Semantic differential as a method for diagnosing students’ perception of the teacher. Sociological laboratory pvi - semantic differential

Target: become familiar with the method of quantitative and qualitative indexing of values ​​and complete exercises to master the method.

Basic theoretical principles

According to Charles Osgood, the semantic differential (SD) method makes it possible to measure connotative meaning, i.e., states that arise between the perception of a stimulus stimulus and meaningful work with them. Connotative indicates something subjective, individual and valuable, contrasted denotative - objective, interpersonal, cognitive. An analogue of the concept of “connotative meaning” in Russian psychology can be considered the concept of “personal meaning” proposed by A. N. Leontyev.

Being a method of experimental semantics, SD, along with other methods (for example, associative experiment, subjective scaling) is used to construct subjective semantic spaces, and is widely used in sociology, general and social psychology. Turning to it in psychological research is justified when we are talking, for example, about an individual’s emotional attitude to certain objects, studying stereotypes, social ideas, social categorization, attitudes, considering value orientations, subjective personal meaning, and also identifying implicit theories of personality .

SD is a case study method because it provides insight into the unique context of an individual's life. The method was developed by a group of American researchers led by Charles Osgood, who considered it as a combination of controlled association and scaling procedures. The SD method attracted the attention of domestic psychologists back in the late 1970s. and, as A. M. Etkind correctly noted, “has long been included in our psychological education programs.”

In order to determine the dimension of semantic space, Charles Osgood proposed using factor analysis to establish the minimum number of orthogonal dimensions, or axes. Semantic differentiation, according to Osgood, involves the sequential arrangement of a concept in a multidimensional semantic space through one or another meaning between the poles on the scales. The difference in the meanings of two concepts is a function of the multidimensional distance between two points corresponding to these concepts.

Any concept at the operational level can be represented as a point in semantic space. This point in semantic space can be characterized by two parameters: direction and distance from the reference point (in other words, quality and intensity). The direction is determined by the choice of one quality or another, and the distance depends on the selected value on the scale. The higher the intensity of the reaction, the more significant the concept being assessed is for the subject. Thus, each concept can be assessed with a set of differentiating assessments on bipolar scales.

For differentiation, the subject is offered a concept (a number of concepts), as well as a set of bipolar scales specified by adjectives. The respondent must evaluate the differentiated object on each of the proposed bipolar seven-point scales. In response to the word, the respondent has a certain reaction that reveals a certain similarity with the behavioral reaction, a kind of readiness for behavior, something mediating behavior. The respondent's associations with the stimulus are guided by given bipolar scales. The functions of these scales are as follows: firstly, they help to verbalize the reaction to a particular stimulus, secondly, they help to concentrate attention on certain properties of this stimulus that are of interest for the study, and finally, with their help, it is possible to compare assessments given by different respondents various objects.

Object being assessed

Selecting a value of 0 means neutral, 1 means lowthe severity of this quality in the object being assessed, 2 - medium degree, 3 - high.

The scales are presented in random order, i.e., scales of one factor should not be grouped into blocks. The poles of the scales should not create in the respondent the attitude that the left pole always corresponds to a negative quality, and the right pole always corresponds to a positive quality. The subject is presented with all scaled objects simultaneously, and then asked to sequentially evaluate them in the appropriate columns, i.e., each of them is placed on a separate page with the corresponding scales.

In a geometric representation, semantic space can be designated by axes, which are factors (there are three of them: assessment, strength and activity), and the connotative meanings of objects are coordinate points or vectors.

Osgood scaled concepts from various areas and, after conducting factor and variance analysis, identified the leading factors (evaluation, potency, activity - EPA). The evaluation factor played a major role in this study, explaining 68.6% of the total variance, while the activity factor accounted for 15.5% and the strength factor accounted for 12.7%. The factor structure “assessment - strength - activity” sets a universal semantic field with the help of which one can describe the world of a person’s subjective relations to the elements of his environment.

Evaluation factor combined the scales: bad - good, beautiful - ugly, sweet - sour, clean - dirty, tasty - tasteless, useful - useless, kind - evil, pleasant - unpleasant, sweet - bitter, cheerful - sad, divine - secular, fragrant - smelly , honest - dishonest, fair - unfair.

Strength Factor: big - small, strong - weak, heavy - light, thick - thin.

Activity factor: fast - slow, active - passive, hot - cold, sharp - blunt, round - angular.

The obtained data can be analyzed not only using the factor analysis procedure, but also the formula proposed by Charles Osgood, which calculates the distance between scaling objects, i.e., two points in semantic space. After all, scaled objects can be presented in the form of semantic profiles: broken lines connecting the subjects’ choices on each bipolar scale (Fig.).

d (x 1, y 1) - the difference between the coordinates of two points that represent the values ​​of objects X and V by factor.

This formula allows you to estimate the distances between the meanings of different concepts for the same individual or group of individuals, compare the assessments of the same object by respondents, and finally, identify changes in the assessments of any object by one subject or group.

SD is a method that makes it possible to obtain the required information without using standard objects and standard scales. This implies that “there is no “DM test” as such”; depending on the goals of a particular study, certain objects and certain scales are selected that are representative and relevant to the goals. In addition, the researcher is encouraged to select scales that appear to be adequate in each individual case. For example, it is more difficult to evaluate a person on the “sweet - sour” scale, but more accessible on the “useful - useless” scale. And for respondents who do not have special knowledge in the field of psychology or psychiatry, the “talkative - silent” scale will be more understandable than the “manic - depressive” scale. Each factor should be represented by several pairs of scales.

When scaling a narrow set of concepts, the three-dimensional space “assessment - strength - activity” is transformed and becomes one-dimensional or two-dimensional, i.e. the number of independent factors is reduced to two or one. It is also possible to increase the factors that describe the semantic multidimensional space of an individual or group in relation to the assessment of an object.

Such variants of SD are called private, in contrast to the universal one - three-dimensional, formed by three factors “assessment - strength - activity”. If the universal SD allows us to obtain generalized emotional-evaluative forms of classification, then the private SD allows us to obtain classifications on a narrower (denotative) basis. Using universal SD on different populations, we will get three independent factors “assessment - strength - activity”, and when using private SD we need to build private semantic spaces every time we deal with a new group of respondents.

A variant of private SD is personal SD, when bipolar or unipolar scales are specified in terms of personal characteristics (personality and character traits). The procedure for personal SD is similar to the procedure for universal SD: a number of objects are assessed on a number of scales. The object of assessment in this case may be the respondent or other people. The obtained data are subjected to factor analysis, as a result, factors are identified that reflect the ordinary theory of the individual’s personality.

Control questions

What basic mental phenomena are subject to study by the semantic differential?

What other methods of experimental psychosemantics do you know?

What is the semantic space of the subject?

What three orthogonal directions are used to study the semantic field of subjects in the semantic differential?

Is it possible to study the similarities or differences in semantic profiles of different people using SD?

What other types of semantic differential method exist besides the universal one?

To practice using a one-dimensional partial semantic differential, complete the following exercises in the sequence suggested below.

Exercise 1. Carrying out the first stage of the study. The purpose of this stage of research is to select a research topic. To do this, using a group discussion method, select one object or mental manifestation, students’ opinions about which need to be studied. For example, 1) characteristics of a typical scientist, 2) basic properties of consciousness, etc.

Using elements of the focus group method, highlight the main characteristics or properties of the object. To do this, everyone writes down 7-9 characteristics for 5 minutes, then they are spoken out loud in the group and added to the general list. Characteristics (at least 7) ​​that have received a greater number of repetitions become the basis for creating SD scales.

In the case of studying the opinions of respondents from various samples (and not just students of a given group) about the object being studied, interviews or questionnaires can be conducted to collect data that allows the formation of SD scales.

Exercise 2. The purpose of the second stage is to compile a private SD to study respondents’ assessments of the characteristics or properties of the object being studied. A. Create bipolar scales of private DM based on the characteristics obtained at the first stage. B. Use the standard instructions (the full version of Charles Osgood’s instructions is given in the appendix) or formulate your own based on it. B. Conduct an assessment of the characteristics of the created private SD yourself. D. Draw lines connecting your choices across all characteristics - create an individual semantic profile.

