Five bipolar semantic differential items assessing how visually attractive and aesthetically pleasing a product appears. White et al. (2016) used the scale in Study 4, in which participants viewed one of three photos of a grocery food product that varied in packaging damage. The scale appears to have been created by the authors and is well-suited to contexts where visual cues, product aesthetics, or packaging quality are central to the research question.
7-point semantic differential (reported in article); 9-point (per web appendix)
Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.
Alpha was .97. There is a discrepancy between the article (7-point) and the web appendix (9-point) regarding the number of scale points. Researchers should consult the original web appendix. The instructions for the scale were not described by the authors, but respondents likely rated the product image they saw.
White, K., Lin, L., Dahl, D.W., & Ritchie, R.J.B. (2016). When do consumers avoid imperfections? Superficial packaging damage as a contamination cue. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(1), 110–123.
Free access to 2455+ psychometric scales at PsychScales