Analyzing Attitude Scales: Likert and Semantic Differential

If you have ever taken an online survey, you have probably seen a question like Strongly disagree to Strongly agree or maybe one that asks you to choose between words like useful and useless. Those are examples of attitude scales, tools researchers use to measure what people think and feel. For COMM 333: Persuasion, we have been studying three of the most common ones: the Likert, Semantic Differential, and Visually Oriented scales. In this post, I will focus on two of them, the Likert and Semantic Differential, and look at how they work, where they are useful, and where they fall short.

What Are These Scales?

The Likert scale is the classic agreement scale. You have probably answered one before, rating your agreement with a statement on a scale from 1 to 5 or 1 to 7. For example: I believe social media has a positive impact on society. Respondents can go from strongly disagree to strongly agree. It is simple, easy to understand, and turns opinions into numbers researchers can work with (Gass & Seiter, 2022).

The Semantic Differential scale looks a little different. Instead of rating agreement, participants place something on a continuum between opposite adjectives. For instance, if you are asked about public speaking, you might rate it between exciting and boring or useful and useless. This scale captures more of the emotional associations someone has with a topic (Gass & Seiter, 2022).

Benefits and Criticisms

The Likert scale’s biggest strength is its simplicity. People can answer quickly, and researchers can easily calculate averages or compare groups. A workplace survey about a new policy, for example, might rely on Likert items because they give straightforward, easy-to-analyze data. But the Likert scale is not perfect. People often avoid the extreme ends and stick with the middle, called central tendency bias, or they give the answer they think they should give instead of what they really think, called social desirability bias.

The Semantic Differential scale shines when you want more nuance. It reveals how people feel, not just whether they agree. For example, asking about climate change policies on a scale like hopeful to hopeless can highlight the emotional undertones behind support. The drawback is that it depends heavily on the adjective pairs chosen. If the pairs are vague, confusing, or irrelevant, the data will not mean much. It is also a little trickier to analyze compared to Likert results.

Connecting to Persuasion Theories

When we bring in the Elaboration Likelihood Model, the differences between these scales become even clearer. The Likert scale connects more to central route processing, where people think carefully and logically about a message. The Semantic Differential often taps into the peripheral route, since it brings out emotional reactions or quick impressions.

The Theory of Reasoned Action also helps explain why both scales matter. TRA says that attitudes, along with social norms, shape behavioral intentions. Likert questions like I intend to recycle regularly directly measure those attitudes that lead to intentions. Semantic Differential questions like Recycling is responsible to irresponsible can reflect the social pressures or emotional framing that also shape behavior. Together, both scales give us a fuller picture of how attitudes and intentions connect.

Reflection

Writing this blog made me realize how much thought goes into something as simple as a survey question. Attitude scales are not just about asking people what they think, they are about asking it in a way that produces useful insights. The Likert scale is great when you want clear, easy-to-interpret results, but the Semantic Differential adds depth by capturing emotional tones.

Connecting them to persuasion theory showed me that attitudes are both rational and emotional. The Elaboration Likelihood Model explains why some people process surveys logically while others respond more emotionally, and the Theory of Reasoned Action shows how those responses can predict future behavior. Going forward, I think I will be more aware of the types of questions being asked in research, or even in casual polls, and how the format might shape the answers.

References

Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (2022). Persuasion: Social influence and compliance gaining (7th ed.). Routledge.