ePorfolio Part 2

This blog is written for the COMM 333 class on Persuasion. The objective of this assignment is to conduct critical analysis of two attitude measurement scales covered in Chapter 3 and Module 3. I chose to discuss the Likert scale and semantic differential scale.

The two scales are quick and easy self-report tools that involve inquiring respondents about their attitudes toward some object. Since the respondents are aware about their attitudes being measured, these scales “are considered to be explicit measures” (Gass & Seiter, 2016).

A Likert scale is a widely accepted evaluation system that measures attitudes toward an object on a 5-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” A semantic differential scale, on the other hand, is a 7-point system that is based on connotative meanings of words where the extreme ends of the scale represent opposite notions, such as “excellent” and “poor” or “very likely” and “very unlikely,” which allows to adjust the scale to specific audiences for better evaluation results. Both scales are popular and widely used, but a semantic differential scale is a more flexible and in-depth attitude measurement tool than a Likert scale.

According to the Course Material, the benefit of a Likert scale in measuring attitudes is that it is a standardized, quick assessment tool that is easy to construct, administer. It is accepted in a wide variety of fields, such as academia, government, and business. The scale is useful when attitudes toward an object need to be quickly measured, e.g. in a workshop or seminar evaluation. However, a Likert scale has its limitations. Whereas the scale is easy to design and administer, it does not always provide an accurate measurement due to such pitfalls inherent in any self-report assessment as social desirability bias, non-attitude, mindfulness, and acquiescence bias. These biases influence the responses to questionnaires for which reason the scale does not always accurately reflect attitudes.

A semantic differential scale provides more data than a Likert scale as it is based on connotative meanings of words, involves opposite pairs of evaluative adjectives, and have more scoring points. It allows for a better assessment of personal perspectives of people. However, adjective pairs need to be selected very carefully in order for the tool to provide a meaningful measurement of attitudes. Again, as with the Likert scale, the semantic differential scale is not free from social desirability bias, non-attitude, mindfulness, and acquiescence bias affecting evaluation choices of respondents.

The effectiveness of the two scales can be tested or even improved using the elaboration likelihood model and the theory of reasoned action.

According to Gass and Seiter (2016), the elaboration likelihood model allows to reinforce attitudes by making them form through the central processing route which ensures a greater involvement of the receiver and, therefore, more focused and motivated responses as opposed to the peripheral processing route when the receiver of persuasion messages forms attitudes based on indirect cues.

The theory of reasoned action “does a good job of accounting for the role of attitudes and intentions on behavior” (Gass & Seiter, 2016). It assumes that people make decisions based on rational processing of information; therefore, by affecting the responders’ beliefs and motivations, it is possible to reinforce their personal perspectives and ensure a more accurate assessment of their attitudes.

The two theories help recognize and overcome various pitfalls inherent in self-report attitude measurement scales such as social desirability bias, non-attitude, mindfulness, and acquiescence bias that influence responses to questions on the scales.

The discussion of the attitude measurement scales in this module has helped me understand the strengths and weaknesses of these two popular assessment tools and how their pitfalls can be addressed. Now, if I ever need to construct either of the scales I will make sure to utilize the elaboration likelihood model and the theory of reasoned actions to reinforce the evaluation potential of the scales by ensuring a greater involvement and motivation of the respondents.

Works Cited

Gass, R.: Seiter, J. (2016). Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining. Routledge. Print.