Exercise 3. The third stage of the study serves to create a group semantic profile. To do this, calculate the average group scores (by group) for each characteristic, write them on the board, and then transfer these values ​​into your notebooks and overlay them on your individual semantic profile.

Exercise 4. Assess the degree of similarity or difference between the individual and group semantic profiles. To do this, use the formula from the theoretical provisions. Explain the results obtained and draw conclusions about the degree of similarity or difference between group opinions and yours about the object being studied.

One of the most widely used techniques of this type is the so-called “semantic differential” (C. Osgood, 1952). This is essentially not one, but a whole family of methods, a whole technology. In working with children, it can be used to study the level of formation and integrity of the child’s ideas about the world (cognitive diagnostics), and as a projective technique - for studying the personal attitudes and emotional relationships of the child to a certain range of objects.

The usual “semantic differential” (SD) is several seven-point scales applied horizontally on one form (answer sheet). The seven gradations are usually designated in words, just like the poles of the scale. Here is an example of a form:

Object "SUN"

ACTIVE strongly moderately weakly not at all weakly moderately strongly PASSIVE

EVIL strongly moderately weakly not at all weakly moderately strongly KIND

SOFT strongly medium weak not at all weak medium strong HARD

LIGHT strongly moderately weakly not at all weakly moderately strongly HEAVY

COLD very moderately weak not at all weak moderately strongly WARM

The subject's task is to record his assessment in the form of an assignment to a certain pole of the scale with a certain gradation. The selected gradation must either be underlined on the form or circled. Thus, each line of the form must contain a mark indicating the test subject’s answer.

As we see, in comparison with the Dembo-Rubinstein technique, the “semantic differential” is more perfect in that it is protected from the so-called “positional tactics”. Here, positively colored characteristics are placed not at the same pole of each scale (at the top), but at different ones - sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right.

As a result of filling out the SD form on the response sheet, a subjective semantic profile of the scaled object appears. It is easier to see if you connect all the marks with a single broken line.

When processing SD results, two approaches are possible: either analyze only profiles, or build a so-called “semantic space”.

Let us explain how you can act in the first case. Let’s say we are conducting SD for the purpose of career guidance consultation and asking a high school student to list the names of various professions that, as it turns out from a conversation with him, are potentially attractive to him. But which is the most attractive of them? To answer this question, the student is asked to scale, in addition to the names of specific professions, also a special ideal object - “the best profession for me.” After this, a comparison is made of all the profiles of real professions and the profile of an ideal profession (we will omit here the formula for calculating the measure of similarities; the main thing here is to understand the general meaning of the method). And that real profession, the profile of which reveals more similarities with the “ideal” one, is declared as a result the best subjective choice.

[Note. It is clear that for different subjects this choice may be different, not only due to divergent ideas about real professions, but also due to differences in the profile of the ideal profession: some strive more for the “strong” (or, as in modern youth slang, “cool”) activities, others - to complex and interesting, others - to calm and kind, etc.].

“To build a “semantic space”, scale ratings are combined on related scales included in the same coordinate (factor) of the semantic space. As shown by numerous factor-analytic studies of foreign and domestic psychologists (K. A. Artemyeva, 1980, E. F. Petrenko, 1979, 1988, A. M. Etkind, 1U79, L. G. Shmelev, 1983 and others), most rating scales are combined into three summary rating scales: “good - bad”, “strong - weak”, “active - passive”. For example, ratings on the “soft-hard” scale turn out to be psychologically equivalent to ratings on a 4-good-bad scale, and ratings on the “hard-light” scale are actually close to ratings on the “strong-weak” scale. As a result of such recalculation (very similar to calculating the total score on a test, but only in this case not for the subject, but for the object), each object receives a value for three main semantic factors and can be displayed geometrically as a point in the three-dimensional Score-Strength space -Activity". The similarity of profiles is the proximity of certain points in the semantic space; it can literally be seen (visualized).

