A Fundamental Study on Complementary Application Method of
Nomothetic and Idiographic Approaches on Impression
Evaluation

Takashi SONDA*, Toshimasa Yamanaka***University of Tsukuba C/o Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences
Major of Kansei, Cognitive and Neuroscience1-1-1 Tennodai Tsukuba-shi Ibaraki 305-8574
JAPAN,airph@40net.co.jp** University of Tsukuba C/o Institute of Art & Design1-1-1 Tennodai Tsukuba-shi Ibaraki 305-8574
JAPAN, tyam@geijutsu.tsukuba.ac.jp

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to show that a mutual complementary use of nomothetic and idiographic
approaches can make the interpretation of result in Kansei study abundant. As an example, we did an experiment of
the impression evaluation on clock. We used semantic differential (SD) technique as nomothetic approach andpersonal attitude construct (PAC) Analysis as idiographic approach.
In PAC Analysis, subjects elicit free associations about object. And they estimate the degree of the similarity about
all pairs of associations items. Cluster analysis is applied by the similarity matrix of each subject. Then they are asked
to interpret their own clusters and describe its contents. The results of each case reveal the individuality.
Generally, SD technique gives image construct among subjects. But, it has three restrictions：ⅰ)Factors related toimpression are not always cleared；ⅱ)Validity of results in Factor analysis；ⅲ)The individuality of interpretation on
adjective words is difficult to detect. PAC Analysis can complement ⅰ) by exploring each subject’s evaluation
construct (Free-PAC). To complement ⅱ) and ⅲ), we conducted PAC Analysis using adjective words in SD
technique, instead of free association (SD-PAC).
Ten subjects conducted impression evaluation by SD technique and two PAC Analyses. Major Findings were as
follows：(a) SD technique showed that the first factor (impression on shape) didn’t have any differences between likeand dislike for clock. But, the second factor (value judgement) has difference between the preferences for clock；(b)Free-PAC detected the evaluation about clock’s practical aspect, which was overlooked in SD technique；(c)SD-PAC showed that almost subject’s evaluation related impression on shape to value judgement.

Key words: Semantic Differential (SD) technique, Personal Attitude Construct (PAC) Analysis, Nomothetic approach,Idiographic approach, each complement

1. Introduction
As a research approach of Kansei study, we think there are two approaches. That is nomothetic approach andidiographic approach. The aim of nomothetic approach is to discover the general laws which are applied to all thepeople. This approach’s data is gained by many subjects. On the other hand, idiographic approach intends to attainthe unique knowledge or insight about the subject or the case. And data is obtained from one subject or one case.
Each approach has merits and demerits. If researcher uses only one approach in investigating certain phenomenon,
researcher can know the result gained by one approach, but the result by the other approach. If researcher uses two
approaches complementary, he (she) may be able to know the result gained by two approaches and make theinterpretation abundantly.
Therefore, in this paper, we hope to show that a mutual complementary use of nomothetic and idiographic
approach can make the interpretation of the result in Kansei study abundant. We selected a clock for experiment ofclock as an example.

2. Method
We used Semantic Differential (SD) technique for the nomothetic approach [1]. SD technique began with
Osgood’s linguistic study, it has been also used the method for grasping the image construct of the object [2] [3].
And we used Personal Attitude Construct (PAC) Analysis for the idiographic approach [4]. This analysis aims toseek individual’s attitude, image or cognition to object (e.g. classroom climate [5], sexual need and behavior [6]).

2.1 Semantic Differential (SD) techniqueFirst, the evaluation object must be decided. The evaluation object can be used sensory things as color, shapeor smell. And images as social (to a city and a political party etc), product or person can also be object. Secondly
you must prepare some pairs of the adjective words which are suitable for ornamenting the evaluation object andthen, you divine these pairs into several ranks and make them scale. Many subjects are made to answer thesescales. Finally, by conducting factor analysis to scales, you can search image construction of the evaluation object.

