Companies are fond of global evaluations. After each online purchase or service e experience, customers are often asked to assess what they have paid for on bipolar rating scales. However, the literature on methodology reveals serious problems related to the mid point displayed on such continuums (e.g. Kaplan 1972; Thompson et al. 199 5). Actually, this mid-point inappropriate l y aggregates uncertain responses (difficult evaluation) with ambivalent (a combination of moderate to high positivity and negativity) or indifferent (low positivity and negativity) ones, when these different responses reflect different attitudes and drive distinct behaviors (Thornton 2011; Yoo 2010). The 5×5 Evaluative Space Grid (ESG), developed in psychology by Larsen and colleagues (2009) to measure both the degree of positivity and negativity of a stimulus, could help address this methodologica l issue. Based on both a qualitative and a quantitative explorations, we show that the ESG actually allows disentangling those different types of evaluations along its diagonal. Concretely, we showed that respondents’ involvement toward the evaluated object increases along the diagonal while their certainty in their responses increases on both sides departing from the mid-point: the zone at the bottom left of the diagonal gathers indifferent reactions, the zone on the upper right area of the diagonal more ambivalent reactions, uncertain reactions are collected in the middle of the diagonal, providing the opportunity to “avoid making a choice”. This research provides important theoretical and methodological contributions. It theoretically clarifies the attitudinal literature regarding the evaluations usually inappropriately aggregated on the mid-point of bipolar scales and offers a tool to measure them. From a managerial point of view, this research provides a tool for practitioners who wish to understand what lies behind average performances. More precisely, the distinction between the three types of neutral evaluations enables one to distinguish between informative and uninformative evaluations.
