Critical Analysis of Attitude Measurement Scales (COMM 333)

This blog post is for COMM 333 and I will be discussing 2 of 3 types of scales used to measure attitudes. The 3 types of scales that our book discusses are likert scales, semantic differential scales, and visually oriented scales. I have decided to discuss the likert scale and the semantic differential scale. The reasons I chose these are because I’m more familiar with them. The likert scale usually consists of a series of statements relating toward an attitude object and then followed by a 5 point scale usually ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree (Gass & Seiter, 2014).” Whereas the semantic differential scale measures attitude by using descriptive words that people use on a daily basis. Basically the scale consists of negative vs. positive answers (Gass & Seiter, 2014). For example nervous-relaxed, dirty-clean, or ugly-pretty. Through this blog I will discuss the good and the bad about each scale. I will also discuss how ELM & TRA effect the results of these scales.

The first scale I will be discussing will be the likert scale. The likert scale is a very well known scale used in surveys. This scale is easily understood by most and never asks the participant to answer with a direct answer like, yes or no. This survey helps the participants take aside without making them feel like they have been forced to. The likert scale is also widely accepted in various fields which include academia and government to name a few (Lietzenmayer, 2016). Some of the benefits of a likert scale are that it’s quick and easy. Another reason is that people feel comfortable using it.

The second scale I choose was the semantic differential scale. The semantic scale measures the participants perceptive of what their objective norms will be (Lietzenmayer, 2016). While the likert scale is based on 5 points this is based on 7. The semantic scale benefits from measuring the attitudes toward different concepts with different groups. The groups can vary from age, race, or even sex. This scale is very easy to use and provides decent quantitative data that can easily be collected.

Although both these scales benefit from being easy to use and collect data fairly easy, they do have their flaws. Let’s say that you are taking a survey in front of the person that is giving it to you. Would you feel pressured in answering the way you think they want you to answer, probably so. Some people may not understand how the scale works, while others may just put anything down just to finish it. Since I discussed how persuasion can come into affect with these types of scales I would like to talk about Theory of Reason Action (TRA) and Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). TRA can predict and persuade how individuals will behave based on attitudes that they have used in the past. TRA is also based on a person’s beliefs and perception of what’s normal could easily affect their outcome. ELM uses up to three different processes to come to a conclusion. They are central, peripheral, and parallel processing (Lietzenmayer, 2016). These process can be used to persuade an individual on what to choose. The central requires some thinking power and relies on cognitive elaboration. The peripheral route is based on instincts and shortcuts. Finally, the parallel uses both (Lietzenmayer, 2016).

I’ve never really looked at attitude they way this class has taught me. I’ve always thought these scales where based on more of a decision making skill not attitude. Now knowing that a person’s attitude and perception have a big influence on the results makes me look back at past results of test that I’ve personal done on people. Last year I did a Likert scale for a class based on cyberbullying and gave the survey to the participants while I was in the room. So with them knowing that I would know what their answer were more than likely persuaded them to answer the way they thought I wanted them to answer. In conclusion I feel like that research was compromised based on the TRA model. However, now I know that I need to take a different approach.

Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (2014). Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining. London: Routledge.

Lietzenmayer, A. (2016, February 4). Attitudes. Retrieved from Attitudes: http://ple1.odu.edu/courses/201520/comm333/modules/3/1/1