2.2 Personal Attitude Construct (PAC) Analysis
This analysis aims to gain rich information on an individual or a case by as follow.
ⅰ) Subjects elicit free associations about object.
ⅱ) They rate important rank of free association items and researcher (or experimenter) record associate rank ofthose items.
ⅲ) Subjects estimate the degree of the similarity about all pairs of association items.
ⅳ) Cluster analysis is applied by the similarity matrix of each subject. Then they are asked to interpret their own
clusters and describe its contents.
ⅴ) Finally experimenter conducted comprehensive interpretation by using all data gained to that point.
By above procedure, researcher intends to gain rich information on an individual or a case.
2.2 Differences between two methods
The plain difference between two methods is as follow. In SD technique, subjects are given the evaluation

scale and aren’t asked how to interpret the scale. On the other hand, in PAC Analysis, subjects are made to
produce evaluation scale by themselves and asked how to interpret the evaluation object by the scale. On table1,
we showed the differences between SD technique and PAC Analysis.

Table.1 Differences between SD technique and PAC Analysis; evaluation scale and interpretation ofevaluation scale

Evaluation scaleInterpretation of evaluation scale

SD technique
PAC Analysis
given
produce by subjects
Subjects aren't asked how to interpret Subjects are asked how to interpretthe pairs of adjective words.
association items.

2.3 Two method’s restriction and mutual complement

SD technique and PAC Analysis have more differences. To compare restrictions of SD technique with that of
PAC analysis, differences between two methods will become clear. SD technique’s restrictions are as follow.
a. Not always getting clear answer about factors related to impression

Although impression to the same object is not always equally to everyone, in SD technique, researcher uses
common scales (the pairs of the adjective words) to all subjects. Therefore, in SD technique, researcher can’t
always get clear answer about what influences impression.

b. The validity of factor analysis’s result

Researcher can’t know whether the result of factor analysis fits each subject’s construct of impression
evaluation or not.

c. Difficult to detect individual difference in interpreting the pairs of the adjective words

Subjects don’t always interpret the pairs of the adjective words equally. Also some subjects may haveunnecessary pairs to evaluate objects or need necessary pairs to.
Although SD technique has these restrictions, it is useful method to search impression evaluation constructcommon with subjects. On the other hand, in PAC analysis, researcher can’t apply the result from one subject toother subjects. But, this method gives detail information on one subject.
Therefore, to solve restriction “a.”,comparing factor analysis’s result gained by SD technique withindividual’s evaluation construct gained by PAC Analysis, may be useful. Comparing results, researcher will beable to explore each subject’s factors influenced on impression evaluation.
However, restriction “b.” and “c.” can’t complement PAC Analysis based on free association. Therefore, we
conducted another PAC analysis which used the pairs of adjective words instead of free association. The following,
we transcribed PAC Analysis based on free association as Free-PAC and used the pairs of the adjective words

instead of free association as SD-PAC.
By comparing the result of factor analysis with the SD-PAC’s cluster construct based on the pairs of adjective
words, it will be possible that whether the result of factor analysis matches the individual’s evaluation construct ornot. And also, it will be possible that individual difference in interpretation of adjective words can detect. Fig.1
shows that Free-PAC and SD-PAC complement SD technique.
Free-PAC
・Explore factors related to impression
evaluation by comparing factor analysis's
result with individual's evaluation construct

Restrictions of SD techniqe
a.Not always getting clear answer about
factors related to impression
b.The validity of factor analysis's resultc.Difficult to detect individual difference ininterpreting the pairs of the adjective words

SD-PAC・Investigate by comparing factor analysis's resultwith individual's cluster construct based on theparis of adjective words

・examine individal'scluster construct

Fig.1 Free-PAC and SD-PAC complement SD technique

SD technique also complements two PAC analysis's restriction. The restriction is that researcher can’t judge
how the result of PAC Analysis differs from general tendency. SD technique gives judgment flame to judge
general tendency. Comparing individual data (PAC Analysis’s data) with general tendency, individual data is madeto interpret easy. Fig.2 shows the mutual complement relation among SD technique, Free-PAC and SD-PAC.

