Peer Response Blog Post
This blog post is in response to the “Credibility Module” for my online Persuasion (COMM 333) course. In this post, I will be analyzing two forms of self report scales: the Likert Scales and Semantic Differential Scales. Self Report scales are explicit methods of measuring attitudes (Gass, 2014). This means that a respondent of the scale is directly asked about their attitudes and they are conscious of the ‘social measurements’ being made about them. For either type of scale, social desirability bias remains a potential (and probable) source of misconstrued data. Since many people tend to want others to believe they are ‘normal’ (Gass, 2014).
Likert Scales measure a person’s attitude, in response to specific statements. The responses to these statements are averaged out to expose a person’s attitude (Gass, 2014). If given two statements, “The original Star Wars was better than the new trilogy.” and “The original Clash of the Titans was better than the remake.” a responder could agree with both statements. The average of these responses could infer that the respondent appreciates older movies. Likert Scales are most commonly seen as part of satisfaction surveys. ODU Students are very familiar with these, as they are asked to give feedback on instructors every semester. All statements may respond with 1 out of 5 levels of agreement from strongly agree to strongly disagree. While this does give varied data that isn’t simply black and white, the scale doesn’t expose reasoning for all of the grey area. A respondent may respond with ‘Agree’, but why not ‘Strongly Agree’?
Semantic Differential Scales are similar in giving varying levels of agreement, but is presented differently. However, they are based on connotations and characteristics of specific things rather than statements (Gass, 2014). This comes from the levels of agreement with opposing characteristics rather than agreement itself. For instance, if the subject of the scale was a set of guitar strings and the opposing characteristics were “loud” and “quiet”, a respondent could qualify how loud they think the strings are. Semmantic Differential Scales are easily manifested through opinion surveys in gauging attitudes. Similarly to Likert Scales, the scale itself does not qualify the difference in answers.
In regards to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, the execution of each scale easily undergoes central processing. Preipheral processing may be utilized when a respondent qualifies how polar their answer will be, but falls on central processing to make a decision (Lietzenmeyer, 2017). This gives way for a mixed level of parallel processing when utilizing an explicit scale. Involvement can be heavily influenced by the environment that these scales are utilized. For ODU students, if a professor simply wants a survey completed, the student may skim through the survey for the sake of extra credit. If scales were utilized in a personality test, high involvement may come into play for the respondent to attain the most socially acceptable personality type.
As far as the Theory of Reasoned Action is concerned, these scales may bring to light a person’s inner attitudes to themselves for the first time. Usually a result of some sort follows a survey test, in which a person evaluates themselves through this perceived result (subjective morn component). This could lead to a change in intentions and behaviors (Lietzenmeyer, 2017).
Analyzing these explicit measurement methods has allowed me to better understand the Likert and Semantic Differential Scales. Social bias and involvement have also allowed me to better qualify these practices within the umbrella of social persuasion. I now know the logic and rational for the constant surveys ODU asks for every semester.
References
Lietzenmeyer, A. (2016). Attitudes. Retrieved from http://ple1.odu.edu/courses/201620/comm333/modules/3/1/2
Gass, R. and Seiter, J. (2014). Persuasion, Social Influence and Compliance Gaining (5th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
