语义微分的定义
语义差异是指对概念或对象进行主观评价,通过对相对的形容词进行标度来研究概念或对象的内涵意义的一种测量方法。例如,汽车的第一级含义是交通工具;汽车的第二层含义也可以是它作为身份象征的价值。语义差异是用来衡量这些第二层次的,换句话说,一个对象的内涵意义。语义差异主要用于衡量对社会和非社会对象的态度,但也用于评估人与人之间互动的质量和类型。该方法由查尔斯·奥斯古德(Charles Osgood)在20世纪50年代发明,在心理学内外都得到了广泛应用。
语义差异通常由20至30个双极额定尺度组成(即,判断判断目标对象或概念的每一侧的形容词的形容词锚定。判断的基础并非如此的对象和双极尺度的形容词锚点的基础(因为它可能不会透过我们的汽车示例和坚固的温冷形容词对,但是相反,物体的隐喻或内涵接近和双极尺度的锚。例如,在隐喻或内涵水平上,一辆家庭车可能会被判断为温暖,而送货卡车可能被判断为较冷。在两种情况下是一种充足的运输装置,表示意义,即第一手含义可能非常相似。
语义微分背景
社会心理学家,而且市场研究人员或公共民意调查,往往是主观感兴趣的(比如,有些隐藏和不同个人之间)的定义,这意味着一个对象或概念超越了仅仅是残忍的事实,以及在某一群人的态度关于某个对象或概念。
Meaning can be divided into four different dimensions: structural (a possible higher-level similarity to other objects, e.g., a sports car and a truck are different, but structurally similar because they are both means of transportation), contextual (depending on the current context, e.g., a truck serves as a transportation device, but can also be an vintage car later on), denotative (objective, brute facts of the car, such as horsepower), and connotative (more metaphoric, second-level associations). Osgood was particularly interested in this fourth dimension of meaning. His scaling method was meant to measure individual differences in the connotation of a word describing an object or a concept.
语义差异的构造和使用
实际的问卷由一组双相量表组成,每个量表的两端都有对比鲜明的形容词。刻度上的位置可以编号或标记。注意中立的中间位置通常用零标记,其他位置用数字在两个方向上相等地增加。因此,每个尺度都衡量了一个反应的方向性(例如,好与坏)和它的强度(从中性到轻微到极端)。在大多数情况下,使用通用形容词对是因为可以翻译成多种语言。除了通用的语义差异,形容词对的对象或概念特定集可以使用。对于后者,在构建各自的语义差异时必须非常小心,以避免出现问题(在下一节中概述)。对于普遍的语义差异,跨文化比较显示,三个基本的反应维度解释了大部分的协变。这三个维度被标注为“评价、效能和活动”(EPA),构成待判断目标的语义空间(即一组描述性属性)。一些形容词对是维度的直接度量(例如,好与坏用于评价,强与弱用于效能,快与慢用于活动); others rather indirectly relate to the single dimensions of the EPA structure. Given the research conducted, for each new case meaning of the scales should not just be inferred from previous results. Dimensionality should be checked so that scales that do not represent a unidimensional factor are not summed up.
数据分析
乍一看,语义差异数据的分析似乎很容易,但实际上,这是一个相当复杂的过程。仅仅对每个个体的量表评分进行平均,并对判断的对象或概念使用平均差异是不够的。事实上,必须确定潜在的因素结构,并计算轮廓之间的相似性的相关性。语义差异的数据包含三个层次或模式:目标对象或概念、尺度本身和响应个体。因此,在进行因子分析之前,需要将这些三模态数据分解为两模态结构。这可以通过对每一个人和比额表的指标求和或对每一比额表概念组合的个人平均来实现。同样,可以单独处理目标对象,同样也可以单独处理个体。最后,每个单独的目标对象-概念响应可以转移到一个新的矩阵中,并可以计算尺度间的相关性。请注意,不同的折叠模式的方法可以产生相当不同的相关模式。
原始语义差异目前很少在社会心理学中使用(但广泛在该领域之外)。然而,社会心理学的许多相关的测量方法受其影响。例如,在其基本尺寸的竞争力或温暖的几乎每个刻板印象评级都遵循原始概念的想法。使用原始概念并非没有陷阱和问题。这尤其至关重要,因为社会心理学之外的许多研究人员都不知道这些问题。First, the method is partly self-contradictory: For some words (in this case, the concepts to be measured), people’s connotations are assumed to differ, but for other words (in this case the adjectives used as endpoints of the single scales), this assumption should not hold. Second, scales may be relevant to the target objects or concepts to a different degree. These concept-scale interactions are to be treated carefully by determining the structure of the dimensions by using a factor analysis instead of the blind adoption of the EPA structure. Third, a number of problems arise during the administration itself. For some individuals, judging objects on the given scales is hard because the adjective pairs seem unrelated to the target object. In addition, respondents may give socially desirable answers, or can develop a so-called response set, meaning that they would consistently give moderate or very extreme answers. Some of these problems can be overcome by anonymity of the respondents, inclusion of irrelevant target words to disguise the true purpose of the semantic differential, or by checking for response sets. Finally, some problems with the semantic differential arise from a thoughtless use, administration of the method, and analysis of its data. Not every set of bipolar scales and given adjective pairs constitute a semantic differential. The underlying dimensions and possible overlap of the adjective pairs are not assessed in many cases and consequences resulting from it are ignored.
语义差异可以为对象或概念的内涵提供信息和经济的衡量。但是,用户应该充分意识到方法的复杂性,并仔细反映其价值。
参考:
- Heise, d.r.(1970)。语义差异与态度研究。在G. F. Summers(编辑),态度测量(235-253页)。芝加哥:兰德麦克纳利。
- Osgood, c.e., sui, g.j., & Tannenbaum, P. H.(1957)。意义的测量。伊利诺伊大学出版社。