Likert-based vs. semantic differential-based scorings of positive psychological constructs: a psychometric comparison of two versions of a scale measuring resilience. Personal. Individ. Differ. 40(5), 873–884 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fry, J.N., Claxton, J.D.: Semantic differential and nonmetric multidimensional scaling descriptions of brand images. J. Mark. Res. 8(2), 238–240 (1971).  https://doi.org/10.2307/3149769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heise, D.R.: Some methodological issues in semantic differential research. Psychol. Bull. 72(6), 406–422 (1969).  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaplan, K.J.: On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: a suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychol. Bull. 77(5), 361–372 (1972).  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kervyn, N., Fiske, S.T., Yzerbyt, V.Y.: Integrating the stereotype content model (warmth and competence) and the Osgood semantic differential (evaluation, potency, and activity). Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 43(7), 673–681 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1978 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kulas, J.T., Stachowski, A.A.: Middle category endorsement in odd-numbered likert response scales: associated item characteristics, cognitive demands, and preferred meanings. J. Res. Pers. 43(3), 489–493 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22(140), 5–55 (1932)Google Scholar
  14. Marinelli, N., Fabbrizzi, S., Alampi Sottini, V., Sacchelli, S., Bernetti, I., Menghini, S.: Generation Y, wine and alcohol. A semantic differential approach to consumption analysis in Tuscany. Appetite 75, 117–127 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.12.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mindak, W.A.: Fitting the semantic differential to the marketing problem. J. Mark. 25(4), 28–33 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mondragón, S., Company, P., Vergara, M.: Semantic differential applied to the evaluation of machine tool design. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35(11), 1021–1029 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2005.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mukherjee, S., Heise, D.R.: Affective meanings of 1,469 Bengali concepts. Behav. Res. Methods 49(1), 184–197 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0704-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Niskanen, V.A.: Metric truth as a basis for fuzzy linguistic reasoning. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 57(1), 1–25 (1993).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(93)90117-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Osgood, C.E.: Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures. Am. Anthropol. 66(3), 171–200 (1964).  https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215687.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.H.: The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, Chicago (1957)Google Scholar
  21. Papendick, M., Bohner, G.: “Passive victim strong survivor?” Perceived meaning of labels applied to women who were raped. PLoS ONE (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177550
  22. Ross, I.: Self-concept and brand preference. J. Bus. 44(1), 38–50 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stoklasa, J.: Linguistic Models for Decision Support. Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta (2014)Google Scholar
  24. Stoklasa, J., Talášek, T., Musilová, J.: Fuzzy approach—a new chapter in the methodology of psychology? Hum. Aff. 24(2), 189–203 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-014-0219-8 Google Scholar
  25. Stoklasa, J., Talášek, T., Stoklasová, J.: Semantic differential and linguistic approximation—identification of a possible common ground for research in social sciences. In: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Knowledge for Market Use 2016, Societas Scientiarum Olomucensis II, Olomouc, pp. 495–501 (2016)Google Scholar
  26. Verhagen, T., van den Hooff, B., Meents, S.: Toward a better use of the semantic differential in is research: an integrative framework of suggested action research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16(2), 108–143 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. Weinreich, U.: Travels through semantic space. Word 14(2–3), 346–366 (1958).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1958.11659675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yager, R.R.: On the retranslation process in Zadeh’s paradigm of computing with words. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. B Cybern. 34(2), 1184–1195 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I. Inf. Sci. 8(3), 199–249 (1975a).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-II. Inf. Sci. 8(4), 301–357 (1975b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-III. Inf. Sci. 9(1), 43–80 (1975c)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and ManagementLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland
  2. 2.Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of ArtsPalacký University OlomoucOlomoucCzech Republic
  3. 3.Marital and family counseling centre ProstějovProstějovCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations