Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:00:52.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Semantic Differential Measures of British Party Images

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Lawrence Leduc
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since the technique widely known as the semantic differential was pioneered by Charles Osgood, it has been widely applied in most of the social sciences, as well as in a variety of other fields. While the broadest applications of the technique, including much of Osgood's own work, are in the areas of experimental and social psychology, variants of the semantic differential are widely scattered through research in such diverse fields as linguistics, anthropology, and education, not to mention such non-academic fields as journalism and marketing. The attempt by a number of political scientists, particularly in Britain and in Canada, to adapt this technique to the study of political party images represents one of these variants.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 115 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The seminal work is Osgood, Charles, Suci, George and Tannenbaum, Percy, The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957).Google Scholar A broad sampling of articles which illustrate the diversity of application of the semantic differential is found in a useful reader compiled by Snider, J. G. and Osgood, C. E., eds., Semantic Differential Technique: a Sourcebook (Chicago: Aldine, 1969).Google Scholar

2 Among the more important published works are Butler, David and Stokes, Donald, Political Change in Britain (London: Macmillan, 1969)Google Scholar and Meisel, John, Working Papers in Canadian Politics (Montreal: McGill-Queen's Press, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar A further Canadian application, although one employing a slight variation of the technique, is found in Laponce, Jean, People vs. Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969).Google Scholar

3 Osgood, Charles and Suci, George, ‘Factor Analysis of Meaning’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, L (1955), 325–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Osgood, and Suci, , ‘Factor Analysis of Meaning’, p. 326.Google Scholar

5 Osgood, , Suci, and Tannenbaum, , The Measurement of Meaning, p. 325.Google Scholar

6 Osgood, , Suci, and Tannenbaum, , The Measurement of Meaning, pp. 326–7.Google Scholar See also the findings for Japan reported by Kumata, Hideya and Schramm, Wilbur in ‘A Pilot Study of Cross-Cultural Meaning’, Public Opinion Quarterly, xx (1956), 229–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 The data utilized in this paper were made available by the Inter-University Consortium for Political Research, the European Consortium for Political Research and the University of Strathclyde, and were originally collected by David Butler and Donald Stokes. Neither the original collectors of the data nor any of the institutions bear any responsibility for the analysis or interpretation of the data contained herein.

8 All factor analyses reported here were principal component analyses with orthogonal rotation. Kaiser's criterion (eigenvalues > 1·0) was employed in retaining factors for rotation. In each of the tables factor loadings > ·40 are printed bold for emphasis. The interpretation of the factors is of course that of the author alone and, in some instances, alternative interpretations are quite conceivable. Where possible, an ‘Osgood’ interpretation is given in brackets to test the conformity of the structure to the E-P-A model. An asterisk following this interpretation is intended to indicate that its applicability is at best marginal.

9 All of the factor analyses discussed here were also conducted with the dummy variables excluded. In general, the inclusion of the partisan self-image dummy variables did not change the factor structure, but it did provide the opportunity of examining the loading of partisanship on the dominant E factor.

10 An interesting and useful comparison is afforded by the Canadian data, on which an analysis parallel to that reported here was conducted. The most striking characteristic is the dominance of the E (or affect) component, even more marked than in the British case. This holds without exception for all three parties. For the two major parties (Liberal and Conservative), the second factor is an activity factor, suggestive of the Osgood ‘A’ component. For the New Democratic party, a somewhat residual class/ideology factor emerges.

11 The inclusion of the slow/fast word pair in the Canadian study doubtless accounts for the emergence of the A factor in that analysis. But the inclusion of pairs such as powerful/weak and strong-minded/weak-minded did not similarly produce a potency [P] factor as might have been expected. Eleven of the word pairs employed in the 1965 Canadian study were identical to those used in the British studies, or closely comparable. See Meisel, , Working Papers, pp. 63–119.Google Scholar

12 The Osiris ‘Fcomp’ program provides a means of statistically testing the comparability of two independent factor structures. In the analysis undertaken here, an intraclass correlation coefficient of ·95 is obtained between the 1966 and 1970 panels for the Labour party structure, and a coefficient of ·87 between the Labour and Conservative structures in 1966. Other combinations were not tested, but it is clear that the comparability of the Liberal party structure with that of the Labour and Conservative parties would be low. There is no reason however to believe that it would not be as stable over time, and indeed the research of Osgood and others should lead us to expect such stability.