Using an example, the professions of “pilot” and “traffic police inspector” that are closest to the ideal of the considered professions for the subject are called “pilot” and “traffic police inspector”. After that, it remains to find out whether the subject has real professionally important qualities in order to qualify for mastery of these professions.

We especially note that SD is also used to diagnose self-esteem. It is enough to ask the child to evaluate himself on the same set of scales. As a result, the point “I” appears in the semantic space. The degree of removal of this point from the “ideal” - a measure of self-dissatisfaction.

Let us emphasize once again that for the successful use of SD, the material that the child scales must be age-appropriate to his range of interests, otherwise the child will simply put a more or less random pattern of marks on the form.

With primary schoolchildren and preschoolers, it is better to carry out SD in an individual and oral form, that is, all marks on the form should be entered by the experimenter himself - based on the child’s oral answers. It is better to use fairy-tale or cartoon characters as material (objects for evaluation). “Special research by V.F. Petrenko has shown the high effectiveness of this material in working with children. A special modification of SD allows fairy-tale characters to denote poles of scales rather than objects. In this case, parents, friends and teachers will be compared by the child with certain fairy-tale characters.”

Specific problems and difficulties of family identification or school adaptation can manifest themselves in SD as in any projective technique. For example, an unloved older sister may be close in semantic space to “Baba Yaga,” and the head teacher, whom the child is simply afraid of, may be close to some kind of “killer robot.”

In addition to the denotative meaning, each object has a connotative meaning for a person. This meaning is personal, gained through direct experience. If one fine sunny day a heavy apple fell on my head, I lost consciousness, and when I woke up, I realized that I was lying in a pile of cow dung, then for the rest of my life I will stay away from clusters of large apples on trees. In the example given, the experience of “communicating” with an apple is very vivid. Usually the connotative meaning is more hidden.
I will give other examples of connotative meanings. The rector of a university can be assessed by his students as a firm and cold person. This does not mean that the rector’s body density and temperature differs from the average of other people outside normal limits.
In other words, connotative meaning is an emotion towards the object being evaluated.
What does semantics have to do with it? We introduce the definition according to Tolstoy. Semantics is a branch of linguistics and logic that studies the problems of meaning, meaning and interpretation of signs and symbolic expressions. Accordingly, psychosemantics is the study of a person’s psychological perception of the meanings and meanings of various kinds of objects. Psychosemantics includes such methods as semantic differential, repertory lattices, etc.
The task of psychosematics is very interesting - the construction of a semantic space J. I.e. system of latent factors within which a person works. Why did you walk around the puddle in front of the entrance on the right side this morning, although it was more convenient on the left?
Why does sociology need SD? For example, a sociologist might try to identify types of people with similar perceptions of objects. If the object is the advertised product, then for each individual type it is more effective to make a separate advertisement with the desired perception J
The big advantage of SD is that, using “hard” methods, it provides information about the subtle psychological structures of a person’s perception of objects.

Semantic differential technique

What did Osgood suggest? The emotion of the meaning of a concept will be revealed if a person points to the position of the concept in question in the system of connotative features. Those. will indicate the location of the object in the “emotional” coordinate system. For example, evaluate a political leader: is he warm or cold, fluffy or prickly?
So, let’s prepare several pairs of emotions (connotative features). Pairs naturally contain opposite emotional colors: sweet and sour, black and white, good and evil. Each pair contains several gradations. If you want to use factor analysis in your analysis, you need data defined by an interval scale. To do this, there must be seven gradations (the more gradations, the more your scale shifts from ordinal to interval type).

Osgood found that in most cases, any of the connotative pairs hides one of three possible options: strength, evaluation (attitude), activity. In other words, if we take an object, let respondents evaluate it based on hundreds of similar pairs, and then conduct a cluster analysis of all these pairs, we will see that all pairs are divided into three groups: strength, evaluation, activity. Those. When we perceive any object of reality, we “attribute points” to this object according to three characteristics: strength (strong-weak), assessment (bad-good) and activity (fast-slow).

