Construction of a semantic differential of the company's enterprise profile. Semantic differentials

The name of the method “semantic differential” (Greek s?mantikos - denoting and Latin differentia - difference) came to psychology from the technical sciences. A differential is a device that performs the transfer function of torque (for example, in a car). “Semantic” means belonging to the semantic characteristics of speech.

Semantic differential (SD) is a technology that allows you to translate a respondent’s reactions to a certain stimulus into an evaluative, subjective attitude towards an object, phenomenon, or event that is associated with this sign.

For example, the respondent is asked to evaluate his attitude towards the word “house”. It is likely that the respondent will have an associative series associated with his personal attitude and life experience. These can be such characteristics as: “beautiful”, “stone”, “where parents live” - these meanings can be called objective (denotative). But meanings can also be subjective (connotative). So, for example, respondents can give the following characteristics: “delicious”, “cheerful”, “childhood”, “love” or “empty”, “sadness”, “cold” - all of them are purely subjective, associated either with positive or with negative associations when evaluating the word “home”.

The mechanism that explains these associations is called synesthesia. Synesthesia is the ability of a person to think by analogy, when a stimulus of one modality provokes the occurrence of sensations of another modality. For example, the expressions “warm heart”, “flexible mind”, “will of steel”, “sour face”, “stony face” are associated with sensations of a certain modality (visual, gustatory, etc.), we perceive them allegorically, produce them metaphorically transfer to the subject being assessed. For example, consider the expression “will of steel.” Will, as a psychological characteristic of a person, cannot be steel in the literal sense of the word. However, we have memories of the tactile modality: steel can be hard, cold, unbending, indestructible, and we transfer these characteristics associated with the tactile modality to the concept of “will”. That is, we mean that the will is as strong as steel.

Charles Osgood was the first to use this human property to measure attitude stereotypes in social psychology. He believed that it was possible to measure the connotative meaning of a word, and for this he proposed a special seven-point scale. Attitudes towards measured objects (for example, a house) can be placed on a continuum from the positive pole to the negative (for example, cheerful - sad, kind - angry) and measured in semantic space.

Thus, not only the emotional attitude of the respondent to the measured object is revealed, but also the strength and intensity of this attitude.

The method of semantic differential refers to projective methods, since the connotative meaning of the evaluated object is associated with personal meaning, stereotypes that are emotionally rich, poorly structured and little conscious.

The procedure for conducting an experiment using this technique is as follows. The subjects are presented with a concept, and they must mark the number that corresponds to their idea of ​​the concept as a semantic unit on a scale indicated by adjectives - antonyms.

In the classic version of the semantic differential, there are 7 divisions on each scale: from zero to +3 in the positive continuum and from zero to –3 in the negative. In table 10 shows the semantic differential scales.

Table 10

Semantic differential (SD) scales by C. Osgood

In C. Osgood's research, concepts from different conceptual groups were scaled, then using factor analysis, three main factors were identified: “assessment”, “strength” and “activity”.

The rating scales include the following: nasty - pleasant, light - dark, etc. The scales of the "strength" factor: weak - strong, relaxed - tense, etc. The “activity” factor is formed by such scales as active - passive, fast - slow, etc.

Charles Osgood noted that, at their core, adjectives are antonyms that form the poles of scales and are essentially evaluative, so the evaluation factor is the most significant compared to the factors of activity and strength, so the last two cannot always be distinguished.

The universal semantic space can either shrink (turn into one or two-factor) or expand.

For example, Bentler and Lavoie expanded the universal semantic space, highlighting a number of additional factors “density”, “orderliness”, “reality”, etc.

A change in the number of factors, both downward and upward, characterizes the private semantic differential. Private SD is understood as a procedure based on respondents’ assessments of individual conceptual groups. Particular SD retains the signs of Charles Osgood’s universal semantic dimension, but without signs of a stable three-factor structure (“assessment” - “strength” - “activity”)

For example, when Charles Osgood scaled political concepts, a distortion of the universal factor structure occurred and three factors merged into a single one, which can be described as “benevolent dynamism - evil impotence.”

One of the modifications of private SD is the personal semantic differential. Its distinctive feature is that the scales are represented by adjectives denoting personal characteristics.

