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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The function is stored in the intervaldifferential.m file. It can be called in Matlab or Octave with the following syntax: [intervals, interCoord, coord] = intervaldifferential (scores, relevances, k, factorLoadings, p). The following inputs are required for the function: scores is an \(n \times 1\) vector of crisp values of the scales \(x_i\in [-k,k]\) interval, relevances is an \(n\times 1\) vector of crisp values of perceived scale-relevances \(y_{s_i}\in [0\%,100\%]\), k specifies the range of the numerical values of the scales defined by the bipolar adjective pairs, factorloadings is an \(n\times F\) vector of factor loadings of the n bipolar adjective pairs to the F factors and p is a parameter controlling the plot option (if \(p=1\), then the graphical output presented in Fig. 4 is provided; when \(p=0\), no graphical output is provided). The function provides the following outputs: intervals is a vector of n interval values of the scales \([x_{s_i}^L,x_{s_i}^R]\) computed from the crisp scores \(s_i\) and scale relevances \(y_{s_i}\) applying formulas (3) and (4), interCoord is the vector of interval coordinates of the object in the semantic space, i.e. \(interCoord=R_O=(E_o^{int},P_o^{int},A_o^{int})\) and coord is the vector of crisp coordinates of the object in the semantic space, i.e. \(coord=C_O=(E_O,P_O,A_O)\).
References
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
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
Carter, R.F., Ruggels, W.L., Chaffee, S.H.: The semantic differential in opinion measurement. Public Opin. Q. 32(4), 666–674 (1968)
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
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)
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
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
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
Heise, D.R.: Some methodological issues in semantic differential research. Psychol. Bull. 72(6), 406–422 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028448
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
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
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
Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22(140), 5–55 (1932)
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
Mindak, W.A.: Fitting the semantic differential to the marketing problem. J. Mark. 25(4), 28–33 (1961)
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
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
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
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
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.H.: The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, Chicago (1957)
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
Ross, I.: Self-concept and brand preference. J. Bus. 44(1), 38–50 (1971)
Stoklasa, J.: Linguistic Models for Decision Support. Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta (2014)
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
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)
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)
Weinreich, U.: Travels through semantic space. Word 14(2–3), 346–366 (1958). https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1958.11659675
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)
Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)
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
Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-II. Inf. Sci. 8(4), 301–357 (1975b)
Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-III. Inf. Sci. 9(1), 43–80 (1975c)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was partially funded by the Grant IGA_FF_2018_002 of the internal grant agency of Palacký University Olomouc.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stoklasa, J., Talášek, T. & Stoklasová, J. Semantic differential for the twenty-first century: scale relevance and uncertainty entering the semantic space. Qual Quant 53, 435–448 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0762-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0762-1