Measuring Feelings with the Semantic Differential | Inquisium

or . requires Javascript be enabled on the respondent's browser (which is the default requirement). If Javascript is not enabled, then radio buttons will be displayed. Thus, you should check that the Semantic Differential question looks good with both or options.

Mitsos, S. B. 1961 "Personal constructs and the semanticdifferential."  62:433-434.

However, correlation does not imply causality. In order to establish this, we conducted a further experiment where arbitrary coloured shapes were associated with different distributions of positive, negative and neutral events. According to our hypothesis, simply associating these shapes with different reward histories should be sufficient to change the evaluation of them in terms of the semantic differential.

Practical Tasks : Using the Semantic Differential scale

Sommer,R. 1965 "Anchor effects and the semantic differential."  78:317-318. Based on the current case study, prior research in organizationalpublications, and the multi-dimensional nature of attitudes, we arguethat the semantic differential should be considered as a viable andrigorous method in the assessment of attitudes related to businessissues.

Research Results of a Hypothetical Semantic Differential Scale

Oliver, B.L. (1974). The semantic differential: A device formeasuring the inter professional communication of selected accountingconcepts. Journal of Accounting Research, 12(2), 299-320.

for measuring the semantic differential scale asks chainz galaxy ds




The semantic differential is one of the most widely recommended techniques to measure the perception of concepts, opinions and attitudes. Whereas an alternative such as Likert-scaling demands from respondents to indicate the extent to which they disagree or agree with declarative statements, the semantic differential makes use of a set of bipolar scales.

In their simplest form, each of the bipolar scales that make up a semantic differential consists of an antonym pair, which are usually two adjectives (e.g., bad - good; unpleasant - pleasant). In practice, however, bipolar scales in this format may not be sufficiently descriptive. Therefore, researchers usually develop more elaborate bipolar scales by combining the two antonyms with one or more nouns and verbs to formulate word combinations, in which the antonyms still remain the only two words that are opposite in meaning (e.g., bad idea - good idea; unpleasant idea - pleasant idea). The semantic differential in the below, which measures the concept website ease of use with four bipolar scales [1], illustrates this well.Most attempts to chart an individual's qualitative judgment and affective response to an odorant have relied on characterizations of odor quality via intensity scaling with lists of odor quality descriptors (), measures of mood or autonomic state while smelling an odorant (; ). The classic treatise for odor classification attempted to establish a common lexicon for qualitative description of odors (). Yet, four decades later there is still no generally accepted system of classification that encompasses the olfactory world, limiting not only communication among individuals involved in sensory evaluation, but also impeding a basic understanding of the cognitive processes involved in discrimination of odor quality (). Moreover, going beyond purely descriptive olfactory property, the richness of semantic elaboration that can be connotative of emotion has largely been ignored in studies of olfaction. Tapping into the multi-sensory semantic representation that is elicited by smelling an odor could be of great utility in a number of applications where simple olfactory descriptors provide a barrier to a full understanding of the sensory and emotional experience elicited by an odor. Lawless () has persuasively argued that that assumptions of independence in odor quality descriptors in the psychophysical intensity model may be insufficient to fully capture the multi-dimensional nature of odor representation. In addition, developing a classification system to obviate utilizing culture-specific odor quality descriptors can foster better cross-cultural comparisons of olfactory experience. For these reasons, we explored whether Semantic Differential Scaling, a well-established method for evaluating affective responses to examples in many other stimulus domains, would be of utility in characterizing the affective response to odors.