Research by A.G. Shmeleva showed that it is impossible to talk about the universality of the personal differential, since the semantic space depends on many factors (demographic characteristics of respondents, the specifics of the stimulus material, etc.), so each time the personal semantic space is unique.

The semantic differential can be used as an independent method for studying social attitudes, personal meanings and attitudes of respondents. The method is also widely used as a pilot study to determine the semantic load
concepts being studied.

N.V. Rodionova notes: “The semantic differential is useful where it is required to quantitatively describe the individual, subjective attitude of the subject to any aspects of his environment or inner world. Unlike most personality tests, the semantic differential does not measure the expression of certain personality traits specified by the testing procedure; this method, on the contrary, is capable of giving a meaningful picture of the inner world of the individual, her relationships to herself, other people, significant aspects of the environment, and to various social values.”

Study of young people's ideas about family using semantic differential

An example of the use of semantic differential is the study of the ideas of boys and girls about the parental and future family of O.V. Almazova, V.P. Dzukaeva, T.Yu. Sadovnikova (2013–2014).

Respondents were offered a set of scales with which they had to evaluate their parents’ family and their future married family. Respondents were offered adjectives - antonyms: “weak - strong”, “heavy - light”, “passive - active”, “cold - warm”, “soft - hard”, “smooth - rough”, “simple - complex”, “ wet – dry”, “ordinary – festive”. The subjects had to choose the most suitable one from each pair of adjectives and rate its severity: 0 points - difficult to answer, 1 - slight severity, 2 - moderate severity, 3 - strong severity.

The data obtained allowed the authors to draw interesting conclusions. Respondents describe their parental family as “strong”, “soft”, “warm”. The subjects give the following characteristics to their future family: “strong”, “light”, “active”, “warm”, “soft”, “festive”, “smooth”. Thus, young people attribute more positive characteristics to their future family; its image is somewhat idealized compared to their parents.

The authors identified gender differences; they relate, first of all, to the image of the future married family. Young men most often choose adjectives: “strong”, “active”, “warm”, “wet”. When evaluating the image of “My future family,” girls use the adjectives “strong,” “light,” “active,” “warm,” “soft,” “smooth,” and “festive.” That is, girls use more characteristics that are considered to be more emotional, feminine, and boys use characteristics that are traditionally considered masculine. The girls' responses showed a greater number of positive assessments; for them, important characteristics of a married family are adjectives that can be interpreted as an orientation towards psychotherapy and a positive emotional climate in the family.

Thus, the semantic differential allows us to measure the connotative meaning of a particular conceptual unit that reflects a particular object (phenomenon) of the environment associated with emotions, personal meaning, and human experience.

Questions for self-monitoring of students' knowledge

1. Explain what the connotative and denotative meaning of a word means.

2. Expand the concept of synesthesia. How is it related to the semantic differential?

3. What is a universal semantic space?

4. Name the factors of Charles Osgood’s universal semantic differential.

5. How does a particular semantic differential differ from a universal one?

6. What is the specificity of the personal semantic differential?

1. Baranova, T. S. Psychosemantic methods in sociology. – M.: Sociology, 1994. – No. 3-4. – pp. 55-56.

2. Petrenko V.F., Mitina O.A., Psychosemantic analysis of the dynamics of public consciousness (based on materials of political mentality). – Smolensk: SSU Publishing House, 1997. – P. 55-64.

3. Prokhorov, A.O. Semantic spaces of mental states // Psychological journal. – 2001. – No. 2. – P. 14-26.

4. Rodionova, N.V. Semantic differential // Sociology 4M. – 1996. – No. 7. – P. 160-183.

5. Shmelev, A.G. Introduction to experimental psychosemantics: theoretical and methodological foundations and psychodiagnostic capabilities. – M.: MSU, 1983 – 158 p.

6. Osgood C., Tannenbaum P., Suci G. The measurement of meaning. Urbana., 1957.

One of the most widely used techniques of this type is the so-called “semantic differential” (C. Osgood, 1952). This is essentially not one, but a whole family of methods, a whole technology. In working with children, it can be used to study the level of formation and integrity of the child’s ideas about the world (cognitive diagnostics), and as a projective technique - for studying the personal attitudes and emotional relationships of the child to a certain range of objects.