Give the factor interpritation
new viewpont viewpoint

SD technique・Investigate the validity offactor analysis's result
・Individual difference in interpretingthe pair of the adjective words

Nomothetic Approach

By comparing PAC Analysis's data withgeneral tendency(gained by SD
technique), judgment flame that helps
individual data to interpret can get

SD-PAC

Factors related to impression
evaluation that may be overlooked
in SD technique can be discovered

Free-PAC

Idiographic ApproachFig.2 Mutual Complement relationship among three methods

2.4 The evaluation experiment to clock: object and subjects and procedure

2.4.1 Object
We used metal alarm clock made by IDEA INTERNATIONAL CO. as an object of impression evaluation (SeeFig.3).

Fig.3 Metal alarm clock (an object of impression evaluation in this study)

2.4.2 Subject
Ten subjects (five men and women) participated in this experiment. Table2 shows the average and SD of age.

Table2. Subjects’s average age and SD

N
M
SD

Total
10
23.0
1.25

Man
5
23.2
1.3

Woman
5
22.8
1.3

＊M stands for mean and SD stands for Standard Deviation.

2.4.3 Procedure

Each subject conducted impression evaluation by SD technique and two PAC Analyses. But, taking order effectinto consideration, each subject was randomly assigned the order of impression evaluation method. In eachmethod, before started impression evaluation by each method, subjects were asked to observe clock in hand forone minute. After this subjects were asked to evaluate in each method. And at the end of experiment, subjects
were asked if they liked the clock. Experiment was conducted individually. One experiment took about two hours
to three hours.

3. Results and Discussions
We mentioned the result of three impression evaluation method individually.

3.1 SD technique
We prepared ten pairs of adjective words as scales, but we excluded four pairs. Because three pairs weredetected floor effect and one pair showed very low communality. And then we conducted factor analysis again
using the rest of six pairs. As the method of factor analysis, we conducted as follow; prior communality estimates
was one, factor method was principal component. By the second factor, cumulative contribution was 67.38 %, so
we judged that using two factors might be appropriate. Table3 showed factor loadings after varimax rotation.

Table3. Factor loadings after varimax rotation

scalesthe 1st factor the 2nd factor communality
sober-gay
-0.53
0.03
0.29
boring-interesting
-0.06
0.96
0.93
beautiful-dirty
0.17
0.79
0.66
square-round
0.9
0.32
0.92
unfamiliar-familiar
0.45
0.52
0.47
blunt-sharp
-0.88
-0.1
0.78
variance explained
2.1
1.94
4.04
by each factor

We interpreted the first factor as “impression on shape”. Because we considered that it represented impression
by observing or touching the clock. And we interpreted the second factor as follow. Whether people think acertain object interesting or not, beautiful or not, is depended on their preference. Preference related to each
person’s value judgment. Therefore, we named the second factor as “value judgment”. We analyzed further byusing each factor’s factor score. We divided subjects into two groups by the preference for the clock andcompared two groups by conducting ANOVA in each factor. The preference for the clock was showed in table4
and the mean and the standard deviation of each factor score was in table5.

Table4. The Preference for the clock

Man
Woman

Like
1
4

Dislike41

N=10Table5. Mean and standard deviation of each factor score

N
M
SD

Impression on shape
Like
Dislike
5
5
0.1
-0.1
0.76
1.28

Value judgment
Like
Dislike
5
5
0.87
-0.87
0.5
0.3

In the first factor, significant difference was not detected (F (1, 8) = 0.09 p>.10) between two groups, but in thesecond factor the average of like group scientifically exceeded the average of dislike group (F (1, 8) = 44.15
p<.01). We considered that the preference for the clock and impression on shape didn’t have relation to each other,
but that the preference for the clock had relation to value judgment.

