Objective and Subjective Perception of Real Estate Features in the Light of an Experimental Study

  • Iwona ForyśEmail author
  • Radosław Gaca
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


Issues related to the objectification of the assessment of real estate as a subject of market turnover or valuation constitutes one of the basic problems of real estate management. The problems described are not limited only to the real estate market. It is universal in relation to various types of consumer and capital goods, especially in the case of the assessment of qualitative characteristics of these goods. The research problem concerns the issue of objectification of the assessment of the quality characteristics of real estate using standardized methods for measurement. For this purpose, an experimental study was carried out on the perception of the characteristics of real estate and the assessments made by real estate appraisers, using the modified method of semantic differential. The obtained results confirmed that the use of this standardized measurement tool leads to an increase in the objectivity of measurement. In the following stages, the results obtained should be generalized for the entire population of real estate appraisers, ensuring that the research is representative.


Intuitive methods Real estate valuation Semantic differential method Market value 


  1. 1.
    Babbie, E.: Podstawy badań społecznych. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Betts, R.M., Ely, S.J.: Basic Real Estate Appraisal: Principles and Procedures, 7th edn. Thomson South-Western, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cronbach, L.J., Meehl, P.E.: Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 52(4), 281–302 (1955). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Day, G.S.: Market Driven Strategy. Free Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W.: Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 6th edn. Dryden Press, Chicago IL (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foryś, I., Gaca, R.: Theoretical and practical aspects of qualitative variable descriptions of residential property valuation multiple regression models. In: Proceedings Foundation of the Cracow University of Economics, 978-83-65173-48-5 (HTML), pp. 36–44 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Foryś, I., Gaca, R.: Application of the Likert and Osgood scales to quantify the qualitative features of real estate properties. Folia Oeconomica Stetinensia 16(2), 7–16 (2017). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foryś, I., Gaca, R.: Intuitive methods versus analytical methods in real estate valuation: preferences of Polish real estate appraisers. In: Nermend, K., Łatuszyńska, M. (eds.) Problems, Methods and Tools in Experimental and Behavioral Economics, pp. 79–87. Springer International Publishing (2018). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaca, R.: Zmienne jakościowe w procesie szacowania wartości rynkowej nieruchomości. Rozprawa doktorska. Uniwersytet Szczeciński - maszynopis (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Himmelfarb, S.: The measurement of attitudes. In: Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S. (eds.) Psychology of Attitudes, pp. 23–88. Thomson/Wadsworth (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kane, M.S., Linne, M.R., Johnson, J.A.: Practical Applications in Appraisal Valuation Modeling. Statistical Methods for Real Estate Practitioners, Chicago, IL (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuhn, T.S.: Dwa bieguny: tradycja i nowatorstwo w badaniach naukowych. Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, Warszawa (1985)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lai, A.W.: Consumer values, product benefits and customer value: a consumption behavior approach. Adv. Consum. Res. 22, 381–388 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osgood, C.E.: The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychol. Bull. 49(3), 197 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osgood, C.E., Suci, G., Tannenbaum, P.: The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana IL (1957)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paul, P.J., Olson, J.C.: Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 2nd edn. Irwin Homewood, IL (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schinzler, B.: A multiattribute combinatorial exchange. In: Negotiation, Auctions, and Market Engineering: International Seminar, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, 12–17 Nov 2006, pp. 84–100. Springer Science & Business Media (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I., Gross, B.L.: Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values. J. Bus. Res. 22, 159–170 (1991). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Snider, J.G., Osgood, C.E.: Semantic Differential Technique: A Sourcebook. Aldine, Chicago (1969)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith, G.T.: On construct validity: issues of method and measurement. Psychol. Assess. 17(4), 396–408 (2005). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thaler, R.H.: Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. W.W. Norton, New York, London (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verhagen, T., Hooff, B., Meents, S.: Toward a better use of the semantic differential in IS research: an integrative framework of suggested action. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 16(2), 1 (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walesiak, M., Dudek, A.: Symulacyjna optymalizacja wyboru procedury klasyfikacyjnej dla danego typu danych–charakterystyka problemu. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego 450, 635–646 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wolverton, M.L.: Comments on “Common statistical errors and mistakes: valuation and reliability”. Letters to the Editor. Apprais. J. 176 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and ManagementUniversity of SzczecinSzczecinPoland
  2. 2.Kancelaria Rzeczoznawcy MajątkowegoBydgoszczPoland

Personalised recommendations