The usual “semantic differential” (SD) is several seven-point scales printed horizontally on one form (answer sheet). The seven gradations are usually designated in words, just like the poles of the scale. Here is an example of a form:

Object "SUN"

ACTIVE strongly moderately weakly not at all weakly moderately strongly PASSIVE

EVIL strongly moderately weakly not at all weakly moderately strongly KIND

SOFT strongly medium weak not at all weak medium strong HARD

LIGHT strongly moderately weakly not at all weakly moderately strongly HEAVY

COLD very moderately weak not at all weak moderately strongly WARM

The subject's task is to record his assessment in the form of an assignment to a certain pole of the scale with a certain gradation. The selected gradation must either be underlined on the form or circled. Thus, each line of the form must contain a mark indicating the test subject’s answer.

As we see, in comparison with the Dembo-Rubinstein technique, the “semantic differential” is more perfect in that it is protected from the so-called “positional tactics”. Here, positively colored characteristics are placed not at the same pole of each scale (at the top), but at different ones - sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right.

As a result of filling out the SD form on the response sheet, a subjective semantic profile of the scaled object appears. It is easier to see if you connect all the marks with a single broken line.

When processing SD results, two approaches are possible: either analyze only profiles, or build a so-called “semantic space”.

Let us explain how you can act in the first case. Let’s say we are conducting SD for the purpose of career guidance consultation and asking a high school student to list the names of various professions that, as it turns out from a conversation with him, are potentially attractive to him. But which is the most attractive of them? To answer this question, the student is asked to scale, in addition to the names of specific professions, also a special ideal object - “the best profession for me.” After this, a comparison is made of all the profiles of real professions and the profile of an ideal profession (we will omit here the formula for calculating the measure of similarities; the main thing here is to understand the general meaning of the method). And that real profession, the profile of which reveals more similarities with the “ideal” one, is declared as a result the best subjective choice.

[Note. It is clear that for different subjects this choice may be different, not only due to divergent ideas about real professions, but also due to differences in the profile of the ideal profession: some strive more for the “strong” (or, as in modern youth slang, “cool”) activities, others - to complex and interesting, others - to calm and kind, etc.].

“To build a “semantic space”, scale ratings are combined on related scales included in the same coordinate (factor) of the semantic space. As shown by numerous factor-analytic studies of foreign and domestic psychologists (K. A. Artemyeva, 1980, E. F. Petrenko, 1979, 1988, A. M. Etkind, 1U79, L. G. Shmelev, 1983 and others), most rating scales are combined into three summary rating scales: “good - bad”, “strong - weak”, “active - passive”. For example, ratings on the “soft-hard” scale turn out to be psychologically equivalent to ratings on a 4-good-bad scale, and ratings on the “hard-light” scale are actually close to ratings on the “strong-weak” scale. As a result of such recalculation (very similar to calculating the total score on a test, but only in this case not for the subject, but for the object), each object receives a value for three main semantic factors and can be displayed geometrically as a point in the three-dimensional space Score-Strength -Activity". The similarity of profiles is the proximity of certain points in the semantic space; it can literally be seen (visualized).

Using this example, the professions of “pilot” and “traffic police inspector” that are closest to the ideal of the considered professions for the subject are called “pilot” and “traffic police inspector”. After that, it remains to find out whether the subject has real professionally important qualities in order to qualify for mastery of these professions.

We especially note that SD is also used to diagnose self-esteem. It is enough to ask the child to evaluate himself on the same set of scales. As a result, the point “I” appears in the semantic space. The degree of removal of this point from the “ideal” - a measure of self-dissatisfaction.

Let us emphasize once again that for the successful use of SD, the material that the child scales must be age-appropriate to his range of interests, otherwise the child will simply put a more or less random pattern of marks on the form.

With primary schoolchildren and preschoolers, it is better to carry out SD in an individual and oral form, that is, all marks on the form should be entered by the experimenter himself - based on the child’s oral answers. It is better to use fairy-tale or cartoon characters as material (objects for evaluation). “Special research by V.F. Petrenko has shown the high effectiveness of this material in working with children. A special modification of SD allows fairy-tale characters to denote poles of scales rather than objects. In this case, parents, friends and teachers will be compared by the child with certain fairy-tale characters.”

