Analysis: Attitude-Measuring Scales

This blog post is for COMM 333 Persuasion class. I will be analyzing two attitude scales—Likert and visually-oriented—and critically assessing them by sharing the benefits of the scales in measuring attitudes, instances when they are beneficial, and my main criticism of each.

Likert Scales

The Likert scale is the most commonly seen attitude-measuring scale. It consists of a statement with five points (answers) from which to choose:

“Wonder Woman should be on the twenty-dollar bill”

___ strongly agree

___ agree

___ neutral/no opinion

___ disagree

___ strongly disagree

The benefits of Likert scales are that they are simple to construct and easy to administer. A situation when the scale would be beneficial is after one has conducted a training session—the instructor can quickly and easily receive feedback on the content and delivery of the presentation. This allows for amendments in future presentations if necessary.

A disadvantage draws from the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion. Those with high involvement (perhaps someone hoping for a raise or promotion) will be more likely to use central processing and put more thought into the answers. One with low involvement (one who is planning on quitting, or simply isn’t interested in the topic, for instance,) will revert to peripheral processing and be lax in thought about the answers (Gass & Seiter, 2016, p. 36).

The main criticism I have is that answers are not always anonymous, but should be. If the one being measured knows he or she can be identified, social desirability could come in to play. In the example of the training session, the one taking the survey could be a subordinate of the one presenting. If there is identifying information on the scale, he or she may not be as honest in answering due to fear of how the presenter (their boss) would perceive the response.

Visually-Oriented Scales

The visually-oriented scale presents a concept of one’s attitude:

These scales are advantageous when there are language barriers or literacy issues. For example, students who are intellectually disabled, developmentally delayed, or have apraxia of speech are generally better able to use this type scale as opposed to the Likert. It is especially beneficial for the teacher or parent so he or she will know how to respond appropriately. Choices can relate to pain levels, contentment levels, or even used in general conversation to encourage engagement and hone social skills.

The main criticism I have of the visually-oriented scale is that motivation is not known. According to Gass & Seiter (2016), the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) considers attitude toward the behavior, belief and evaluation about the outcome, and subjective norm (p.p. 51-52). In the example of students, what is the child’s belief about what will happen if he or she performs the behavior? Perhaps the student knows if “hurts worse” is chosen, he or she can go home early. Maybe the opposite happens—the student’s subjective norm prevents honesty because he or she fears disappointing a teacher or parent. Does the student believe he or she is expected to stay in class and is motivated to comply?

I’ve worked with children who have special needs for twenty-five years, and I’ve found the visually-oriented scales are not only beneficial to the one administering it, but to the one taking it because it helps the student understand his or her feelings. When words are out of grasp, pictures fill that gap. The visually-oriented scales are often the bridge in communication and the key in removing the barriers.

Reflection

In administering surveys, each person has his or her own opinion on the “gold standard” and mine is the Likert scale. I never have a place on the surveys for names or other identifying information, which helps ensure honest answers. This diminishes the motivation to comply; therefore, worrying about what relevant others would think is a non-issue. Early in my career, I had a problem with the Likert scale option of “neutral/no opinion.” The whole point of administering the survey was to get opinions and measure attitudes, and when the middle option was chosen, it indicated to me a lazy survey-taker. However, I did my research, replayed presentations, and surmised that when “neutral” was chosen, it was often concerning a rote topic. I amended the presentations and amazingly received fewer “neutrals” in subsequent seminars. Where I used to despise that middle-of-the-road option, I now see it as a signal to reassess parts of my presentations.

Reference

Gass, R. H., & Seiter, J. S. (2016). Persuasion: Social influence and compliance

gaining. New York, NY: Routledge.