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.

虽然一些评估量表要求人们使用量表上的标签来表达他们对目标的判断（例如，非常好），但其他一些量表会量化这些标签（例如，7  =“非常好”）。尽管量化和非量化的量表在评估内容上可能看起来相同，但我们认为量化本身就显着影响着人们对目标的评估。我们发现评估者不太可能使用量化评估量表的终点（无论是正面还是负面），从而导致对目标的评估更加保守（与非量化量表相比）。当目标具有总体积极或消极的质量时，效果更加明显，其中终点更相关。最后，当量表的端点本身代表极端评估（例如，最好的可能）时，量化的效果就会降低，因为无论量化如何，人们通常都会避免使用这种极端端点。我们讨论了我们的研究结果对其他重要问题的影响，例如评级膨胀和个人活动的量化。