Ten, five point Likert-like items are used in this scale to measure the degree to which a person who has recently engaged in a certain task describes his/her processing of information to have been done in a logical, rule-based manner.
Fifteen, seven-point semantic differentials are used to measure the degree to which an advertisement is viewed as being original, well-made, and logical. Although the studies described below applied the scale to advertisements, it appears amenable for use with other creative aspects of marketing such as sales presentations, packages, event marketing, etc.
The scale is composed of three statements measuring the extent to which a person believes a decision that has been made makes sense and is easy to support.
Multiple semantic differentials are used to assess the degree to which an ad (or the message portion of it) is viewed as being rational and useful.
The scale is composed of seven, seven-point uni-polar items used to measure a person's belief that a certain ad is bizarre and irrational. This attitude is likely to have been evoked because of the incongruous juxtaposition of stimuli in the ad (images, sounds, text) such that little or no logical interpretation is possible.
Four, bipolar adjectives are purported to measure a person's opinion of the type of appeal being used by the source of a message, varying from emotional at one extreme to rational at the other. It could easily be used with advertising but could also be used with appeals made by charities, speeches by politicians, sale pitches by sales people, etc.
Ten, five-point semantic differentials measure a consumer's judgment of the appropriateness of engaging in some specified act. In the studies by Rook and Fisher (1995), the act was making an impulsive purchase in a particular situation. It appears this scale is amenable for use as a measure of attitude toward the act, with the act depending on the phrasing of the instructions or scale stem.
A seven-item, seven-point semantic differential scale used in measuring a person's tendency to rely more on the functions associated with one brain hemisphere than on those associated with the other. The construct was referred to by Hirschman (1986) as cognitive function asymmetry.
