The Intricate Nature of Evaluability
How Attribute Framing, Magnitude, and Reference Point Moderate Calibration and Bias
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12166344 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Hamutal Kreiner (0000-0001-6376-8277, Behavioral Sciences Department Ruppin Academic Center Emek Hefer Israel, corresponding author), Eyal Gamliel (0000-0002-9594-2791, Behavioral Sciences Department Ruppin Academic Center Emek Hefer Israel) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 39 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0894-3257 • E-ISSN: 1099-0771 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/bdm.70079 |
| OpenAlex | W7149585994 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 38 |
This research examines how evaluability is influenced by the interplay of attribute framing, magnitude information, and reference points. In two experiments, participants evaluated scenarios varying in framing valence (positive vs. negative), magnitude polarity, and the availability of a base‐rate reference point. The results indicated that framing valence systematically biased evaluations regardless of reference‐point availability and magnitude polarity. However, the availability of a reference point improved calibration, revealing higher sensitivity of evaluations to magnitude information. Experiment 2 extended these findings by manipulating reference‐point value. The results demonstrated that evaluations are highly sensitive to the relative value of magnitudes compared with the reference point, yet absolute magnitude made an additional contribution. These findings are consistent with fuzzy‐trace theory, insofar as they align with its dual‐route framework, and may be interpreted as compatible with the idea that evaluability is associated with dual cognitive routes: gist‐based processes may contribute to susceptibility to framing bias, whereas verbatim‐based processes may support magnitude sensitivity and improve calibration. Importantly, the present research did not directly test fuzzy‐trace theory against alternative accounts; therefore, it cannot determine whether fuzzy‐trace theory uniquely explains the observed findings or whether other accounts could explain them. The research highlights the intricate nature of evaluability by demonstrating that providing reference‐point information can enhance magnitude sensitivity without mitigating framing bias. Practical implications for information presentation are discussed, and future directions are outlined for promoting theoretical understanding of evaluability mechanisms
Cognition · Frame of reference · Framing (construction · Framing effect · Magnitude (astronomy · Negative information · Prospect theory · Valence (chemistry · Data Visualization and Analytics · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
All Frames Are Not Created Equal
General Evaluability Theory
Information leakage from logically equivalent frames
The Evaluability Hypothesis
Prospect Theory
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Framing context effects with reference points
Characteristics of quantifiers moderate the framing effect
The Role of Attention in Attribute Framing
Fuzzy‐trace theory and framing effects in choice
A Dual Process Evaluability Framework for decision anomalies
Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives
| Highly cited | No |
|---|