The semantic differential method was developed in the 50s by American scientists under the leadership of Charles Osgood. At the moment, many applications have been found for it in various fields. This method is a tool for studying the semantic spaces of the subject and serves to index meanings using bipolar scales defined by two opposite adjectives, between which there are three, five or seven gradations of the degree of occurrence of a given quality. Any object, phenomenon or feeling perceived by an individual evokes some kind of reaction in him, which can be successfully characterized using semantic differential methods. These methods allow you to see the image that appears in the recipient’s mind when evaluating an object.

Can be considered as a type of projective tests that allow us to take into account the fact that a certain stimulating situation acquires meaning not only due to its objective content, but also for reasons related to the characteristics of the recipient himself - inclinations, drives, beliefs - which he attaches to this situation . Simply put, the individual traits of the test subject seem to be projected onto situations, affecting the test results. This method allows you to measure connotative meaning - a state that follows the perception of a stimulus symbol and precedes operations with symbols. Connotative meaning is directly related to the personal qualities of the recipient, such as social attitudes, stereotypes, etc. and is close to us in terms of the concept of personal meaning.

As mentioned earlier, objects in the semantic differential method are assessed on a number of opposing (bipolar) graduated scales. The extreme values ​​of these scales are antonyms. Evaluations of concepts on different scales interact with each other, which makes it possible to identify bundles of such strongly interacting scales and group them into factors. This mechanism, which explains the grouping of scales together, was considered by Osgood to be synesthesia. Synesthesia is a phenomenon when, when one sense organ is stimulated due to its specific sensations, sensations corresponding to another sense organ also arise. An example is the case when, looking at some object, some taste sensations may arise.

When the transition from features to factors is made, this is already the construction of a semantic space, which in some way is a metalanguage for describing meanings. Osgood, in his research, built a semantic space based on the gradation of various conceptual classes (for example, father, ice, table).

Three main factors have been identified

• "grade" ( light-dark, ppleasant-unpleasant);
• "force" ( durable-fragile, strong-weak);
• "activity" ( fast-slow,active-passive).

All these factors together form a semantic space.

The method of semantic psychological differential, developed by Osgood, makes it possible to study not only the meaning of words, but also their emotional connotation, since the identified factors made it possible to study in more detail the structure of a person’s (or group of people’s) thinking.

Numerous further studies in this area only confirmed the universality of the identified structures. The identity of factor structures was shown in people of different nationalities, nationalities, people with different levels of education and mental health. An important conclusion follows from this - since the structure of spaces is identical for different subjects, the factorization results obtained on one group of people can be used on another group of subjects.

Somewhat later, Bentler and Lavoie expanded the semantic space by adding factors such as “reality,” “density,” “orderliness,” and “ordinariness” to “strength,” “activity,” and “evaluation.”

Using materials from Russian vocabulary, a group of scientists identified the following factors: “evaluation”, “orderliness”, “complexity”, “activity”, “strength” and a specific factor - “comfort”.

Below we will consider several types of semantic differentials.

Nonverbal semantic differential

In addition to scales using antonyms, Osgood attempted to use graphic oppositions instead. The subjects were offered pairs of any geometric shapes such as: black circle - white circle, up arrow - down arrow. After that, they were called various words, and they had to choose the figure from the proposed pair that, in their opinion, was more suitable for this word. For example, for the word “happy,” most participants in the experiment pointed to images of something colorful, sharp, and clear. This experiment showed a high level of versatility. Practical applications of the nonverbal semantic differential can be found in studies of visual reasoning.

Partial semantic differentials

For some individual conceptual classes (private), when the differential methodology was built, the emergence of new factors specific to these conceptual classes was demonstrated. An example is the scaling of political terminology, as a result of which factors - “assessment”, “strength”, “activity” - which are usually independent of each other, merged together. They could be described as follows: “benevolent dynamism” - “malicious impotence.” Therefore, partial semantic differentials are characterized by a different number of factors. According to Osgood, there is an interaction between concepts and scales in making judgments.

Personal semantic differentials

Among private semantic spaces, there is a variety called the personal differential, built on adjectives that describe various qualities, both of others, surrounding people, and of oneself. The procedure for constructing such a semantic differential is no different. A person is taken as a subject (a real person or a movie character) and assessed on a bipolar scale of opposing adjectives.