3.2 Free-PAC
In SD technique, two factors, shape(Factor Ⅰ) and value judgment(Factor Ⅱ) which may be related toimpression evaluation. But, in Free-PAC, the factor other than theirs was discovered. This was clock’s practicalaspects.
However, the pairs of adjective words stood for the evaluation of clock’s practical aspects was appeared whenthe pairs used in SD technique was selected as evaluation scales. In this study, we made the standard of selecting
the pairs. The standard was as follow. ⅰ) More than two experiment cooperator(the number of cooperator isfour) produced in common ⅱ) related to matter-of-fact evaluation ⅲ) related to comprehensive impression. So,
we didn’t choose the pairs related to clock’s practical aspects.
Considering above facts, if we included practice aspects in scales of SD technique, the result might be changed.
However, four of ten subjects didn’t observe the practice aspects (See table6). And evaluation to clock’s
practical aspects was negative (e.g. difficult to use or understanding) in spite of the preference forthe clock.
Table6. Features which each subject observed

looks +

featurepreferenc

looks

like
dislike2
2practice3
3

N = 10Considering these results, the judgment of the preference was much influenced by whether individual’s
preference matched clock’s shape(e.g. looks and the feel of material) or not. Although in the result of SD
technique, we interpreted that shape and preference had no relation, considering from the result of Free-PAC, bothmight have relation.
3.3 SD-PAC

3.3.1 Examination of factor analysis’s validity
One purpose of SD-PAC was examined whether the result of factor analysis gained by SD technique matchedeach subject’s evaluation construct or not. As the result of the factor analysis, we named the first factor“impression on shape” and the second factor “value judgment”. The pairs of adjective words which showed highloading to the first factor were “sober-gay”, “square-round” and “blunt-sharp”, to the second factor“dirty-beautiful” and “boring-interesting”.
We judged the validity of factor analysis by examining following things. ⅰ) In individual’s cluster construct(gained by SD-PAC), was there the cluster corresponding to each factor. ⅱ) If there was correspondent in thecluster, the pairs of the adjective words included in the cluster matched the pairs showed high loading each factor(See Fig.4).

Did the result of SD technique match the result of SD‑PAC?

Factor Ⅰ
Impression on shapesober‑gaysquare‑roundblunt‑sharpⅰ)In individual's cluster construct(gained by SD-PAC),
was there the cluster corresponding to each factor.
Factor Ⅱ
Value judgment
boring‑interesting
beautiful‑dirtyⅱ)If there was correspondent in the cluster, the pairsof the adjective words included in the cluster matched
the pairs showed high loading each factor

07.55+−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−− + Distance1.￨
inorganic−organic
1.00−−−−−−・
8.￨￨concrete−abstract
5.30−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−・
9.￨unfamiliar−familiar￨
1.00−−−−−−・
10.￨￨cold−warm￨
2.89−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−・
7.￨ boring−interesting￨￨
7.04−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−・2.￨
beautiful−dirty￨
2.00−−−−−−−−−−−−・
6.￨￨sober−gay￨
7.55−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−・
3.￨
hard−soft￨ 1.00−−−−−−・
5.￨￨blunt−sharp￨ 2.52−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−・4.￨ square−round￨￨ 7.55−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−・+−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−−＋−−−− +Fig.4 Examination of factor analysis’s validity

Although we excluded four pairs in SD technique, in SD-PAC we used these pairs. Therefore, comparing theresult of SD technique with SD-PAC had some restrictions.
Impression on shape (Factor Ⅰ) was discovered in each subject’s cluster construct. But, which pairs wererelated to the evaluation on shape was different among subjects.
“Dirty−beautiful” and “boring−interesting” which showed high factor loading to the second factor were notbelong to the same cluster and didn’t make the cluster related to value judgment(except for subject B). Only onepair(“dirty−beautiful” or “boring−interesting”) was mixed other pairs (stood for clock’s looks) and made thecluster related to value judgment.
In common with the result of Free-PAC, we discovered that evaluation for clock’s looks and value judgment
had connection in individual level (This relation could not be detected in SD technique.).
3.3.2. Validity of adjective words influenced by individual difference
In SD-PAC, we also aimed at examining that whether if subjects interpret pairs of adjective words equally ornot. And did some subjects need pairs for evaluation or have unneeded pairs for evaluation? First, we investigatedformer.