Specific problems and difficulties of family identification or school adaptation can manifest themselves in SD as in any projective technique. For example, an unloved older sister may be close in semantic space to “Baba Yaga,” and the head teacher, whom the child is simply afraid of, may be close to some kind of “killer robot.”

Examples of instructions Report structure Semantic differential. Description.

Note source: . Survey // Social psychology. Workshop: Proc. manual for university students / Ed.

Semantic differential can be defined as a method quantitative And quality indexing values. What does it mean?

According to C. Osgood, the semantic differential (SD) method allows you to measure the states that arise between the perception of stimulus-irritant and meaningful work with them. Connotative points to something subjective, individual and value-based, is opposed to denotative - objective, interpersonal, cognitive.

Let us also recall that SD is one of ordinal scale options. According to the classification of S. Stevens, scales are divided into non-metric (nominal and ordinal) and metric (interval and ratio). Being a method of experimental semantics, SD, along with other methods (for example, associative experiment, subjective scaling) is used to construct subjective semantic spaces, is widely used in sociology, general and social psychology. Appeal to it in psychological research justified, when it comes, for example, to emotional attitude of the individual to certain objects, stereotypes, social representations, social categorization, attitudes are studied, value orientations, subjective personal meaning are considered, and implicit theories of personality are identified. SD is classified as a method case study, because it allows insight into the unique context of an individual’s life.

SD procedure

The method was developed by a group of American researchers led by Charles Osgood, who considered it as a combination of controlled association and scaling procedures. For differentiation it is proposed concept (a number of concepts), as well as a set of bipolar scales specified by adjectives. The respondent must evaluate the differentiated object on each of the proposed bipolar seven-point scales. In response to the word, the respondent has a certain reaction that reveals a certain similarity with the behavioral reaction, a kind of readiness for behavior, something mediating behavior. Associations of the respondent with the stimulus guided by specified bipolar scales.

Functions these scales are as follows: firstly, they help verbalize the reaction to one stimulus or another; secondly, they contribute concentration on certain properties of this stimulus that are of interest to the study; finally, with their help, it becomes possible to compare the assessments given by different respondents to different objects. Let's pay attention to the fact of use bipolar scales for assessing the object of interest to us. This is a simple and cost-effective way to obtain information about human reactions.

The idea of ​​using bipolar scales dates back to early research on synesthesia conducted by Osgood with T. Karwoski and G. Odbert. Osgood proposes to understand synesthesia as a phenomenon characterizing the experience of individual individuals in which certain sensations belonging to one sense or modality are combined with certain sensations of another modality and occur whenever stimulus arises, corresponding to another modality (it is worth recalling, for example, the synesthesia of A. Scriabin, V. Kandinsky, V. Nabokov).

In studies of synesthesia, Charles Osgood looked for connections between synesthesia, on the one hand, and thinking and language, on the other. The results of experimental work, supported by an analysis of facts from cultural anthropology, led to the conclusion that the images found in synesthesia are closely related to metaphors of language, and all this represents semantic relations. Metaphor in language, as well as music-color synesthesia, can be described "as the parallel alignment of two or more dimensions of experience", which are defined by pairs of opposite adjectives. It is the appeal to the mechanisms of synesthesia that makes it possible to explain metaphorical transfers in statements such as “ sour face", « dark personality".

Some bipolar scales have been used to identify social stereotype profiles. Respondents in several samples were asked to rate such objects as pacifist, Russian, dictator, and neutrality on bipolar scales. During World War II, researchers documented a change in the structure of social stereotypes (or, as Charles Osgood writes, a change in the meanings of social signs) since the United States entered the war.

It also turned out that when assessing objects, bipolar scales (decent - dishonest, high - low, kind - evil, helpful - useless, Christian - anti-Christian, honest - dishonest) revealed a high correlation - 0.9 and higher, becoming an assessment factor.

The scales (strong - weak, realistic - unrealistic, happy - unhappy) did not show correlations with rating scales, which allowed the researchers to talk about existence of other dimensions of semantic space.

