Validation of non-verbal rating scales of semantic differential

 
Audio is AI-generated
17

Abstract

Context and relevance. In the context of professionalization of the subject (choice of profession, professional motivation, decision-making, etc.), an important diagnostic aspect is the assessment of the basis of motivation of human behavior, that is, the structure and content of the value space of his consciousness. This makes the development of non-verbal diagnostic techniques relevant. Objective. Development of a tool for assessing the significance of the diagnostic object by creating polar figurative (graphic) oppositions for the semantic differential, used when comparing assessments of the emotional significance of symbolic objects corresponding to stimulus verbal concepts. Materials and methods. Stages: 1) practicing the scales of the author's technique of the semantic differential of non-verbal (SD NN); 2) checking the reliability of the scales in comparison with the scales of the verbal semantic differential of Ch. Osgood; 3) checking the reliability of the scales in comparison with the scales of Ch. Osgood's semantic differential in the analysis of the sign-symbolic space. Subjects: 217 people aged 19 to 42, psychologists, professionals and students. At the first stage — 61 professional psychologists with work experience. At the second stage — 78 psychology students. At the third stage — 78 psychology students. Methods: 1) the author's technique of the semantic differential of non-verbal (SD ND); 2) Semantic Differential (SD) by Ch. Osgood; 3) the method of expert assessments; 4) the author's technique of studying personal meanings. Statistical methods: Pearson correlation analysis, Student's t-criterion. Results: 1) in the author's technique (SD ND), verbal oppositions and objects of analysis from SD by Ch. Osgood were replaced with pictures of the corresponding content; 2) seven-scale forms were developed, with the help of which respondents carried out an emotional assessment of stimulus objects. The stimulus objects were phrases denoting certain semantic and value positions, as well as signs (symbols) corresponding to these positions; 3) the correlation analysis showed an adequate relationship between the method of Ch. Osgood and the non-verbal semantic differential at the level of p < 0,001. Conclusions. It is recommended to use the non-verbal semantic differential in the context of solving motivational and professional problems (assessment of employee motivation, career guidance choice, monitoring the interests and values ​​of personnel, etc.) when working with personnel.

General Information

Keywords: semantic differential, visual oppositions, correlation analysis, symbols (signs), word and image, expert method, Euclidean metric, non-verbal semantic differential, reliability of the method, symbolic stimulus material

Journal rubric: Methodological Tools

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2025020306

Received 17.04.2025

Revised 03.05.2025

Accepted

Published

For citation: Noss, I.N. (2025). Validation of non-verbal rating scales of semantic differential. Extreme Psychology and Personal Safety, 2(3), 97–111. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2025020306