Table7. The result of how to interpret each pairs
hard-soft
Gender/Prefere
Subject A male/dislike the sense of touch
Subject B male/dislike impression of the touch by looking
Subject C male/dislike the feel of a material
Subject D male/dislike the sense of touch. Because of metal
Subject E female/dislike the special quality of matelial, and shape
Subject F female/likefrom looks and the sense of touchatomosphere as somehow
Subject G female/like
Subject H female/like
impression of looks and after touching
Subject I female/likeshape
Subject J male/likethe feel of a material after touching

sober-gayunnecessary to evaluate
color,shine
how much factors(number of shape) are consisted of shape
judgment by preference
impression at a glance. sober stands for simple
evaluation for comparing color and looks to my taste
shape and color
simple or notshapeshape and construction of the feeling of a material

inorganic-organic
Subject A male/dislike image on whole of the clock
Subject B male/dislike shape. feel square or circle
Subject C male/dislike the feeling of a material
Subject D male/dislike shape
Subject E female/dislike because material is metal
Subject F female/likeimagine the meaning of shape
Subject G female/likeshape, character(on dial) and the quality of material
feeling from first impression
Subject H female/like
Subject I female/likeshape
Subject J male/likeshape and the quality of material

boring-interesting
clock's atomospherebe excited with me or not
evaluation for device(look at time operate)
judgment by preference
if use the clock, I feel enjoyning or notjudge looks, funcions and operarion overallshapefeeling from first impression
sense is good, but too simple. So I don’t fell interesting
unnecessary to evaluate

cold-warm
concrete-abstract
Subject A male/dislike the feeling of a material on looks
clock's atomosphere
Subject B male/dislike from whole shape(lines and faces etc)
what associate from the clock
Subject C male/dislike normal as machine or not. If clock is too warm, it is abnormIt is easy or difficult for the clock's device
Subject D male/dislike the quality of material
shape
Subject E female/dislike looks. Because material is metal
From feeling which clock has only necessary things as its parts, I feel abst
Subject F female/likecolor and the sense of touch
shape stands for something or not
Subject G female/likeshape or luster
shape
impression from a glance and touchrouse creativity or not
Subject H female/like
Subject I female/likethe sense of touch and shape
shape
Subject J male/likethe sense of touch and shape
shape
dirty-beautiful
Subject A male/dislike about stain
the outer flame of an edge
Subject B male/dislike clock is made properly or nottreatment of an edge
Subject C male/dislike about stain
evaluation on shape
Subject D male/dislike This pair's interpretation is changed as conditions on that oshape
Subject E female/dislike luster
judge by looking an edge
Subject F female/likeabout stain
shape
Subject G female/likeshape and color. And luster, dial's color and character
shape and character of dial
Subject H female/likelooks and keeping clean or not in using this clock
the sense of touch
Subject I female/likeabout stain
shape
shape
Subject J male/likeunnecessaunnecessaunnecessary to evaluate
unfamiliar-familiar
Subject A male/dislike unnecessaunnecessaunnecessary to evaluate
Subject B male/dislike want to put this clock beside me or not
Subject C male/dislike evaluation I want to buy or not
Subject D male/dislike judgment by preference
Subject E female/dislike buy or not
Subject F female/like judgment by comparing my taste
Subject G female/like familiar to shape or not
Subject H female/like want to touch
Subject I female/like shape
Subject J
male/like shape and the feeling of a material match my taste or not

square-roundblunt-sharp
an edgelustershape
shape and luster
shape
shape
lusterevaluation for touching an edge
shapeclock's features(shape and the feeling of a material etc) are clear or not＊Reverse display stands for unnecessary pairs to evaluate

Table 7 showed that each subject how to interpret each pairs in short words. From this, it was said that someinterpretations of the pairs were common, other were uncommon. For example, “dirty−beautiful” was interpreted
that this meant whether clock was dirty or not by four subjects, but other six interpreted shiny, shape or color, andso on. These results showed that the interpretation of pairs was not equally among subjects.
And from the fact that subject A and J answered that they had pairs which were unnecessary to evaluate, we
guessed the existence of unnecessary pairs for evaluation.

Further, as necessary pairs for evaluation, there were pairs to evaluate clock’s practice aspects (from the resultof Free-PAC).