Semantic differentiation, according to Osgood, presupposes consistent location of a concept in a multidimensional semantic space by choosing one or another value between the poles on the scales.

The difference in the meanings of two concepts is a function of the multidimensional distance between two points corresponding to these concepts.

The scales proposed for assessing objects and the instructions may look like this (see example and instructions in paragraph 3 of this present document. document) .

The use of such a scale makes it possible to directly measure an individual’s reaction, i.e., to identify a qualitative parameter (in this case, choose between “good” or “bad”), as well as to determine the intensity of this reaction (from low to high severity).

The scales are presented in random order, i.e., scales of one factor should not be grouped into blocks. The poles of the scales should not create in the respondent an attitude that the left pole always corresponds to a negative quality, and the right pole always corresponds to a positive quality.

Space compression and factors :

Evaluation factor combined the scales bad - good, beautiful - ugly, sweet - sour, clean - dirty, tasty - tasteless, useful - useless, kind - evil, pleasant - unpleasant, sweet - bitter, cheerful - sad, divine - secular, pleasant - unpleasant, fragrant - smelly, honest - dishonest, fair - unfair.

Strength factor : big - small, strong - weak, heavy - light, thick - thin.

Activity factor : fast - slow, active - passive, hot - cold, sharp - blunt, round - angular. The evaluation factor played a major role in this study; it explained 68.6% of the total variance, while the remaining factors accounted for 15.5 and 12.7%.

These three independent factors were obtained in numerous studies conducted in different cultures, among subjects with different levels of education, on the material of various objects (concepts, as well as stories and poems, social roles and stereotypes, images, colors, sounds, etc.)

However, the procedure factor analysis is not the only way analysis of data obtained using method C also offers a formula by which to calculate distance between scaling objects, i.e. two points in semantic space. After all, scalable objects can be represented in the form semantic profiles

When scaling narrow set of concepts occurs transformation of three-dimensional space“assessment - strength - activity”, i.e. independent orthogonal factors cease to be such.

For example : C. Osgood asked respondents to evaluate 20 concepts: 10 politicians (including R. Taft, W. Churchill, I. Stalin, G. Truman, D. Eisenhower) and 10 other realities (US policy in China, socialism, state price control, the use of the atomic bomb, the UN, etc.) on 10 bipolar scales (among which: wise - stupid, clean - dirty, dangerous - safe, unfair - fair, strong - weak, idealistic - realistic, etc.). As a result, instead of the three-dimensional space “assessment - strength - activity”, a one-dimensional continuum with poles ≪ benevolent dynamism ≫ and ≪malicious impotence≫.

SD as a way to measure attitudes .

Let us consider studies in which the SD method was used to study attitudes. Let us pay special attention to how data obtained using SD is analyzed. In the work of Charles Osgood, devoted to the study of attitudes towards representatives of different races, respondents (white and black students) were asked to evaluate a number of concepts (including concepts indicating race) on 12 bipolar scales (6 scales on the factor “evaluation ", 3 scales for the factor "strength", 3 for the factor "activity"). After calculating the average values ​​for each concept on the scales of three factors and calculating the semantic distances between the scaled concepts for different groups of subjects, it turned out that white respondents have positive attitudes towards those who belong to the Caucasian race, less positive - towards representatives of other races.

An analogy was also observed in the assessments of colors by this group of respondents. The ratings changed interestingly concept of "person" "depending on the adjective, denoting color. For white respondents, the adjective dominates the noun, and “the connotative meaning of the concept of a black person is rather black man, not black Human". Black respondents gave similar color ratings. White received the most positive assessment, then yellow, red, and finally brown and black. However, concepts indicating racial identity were assessed differently by this group. The concept denoting a representative of the Negroid race received the most positive assessment, and the least positive assessment - a representative of the Caucasian race. For white students, the concept “Caucasian” showed greater similarity with the concept “citizen” rather than with the concept “foreigner”, “friend” rather than “enemy”; in the case of the concept “representative of a race” the similarity was the opposite: it was more similar to the concept of “foreigner”, and not “citizen”, with the concept of “enemy”, and not “friend”. For this group of respondents, the concept of “person” is most similar to the concept of “representative of the Caucasian race” and least similar to the concept of “representative of the Negroid race”. In the group of black respondents, the opposite results were obtained.

