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 obtain 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.

Examples of instructions Report structure Semantic differential. Description.

Note source: . Survey // Social psychology. Workshop: Proc. manual for university students / Ed.

Semantic differential can be defined as a method quantitative And quality indexing values. What does it mean?

According to C. Osgood, the semantic differential (SD) method allows you to measure the states that arise between the perception of stimulus-irritant and meaningful work with them. Connotative points to something subjective, individual and value-based, is opposed to denotative - objective, interpersonal, cognitive.

Let us also recall that SD is one of ordinal scale options. According to the classification of S. Stevens, scales are divided into non-metric (nominal and ordinal) and metric (interval and ratio). Being a method of experimental semantics, SD, along with other methods (for example, associative experiment, subjective scaling) is used to construct subjective semantic spaces, is widely used in sociology, general and social psychology. Appeal to it in psychological research justified when it comes, for example, to emotional attitude of the individual to certain objects, stereotypes, social representations, social categorization, attitudes are studied, value orientations, subjective personal meaning are considered, and implicit theories of personality are identified. SD is classified as a method case study, because it allows insight into the unique context of an individual’s life.

SD procedure

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. For differentiation it is proposed 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. Associations of the respondent with the stimulus guided by specified bipolar scales.

Functions these scales are as follows: firstly, they help verbalize the reaction to one stimulus or another; secondly, they contribute concentration on certain properties of this stimulus that are of interest to the study; finally, with their help, it becomes possible to compare the assessments given by different respondents to different objects. Let's pay attention to the fact of use bipolar scales for assessing the object of interest to us. This is a simple and cost-effective way to obtain information about human reactions.

The idea of ​​using bipolar scales dates back to early research on synesthesia conducted by Osgood with T. Karwoski and G. Odbert. Osgood proposes to understand synesthesia as a phenomenon characterizing the experience of individual individuals in which certain sensations belonging to one sense or modality are combined with certain sensations of another modality and occur whenever stimulus arises, corresponding to another modality (it is worth recalling, for example, the synesthesia of A. Scriabin, V. Kandinsky, V. Nabokov).

In studies of synesthesia, Charles Osgood looked for connections between synesthesia, on the one hand, and thinking and language, on the other. The results of experimental work, supported by an analysis of facts from cultural anthropology, led to the conclusion that the images found in synesthesia are closely related to metaphors of language, and all this represents semantic relations. Metaphor in language, as well as music-color synesthesia, can be described "as the parallel alignment of two or more dimensions of experience", which are defined by pairs of opposite adjectives. It is the appeal to the mechanisms of synesthesia that makes it possible to explain metaphorical transfers in statements such as “ sour face", « bad character".

Some bipolar scales have been used to identify social stereotype profiles. Respondents in several samples were asked to rate such objects as pacifist, Russian, dictator, and neutrality on bipolar scales. During World War II, researchers documented a change in the structure of social stereotypes (or, as Charles Osgood writes, a change in the meanings of social signs) since the United States entered the war.

It also turned out that when assessing objects, bipolar scales (decent - dishonest, high - low, kind - evil, helpful - useless, Christian - anti-Christian, honest - dishonest) revealed a high correlation - 0.9 and higher, becoming an assessment factor.

The scales (strong - weak, realistic - unrealistic, happy - unhappy) did not show correlations with rating scales, which allowed the researchers to talk about existence of other dimensions of semantic space.

Semantic differentiation, according to Osgood, presupposes consistent location of a concept in a multidimensional semantic space by choosing one or another value 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.

The scales proposed for assessing objects and the instructions may look like this (see example and instructions in paragraph 3 of this present document. document) .

The use of such a scale makes it possible to directly measure an individual’s reaction, i.e., to identify a qualitative parameter (in this case, choose between “good” or “bad”), as well as to determine the intensity of this reaction (from low to high severity).

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.

Space compression and factors :

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, pleasant - unpleasant, 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 evaluation factor played a major role in this study; it explained 68.6% of the total variance, while the remaining factors accounted for 15.5 and 12.7%.

These three independent factors were obtained in numerous studies conducted in different cultures, among subjects with different levels of education, on the material of various objects (concepts, as well as stories and poems, social roles and stereotypes, images, colors, sounds, etc.)

However, the procedure factor analysis is not the only way analysis of data obtained using method C also offers a formula by which to calculate distance between scaling objects, i.e. two points in semantic space. After all, scalable objects can be represented in the form semantic profiles

When scaling narrow set of concepts occurs transformation of three-dimensional space“assessment - strength - activity”, i.e. independent orthogonal factors cease to be such.

For example : C. Osgood asked respondents to evaluate 20 concepts: 10 politicians (including R. Taft, W. Churchill, I. Stalin, G. Truman, D. Eisenhower) and 10 other realities (US policy in China, socialism, state price control, the use of the atomic bomb, the UN, etc.) on 10 bipolar scales (among which: wise - stupid, clean - dirty, dangerous - safe, unfair - fair, strong - weak, idealistic - realistic, etc.). As a result, instead of the three-dimensional space “assessment - strength - activity”, a one-dimensional continuum with poles ≪ benevolent dynamism ≫ and ≪malicious impotence≫.

SD as a way to measure attitudes .

Let us consider studies in which the SD method was used to study attitudes. Let us pay special attention to how data obtained using SD is analyzed. In the work of Charles Osgood, devoted to the study of attitudes towards representatives of different races, respondents (white and black students) were asked to evaluate a number of concepts (including concepts indicating race) on 12 bipolar scales (6 scales on the factor “evaluation ", 3 scales for the factor "strength", 3 for the factor "activity"). After calculating the average values ​​for each concept on the scales of three factors and calculating the semantic distances between the scaled concepts for different groups of subjects, it turned out that white respondents have positive attitudes towards those who belong to the Caucasian race, less positive - towards representatives of other races.

