Evaluating Scales

In my class, COMM333, I have been closely studying persuasion and its effect on attitudes and behavior, and a direct, efficient way to measure this is by analyzing self-reporting scales. Among the most commonly used are the Likert scale, the semantic differential scale, and visually orientated scales, with the Likert and semantic differential being especially favored in academic research (Gass & Seiter, 2022). For my analysis, I will focus on the Likert and visually oriented scales, which both focus on different approaches to attitude measurements. The Likert scale presents a series of statements, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”, while visually oriented scales measure off images of facial expressions, helping the user conceptualize their feelings through visuals (Gass & Seiter, 2022).

Likert scales are one of the most widely used scales among a diverse range of fields. They are simple to formulate, administer, and many people are familiar with their format. Because of this wide range of use, this gives the scale adaptability and acceptance across populations such as academia and government (Gass & Seiter, 2022). Additionally, Likert scales may be beneficial to individuals who are willing to self-report but prefer not to disclose extensive amounts of personal information beyond “agree” and “disagree”. Since these scales do not require write-in answers or descriptive wording, they may give a greater sense of anonymity and encourage higher response rates. However, this same benefit may also be a limitation. If users struggle to find an answer that fully resonates with their beliefs, then they may opt for neutral answers on the scale, resulting in inadequate data.

Visually oriented scales are advantageous because they are simple and accessible in design; their range of facial expressions allow users to conceptualize their attitudes, making feelings easier to “see” and express (Gass & Seiter, 2022). These scales may be especially useful because they can be used to measure attitudes across a diverse range of audiences. Because they rely on images rather than words, they remove language barriers and may work well for children. However, similar to the Likert scale, the strength of the visually oriented scales may also be where its limitation lies. While facial expressions make the scale simple and adaptable, they also would not allow the user depth to explain their attitude. Consequently, responses may only yield shallow impressions, such as feeling “good” or “bad” without providing underlying context to the feeling.  

When using theory to look at Likert and visually oriented scales, there are several that are well known and respected in persuasion research. One of the most referenced theories is the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) (Gass & Seiter, 2022). ELM proposes two cognitive processing routes, the central route, which involves careful consideration and planning, and the peripheral route, which consists of visual cues and quick decisions. While individual motivation and context always influence which route is used, Likert scales may generally prompt central route processing, as users are asked to engage with a series of statements. Conversely, visually oriented scales fit more into the peripheral route, as they display simple, visual cues that encourage low involvement decision-making (Gass & Seiter, 2022). Another helpful persuasion theory, the theory of reasoned action (TRA), provides a model which shapes how people form their intentions around their attitudes and perception of others’ beliefs, ultimately predicting their behavior (Gass & Seiter, 2022). Likert scales may more closely align with the core concepts of TRA, as their design could more clearly capture a user’s intention than visually oriented scales, which may not provide the same depth of context or reason.

Finally, the social desirability bias may also be a helpful lens when examining both the Likert and visually oriented scales. For the Likert scale, the social desirability bias can be a significant limitation, especially when measuring sensitive topics such as political or environmental attitudes. If users have reason to believe that their answers are not anonymous or feel any social pressure, then they may answer according to what they believe their attitudes “should” be rather than what they truly are (Gass & Seiter, 2022). While the social desirability bias may show up less frequently in visually oriented scales due to their lack of formal wording, social pressures may still affect responses. Positive or “happy” expressions could be perceived as the more acceptable choice on these scales, and the user may feel pressured to choose what is acceptable.

Moving forward, I believe I’ll approach self-reporting scales with a greater awareness of both their limitations as well as my own. It’s easy to overlook the complexity behind something familiar until you take the time to examine it through an unfamiliar lens, becoming curious about how it really works. This analysis has prompted me to care more deeply, not just about the scales, but also about the role they play in measuring attitudes and aiding research. I believe it is similar to the elaboration likelihood model, now that I’ve engaged critically with course material, I’m more highly involved and processing it centrally and meaningfully. It’s given me a deeper appreciation for attitudes, the scales, and persuasion, which I continue to look forward to studying this semester.

Works Cited

Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (2022). Persuasion: Social influence and Compliance Gaining. Routledge.