© Noss I.N., 2025

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

References

  1. Березина, Т.Н. (2024). Оценка предрасположенности к небезопасному поведению: стандартизация методики. Экстремальная психология и безопасность личности, 1(4), 65—78. https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2024010405
    Berezina, T.N. (2024). Assessing Predisposition to Unsafe Behavior: Standardization of the Methodology. Extreme Psychology and Personal Safety, 1(4), 65—78. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2024010405
  2. Лосев, А.Ф. (1995). Проблема символа и реалистическое искусство. М.: Искусство.
    Losev, A.F. (1995). The problem of symbol and realistic art. Moscow: Art (In Russ.).
  3. Кочкина, С.П. (2024). Стандартизация методики по изучению причин склонности ко лжи лиц юношеского возраста. Экстремальная психология и безопасность личности. 1(4), 79—91. https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2024010406
    Kochkina, S.P. (2024). Standardization of the Methodology to Study the Causes of the Propensity to Lie of Adolescent Individuals. Extreme Psychology and Personal Safety, 1(4), 79—91. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2024010406
  4. Носс, И.Н., Бородина, Т.И. (2023). Экспериментальная апробация методики исследования личностных смыслов. Человеческий капитал, 11(179), 156—167 https://doi.org/10.25629/HC.2023.11.16
    Noss, I.N., Borodina, T.I. (2023). Experimental testing of the methodology for studying personal meanings. Human Capital, 11(179), 156—167. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.25629/HC.2023.11.16
  5. Носс, И.Н. (2024). Влияние способа и инструмента измерения интеллекта на оценку динамики когнитивных функций работников. Экстремальная психология и безопасность личности, 1(1), 5—14. https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2024010101
    Noss, I.N. (2024). The Influence of the Method and Instrument of Measuring Intelligence on the Assessment of the Dynamics of Cognitive Functions of Employees. Extreme Psychology and Personal Safety, 1(1), 5—14. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2024010101
  6. О̕′Коннелл, М., Эйри, Р. (2008). Знаки и символы. Иллюстрированная энциклопедия. М.: Эксмо.
    O'Connell, M., Airey, R. (2008). Signs and Symbols. Illustrated Encyclopedia. Moscow: Eksmo. (In Russ.).
  7. Павлова, Г.Г. (2025). Модификация и стандартизация личностного опросника для определения типа акцентуаций К. Леонгарда, Г. Шмишека. Экстремальная психология и безопасность личности, 2(1), 106—122. https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2025020108
    Pavlova, G.G. (2025). Modification and standardization of the personality questionnaire for determining the type of accents by K. Leonhard, G. Shmishek. Extreme Psychology and Personal Safety, 2(1), 106—122. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2025020108
  8. Петренко, В.Ф. (1988). Психосемантика сознания. М.: МГУ.
    Petrenko, V.F. (1988). Psychosemantics of consciousness. Moscow: Moscow State University. (In Russ.).
  9. Пиаже, Ж. (1969). Избранные психологические труды. М.: Просвещение.
    Piaget J. (1969). Selected psychological works. Moscow: Education. (In Russ.).
  10. Поздняков, В.М. (2024). О разработке современной модели обеспечения информационно-психологической безопасности. Экстремальная психология и безопасность личности. 1(1), 44—58. https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2024010105
    Pozdnyakov, V.M. (2024). On the Development of a Modern Model for Ensuring Information and Psychological Security. Extreme Psychology and Personal Safety, 1(1), 44 —58. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2024010105
  11. Стернин, И.А., Розенфельд, М.Я. (2008). Слово и образ. Воронеж: Истоки.
    Sternin, I.A., Rosenfeld, M.Ya. (2008). Word and image. Voronezh: Origins. (In Russ.).
  12. Финогенова, Т.А. (2025). Стандартизация «Анкеты угроз психологической безопасности». Экстремальная психология и безопасность личности. 2(1), 89—105. https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2025020107
    Finogenova, T.A. (2025). Standardization of the “Questionnaire of Threats to Psychological Safety”. Extreme Psychology and Personal Safety, 2(1), 89—105. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/epps.2025020107
  13. Чернейко, Л.О. (2023). Метод невербального семантического дифференциала в изучении ассоциативного поля понятий. Всероссийская с международным участием конференция: МКО-2023. М.: МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова.
    Cherneyko, L.O. (2023). The method of non-verbal semantic differential in the study of the associative field of concepts. All-Russian conference with international participation: MKO-2023. Moscow: Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov. (In Russ.).
  14. Юнг, К. (2021). Человек и его символы. М.: Профит-Стайл.
    Jung, K. (2021). Man and His Symbols. Moscow: Profit-Style. (In Russ.).
  15. Bentler, P.M., LaVoie, A.L. (1972). An extension of semantic space. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(2), 174—182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80074-4
  16. James, L. (2015). The Affect of Symbols: Creating the Graphic Differential Through Synesthesia and Metaphor. Journal of Psychology & Clinical Psychiatry, 3(6):0017, 1—12. https://doi.org/10.15406/jpcpy.2015.03.00173
  17. Osgood, Ch. (1962). Studies on generality of affective meaning system. American Psychologist, 17(1), 10—28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045146
  18. Osgood, Ch.E., Suci, G.J., Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, Univ. of Illinois Press.
  19. Paivio A. (1971). Imagery and Verbal Processes. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Information About the Authors

Igor N. Noss, Doctor of Psychology, Professor of the Department of General Psychology, Russian State University for the Humanities, Professor, Leading Research Associate of Laboratory of the Psychohygiene and Psychoprophylaxis, "V. Serbsky Nathional Medical Research Centre for Psychiatry and Narcology" of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4474-7053, e-mail: Innoss2007@yandex.ru

Contribution of the authors

I.N. Noss completed the entire scope of work. 

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Metrics

 Web Views

Whole time: 87
Previous month: 30
Current month: 3

 PDF Downloads

Whole time: 17
Previous month: 1
Current month: 0

 Total

Whole time: 104
Previous month: 31
Current month: 3