Semantic differential(어의차이척도법, 의미척도법)

Semantic differential is a type of a rating scale designed to measure the connotative meaning of objects, events, and concepts. The connotations are used to derive the attitude towards the given object, event or concept.

Semantic differential[edit]

Osgood's semantic differential was an application of his more general attempt to measure the semantics or meaning of words, particularly adjectives, and their referent concepts. The respondent is asked to choose where his or her position lies, on a scale between two bipolar adjectives (for example: "Adequate-Inadequate", "Good-Evil" or "Valuable-Worthless"). Semantic differentials can be used to measure opinions, attitudes and values on a psychometrically controlled scale.

Fig. 1. Modern Japanese version of the Semantic Differential. The Kanji characters in background stand for "God" and "Wind" respectively, with the compound reading "Kamikaze". (Adapted from Dimensions of Meaning. Visual Statistics Illustrated at VisualStatistics.net.)

(출처 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_differential)

---

Semantic differential

The semantic differential is a scale used for measuring the meaning of things and concepts. There are two aspects of meaning: denotative and connotative. The semantic differential measures connotative meaning.

Denotation - what a name or concept refers to (denote - to mark out plainly, to indicate) Connotation - the suggestive significance of a word, apart from its explicit and recognized meaning Consider automobiles or school mascots. Names such as "Jaguar" or "Huskies" denote animals. Their connotation is power. In contrast, the "Oregon Ducks" project a different image or connotative meaning.

denotation = eagle, bird connotation = strength, power

(출처 : http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/scaling/semdiff.htm)

---

The Semantic Differential and Attitude Research

DAVID R. HEISE

---

This review was facilitated greatly by the "Contemporary Bibliography of Research Related to the Semantic Differential Technique," (Urbana, Ill.: January, 1967; mimeographed), made available by Charles E. Osgood. The work was carried out while the author was a staff member in the Methodology in Sociology program at the University of Wisconsin, a project funded by the Institute of General Medical Sciences of NIH. This chapter was prepared especially for this volume.

---

The Semantic Differential (SD) measures people's reactions to stimulus words and concepts in terms of ratings on bipolar scales defined with contrasting adjectives at each end. An example of an SD scale is:

Usually, the position marked 0 is labeled "neutral," the 1 positions are labeled "slightly," the 2 positions "quite," and the 3 positions "extremely." A scale like this one measures directionality of a reaction (e.g., good versus bad) and also intensity (slight through extreme). Typically, a person is presented with some concept of interest, e.g., Red China, and asked to rate it on a number of such scales. Ratings are combined in various ways to describe and analyze the person's feelings.

A number of basic considerations are involved in SD methodology:

(1) Bipolar adjective scales are a simple, economical means for obtaining data on people's reactions. With adaptations, such scales can be used with adults or children, persons from all walks of life, and persons from any culture.

(2) Ratings on bipolar adjective scales tend to be correlated, and three basic dimensions of response account for most of the co-variation in ratings. The three dimensions, which have been labeled Evaluation, Potency, and Activity (EPA), have been verified and replicated in an impressive variety of studies.

(3) Some adjective scales are almost pure measures of the EPA dimensions; for example, good-bad for Evaluation, powerful-powerless for Potency, and fast-slow for Activity. Using a few pure scales of this sort, one can obtain, with considerable economy, reliable measures of a person's overall response to something. Typically, a concept is rated on several pure scales associated with a single dimension, and the results are averaged to provide a single factor score for each dimension. Measurements of a concept on the EPA dimensions are referred to as the concept's profile.

(4) EPA measurements are appropriate when one is interested in affective responses. The EPA system is notable for being a multi-뾢nd p. 235�variate approach to affect measurement. It is also a generalized approach, applicable to any concept or stimulus, and thus it permits comparisons of affective reactions on widely disparate things. EPA ratings have been obtained for hundreds of word concepts, for stories and poems, for social roles and stereotypes, for colors, sounds, shapes, and for individual persons.

(5) The SD has been used as a measure of attitude in a wide variety of projects. Osgood, et al., (1957) report exploratory studies in which the SD was used to assess attitude change as a result of mass media programs (pp. 305-311) and as a result of messages structured in different ways (pp. 240-241). Their chapter on attitude balance or congruity theory (pp. 189-210) [excerpted in Chapter 13 of this volume] also presents significant applications of the SD to attitude measurement. The SD has been used by other investigators to study attitude formation (e.g., Barclay arid Thumin, 1963), attitudes toward organizations (e.g., Rodefeld, 1967), attitudes toward jobs and occupations (e.g., Triandis, 1959; Beardslee and O'Dowd, 1961; Gusfield and Schwartz, 1963), and attitudes toward minorities (e.g., Prothro and Keehn, 1957; Williams, 1964; 1966). The results in these, and many other studies, support the validity of the SD as a technique for attitude measurement. The question of validity, and other issues in assessing attitudes with the SD, will be treated in more detail after a general discussion of SD theory and technique.

(출처 : http://www.indiana.edu/~socpsy/papers/AttMeasure/attitude..htm)