Now let's stop at limitations of this method . Its main limitation is that we are dealing with declared verbal reaction of the respondent. The placement of stimuli in semantic space turns out to be distorted under the influence, for example, of social desirability or other mechanisms of this kind. To overcome this drawback, you can use modifications of the SD method, for example, non-verbal SD, in which the effect of conscious correction of evaluative reactions is reduced.

Let's imagine that you are conducting a study, as a result of which you want to compare men's and women's ideas about a successful woman. The logic of your research should be built as follows:

STAGE 1: It is necessary to conduct an initial survey of subjects. A sample instruction might read as follows: “Name 10 (15 or whatever number you need) characteristics that describe a successful woman.

If you compare the views of men and women, then you need to interview the SAME number of both men and women at the first stage.

STAGE 2:

A. for each group of subjects: men and women SEPARATELY you counting the number of all mentioned characteristics. For example, “kind - 7 (occurs 7 times), beautiful - 9 (occurs 9 times), etc. After you have calculated the characteristics for men and women, you need to compare the data between groups.

B. As a result you should get list of characteristics, which are most often found in two groups of subjects: men and women. FREQUENCY characteristics are those that are found in more than 50% of questionnaires (that is, if at least half of your subjects mentioned any characteristic, it should be considered frequent). The bar for assessing the “frequency” of a trait can vary from 80% to 30% depending on the characteristics obtained. If none of your characteristics scores more than 30%, then further construction of a private SD differential is pointless. You must either add respondents or conduct an analysis of the concepts you are asking to describe.

IN. To the resulting list of characteristics, it is necessary choose antonyms. For example, you received the characteristics: kind, smart, rich, etc. Each characteristic should receive an antonym: KIND - EVIL, SMART - STUPID, RICH - POOR. It is best to select antonyms using an antonym dictionary!!!

The resulting pairs of qualities will serve as scales for evaluation. Scales can be 5-point or 7-point (rarely 9-point or 11-point):. For example:

Good 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Evil

Smart 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Stupid

Rich 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Poor, etc.

Don't forget : mix the poles of the scales (so as not to create settings)

determine for yourself the poles of each scale, i.e. assign “internal” numerical values ​​that the respondent will not know, only you (for subsequent interpretation)

STAGE 3.

A. Drawing up instructions for the SD and selecting those concepts that respondents will evaluate (for example, “successful woman”, “unsuccessful woman”, “woman”, women of various professions, etc.). There can be one or several objects, depending on the purpose and topic of the study.

Additional note: if SD is a separate study, then this questionnaire must also meet the requirements applicable to the questionnaire. That is, contain: a greeting, a legend, instructions, the SD itself, a passport, Gratitude.

B. Survey of subjects using the received questionnaire. The subjects must be DIFFERENT than at the first stage.

STAGE 4: Processing of received data.

A. Entering the obtained estimates into the table. Treatments using factor analysis.

B. Determine the required number of factors. Select factors according to the obtained factor loadings.

IN. Give the factors meaningful names and psychological interpretation.

see separate file (“SD_options_instructions”)

see separate file (“Survey_report_structure”)

Each researcher can create his own scale, but it is hardly worth doing this. It is better to choose a scale from among standard scales that are original in the sense that they have their own name, are widely used, and are included in the most commonly used system of scales. They are also called original. Next, four discrete rating scales are considered: Likert, semantic differential, graphic rating and Stepel, as well as a constant sum scale and a ranking scale.

Likert scale based on choosing the degree of agreement or disagreement with some specific statement. In fact, one pole of this essentially bipolar ordinal scale is formulated, which is much simpler than naming both poles. The formulation of the statement may correspond to the ideal level of some parameter of the object. When characterizing a higher educational institution, one can consider its following properties: qualified teaching staff, equipped classrooms with technical means, modernity and regularity of updating training courses, availability e-leming in educational technologies, level of culture, image and reputation, student population and many others. The wording of the statements could be as follows: the teaching staff of this university is very qualified; the university has a very high level of use of modern teaching aids; this university educates students seeking knowledge; graduates of this university are highly valued in the labor market.

