The Companion Animal Semantic Differential: Long and Short Form Reliability and Validity

Abstract

The Companion Animal Semantic Differential consists of 18 bipolar semantic differential word pairs for assessing the respondent's perception of a childhood companion animal. The measure was administered by questionnaire to a sample of 188 students. The Cronbach alpha internal reliability coefficient was 0.90 for the 18-item scale. The construct validity of the scale was indicated by its significant correlations with the evaluative factor of the Pet Attitude Scale and the childhood Companion Animal Bonding Scale of .31 and .54, respectively. Factor analysis identified a short 9-item form as a one-dimensional measure of the respondent's affective attitude toward his or her pet. The short form's Cronbach alpha was .88 and its correlations with the affective factors of the Pet Attitude Scale and the childhood Companion Animal Bonding Scales were .24 and .50, respectively. The measure is included.

Pet Bonding and Pet Bereavement Among Adolescents

“…In accord with expectations, the two bonding scales were positively intercorrelated (r = .48, p < ,001). This correlation is similar to the one (r = .54) reported by Poresky et al (1988).…”

Humans rule! The effects of creatureliness reminders, mortality salience and self‐esteem on attitudes towards animals

“…To measure attitudes towards animals, we employed a 13-item semantic differential scale adapted for this study from the Companion Animal Semantic Differential (Poresky, Hendrix, Mosier, & Samuelson, 1988). Participants were asked to respond to stems like 'I believe animals to be : : : ' using a 7-point semantic differential scale anchored by 13 sets of positive and negative terms.…”

The impact of information and familiarity on public attitudes toward the eastern hellbender

“…In addition, the model χ 2 value was 394.964 (2 d.f., P < 0.000), indicating a statistically significant fit for the attitude scale with the underlying attitude construct. A single attitude measure was created through summation of the semantic differential scales (Poresky et al ., ) with scores ranging from 8 to 56.…”

“…Respondents were expected to have low awareness and knowledge of the species and have weakly formed cognitive attitudes. Since people may have strong affective attitudes toward animals that they are not familiar with (Gunnthorsdottir, ; Estren, ), an SD scale, which measures primarily affective attitudes, makes for an effective measurement tool (Poresky et al ., ). An SD scale has respondents rate an object along a multipoint scale between antonym pairs of adjectives.…”

“…When multiple antonym pairs are used, responses can produce a reliable and valid scale of direct attitudes toward an object (Fishbein & Ajzen, ). For this study, we modified an existing scale that assessed attitudes toward pet animals (Poresky et al ., ). Respondents identified the number between 1 (most negative) and 7 (most positive) that best described their opinion about the animal pictured.…”