评价的量化

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Jinseok S. Chun , Michael I. Norton
{"title":"评价的量化","authors":"Jinseok S. Chun ,&nbsp;Michael I. Norton","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>While some evaluation scales ask people to express their judgments of targets using labels on a scale (e.g., <em>very good</em>), some other scales quantify these labels (e.g., <em>7</em> = “very good”). Although the quantified and non-quantified scales may seem identical in terms of the evaluation content, we suggest that quantification in itself significantly influences people's evaluations of targets. We find that evaluators are less likely to use the endpoints—both positive and negative—of quantified evaluation scales, resulting in more conservative evaluations of targets (as compared with non-quantified scales). The effect is more pronounced when targets are of overall positive or negative quality, where endpoints are more relevant. Finally, the effect of quantification is reduced when the endpoints of the scales themselves represent extreme evaluations (e.g., <em>best possible</em>), because people generally refrain from using such extreme endpoints regardless of quantification. We discuss the implications of our findings in terms of other important issues such as rating inflation and quantification of personal activities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"110 ","pages":"Article 104558"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantification of evaluations\",\"authors\":\"Jinseok S. Chun ,&nbsp;Michael I. Norton\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104558\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>While some evaluation scales ask people to express their judgments of targets using labels on a scale (e.g., <em>very good</em>), some other scales quantify these labels (e.g., <em>7</em> = “very good”). Although the quantified and non-quantified scales may seem identical in terms of the evaluation content, we suggest that quantification in itself significantly influences people's evaluations of targets. We find that evaluators are less likely to use the endpoints—both positive and negative—of quantified evaluation scales, resulting in more conservative evaluations of targets (as compared with non-quantified scales). The effect is more pronounced when targets are of overall positive or negative quality, where endpoints are more relevant. Finally, the effect of quantification is reduced when the endpoints of the scales themselves represent extreme evaluations (e.g., <em>best possible</em>), because people generally refrain from using such extreme endpoints regardless of quantification. We discuss the implications of our findings in terms of other important issues such as rating inflation and quantification of personal activities.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\",\"volume\":\"110 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104558\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103123001154\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103123001154","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然一些评估量表要求人们用量表上的标签来表达他们对目标的判断(例如,非常好),但其他一些量表量化了这些标签(例如,7 =“非常好”)。虽然量化和非量化量表在评价内容上看似相同,但我们认为量化本身会显著影响人们对目标的评价。我们发现,评估者不太可能使用量化评估量表的终点——无论是积极的还是消极的,导致对目标的评估更保守(与非量化量表相比)。当目标总体上是积极的或消极的,终点更相关时,效果更明显。最后,当量表的端点本身代表极端评估(例如,最佳可能)时,量化的效果会降低,因为人们通常不使用这种极端端点,而不管量化如何。我们讨论了我们的研究结果在其他重要问题方面的影响,如评级通货膨胀和个人活动的量化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantification of evaluations

While some evaluation scales ask people to express their judgments of targets using labels on a scale (e.g., very good), some other scales quantify these labels (e.g., 7 = “very good”). Although the quantified and non-quantified scales may seem identical in terms of the evaluation content, we suggest that quantification in itself significantly influences people's evaluations of targets. We find that evaluators are less likely to use the endpoints—both positive and negative—of quantified evaluation scales, resulting in more conservative evaluations of targets (as compared with non-quantified scales). The effect is more pronounced when targets are of overall positive or negative quality, where endpoints are more relevant. Finally, the effect of quantification is reduced when the endpoints of the scales themselves represent extreme evaluations (e.g., best possible), because people generally refrain from using such extreme endpoints regardless of quantification. We discuss the implications of our findings in terms of other important issues such as rating inflation and quantification of personal activities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology publishes original research and theory on human social behavior and related phenomena. The journal emphasizes empirical, conceptually based research that advances an understanding of important social psychological processes. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and methodological comments.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信