Blog Post for COMM 333 – Attitude Scale Assessment

In COMM 333: Persuasion, we have studied several methods for measuring attitudes, each designed to capture how people feel, think, or react toward objects, issues, or ideas. This blog post focuses on two commonly used attitude scales: the Likert Scale and the Semantic Differential Scale. Both are widely applied in communication and social science research, yet they approach the measurement of attitudes differently. The Likert Scale captures degrees of agreement or disagreement with statements, while the Semantic Differential Scale measures attitudes through bipolar adjective pairs. By analyzing their strengths, weaknesses, and connections to persuasion theories such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), we can better understand how these scales help researchers and practitioners assess human attitudes.

Critical Assessment

Likert Scale

The Likert Scale typically presents a series of statements about a topic and asks respondents to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement on a multi-point scale (e.g., strongly agree to strongly disagree).

• Benefits: This scale is straightforward, easy to administer, and provides quantifiable data that can be used in both academic and applied research. For example, a university might use a Likert Scale to measure student satisfaction with campus dining, where students rate their agreement with statements like “The dining hall offers healthy options.”

• Criticisms: One major criticism is that responses may be influenced by acquiescence bias (tendency to agree with statements regardless of actual belief) or central tendency bias (choosing the middle option to avoid extremes). Additionally, it assumes attitudes can be evenly measured along a linear continuum, which may oversimplify complex feelings.

  
  

Semantic Differential Scale

The Semantic Differential Scale, developed by Osgood et al. (1957), uses bipolar adjectives (e.g., good–bad, strong–weak, exciting–boring) to measure attitudes toward an object or concept. Respondents mark their position between the two opposing adjectives, often on a 7-point scale.

• Benefits: This scale captures the multidimensional nature of attitudes, allowing researchers to measure affective meaning more richly than a single agree/disagree continuum. For example, a company could use it to assess brand image by asking consumers to rate the brand across adjective pairs like “reliable–unreliable” or “innovative–traditional.”

• Criticisms: Semantic differential items can be culturally sensitive, as certain adjective pairs may not have the same meaning across populations. Additionally, it requires careful construction of adjective pairs to avoid confusion or overlap, which can make it harder to design than a Likert Scale.

Theoretical Application

Using ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), we can see how receiver involvement influences the effectiveness of these scales.

• For a Likert Scale, individuals who process messages through the central route (high involvement, careful consideration) may provide more thoughtful and accurate responses. However, for those processing via the peripheral route (low involvement, surface-level cues), responses may be less reliable and more influenced by social desirability.

• For a Semantic Differential Scale, the scale taps into more affective judgments, which may align with peripheral-route processing when emotions or impressions matter more than rational thought. Still, high-involvement respondents may use the adjective pairs to carefully evaluate nuanced meanings.

Using TRA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), both scales connect to how attitudes influence behavioral intentions. For instance, a Likert Scale about recycling (“I believe recycling is important”) could predict whether someone intends to recycle. Meanwhile, a Semantic Differential Scale (“Recycling is… useful–useless; convenient–inconvenient”) highlights how beliefs and evaluations influence intention formation. Both scales, however, remain subject to social desirability bias, as participants may tailor their answers to align with perceived norms rather than their true feelings.

Reflection

Completing this analysis deepened my understanding of how researchers measure attitudes and the strengths and limitations each method brings. The Likert Scale offers simplicity and broad usability, but its risk of response bias means results must be interpreted with caution. The Semantic Differential Scale provides richer data on affective meaning but is more difficult to design and administer effectively.

From a communication perspective, linking these tools to persuasion theories like ELM and TRA highlights how attitude measurement is not just about numbers—it connects to how people process information, form intentions, and ultimately behave. Going forward, I will be more critical and intentional when I encounter attitude scales in both academic and real-world contexts, considering not only the design of the scale but also the theoretical implications behind the responses.

References

• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

• Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. University of Illinois Press.

• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer.