The Multi Dimensional Scaling: An Interactive Method for

Establishing Perceptions of the Appearance of Product

Azhari bin Md Hashim, Raja Ahmad Azmeer Bin Raja Ahmad Effendi,

T W Allan Whitfield, Simon Jackson, Swinburne University of Technology

Abstract In order to design successful products it is essential to gain feedback from potential users. Normally, this is

accomplished through market research that feeds back into the product development process. Market

research relies heavily upon two distinct methods, the focus group and the questionnaire survey. The

former delivers qualitative information in the form of language, while the latter delivers quantitative

information in the form of numbers. Neither fits comfortably with the designers’ preferred mode of

communication: the visual. In addition, neither method is designed to illuminate fine distinctions amongst

the visual appearance of products. Finally, neither involves users in an interactive task that deals directly

with the visual, and does so in a way that requires only visual judgements. A method is presented that

overcomes these limitations. It derives from the Semantic Differential (Charles E Osgood, 1952), but rather

than relying upon statistical Factor Analysis, instead uses a visual field format whereby participants

manoeuvre and position products relative to one another in a visual space. The examples presented are from

the car and motorcycle industries, with the participants from Australia and Malaysia. The resulting

Semantic Differential profiles indicate user perceptions of the products on the dimensions of interest, and

the cross-cultural differences in such perceptions. A distinctive feature of this technique is the ease with

which similarities and differences can be quickly assimilated and understood.

Keywords: Research method; Aesthetics; User perception; User experience

Introduction

In order to design successful products it is essential to gain feedback from potential users

(Engelbrektsson, 2002). This is particularly important for high volume manufacturing and service

industries that target users with known demographic profiles. And increasingly, markets are

segmented into such demographics and products-services are designed for them. Normally, this is

accomplished through market research that feeds back into the product development process

(Engelbrektsson & Soderman, 2004). Market research relies heavily upon two distinct methods, the

focus group and the questionnaire survey. The former delivers qualitative information in the form of

language, while the latter delivers quantitative information in the form of numbers. Neither fits

comfortably with the designers’ preferred mode of communication: the visual. In addition, neither

method is designed to illuminate fine distinctions amongst the visual appearance of products-services.

The shortcomings of traditional methods of market research such as surveys, interviews,

questionnaires and focus groups are well known (Hannington, 2003). They have proven ineffective in

providing the type of information required by designers (Griffin & Hauser, 1993). The focus group is

by far the most popular and well-established technique in market research (Bruseberg & McDonagh,

2001). Its major advantage is that detailed feedback can be obtained from a small sample of the

demographic population of interest, usually around eight to 12 participants. It also has the considerable

practical advantages of being cheap to run and requires a minimum of skill to conduct. As such,

almost anyone can set up a business conducting focus groups. The disadvantages are numerous,

including small sample sizes, dependence upon the ability of participants to verbally articulate their

responses, and the capacity of the leader of the group to distil the group’s reactions (Pullman &

Robson, 2007). Also, the feedback is verbal and not visual. The other most favoured method, the

questionnaire-survey, is much more expensive to run, requires data handling and statistical analysis.

Its major advantage is that hundreds of participants can be involved, particularly if the survey is

conducted over the Internet. Its disadvantages are that it generates statistical analyses that require a

high degree of sophistication to understand, and it provides limited insights into visual products-

services. Finally, neither method involves users in an interactive task that deals directly with the

visual, and does so in a way that requires only visual judgements.

A method is presented that overcomes these limitations. It derives from a combination of the Semantic

Differential (Charles E. Osgood & Suci, 1955) and Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) (Antikainen,

Kälviäinen, & Miller, 2003). However, rather than relying upon statistical Factor Analysis as is normal

with the Semantic Differential, instead it uses a visual field format whereby participants manoeuvre

and position products relative to one another in a visual space. Essentially, it adopts the format of

Multidimensional Scaling, whereby products are positioned in a proximities space: the closer together

in the space, the more similar the products. However, unlike Multidimensional Scaling, the

dimensionality of the proximities space is predetermined. And it is here that the dimensions commonly

identified in Semantic Differential studies can be used. Alternatively, different dimensions can be

imposed according to the interests of the designer-researcher. While the above may sound complex, in

practice it is extremely easy to set up, to understand the output, and participants find it convenient to

use. From the standpoint of both the designer and the participant, it requires neither verbal articulation

nor an understanding of numbers-statistics. It generates visual output. To illustrate the use of this

method, examples are drawn from two doctoral research projects. These focus upon the Malaysian

motorcycle and car industries.

Malaysia is unique in both South-East Asia and Islamic countries in designing and manufacturing its

own cars and motorcycles. Proton is perhaps its best known brand of car, and this is exported to

Europe and Australia (Rosli, 2006). Its major motorcycle is Modenas (Modenas, 2005). Both Proton

and Modenas are experiencing difficulties due to the globalisation of trade, leading to greater import

penetration into Malaysia’s automotive market and increased competition for their export markets.

Neither has the financial muscle for product development of automotive giants such as Toyota,

Volkswagon, and Yamaha. Inevitably, neither has the financial budget for extensive market research

in either Malaysia or in their export markets. In consequence, both are losing market share locally and

internationally (Bernama, 2005). While the take-up of new technology in the automotive industry is

tangible and easy to comprehend, the acceptability of styling is much more difficult, and particularly

when foreign markets are involved. Complicating this further are the demographic shifts in taste that

take place whereby a vehicle intended for one demographic in country A may be unacceptable to that

same demographic in country B. One such demographic is the emergence of women as a significant

market for both cars and motorcycles, particularly in South-East Asia for the latter. This requires

major changes in the styling of both cars and motorcycles. For example, in South-East Asia the

traditional motorcycle must contend with sophisticated models of motorcycle-scooters that clearly

appeal to women. Initially, these came from Japan.

In order to assess user requirements and to establish how they perceive competing models, methods

were required that could be easily and cheaply used in different markets. As indicated, the major

problem lies in the styling of vehicles, whereby designers require feedback, and preferably in a visual

form (Hwei, 2006). The method described here is one of a suite of such techniques being designed for

this purpose. To illustrate its use, we present results from both Malaysia and Australia in which both

nationality and gender differences are explored. Essentially, we want to know to what extent to which

the Malaysians and the Australians share common perceptions, and similarly for gender. Do women

and men agree in their evaluations, and if not, where do they differ?

1. The Semantic Differential

The Semantic Differential was developed by Osgood and his colleagues to measure the meaning of

concepts, and to what extent such meanings are shared (Charles E Osgood, 1952; Charles E. Osgood

& Suci, 1955). It has proven to be a flexible and reliable instrument for measuring attitudes to a wide

range of stimuli. The instrument normally employs rating of stimuli by using bipolar scales. Each

bipolar scale is defined by a pair of adjectives with contrasting meanings such as Fast - Slow, Cheap -

Expensive, etc. The stimuli rated have been wide-ranging from consumer products such as

automobiles, household goods, and gardening tools to attributes of objects such as colour. A study of

the influence of image congruence on consumer choice obtained significant relationships between the

self concept and several automobiles makers (Birdwell, 1968). The results showed a highly significant

degree of congruity exists in the way respondents from four groups perceive their cars and themselves.

The result appears that automobiles are extensions of the owner’s image of self. It also appears that an

individual’s cognitive structure, their self-image, and their environment are major influences on their

perception of automobiles.

Also, study showed some correlation of personality variables with product usage (Tucker & Painter,

1961). The questions included the use of everyday products that commonly purchased by college

students. The results clearly indicated that there are relationships between product use and personality

traits.

Factor Analysis is normally used to identify underlying communalities amongst the scales employed.

The most frequently obtained communalities – or factors – are (1) Evaluation, defined by adjectives

such as liked – disliked, positive – negative, honest – dishonest, (2) Potency, defined by heavy – light,

strong – weak, hard – soft, and (3) Activity, defined by adjectives such as active – passive, hot – cold,

fast – slow.

One advantage of the Semantic Differential is that scales can be used that are specific and appropriate

to the object or product of interest. Such scales can help to insure that one taps into particular facets of

attitudes that may be important for the specific product (DeSarbo & Harshman, 1985). In product

design, semantic differential is a measurement tool particularly used in the fields of product semantics

for measuring affective and emotional value of products (Akay & Kurt, 2007). Research by Alcantara,

Artacho, Gonzalez, and Garcaa applied product semantics technique to structure the semantic space of

casual shoes in order to assess users’ perception (Alcantara, Artacho, Gonzalez, & Garcia, 2005). The

results showed that comfort and quality were independently perceived by consumers, while comfort

was clearly identified by users, quality was not. This research again extended by using semantic

differential to assess user’s perception of products and the influence of design changes on it.

Moreover, research by Shang, Ming and Chien employed semantic differentials to examine the

relationship between the subjects’ evaluation of telephone samples and form design elements (Hsu,

Chuang, & Chang, 2000). Regarding the application of the Semantic Differential in the automotive

industry, few studies have been carried out. Malhotra (1981) used the Semantic Differential to

measure self-concept, person-concept and product concept, using automobiles that had a distinctive

image and were well known to the respondents. Research by Steg, Vlek, and Slotegraaf employed the

Semantic Differential for evaluating unattractive aspects of cars (Steg, Vlek, & Slotegraaf, 2001). In a

related field, a similar method called the Semantic Environment Description has been specifically

developed for architecture and car interior analysis (Karlsson, Aronsson, & Svensson, 2003).

In cross cultural research, the Semantic Differential has proved particularly valuable for examining

attitudes in different cultures. One advantage is that the bipolar adjectives chosen can be directly

translated into the relevant language. Because of the short words and ease of use, they normally

translate well into other languages (Shields, 2007). As early as the 1960s, a number of cross-cultural

studies were conducted. For example, Tanaka and Osgood (1965) investigated affective meaning

systems. In this study, perceptual signs were used and the generality of the affective meaning systems

was tested across three different subject groups, namely Americans, Finns and Japanese. In another

study, Lorimor and Dunn (1967) measured the effectiveness of cross-cultural advertising with French

and Egyptian respondents.

2. Method

A total of 32 subjects participated in the study, consisting of 16 from Malaysia and 16 from Australia.

They were given two identical tasks, one involving motorbikes and one involving cars. The stimuli

were pictures of motorbikes (Figure 1) and cars (Figure 2). The participants were asked to position the

product pictures on the visual axis of a plot that was proved.

The first plot used an Evaluation axis consisting of like – dislike and a Social axis consisting of cheap

– expensive, positioned orthogonal to one another. The second plot used a Potency axis, strong –

weak and an Activity axis, slow – fast. The results from each participant were combined into the mean

position for each of the stimuli. They are shown on the respective plots.

Figure 1: Pictures of selected motorbikes

Figure 2: Pictures of selected cars

3. Results

3.1 Motorbikes

Plot 1 (Figure 3) and plot 2 (Figure 4) presents the results for the Evaluation and Social factors by

Malaysian and Australian participants. Malaysian participants exhibit less agreement than the

Australians for both factors. This is shown by the degree of scatter around the axes. There is however

strong agreement that the scooters are cheap and disliked. This contrasts with the perceived

expensiveness and liking for motorbikes. Unsurprisingly, motorbikes with an engine capacity of more

than 200 cc were rated as expensive, with Italian motorbikes being most expensive and most liked.

Bolwell’s Sym scooter was highly evaluated and outperformed the other scooters. This may reflect the

design which was retro and mimicked Italian styling (Johnson, 2006). In contrast, Modenas’s scooter

Karisma was rated as cheap and disliked.

