Graph Comprehension: An Experiment in Displaying Data as Bar Charts, Pie Charts and Tables With and Without the Gratuitous 3rd Dimension

The authors investigated whether the type of data display (bar chart, pie chart, or table) or adding a gratuitous third dimension (shading to give the illusion of depth) affects the accuracy of answers of questions about the data. They conducted a randomized experiment with 897 members of the American Life Panel, a nationally representative US web survey panel. They found that displaying data in a table lead to more accurate answers than the choice of bar charts or pie charts. Adding a gratuitous third dimension had no effect on the accuracy of the answers for the bar chart and a small but significant negative effect for the pie chart. Viewing the graph/table for less than 8 seconds resulted in less accurate answers. Older age was associated with increased average viewing time (1.2 seconds per 10 years increase in age) but did not affect the accuracy of the answers. Greater numeracy was associated with more accurate answers.

[1]  C. Melody Carswell,et al.  Graphing in depth: Perspectives on the use of three-dimensional graphs to represent lower-dimensional data. , 1991 .

[2]  B. Rimer,et al.  General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  P. Ubel,et al.  Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[4]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Reading bar graphs: Effects of extraneous depth cues and graphical context. , 1998 .

[5]  R McGill,et al.  Graphical Perception and Graphical Methods for Analyzing Scientific Data , 1985, Science.

[6]  Andrew Ehrenberg,et al.  The Problem of Numeracy , 1981 .

[7]  Improvement,et al.  Adult literacy in America : a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey , 1993 .

[8]  Brian P. Dyre,et al.  Understanding bias in proportion production. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  Susan N. Friel,et al.  Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. , 2001 .

[10]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Less Is More in Presenting Quality Information to Consumers , 2007, Medical care research and review : MCRR.

[11]  W. Cleveland,et al.  Graphical Perception: Theory, Experimentation, and Application to the Development of Graphical Methods , 1984 .

[12]  P. Ubel,et al.  Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[13]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Gratuitous graphics? Putting preferences in perspective , 1996, CHI.

[14]  Alan G. Sanfey,et al.  Does Evidence Presentation Format Affect Judgment? An Experimental Evaluation of Displays of Data for Judgments , 1998 .

[15]  S. S. Stevens.  On the psychophysical law. , 1957, Psychological review.

[16]  Irwin S. Kirsch,et al.  Adult Literacy in OECD Countries: Technical Report on the First International Adult Literacy Survey. , 1998 .

[17]  M. H. Fischer,et al.  Do irrelevant depth cues affect the comprehension of bar graphs , 2000 .

[18]  P. Slovic,et al.  Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. , 2007, Health affairs.