The name of the method “semantic differential” (Greek s?mantikos - denoting and Latin differentia - difference) came to psychology from the technical sciences. A differential is a device that performs the transfer function of torque (for example, in a car). “Semantic” means belonging to the semantic characteristics of speech.

Semantic differential (SD) is a technology that allows you to translate a respondent’s reactions to a certain stimulus into an evaluative, subjective attitude towards an object, phenomenon, or event that is associated with this sign.

For example, the respondent is asked to evaluate his attitude towards the word “house”. It is likely that the respondent will have an associative series associated with his personal attitude and life experience. These can be such characteristics as: “beautiful”, “stone”, “where parents live” - these meanings can be called objective (denotative). But meanings can also be subjective (connotative). So, for example, respondents can give the following characteristics: “delicious”, “cheerful”, “childhood”, “love” or “empty”, “sadness”, “cold” - all of them are purely subjective, associated either with positive or with negative associations when evaluating the word “home”.

The mechanism that explains these associations is called synesthesia. Synesthesia is the ability of a person to think by analogy, when a stimulus of one modality provokes the occurrence of sensations of another modality. For example, the expressions “warm heart”, “flexible mind”, “will of steel”, “sour face”, “stony face” are associated with sensations of a certain modality (visual, gustatory, etc.), we perceive them allegorically, produce them metaphorically transfer to the subject being assessed. For example, consider the expression “will of steel.” Will, as a psychological characteristic of a person, cannot be steel in the literal sense of the word. However, we have memories of the tactile modality: steel can be hard, cold, unbending, indestructible, and we transfer these characteristics associated with the tactile modality to the concept of “will”. That is, we mean that the will is as strong as steel.

Charles Osgood was the first to use this human property to measure attitude stereotypes in social psychology. He believed that it was possible to measure the connotative meaning of a word, and for this he proposed a special seven-point scale. Attitudes towards measured objects (for example, a house) can be placed on a continuum from the positive pole to the negative (for example, cheerful - sad, kind - angry) and measured in semantic space.

Thus, not only the emotional attitude of the respondent to the measured object is revealed, but also the strength and intensity of this attitude.

The method of semantic differential refers to projective methods, since the connotative meaning of the evaluated object is associated with personal meaning, stereotypes that are emotionally rich, poorly structured and little conscious.

The procedure for conducting an experiment using this technique is as follows. The subjects are presented with a concept, and they must mark the number that corresponds to their idea of ​​the concept as a semantic unit on a scale indicated by adjectives - antonyms.

In the classic version of the semantic differential, there are 7 divisions on each scale: from zero to +3 in the positive continuum and from zero to –3 in the negative. In table 10 shows the semantic differential scales.

Table 10

Semantic differential (SD) scales by C. Osgood

In Charles Osgood's research, concepts from different conceptual groups were scaled, then using factor analysis, three main factors were identified: “assessment”, “strength” and “activity”.

The rating scales include the following: nasty - pleasant, light - dark, etc. The scales of the "strength" factor: weak - strong, relaxed - tense, etc. The “activity” factor is formed by such scales as active - passive, fast - slow, etc.

Charles Osgood noted that, at their core, adjectives are antonyms that form the poles of scales and are essentially evaluative, so the evaluation factor is the most significant compared to the factors of activity and strength, so the last two cannot always be distinguished.

The universal semantic space can either shrink (turn into one or two-factor) or expand.

For example, Bentler and Lavoie expanded the universal semantic space, highlighting a number of additional factors “density”, “orderliness”, “reality”, etc.

A change in the number of factors, both downward and upward, characterizes the private semantic differential. Private SD is understood as a procedure based on respondents’ assessments of individual conceptual groups. Particular SD retains the signs of Charles Osgood’s universal semantic dimension, but without signs of a stable three-factor structure (“assessment” - “strength” - “activity”)

For example, when Charles Osgood scaled political concepts, a distortion of the universal factor structure occurred and three factors merged into a single one, which can be described as “benevolent dynamism - evil impotence.”