When using a Likert scale, five gradations are usually considered. An example of using a Likert scale in a questionnaire is shown in Fig. 8.1. In other words, the questions are formulated in a Likert scale format. The respondent is asked to tick one of five boxes.

Rice. 8.1.

In this case, the quantitative assessment itself is not required from the respondent, although more often points can be immediately given next to the names of the gradations. As can be seen from Fig. 8.1, the degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement made can have the following gradations: strongly disagree (1 point), disagree (2 points), neutral (3 points), agree (4 points), definitely agree (5 points). Here in brackets is the most commonly used option for digitizing the scale. It is also possible that a higher score (5 points) corresponds to the “strongly disagree” gradation.

Semantic differential and graphic rating scale

Semantic differential scale presupposes the presence of two polar semantic meanings (antonyms) or antonymic positions, between which there is an odd number of gradations. In this sense, the scale is bipolar. As a rule, seven gradations are considered. The middle position (middle gradation) is considered neutral. Digitization of scale gradations can be unipolar, for example in the form "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7", or bipolar, for example in the form "-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3".

Usually the poles of the scales are specified verbally (verbal). Examples of scales with two poles are as follows: “calming – invigorating” or “compact – voluminous”. Along with verbal semantic differentials, non-verbal semantic differentials have been developed that use graphic images as poles.

Examples of verbal semantic differentials are given in Fig. 8.2.

Rice. 8.2.

The semantic differential resembles a Likert scale, but has the following differences: 1) both polar statements are formulated instead of one; 2) instead of the names of intermediate gradations, a sequential graphical arrangement of an odd number of gradations located between the extreme values ​​​​"good - bad" is given.

Semantic differential method (from Greek. sematicos – denoting and lat. differentia difference) was proposed by the American psychologist Charles Osgood in 1952 and is used in studies related to human perception and behavior, with the analysis of social attitudes and personal meanings, in psychology and sociology, in the theory of mass communications and advertising, and in marketing.

Can be considered as an analogue of the semantic differential scale. The rating scale is implemented in such a way that each property is associated with a line, the ends of which correspond to polar statements, for example: “not important” and “very important”, “good” and “bad” (Fig. 8.3).

Rice. 8.3.

The fundamental difference between the compared scales is that the semantic differential is a discrete scale, and, as a rule, it has seven gradations, and the graphic rating scale is continuous.

• Thus, when characterizing the exterior of certain car brands, they sometimes say that it is characterized by brutality. There are also simpler examples - ergonomics and controllability, when it is difficult to meaningfully name the second pole.

B. P. Gromovik, A. D. Gasyuk,
L. A. Moroz, N. I. Chukhrai

Using the semantic differential in marketing research

Lviv State Medical University named after. Danil Galitsky
State University "Lviv Polytechnic"

In modern conditions, the need for marketing information is constantly growing, and marketing managers feel a lack of reliable, relevant and comprehensive data. To solve this problem, pharmaceutical enterprises must create a system for collecting the necessary marketing information - a marketing information system.

There are four main subsystems for collecting, processing, analyzing and researching marketing information, namely:

If external and internal information systematically accumulated in a marketing information system through market monitoring turns out to be insufficient, there is a need to conduct special studies of various marketing problems.

The marketing research process takes place in several stages (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. Market research process

At the first stage, it is necessary to determine the subject of research and goals, which must be clearly defined and realistic.

The objectives of the study may be:

There are two types of marketing information collected during the research process:

Research mainly begins with the collection of secondary information. This stage is called “desk” research. Secondary information can be collected from internal and external sources.

In most cases, marketing research, after processing and analyzing secondary information, proceeds to collecting primary data, which requires careful preparation. The plan for collecting information should primarily determine the research method. The most used research methods are presented in Fig. 2.

Rice. 2. Methods for collecting primary information

Observation is an analytical method with which the researcher studies the behavior of consumers, sales personnel; sometimes he acts as a participant in events (active observation).

A survey involves finding out people’s positions, their views on certain problems based on their answers to pre-prepared questions.