Plot 3 (Figure 5) and plot 4 (Figure 6) presents the results for the Potency and Activity factors by

Malaysian and Australian participants. As with the results above, the Malaysian participants exhibited

less agreement than the Australians. There was agreement that scooters are weaker and slower than

motorbikes, and also that the Italian motorbikes were faster and stronger. Into this category also came

the Honda DN-01 and Harley Davidson. Modenas’s scooter Karisma was consistently rated as slow

and weak even compared to the other scooters.

Figure 3: Plot 1 - Evalu cial (cheap-expensive)

–Malaysian Participants

ation (like-dislike) and So

Figure 4: Plot 2 - Evaluation (like-dislike) and Social (cheap-expensive)

–Australian Participants

Figure 5: Plot 3 - Potency (strong-weak) and Activity (slow-fast)

– Malaysian Participants

Figure 6: Plot 4 - Potency (Strong-weak) and Activity (Slow-fast)

– Australian Participants

3.2 Cars

Plot 5 (Figure 7) and plot 6 (Figure 8) presents the result for the Evaluation and Social factors by

Malaysian and Australian participants, and plot 7 (Figure 9) and plot 8 (Figure 10) the results for the

Potency and Activity factors. By combining them it is clear that both Malaysians and Australians

regard the luxury makes of Ferrari, Mercedes Benz, Volvo and BMW as strong, fast, expensive, and

preferred. Malaysian and Chinese cars fared poorly and occupied lowly positions on each factor.

Interestingly, the latest car export from China, the low priced Cherry, was perceived as weak, slow,

cheap and disliked. Given its expanding sales in Malaysia, its price appears to compensate effectively.

Two cars that Malaysia exports to Australia are the Proton Waja and Savy. The Waja received a

uniformly negative response from the Australian participants, while the Savy fared much better.

Although the Savy was seen as cheap, weak and slow, it received a higher like rating. This may reflect

its adoption of retro Italian styling.

Figure 7: Plot 5 – Evalu cial (cheap-expensive)

–Malaysian Participants

ation (like-dislike) and So

Figure 8: Plot 6 – Evaluation (like-dislike) and Social (cheap-expensive)

–Australian Participants

Figure 9: Plot 7 - Potency (strong-weak) and Activity (slow-fast)

– Malaysian Participants

Figure 10: Plot 8 - Potency (strong-weak) and Activity (slow-fast)

– Australian Participants

4. Discussion

The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of using this technique to gain insights into

products. Effectively, is it a meaningful task for participants to position products within a two-

dimensional space characterised by two orthogonal scales? Furthermore, is the task meaningful cross-

culturally; in this case to both Malaysians and Australians? For the task to lack meaning there would

be a fairly random spread of products (cars and motorcycles) within the two-dimensional spaces.

Instead, there is a clear pattern of placements that makes intuitive sense. For example, we would

expect the likes of Mercedes Benz and Ferrari to be positioned high in expensive and Chinese imports

low in expensive. On the basis of earlier research using the Semantic Differential we would also

anticipate higher agreement amongst participants for the Potency-Activity factor than for the

Evaluation-Social factor. From inspection of the plots this is apparent for both Malaysians and

Australians; that is, the spread within the space is less for the Potency-Activity factor than for the

Evaluation-Social factor. That the above effects occur for two distinct products, cars and motorbikes,

gives further confidence in the meaningfulness of the task. The presence of such effects for the two

distinct national groups, Malaysians and Australians, lends further weight.

The next stage of the research is to develop software whereby the participant can ‘click and grab’

individual products and locate them within a digital space. The dimensionality of the space can be

quickly configured to incorporate a range of factors such as those used in this pilot study. Such factors

can be tailor-made according to the product category and the interests of those commissioning future

applications. Finally, the software will identify the position where each product is located in the space

and provide numerical coordinates corresponding to the factors underlying the space. Theses

coordinates will be amenable to analysis by such statistical packages as SPSS. The output therefore

will consist of both graphic representations as illustrated in this paper and statistical analyses that will

enable more specific questions to be answered. The power of both Factor Analysis – the normal

accompaniment to such a task – and Multidimensional Scaling can then be harnessed.

