A number of methodological issues have been raised regarding the semantic differential technique. This study reexamined several key problems, particularly the assumed bipolarity of scales, instructions regarding use of the midpoint, and concept-scale interaction, all of which may contribute to a lack of precision in the technique. In addition, this study utilized an analysis of variance model to partition variance in semantic differential ratings. Forty subjects responded to one of four instruments on two occasions. Instruments differed in terms of polarity type (bipolar or unipolar) and presence or absence of an irrelevance option. Twenty-four concepts uniformly distributed throughout semantic space were judged on either 15 or 30 scales. Results indicated that the Evaluation-Potency-Activity (EPA) structure was both robust and reliable. However, several features of the data argued for caution in the use of the semantic differential technique. Both the Concept x Scale interaction and the Scale x Concept x Person interaction accounted for substantial proportions of variance in semantic differential ratings. Suggestions were offered to minimize such effects. Since its introduction by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957), the semantic differential has been widely used by psychological investigators. At the same time, use of the instrument has generated many methodological questions APPLIED PsycHoL6GicAL MEASUREMENT Vol. 3, No. 2 Spring 1979 pp. 213-229 @ Copyright 1978 West Publishing Co. concerning its validity. Recent reviews (Heise, 1969; Osgood, May, & Miron, 1975) have isolated and addressed several key issues. These issues provide the basis for the present study. One issue which has been dealt with extensively in the literature is the assumption that semantic space is bipolar. The bipolarity assumption requires every scale to be end-anchored by a pair of adjectives that are antonyms or that function as antonyms in the context of the rating task. To the extent that this is not true, interpretation of the instrument is subject to some question. Related to the bipolarity assumption is the practice of assigning multiple meanings to the middle response category. The subject who chooses this category may do so, according to the standard instructions, to indicate neutrality, ambivalence, or irrelevance. There are two issues here. Does the confounding of meanings for the midpoint have some disconcerting, confusing, or distorting effect on the person performing the rating and hence on the rating itself? Does this confounding have a distorting effect on the resulting factor structure, independent of its effects on the rater? Another problem has been the extent to which a given scale undergoes changes in meaning from one concept to another. This context effect has been labeled Concept x Scale interaction. Although it is acknowledged as problematic (cf.

This study examined the relationship between object differentiation (spatial ability) and social differentiation (cognitive complexity). Prior research has demonstrated a link between field independence and cognitive complexity, and between field independence and spatial ability. This raises the question whether some unitary cognitive style is involved in both spatial ability and cognitive complexity. The present study used a spatial task (a variation of Piaget & Inhelder's water level task) and several measures of cognitive complexity (the Barron Complexity scale, Intolerance of Ambiguity scale, and measures of self-differentiation and differentiation of other persons) to test the prediction that complexity will be positively related to performance on the water level task. On the basis of earlier findings, we also predicted that males would outperform females on the water level task. Thirty-eight male and 98 female undergraduates completed the water level task and the complexity measures. Results confirmed the predictions, except that the relationship between cognitive complexity and performance was different for males than for females. For males, the correlations between scores on the water level task and the several measures of complexity were considerably higher than for females. Such results suggest that for males spatial task performance can be related to a general construct such as cognitive style; for females, this does not appear to be the case.

This research examined gender differences in orientations toward autonomous and social achievement. Three independent samples of subjects (total N -359 males and 574 females) completed measures of achievement orientation (including Strumpfer s [1975] Autonomous Achievement Values and Social Achievement Values scales) and relevant cognitive, affective, and behavioral variables. Correlational and factor analyses clearly identified distinct autonomous and social achievement factors for both men and women in each of the samples. Examination of the correlates of achievement orientation indicated that whereas an autonomous achievement orientation is similarly expressed in males and females, there are considerable sex differences in the expression of an orientation toward social achievement. In particular, a social achievement orientation was associated with concerns over social approval and responsiveness to social influence among males, but was generally unrelated to these factors among females. Findings are discussed in terms of several recent hypotheses concerning the effects of sex role norms on the development and expression of achievement needs in men and women.Since McClelland and associates (1953) originally defined the achievement motive as a relatively stable disposition to strive for success in situations where standards of excellence apply, the empirical research on achievement motivation has been plagued by persistent discrepancies that have hampered conceptual progress. One particularly troublesome problem has been that of pervasive gender differences in both responses to standard measures of the achievement motive and the expression of achievement motivation The authors would like to thank Stephen West and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.