The use of symbolic representations of concepts is explored in the context of their inherent, associative meaning. Several symbol sets in military use were evaluated using two scaling techniques, ratings and pair comparisons. Findings validate a model of symbol categorization proposed by Modley (1966) and provide implications for the use of ratings vs. pair-comparisons in evaluating symbols.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CollinsB.L.The Development and Evaluation of Effective Symbol Signs, NBS Building Science Series 141, Washington, D.C., May, 1982.
2.
DewarR.E.EllsJ.G.The Semantic Differential as as Index of Traffic Sign Perception and Comprehension, Human Factors, 1977, 19, 183–189.
3.
EarlW.K.Learning and Recognition of US, US, Soviet, and Pictographic Military Symbology, US Army Research Institute Research Report, 1982.
4.
EasterbyR.S.HakielS.R.Safety labelling of consumer products: shapes, and color code stereotypes in the design of signs;field studies of sign recognition, Birmingham, England: Applied Psychology Department, University of Aston, AP Report 75, Dec., 1977.
5.
GreenP.PewR.W.Evaluating pictographic symbols: An automative application, Human Factors, 1978, 20, 103–114.
6.
GuilfordJ.P.Psychometric Methods, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.
7.
KnappB.G.Symbol Sourcebook for Military Applications, US Army Research Institute Research Product, in press, 1984.
8.
LernerN.D.CollinsB.L.The assessment of safety symbol and understandability by different testing methods, Washington, D.C.: National Bureau of Standards, 1980.
9.
Mackett-StoutJ.DewarR.E.Evaluation of public information signs, Human Factors, 1981, 23, 139–151.
10.
MeadM.ModleyR.Communication among all people, everywhere, Natural History, 1968, 77, 56–63.
11.
ModleyR.Graphic symbols for worldwide communication, in: KepesG., (Ed.) Sign, image and symbol, New York, NY: George Braziller, 1966, 108–125.
12.
ThurstoneL.L.The method of paired comparisons for social values, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1927, 21, 384–400.