References Akay, D., & Kurt, M. (2007). A neuro-fuzzy based approach to affective design. The International

Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 1-13.

Alcantara, E., Artacho, M. A., Gonzalez, J. C., & Garcia, A. C. (2005). Application of product

semantics to footwear design: part 1 - identification of footwear semantic space applying

diferential semantics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35(8), 713-725.

Antikainen, A., Kälviäinen, M., & Miller, H. (2003). User information for designers: a visual

research package. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on

Designing pleasurable products and interfaces, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Bernama. (2005, 27/8/2005). Malaysia sees positive development in motorcycle industry. business

Retrieved 10/10/2007, from http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=152532

Birdwell, A. E. (1968). A study of the influence of image congruence on consumer choice. [Article].

Journal of Business Research, 41(1), 76-88.

Bruseberg, A., & McDonagh, D. (2001). New product development by eliciting user experience and

aspirations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 55(4), 435-452.

DeSarbo, W. S., & Harshman, R. A. (1985). Celebrity-brand congruence analysis. [Article]. Current

Issues and Research in Advertising, 8(2), 17.

Engelbrektsson, P. (2002). Effects of product experience and product representations in focus group

interviews. Journal of Engineering Design, 13(3), 215-221.

Engelbrektsson, P., & Soderman, M. (2004). The use and perception of methods and product

representations in product development: a survey of Swedish industry. Journal of Engineering

Design, 15(2), 141-154.

Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. (1993). The Voice of the Customer. Marketing Science, 12(1), 1-27.

Hannington, B. (2003). Methods in the making: a perspective on the state of human research in design.

Design Issues, 19(4), 9-18.

Hsu, S. H., Chuang, M. C., & Chang, C. C. (2000). A semantic differential study of designers` and

users` product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 25(4), 375-

391.

Hwei, O. S. (2006, 1 October 2006). Putting the brakes on costs. Business Services Industry

Retrieved 24/5/2008, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn6207/is_20061001/ai_n24910435

Johnson, D. (2006). Buell hits mark, wows Italians. Dealernews, 42(13), 12-14.

Karlsson, B. S. A., Aronsson, N., & Svensson, K. A. (2003). Using semantic environment description

as a tool to evaluate car interiors. Ergonomics, 46(13), 1408-1422.

Lorimor, E. S., & Dunn, S. W. (1967). Four measures of cross-cultural advertising effectiveness.

Journal of Advertising Research, 7(4), 11-13.

Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts, and product concepts.

Journal of Marketing Research, 18(4), 456-464.

Modenas. (2005). Modenas homepage. Retrieved 10/11/2007, from http://www.modenas.com.my/

Osgood, C. E. (1952). The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49(3), 197-

237.

Osgood, C. E., & Suci, G. J. (1955). Factor analysis of meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology,

50(5), 325-338.

Pullman, M. E., & Robson, S. K. A. (2007). Visual methods: using photographs to capture customers'

experience with design. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 121-

144.

Rosli, M. (2006). The automobile industry and performance of Malaysian auto production. [E-

Journal]. Journal of Economic Cooperation among Islamic Countries, 27(1), 89-114.

Shields, L. (2007). Using semantic differentials in fieldwork. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical

Practice, 13(1), 116-119.

Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Slotegraaf, G. (2001). Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-affective motives for

using a motor car. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 4(3),

151-169.

Tanaka, Y., & Osgood, C. E. (1965). Cross-culture, cross-concept, and cross-subject generality of

affective meaning systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(2), 143-153.

Tucker, W. T., & Painter, J. J. (1961). Personality and product use. Journal of Applied Psychology,

45(5), 325-329.