Factor Structure on the Semantic Differential as a Function of Method of Analysis

Abstract

Researchers and critics of the semantic differential technique have recently cautioned about the problem of concept-scale interaction. The present study compared the factor structures obtained when the same data were factor analyzed in several ways: (a) for the total sample and by sex for collapsed concepts and (b) by individual concept for the total sample, by sex, and for internal and external locus of control groups. Three concepts (HURRICANE, MY CITY, and MYSELF) were analyzed which yielded 18 factor matrices. The semantic differential instrument was composed of 19 scales purporting to measure the dimensions of Evaluation, Potency, and Activity. In 16 of the 18 factor matrices, four of the five scales (fair-unfair, friendly-unfriendly, good-bad, and pleasant-unpleasant) expected to measure Evaluation had loadings of 1.301 or higher on Factor I. There was moderate consistency in scales which comprised the Potency dimension for several of the 18 analyses. There was little, if any, consistency in scale composition for the Activity dimension. If these findings can be generalized to other populations and concepts, it appears that the method of analysis, whether by concept or by population, is relatively unimportant for the Evaluation dimension (Factor I), but very important for other "meaning" dimensions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Burns, R. The concept-scale interaction problem: A trap for the unwary on the semantic differential . Educational Studies, 1976, 2, 121-127.

Bynner, J. and Romney, D. A method for overcoming the problem of concept-scale interaction in semantic differential research. British Journal of Psychology, 1972, 63, 229-234.

Gulliksen, H. How to make meaning more meaningful . Journal of Contemporary Psychology, 1958, 3, 115-119.

Heaps, R. A. Use of the semantic differential technique in research: Some precautions . Journal of Psychology, 1972, 80, 121-125.

Heise, D. Some methodological issues in semantic differential research . Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 406-422.

Helper, M. M. Comparison of pictorial and verbal semantic scales as used by children . Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1970, 117, 149-156.

Jones, M. Personal communication, March 1978.

Klemmack, D. L. and Ballweg, J. A. Concept-scale interaction with the semantic differential technique. Journal of Psychology, 1973, 84, 345-352.

Naylor, F. D. The characteristics of semantic space in a sample of young children . Australian Journal of Psychology, 1971, 23, 161-165.

10.

Nowicki, S., Jr. and Strickland, B. R. A locus of control scale for children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 148-154.

11.

Osgood, C. E. , Suci, G. J. , and Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957.

12.

Presly, A. S. Concept-scale interaction in the semantic differential and its implications for factor scores . British Journal of Psychology, 1969, 60, 109-113.

13.

Richmond, B. O. and White, W. F. Sociometric predictors of the self concept among fifth and sixth grade children. Journal of Educational Research, 1971, 64, 425-429.

14.

Rybolt, G. A. A factorial analysis of the semantic structures of retarded adolescents . American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1968, 72, 512-517.

15.

Schludermann, S. and Schludermann, E. A comparative factorial analysis of semantic structures in monolingual Indian and American school children. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1969, 23, 79-92.

16.

White, W. F. and Porter, T. L. Multivariate analysis of attitudes and personality characteristics among 60 youthful offenders. Psychological Reports, 1970, 26, 487-491.

17.

Williams, W. S. A semantic differential study of the meaning of personality test items of children from different socioeconomic groups . Journal of Psychology, 1971, 79, 179-188.