Binary Binning: Examining the Mapping Between Continuous and Binary Review Scales

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Neel Ocean,  Vasundhara, Rucha Paricharak
{"title":"Binary Binning: Examining the Mapping Between Continuous and Binary Review Scales","authors":"Neel Ocean,&nbsp; Vasundhara,&nbsp;Rucha Paricharak","doi":"10.1002/bdm.70080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Products and services are commonly rated on either a 5-point scale or a binary scale. Using a pilot experiment, two between-subjects experiments, and a survey, this paper investigates how individuals evaluate products differently depending on the scale used, how they categorize ratings on a 5-point scale into binary bins, and how they estimate 5-point distributions from binary scales. Individuals perceive products as higher in quality when ratings are presented on a binary scale if reviews have been assigned to positive or negative categories based on whether they are above or below the midpoint of a 5-point scale. Individuals perceive products as being of equivalent quality across scales only when ratings of four and five are taken as positive, and the remainder as negative. However, when individuals are asked to generate a 5-point distribution from binary ratings, they do not account for this skew <i>unless</i> the 5-point scale is explicitly labeled so that the “neutral” point of the scale is defined as four rather than three. These findings extend the literature that aims to understand how people evaluate products given different forms of ratings information.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"39 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.70080","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.70080","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Products and services are commonly rated on either a 5-point scale or a binary scale. Using a pilot experiment, two between-subjects experiments, and a survey, this paper investigates how individuals evaluate products differently depending on the scale used, how they categorize ratings on a 5-point scale into binary bins, and how they estimate 5-point distributions from binary scales. Individuals perceive products as higher in quality when ratings are presented on a binary scale if reviews have been assigned to positive or negative categories based on whether they are above or below the midpoint of a 5-point scale. Individuals perceive products as being of equivalent quality across scales only when ratings of four and five are taken as positive, and the remainder as negative. However, when individuals are asked to generate a 5-point distribution from binary ratings, they do not account for this skew unless the 5-point scale is explicitly labeled so that the “neutral” point of the scale is defined as four rather than three. These findings extend the literature that aims to understand how people evaluate products given different forms of ratings information.

Abstract Image

二进位分类:检查连续和二进位复习量表之间的映射
产品和服务通常以5分制或二分制进行评级。通过一个试点实验、两个受试者之间的实验和一项调查,本文研究了个体如何根据所使用的量表对产品进行不同的评估,他们如何将5分制的评分分类为二进位,以及他们如何从二进位量表中估计5分分布。如果根据评价是高于还是低于5分制的中点,在二分制上给出评价,个人认为产品的质量更高。只有当4分和5分被认为是积极的,其余的被认为是消极的时,个人才会认为产品的质量在各个尺度上是相同的。然而,当个人被要求从二元评分中生成5分分布时,他们不会解释这种偏差,除非5分量表被明确标记,以便将量表的“中性”点定义为4而不是3。这些发现扩展了旨在了解人们如何评估给定不同形式评级信息的产品的文献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书