Judging Proportion with Graphs: The Summation Model

People take longer to judge part-to-whole relationships with bar graphs than with pie charts or divided bar graphs. Subjects may perform summation operations to establish the whole with bar graphs, which would be unnecessary for other graph types depicting the whole with a single object. To test this summation model, the number of components forming the whole was varied with bars, divided bars, reference bars, and pies in three experiments. Response time increased with the number of components for bar graphs but there was little increase for other graph types in Experiment 1. An accuracy emphasis in Experiment 2 produced generally longer response times, but had little effect on the time per summation. The summation operation was not used when graphs were displayed briefly in Experiment 3, although subjects still took longer with bars. The estimated time for a summation operation is consistent with estimates derived from other research. In general, the bar graph is not effective for proportion judgments, and its disadvantage becomes potentially greater as the number of components increases. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Language: en

[1]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Effectiveness of Graphical Presentation for Information Extraction: A Cumulative Experimental Approach* , 1993 .

[2]  J. L. Myers,et al.  Regression analyses of repeated measures data in cognitive research. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  Stephen M. Casner,et al.  Task-analytic approach to the automated design of graphic presentations , 1991, TOGS.

[4]  W. Cleveland The elements of graphing data , 1986 .

[5]  Edward R. Tufte,et al.  The Visual Display of Quantitative Information , 1986 .

[6]  I. Spence Visual psychophysics of simple graphical elements. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  R. Frick Accepting the null hypothesis , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[8]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. , 1995 .

[9]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  J G Hollands,et al.  Judgments of Change and Proportion in Graphical Perception , 1992, Human factors.

[11]  Gaea Leinhardt,et al.  Functions, Graphs, and Graphing: Tasks, Learning, and Teaching , 1990 .

[12]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  A Cognitive Model for Understanding Graphical Perception , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[13]  D J Gillan,et al.  A Componential Model of Human Interaction with Graphs: 1. Linear Regression Modeling , 1994, Human factors.

[14]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Generating visual images: units and relations. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[15]  S. Lewandowsky,et al.  Displaying proportions and percentages , 1991 .

[16]  Walter Crosby Eells,et al.  The Relative Merits of Circles and Bars for Representing Component Parts , 1926 .

[17]  Michael H. Kutner Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1974 .

[18]  David K. Simkin,et al.  An Information-Processing Analysis of Graph Perception , 1987 .

[19]  Steven Pinker,et al.  A theory of graph comprehension. , 1990 .

[20]  Michael Macdonald-Ross How Numbers are Shown: A Review of Research on the Presentation of Quantitative Data in Texts. , 1977 .