The powerful influence of marks: Visual and knowledge-driven processing in hurricane track displays.

Given the widespread use of visualizations to communicate hazard risks, forecast visualizations must be as effective to interpret as possible. However, despite incorporating best practices, visualizations can influence viewer judgments in ways that the designers did not anticipate. Visualization designers should understand the full implications of visualization techniques and seek to develop visualizations that account for the complexities in decision-making. The current study explores the influence of visualizations of uncertainty by examining a case in which ensemble hurricane forecast visualizations produce unintended interpretations. We show that people estimate more damage to a location that is overlapped by a track in an ensemble hurricane forecast visualization compared to a location that does not coincide with a track. We find that this effect can be partially reduced by manipulating the number of hurricane paths displayed, suggesting the importance of visual features of a display on decision making. Providing instructions about the information conveyed in the ensemble display also reduced the effect, but importantly, did not eliminate it. These findings illustrate the powerful influence of marks and their encodings on decision-making with visualizations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

[1]  Christian Freksa,et al.  On the Relations between Spatial Concepts and Geographic Objects , 2020 .

[2]  Donald H. House,et al.  Visualizing Uncertain Tropical Cyclone Predictions using Representative Samples from Ensembles of Forecast Tracks , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[3]  Antonio Maldonado,et al.  Biasing and debiasing health decisions with bar graphs: Costs and benefits of graph literacy , 2018 .

[4]  Sarah H. Creem-Regehr,et al.  Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines , 2018, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications.

[5]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Explicit Versus Actionable Knowledge: The Influence of Explaining Graphical Conventions on Interpretation of Hurricane Forecast Visualizations , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[6]  M. Hegarty.  Ability and sex differences in spatial thinking: What does the mental rotation test really measure? , 2018, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Effect of Visualization Training on Uncertain Spatial Trajectory Predictions , 2018, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Sarah H. Creem-Regehr,et al.  Effects of ensemble and summary displays on interpretations of geospatial uncertainty data , 2017, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications.

[9]  Donald H. House,et al.  Uncertainty Visualization by Representative Sampling from Prediction Ensembles , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[10]  Shih-Kai Huang,et al.  Who Leaves and Who Stays? A Review and Statistical Meta-Analysis of Hurricane Evacuation Studies , 2016 .

[11]  Rebecca Zwick,et al.  Exploring the Effectiveness of a Measurement Error Tutorial in Helping Teachers Understand Score Report Results , 2016 .

[12]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Assessing the effectiveness of different visualizations for judgments of positional uncertainty , 2016, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[13]  Donald H. House,et al.  Non-expert interpretations of hurricane forecast uncertainty visualizations , 2016, CogSci.

[14]  Tamara Munzner,et al.  Visualization Analysis and Design , 2014, A.K. Peters visualization series.

[15]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[16]  S. Joslyn,et al.  Decisions With Uncertainty: The Glass Half Full , 2013 .

[17]  S. Joslyn,et al.  The Advantages of Predictive Interval Forecasts for Non‐Expert Users and the Impact of Visualizations , 2013 .

[18]  David Peebles,et al.  The Effect of Gestalt Laws of Perceptual Organization on the Comprehension of Three-Variable Bar and Line Graphs , 2013, Hum. Factors.

[19]  George E. Newman,et al.  Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: The within-the-bar bias , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[20]  E. Erdfelder,et al.  Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[21]  G. Cumming,et al.  Researchers misunderstand confidence intervals and standard error bars. , 2005, Psychological methods.

[22]  Michael K. Lindell,et al.  Household Decision Making and Evacuation in Response to Hurricane Lili , 2005 .

[23]  B. Scholl.  Objects and attention: the state of the art , 2001, Cognition.

[24]  P. Driscoll,et al.  Riding out the Storm: Public Evaluations of News Coverage of Hurricane Andrew , 1996, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.

[25]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  How to Improve Bayesian Reasoning Without Instruction: Frequency Formats , 1995 .

[26]  S. Raudenbush,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[27]  Susan Joslyn,et al.  Probabilistic Interval Forecasts: An Individual Differences Approach to Understanding Forecast Communication , 2017 .

[28]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. , 1999 .

[29]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, Rev. ed. , 1993 .

[30]  M. Wertheimer.  Laws of organization in perceptual forms. , 1938 .