For my class on Persuasion (COMM 333), I have been asked to analyze 2 of 3 distinct types of attitude scales. I have chosen to critically assess Likert and Visually Oriented Self Report scales. Likert scales can be recognized as a typical survey ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Once the survey is completed, “ a respondent’s attitude is represented by the average of his or her responses to all the statements in the scale” (Gass & Sieter, 2014). Visually Oriented Self Report scales usually use a series of images depicting facial expressions representing degrees of favorability between two emotional extremes.
Likert Scale
The Likert scale is beneficial in measuring attitudes because it is very direct in its questioning. Generally, individuals should be able to gauge relatively easily the degree in which they agree or disagree with a specific statement. However, with the Likert scale, they are free to also acknowledge when they feel indifferent toward or do not have a strong stance on a topic by selecting the option of “neutral”, “no opinion”, or “neither disagree or agree”. In theory, this should alleviate any pressure on the respondent to have an absolute stance on any given statement. This is a beneficial in measuring attitudes because it can avoid social desirability bias or non-attitudes from affecting the data.
What I mean by social desirability bias is that respondents can sometimes feel persuaded to “exhibit what they perceive to be socially acceptable norms of conduct” (Gass & Sieter, 2014). This generally happens when a respondent knows they are being watched or judged. That’s why Likert models that are completely anonymously are generally the most successful because there is no pressure to choose “correct” degrees of favorability. As for non-attitudes, which are when people make up responses as to not “appear uninformed or unintelligent” (Gass & Sieter, 2014), the Likert model generally avoids this because it allows respondents to say that they have “no opinion” when they are unsure about their attitude toward a subject.
Visually Oriented Self Report Scale
The Visually Oriented Self Report scale is beneficial because it is a universal way of understanding an individual’s emotional attitude toward an issue or topic. For the most part, nonverbal behavior is easily recognized and decoded, so this scale is most beneficial for individuals who cannot verbalize their attitudes. The visualization element allows respondents to "conceptualize their attitudes because they can ‘see’ where their attitude fit on the scale or continuum” (Gass & Sieter, 2014). The most common example of this scale are the pain scales often seen in children’s hospitals or pediatric offices. It can be difficult for children, nonverbal individuals, and those with trauma to explain what their attitudes are so using a scale like this acts as their “voice” when they cannot directly communicate.
Criticisms
My main criticism of both these attitude scales is that they are dependent on subjective interpretation. For the Likert scale, its very likely that two or more respondents will have very different understandings of what it means to “strongly agree” versus “agree”. This can create a discrepancy within the data, as not everyone is responding based on an objective and universal understanding of what it means to feel a degree of favorability. This is the same for the Visually Oriented Self Report, especially when it comes to pain scales. Everyone processes pain differently, so depending on generic expressions can create false understanding of what the respondent’s attitudes really are.
In a way, they both go against the Theory of Reasoned Action, which “assumes that people are rational decision makers who make use of all the information available to them” (Gass & Sieter, 2014). Respondents can as easily look at the scales and rely on their own subjective understandings of the responses to answer. As well, because elaboration on responses is not required, it is more likely individuals will peripherally process the survey through the use of mental shortcuts and reflexive responses, as depicted in the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Gass & Sieter, 2014).
Reflection
This assignment really helped me to break down the importance and influence of different styles of attitude scales. It’s made me aware of how unreliable these scales can be in revealing true attitudes. A number of factors, such as if the respondents are being watched while answering or if respondents feel pressured to answer in specific ways, can create bias or misinformation in the collected data. That’s why it’s important to be critical about the information we receive from others and the ways we consciously and unconsciously persuade others during interactions.
References
Gass, R.H, Sieter, J.S. (2014). Persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining. Pearson.