Appropriate Likert scales need 5 blocks and often more depending on the amount of nuances you want to capture, if you allow a neutral point, etc. If you only have 3 blocks, you could also label them as “yes,” “maybe,” and no. ”Likert scales work precisely because they have no defined intermediate values, they are only a continuum between 2 defined values.
So, when you use emoticons / emojis or any other type of intermediate labeling, you have practically defeated the purpose of using a Likert scale unless you are working with a population that has problems with abstractions.
I let my personal terminology go into my answer, so I have to explain a bit.
Strictly speaking, a "Likert scale" is a continuum with 5 points, ranging from "completely agree" to "somewhat agree", "neither agree nor disagree", and "somewhat disagree" to "completely disagree "or other words. for that purpose. Each box is labeled.
The semantic differential scale of Osgood, on the other hand, and again strictly speaking, is a continuum with a certain number of boxes, ranging from "Industrious" to "Lazy" (or some other similar opposite pair). None of the intermediate boxes are labeled, only the endpoints.
Nominally, an Osgood scale is used to capture connotations, just as a Likert scale is nominally only for agreement / disagreement.
But as it should be evident, the Likert and Osgood scales are really engaging the same ability of mammals to perceive intermediate distinctions. Conventionally, their domains of use are different, but that is only a convention: they are quite interchangeable and the Osgood scale is less restrictive.
I call them both "Likert scales" because it is easier said than "semantic differential scale" and I can never remember Osgood's name. You should probably call them "fuzzy" scales, since Lotfi Zadeh's work has popularized (fsvo "popular") that more generic term.
For any case more complex than the original Likert "agree" … "continuously disagree", it is quite easy to produce a labeled scale that seems to capture the information you want, but it does not.
An annoying example of that is the one commonly used for physical stores such as Lowes or Home Depot. They usually have a question "How often do you visit your local Fubar Inc?" with options like "Everyday", "Twice a week", "Once a month" … Such a scale cannot capture "I practically live there if I am doing a project, but otherwise never". But a no tag The scale (Osgood scale) at least has a fighting chance because the responder can choose a point between "every day" and "never" without worrying about the mapping between perception and etiquette.
by chosen correctly Continuous doesn't matter much if the intermediate steps are labeled as long as the tags make sense in context. But if they do not (the example of Fubar Inc), then unlabeled is more likely to produce a good result because respondents are not required to map their nonverbal perceptions on fixed labels.
(Two years ago I did a bilingual survey to prevent our local post office from closing. I used an Osgood scale of 11 grains and nobody, including Portuguese immigrants with little English who laughed at my broken Portuguese, had the slightest problem for Decide which box X indicates how important the post office is to them, how often they visit it, the proportion of commercial versus personal use, etc.)