One of the modifications of private SD is the personal semantic differential. Its distinctive feature is that the scales are represented by adjectives denoting personal characteristics.

Research by A.G. Shmeleva showed that it is impossible to talk about the universality of the personal differential, since the semantic space depends on many factors (demographic characteristics of respondents, the specifics of the stimulus material, etc.), so each time the personal semantic space is unique.

The semantic differential can be used as an independent method for studying social attitudes, personal meanings and attitudes of respondents. The method is also widely used as a pilot study to determine the semantic load
concepts being studied.

N.V. Rodionova notes: “The semantic differential is useful where it is required to quantitatively describe the individual, subjective attitude of the subject to any aspects of his environment or inner world. Unlike most personality tests, the semantic differential does not measure the expression of certain personality traits specified by the testing procedure; this method, on the contrary, is capable of giving a meaningful picture of the inner world of the individual, her relationships to herself, other people, significant aspects of the environment, and to various social values.”

Study of young people's ideas about family using semantic differential

An example of the use of semantic differential is the study of the ideas of boys and girls about the parental and future family of O.V. Almazova, V.P. Dzukaeva, T.Yu. Sadovnikova (2013–2014).

Respondents were offered a set of scales with which they had to evaluate their parents’ family and their future married family. Respondents were offered adjectives - antonyms: “weak - strong”, “heavy - light”, “passive - active”, “cold - warm”, “soft - hard”, “smooth - rough”, “simple - complex”, “ wet – dry”, “ordinary – festive”. The subjects had to choose the most suitable one from each pair of adjectives and rate its severity: 0 points - difficult to answer, 1 - slight severity, 2 - moderate severity, 3 - strong severity.

The data obtained allowed the authors to draw interesting conclusions. Respondents describe their parental family as “strong”, “soft”, “warm”. The subjects give the following characteristics to their future family: “strong”, “light”, “active”, “warm”, “soft”, “festive”, “smooth”. Thus, young people attribute more positive characteristics to their future family; its image is somewhat idealized compared to their parents.

The authors identified gender differences; they relate, first of all, to the image of the future married family. Young men most often choose adjectives: “strong”, “active”, “warm”, “wet”. When evaluating the image of “My future family,” girls use the adjectives “strong,” “light,” “active,” “warm,” “soft,” “smooth,” and “festive.” That is, girls use more characteristics that are considered to be more emotional, feminine, and boys use characteristics that are traditionally considered masculine. The girls' responses showed a greater number of positive assessments; for them, important characteristics of a married family are adjectives that can be interpreted as an orientation towards psychotherapy and a positive emotional climate in the family.

Thus, the semantic differential allows us to measure the connotative meaning of a particular conceptual unit that reflects a particular object (phenomenon) of the environment associated with emotions, personal meaning, and human experience.

Questions for self-monitoring of students' knowledge

1. Explain what the connotative and denotative meaning of a word means.

2. Expand the concept of synesthesia. How is it related to the semantic differential?

3. What is a universal semantic space?

4. Name the factors of Charles Osgood’s universal semantic differential.

5. How does a particular semantic differential differ from a universal one?

6. What is the specificity of the personal semantic differential?

1. Baranova, T. S. Psychosemantic methods in sociology. – M.: Sociology, 1994. – No. 3-4. – pp. 55-56.

2. Petrenko V.F., Mitina O.A., Psychosemantic analysis of the dynamics of public consciousness (based on materials of political mentality). – Smolensk: SSU Publishing House, 1997. – P. 55-64.

3. Prokhorov, A.O. Semantic spaces of mental states // Psychological journal. – 2001. – No. 2. – P. 14-26.

4. Rodionova, N.V. Semantic differential // Sociology 4M. – 1996. – No. 7. – P. 160-183.

5. Shmelev, A.G. Introduction to experimental psychosemantics: theoretical and methodological foundations and psychodiagnostic capabilities. – M.: MSU, 1983 – 158 p.

6. Osgood C., Tannenbaum P., Suci G. The measurement of meaning. Urbana., 1957.