More than E, P and a in Semantic Differential Scales

Abstract

The present study demonstrates the separation of affective and denotative meaning systems in the semantic space by a new factor analytic technique. The data used were collected in Brazil and Hungary following standard pan‐cultural procedures (Osgood et al., 1975) for semantic differential ratings on 100 heterogeneous concepts against 60 indigenous scales elicited from teen‐age males in the respective language/culture communities. Results from both cultures provided evidence for dominance of affective Evaluation, Potency and Activity (E, P, A) in the indigenous factor structures. The dimensions in the “other” (Denotation) space, orthogonal to Affect, are also clearly interpretable affect‐free semantic features of concepts. The simultaneous salience of these two semantic systems for most scales highlights the importance of cultural meanings of scales for each indigenous culture under study.

Sonic branding: A narrative review at the intersection of art and science

“…The semantic differential technique provides a framework for the assessment of affective connotations of any concept (e.g., brand identity). This is accomplished through the use of polar adjectival scales (e.g., Good-Bad; Active-Passive; Strong-Weak; see Osgood et al, 1957;Oyama et al, 1998;Snider & Osgood, 1969), traditionally applied across three key dimensions: Evaluation, Potency, and Activity (Osgood, 1964;Tzeng & May, 1975). 4 Applied to sound, the semantic differential technique has been used to study musical perception (Accurso, 1967;Holbrook & Huber, 1979;Millet et al, 2021;Miller, 2021;Nordenstreng, 1968), 5 as well as the more psychacoustical aspects of sound design (i.e., tied more closely to the sound of objects/product interactions; e.g., Palù et al, 2017;Schäffer et al, 2023).…”

“…At the same time, however, it is worth stressing that a number of the emotional dimensions/attributes used in the laboratory research on crossmodal correspondences would appear to go well beyond the basic seven universally recognized emotions, that were first identified by Paul Ekman (see Barrett, 2017; and once again, see Spence, 2020a, for a review of this literature as concerns the emotional‐mediation of crossmodal correspondences). As has been mentioned previously, it is uncertain whether the various combinations of the three dimensions (namely evaluation, potency, and arousal) necessarily provide a sufficient degree of granularity with which to distinguish the full range of brand associations/identities (see also Tzeng & May, 1975). That said, the research shows that crossmodally corresponding combinations of sensory stimuli tend to be easier to learn (e.g., Imai et al, 2008, 2015) and may be processed more fluently (e.g., Reber & Schwarz, 2001; see also Brunel et al, 2015; Miron, 1961).…”

A Quantitative Method for Separation of Semantic Subspaces

“…Furthermore. under indigenous factorizations, dimensions beyond E-P-A are generally more obscure due to the massive dominance of affect, even though they may be psychologically real in the total differentiation of meanings (Osgood, 1969;Lane, 1973;Tzeng and May, 1975;Osgood et al, 1975). Unfortunately, no technique has been available for their unique characterization.…”

Repetition priming mediated by task similarity in semantic classification

“…Fast/slow and sharp/dull were representative of the activity dimension. Additional factors were extracted in other studies, but the evaluation, potency, and activity factors remained the most prominent (Bentler & LaVoie, 1972;Tzeng, 1975;Tzeng & May, 1975;Wickens & Lindberg, 1975).…”