One type of survey is an in-depth interview, which is used to study consumer behavior and his reaction to the design or advertising of a product.

If market research is insufficient, it is necessary to:

Most often used:

1. trade panel (especially retail panel);
2. consumer panel (end consumers or consumer organizations).

Experiment - a method with which you can study (find out) the reaction of the studied group of people to certain factors or their changes. The experiment aims to establish cause-and-effect relationships between the variables under study by testing a working hypothesis.

Imitation - a method based on the use of computers and the study of relationships between various marketing variables using appropriate mathematical models, rather than in real conditions. It is used quite rarely.

The most common method is the survey, which is used by about 90% of market research.

As a rule, a common tool for collecting primary data is a questionnaire. When developing questionnaires, two types of questions are used: open and closed. An open-ended question gives the respondent the opportunity to answer in their own words. The answers to them are more informative, but they are more difficult to process.

A closed question contains possible answer options and the respondent chooses one of them. The forms of closed questions can be different. The most common are alternative questions (assuming “yes” and “no” answers) and questions with selective answers. Quite often, researchers use various scales, in particular:

The stages of marketing research using semantic differential are presented in Fig. 3.

Rice. 3. Stages of marketing research using semantic differential

At the first stage, it is necessary to select a comparison base, i.e., a competitor’s product that contains the greatest threat to the enterprise under study and is the most representative on the market. Next, the consumer characteristics of this product category that are most important for the target group of consumers under study are determined, and a system for assessing these characteristics is selected. After this, a questionnaire is developed to build a semantic differential. The next stage is a survey of consumer respondents, i.e., their construction of semantic differential curves, guided by the perception of the characteristics of the product under study, the basic competitor product and the hypothetical ideal product. Marketing research is completed by constructing average curves based on consumer opinions and analyzing each consumer characteristic of the products being studied.

As an example, we chose the “Magic of Herbs” shampoo as an object of marketing research, produced by the Nikolaev Pharmaceutical Factory and JV LLC “Magic of Herbs”. The comparison base was Elseve shampoo produced by the French company L'oreal.

These products were examined according to 10 consumer characteristics, which were assessed on a 10-point scale (table). Respondents rated each item on the questionnaire with a corresponding score for the “Magic of Herbs”, “Elseve” shampoo and the ideal shampoo that they would like to purchase.

Table. Semantic differential of consumer characteristics of “Magic of Herbs”, “Elseve” shampoos and ideal shampoo

Based on the data obtained, average profiles of three curves were constructed, which reflect the average subjective perception of consumer characteristics of the products under study and the vision of the ideal shampoo.

Analyzing the curves (table), it should be noted that the studied shampoo “Magic of Herbs” satisfies target consumers according to the following characteristics: pleasant smell; effect of purity and silky shine; relatively well-known brand of product and the presence of natural ingredients; price (lower than Elseve shampoo).

At the same time, consumers are not entirely satisfied with the packaging of the Magic of Herbs shampoo, in particular, its design and convenience, as well as the lack of conditioner. Therefore, we can recommend that the manufacturer pay more attention to improving packaging and combining shampoo with other components (conditioner, keratides, etc.). Attention should be paid to the availability of sufficient quantities of shampoo in the retail network as a factor in the availability of its purchase.

Thus, the use of semantic differential in marketing research provides a thorough and visual differentiation of the characteristics of the compared products. In addition, it helps to identify the needs of different categories of consumers before choosing a product’s place on the market, since the consumer perceives any product as a set of certain characteristics and, depending on their optimal set, gives preference to one product over another.

Literature

1. Kovalenko M. // Business Inform. - 1997. - No. 1. - P. 59–62.
2. Kutsachenko E. //Business.- 1999.- No. 31 (342).- P. 40–41.
3. Mnushko Z. M., Dikhtyarova N. M. Management and marketing in pharmacy. Part II. Marketing in Pharmacy: Pidr. for pharma universities and faculties / Ed. Z. M. Mnushko. - Kharkiv: Osnova, UkrFA, 1999.- P. 237–241.
4. Starostina A. O. Marketing research. Practical aspect - K.; M.; SPb: View. house "Williams", 1998.- 262 p.