An analogy was also observed in the assessments of colors by this group of respondents. The ratings changed interestingly concept of "person" "depending on the adjective, denoting color. For white respondents, the adjective dominates the noun, and “the connotative meaning of the concept of a black person is rather black man, not black Human". Black respondents gave similar color ratings. White received the most positive assessment, then yellow, red, and finally brown and black. However, concepts indicating race were assessed differently by this group. The concept denoting a representative of the Negroid race received the most positive assessment, and the least positive assessment - a representative of the Caucasian race. For white students, the concept “Caucasian” showed greater similarity with the concept “citizen” rather than with the concept “foreigner”, “friend” rather than “enemy”; in the case of the concept “representative of a race” the similarity was the opposite: it was more similar to the concept of “foreigner”, and not “citizen”, with the concept of “enemy”, and not “friend”. For this group of respondents, the concept of “person” is most similar to the concept of “representative of the Caucasian race” and least similar to the concept of “representative of the Negroid race”. In the group of black respondents, the opposite results were obtained.

Now let's stop at limitations of this method . Its main limitation is that we are dealing with declared verbal reaction of the respondent. The placement of stimuli in semantic space turns out to be distorted under the influence, for example, of social desirability or other mechanisms of this kind. To overcome this drawback, you can use modifications of the SD method, for example, non-verbal SD, in which the effect of conscious correction of evaluative reactions is reduced.

Let's imagine that you are conducting a study, as a result of which you want to compare men's and women's ideas about a successful woman. The logic of your research should be built as follows:

STAGE 1: It is necessary to conduct an initial survey of subjects. A sample instruction might read as follows: “Name 10 (15 or whatever number you need) characteristics that describe a successful woman.

If you compare the views of men and women, then you need to interview the SAME number of both men and women at the first stage.

STAGE 2:

A. for each group of subjects: men and women SEPARATELY you counting the number of all mentioned characteristics. For example, “kind - 7 (occurs 7 times), beautiful - 9 (occurs 9 times), etc. After you have calculated the characteristics for men and women, you need to compare the data between groups.

B. As a result you should get list of characteristics, which are most often found in two groups of subjects: men and women. FREQUENCY characteristics are those that are found in more than 50% of questionnaires (that is, if at least half of your subjects mentioned any characteristic, it should be considered frequent). The bar for assessing the “frequency” of a trait can vary from 80% to 30% depending on the characteristics obtained. If none of your characteristics scores more than 30%, then further construction of a private SD differential is pointless. You must either add respondents or conduct an analysis of the concepts you are asking to describe.

IN. To the resulting list of characteristics, it is necessary choose antonyms. For example, you received the characteristics: kind, smart, rich, etc. Each characteristic should receive an antonym: KIND - EVIL, SMART - STUPID, RICH - POOR. It is best to select antonyms using an antonym dictionary!!!

The resulting pairs of qualities will serve as scales for evaluation. Scales can be 5-point or 7-point (rarely 9-point or 11-point):. For example:

Good 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Evil

Smart 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Stupid

Rich 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 Poor, etc.

Do not forget : mix the poles of the scales (so as not to create settings)

determine for yourself the poles of each scale, i.e. assign “internal” numerical values ​​that the respondent will not know, only you (for subsequent interpretation)

STAGE 3.

A. Drawing up instructions for the SD and selecting those concepts that respondents will evaluate (for example, “successful woman”, “unsuccessful woman”, “woman”, women of various professions, etc.). There can be one or several objects, depending on the purpose and topic of the study.

Additional note: if SD is a separate study, then this questionnaire must also meet the requirements applicable to the questionnaire. That is, contain: a greeting, a legend, instructions, the SD itself, a passport, Gratitude.

B. Survey of subjects using the received questionnaire. The subjects must be DIFFERENT than at the first stage.

STAGE 4: Processing of received data.

A. Entering the obtained estimates into the table. Treatments using factor analysis.

B. Determine the required number of factors. Select factors according to the obtained factor loadings.

IN. Give the factors meaningful names and psychological interpretation.

see separate file (“SD_options_instructions”)

see separate file (“Survey_report_structure”)

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar documents

Analysis of the method of personal semantic differential, research with its help of personality structure. Assessment using the category methodology - “my real self”, “my ideal self” and “the self that I dislike the most”. Calculation of semantic distance.

practical work, added 05/24/2015


Experimental methods for evaluating advertising products from the point of view of the emotional attitude of consumers. Ch. Osgood's method of semantic differential and its modifications. Bipolar scales forming assessment factors. Stages of implementation of the focus group technique.

practical work, added 08/21/2009


Definition of gender psychology terms. The emergence of gender stereotypes: roles and conflicts. Study of gender stereotypes using the personal semantic differential method. The trend towards masculinization of the image of the ideal modern woman.

thesis, added 04/25/2015


Main categories and definitions of virtualistics. Virtual space as part of virtualistics. Study of the peculiarities of the influence of a certain locus of control on the assessment of virtual space using the semantic differential technique.

course work, added 12/19/2011


presentation, added 03/07/2017


Prerequisites for the formation and theoretical and methodological analysis of the category “gender relations”. The structure of gender relations and features of gender stereotypes in modern society. Test methodology of Kustova’s personal semantic differential.

course work, added 04/14/2013


Modern idea of ​​space. Differences between elements of space, mass. "Visual grouping rules." Construction of an architectural form according to Arnheim, Zhuravsky. Application of the semantic differential method in the perception of the urban environment.

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 space Score-Strength -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.”