4. Conclusions
We conducted impression evaluation experiment to metal alarm clock as the model case. As the method of
impression evaluation, we used SD technique and two PAC analyses (Free-PAC and SD-PAC). In Free-PAC, we
detected evaluation for clock’s practice aspects that were overlooked in SD technique. In SD-PAC, we examined
if the result of SD technique matched each subject’s evaluation construct. And also we examined whether if eachsubject’s interpretation of the pair of adjective words was equally or not. The result showed as follow. The resultof SD technique didn’t match each subject’s evaluation construct. The interpretation of pairs was not equally
among subjects. And also some subjects reported that there were unnecessary pairs to evaluate. Free-PAC and
SD-PAC complemented the restriction of SD technique. That complement was due to SD technique. Free-PAC
and SD-PAC gives us rich information about each subject. But those don’t give general tendency. Without generaltendency, the interpretation of each subject’s data becomes difficult. The result of SD technique gave generaltendency. Therefore, SD technique and two PAC analyses complemented each other.
Finally, we pointed out the meaning of complementary application of nomothetic and idiographic approach.
Table8. represents the important rank of pairs of adjective words(scales). This important rank was gained from

Table8. The important rank of scales

subject

A B C D E F G H I J

scaleshard-soft
sober-gayinorganic-organic
boring-interesting
cold-warm
concrete-abstract
dirty-beautysquare-roundunfamiliar-familiar
blunt-sharp

5 7 7 1 4 3 1 7 1 1
9 5 4 7 1 6 9 10 4 8
1 4 5 2 9 1 7 1 9 5
7 9 1 10 2 7 5 3 7 10
6 3 6 3 6 10 4 8 6 22 10 10 4 7 8 8 9 5 3
10 6 3 9 10 2 3 4 8 9
4 1 8 5 5 4 10 2 2 4
8 8 2 8 3 9 6 5 10 7
3 2 9 6 8 5 2 6 3 6each subject when they evaluated the clock by SD-PAC. To examine the coincidence of the important rank, we
calculated Kendall’s coefficient of concordance [7].

We calculated three cases (all subjects, the group ofpreferring clock, the group of disliking), but significant difference was not detected in each case(all：W = 0.12,S=10.84；preferring W = 0.26,S=11.57；disliking W=0.11,S=5.12：W stands for Kendall’s coefficient ofconcordance, and S stands for Friedman Test to examine significant of W). This showed that the importance rankof scales differed among subjects.
SD technique as Nomothetic approach takes less time and effort than PAC analysis as idiographic approach. If
we used only SD technique in this experiment, the time to conduct the experiment would take 20 minutes persubject. Actually, it took about two hours per subject, because we used SD technique and two PAC analyses. To
consider the efficient of data collecting, it may be better that researcher only uses nomothetic approach. But, asshowing table8, even the important rank of scales differed among subjects. Moreover, the result of Free-PAC and
SD-PAC showed that factors related to impression evaluation that was overlooked in SD technique andinterpretation of scales differed too. And the result of group data (the result of SD technique) didn’t always matchthe result of individual’s data (the result of SD-PAC). That is, people’s feeling (Kansei) is various even theyevaluate the same object. And, to approach this variety, only one use of nomothetic approach is insufficient. To
approach it, it is useful to use nomothetic approach and idiographic approach each complementary.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.

Osgood C.E. The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin, 49(3), 197-237 (1952).
Jinguu H. Insyousokutei no sinrigaku-Kansei wo kangaeru-, 1996
Iwashita T. Osgood no imiron to SDhou, Kawashimashoten, 1974
Naito T. About Analysis of Personal Attitude Construct., Monographs of humanities (Faculty of Arts, Shinshu
University), 27, 43-69(1993).
5. Naito T. Idiographic cluster analysis of the climate of a single classroom. The Japanese Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology. 33(2), 111-121, 1993
6. Naito T. Analysis of the personal attitude construct of sexual need and behavior. The Japanese Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology. 34(2), 129-140, 1994
7. Mori T. & Yoshida T. (Ed) Shinrigaku no tameno de-takaiseki tekunikaru book, Kitaoojishobou, 1990