Correction to: Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines

Visualizations—visual representations of information, depicted in graphics—are studied by researchers in numerous ways, ranging from the study of the basic principles of creating visualizations, to the cognitive processes underlying their use, as well as how visualizations communicate complex information (such as in medical risk or spatial patterns). However, findings from different domains are rarely shared across domains though there may be domain-general principles underlying visualizations and their use. The limited cross-domain communication may be due to a lack of a unifying cognitive framework. This review aims to address this gap by proposing an integrative model that is grounded in models of visualization comprehension and a dual-process account of decision making. We review empirical studies of decision making with static two-dimensional visualizations motivated by a wide range of research goals and find significant direct and indirect support for a dual-process account of decision making with visualizations. Consistent with a dual-process model, the first type of visualization decision mechanism produces fast, easy, and computationally light decisions with visualizations. The second facilitates slower, more contemplative, and effortful decisions with visualizations. We illustrate the utility of a dual-process account of decision making with visualizations using four cross-domain findings that may constitute universal visualization principles. Further, we offer guidance for future research, including novel areas of exploration and practical recommendations for visualization designers based on cognitive theory and empirical findings.

[1]  Sara Irina Fabrikant,et al.  How Do Decision Time and Realism Affect Map-Based Decision Making? , 2011, COSIT.

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

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

[4]  Sara Irina Fabrikant,et al.  Cognitively Plausible Information Visualization , 2005 .

[5]  R. Engle,et al.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. , 1999 .

[6]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Science Perspectives on Psychological , 2022 .

[7]  Jacques Bertin,et al.  Semiology of Graphics - Diagrams, Networks, Maps , 2010 .

[8]  C. Melody Carswell,et al.  Geospatial Perspective-Taking: How Well Do Decision Makers Choose Their Views? , 2007 .

[9]  J Meyer,et al.  Performance with tables and graphs: effects of training and a Visual Search Model , 2000, Ergonomics.

[10]  Magnus Boman,et al.  Implementing an agent trade server , 2003, Decis. Support Syst..

[11]  Ruth Rosenholtz,et al.  A computational form of the statistical saliency model for visual search , 2005 .

[12]  John M. Findlay,et al.  How People Extract Information from Graphs: Evidence from a Sentence-Graph Verification Paradigm , 2000, Diagrams.

[13]  Edward T. Cokely,et al.  Individual Differences in Graph Literacy: Overcoming Denominator Neglect in Risk Comprehension , 2012 .

[14]  B. Balleine The Neural Basis of Choice and Decision Making , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[15]  M. Galesic,et al.  Graph Literacy , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[16]  R. Engle,et al.  Working memory capacity and the scope and control of attention , 2015, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

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

[18]  Alisa Bandlow,et al.  Evaluating Information Visualizations with Working Memory Metrics , 2011, HCI.

[19]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations , 2007, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[20]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  The Use of 2D and 3D Displays for Shape-Understanding versus Relative-Position Tasks , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[21]  J. Gore,et al.  Relevance of graph literacy in the development of patient-centered communication tools. , 2016, Patient education and counseling.

[22]  Maria Riveiro,et al.  Visually supported reasoning under uncertain conditions: Effects of domain expertise on air traffic risk assessment , 2016, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

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

[24]  D. Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[25]  Paul R. Havig,et al.  A human cognition framework for information visualization , 2014, Comput. Graph..

[26]  G. Keren,et al.  Two Is Not Always Better Than One , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[27]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Cognitively Inspired and Perceptually Salient Graphic Displays for Efficient Spatial Inference Making , 2010 .

[28]  P. Ubel,et al.  Reducing the Influence of Anecdotal Reasoning on People’s Health Care Decisions: Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Statistics? , 2005, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[29]  Yasmina Okan,et al.  How People with Low and High Graph Literacy Process Health Graphs: Evidence from Eye‐tracking , 2016 .

[30]  A. Miyake,et al.  The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: an individual differences approach. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  Erika A. Waters,et al.  Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

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

[33]  J. Wiley,et al.  An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[34]  Limor Nadav-Greenberg,et al.  The Effect of Uncertainty Visualizations on Decision Making in Weather Forecasting , 2008 .

[35]  Eric R. Stone,et al.  Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. , 1997 .

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

[37]  R. García-Retamero,et al.  Health Literacy, Numeracy, and Graphical Literacy Among Veterans in Primary Care and Their Effect on Shared Decision Making and Trust in Physicians , 2013, Journal of health communication.

[38]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  The Cognitive Science of Visual-Spatial Displays: Implications for Design , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[39]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. , 2002 .

[40]  Matt Duckham,et al.  Evaluating the impact of visualization of wildfire hazard upon decision-making under uncertainty , 2016, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[41]  Alan M. MacEachren,et al.  Evaluating the effect of visually represented geodata uncertainty on decision-making: systematic review, lessons learned, and recommendations , 2017 .

[42]  H. Smallman,et al.  Choosing and using geospatial displays: effects of design on performance and metacognition. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[43]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[44]  Jon Oberlander,et al.  A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Science , 1995 .

[45]  H. Pashler Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[46]  R. Bednarz,et al.  Effect of GIS Learning on Spatial Thinking , 2009 .

[47]  Radhika Santhanam,et al.  Emergency management information systems: Could decision makers be supported in choosing display formats? , 2012, Decis. Support Syst..

[48]  H. Wainer,et al.  Alternative Displays for Communicating NAEP Results: A Redesign and Validity Study , 1999 .

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

[50]  Jonathan Evans Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[51]  S. Epstein,et al.  Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[52]  Alan D. Castel,et al.  Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning , 2008, Cognition.

[53]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences , 1998, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[54]  Winston R. Sieck,et al.  Foreground:background salience: Explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance , 2003 .

[55]  Bin Zhu,et al.  Visualization of Network Concepts: The Impact of Working Memory Capacity Differences , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[56]  John C. Trueswell,et al.  Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: Evidence from dual-task paradigms , 2010 .

[57]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Using Geographical Information Systems for Decision Making: Extending Cognitive Fit Theory to Map-Based Presentations , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

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

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

[60]  Alan M. MacEachren,et al.  How to Assess Visual Communication of Uncertainty? A Systematic Review of Geospatial Uncertainty Visualisation User Studies , 2014 .

[61]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Where are you? The Effect of Uncertainty and its Visual Representation on Location Judgments in GPS-like Displays , 2016, CogSci.

[62]  James A Schirillo,et al.  The Greater Ability of Graphical Versus Numerical Displays to Increase Risk Avoidance Involves a Common Mechanism , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

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

[64]  Cynthia Frownfelter-Lohrke,et al.  The effects of differing information presentations of general purpose financial statements on users' decisions , 1998 .

[65]  Jessica S. Ancker,et al.  The Practice of Informatics: Design Features of Graphs in Health Risk Communication: A Systematic Review , 2006, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[66]  S. Sloman Two systems of reasoning. , 2002 .

[67]  M. H. Fischer,et al.  Different clues from different views: The role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[68]  Sarah H. Creem-Regehr,et al.  Evaluating the Impact of Binning 2D Scalar Fields , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[69]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Readings in information visualization - using vision to think , 1999 .

[70]  Gerald L. Lohse,et al.  The role of working memory on graphical information processing , 1997, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[71]  Luciana Picucci,et al.  WORKING MEMORY COMPONENTS AND VIRTUAL REORIENTATION: A DUAL TASK STUDY , 2011 .

[72]  S. Yantis,et al.  Visual Attention: Bottom-Up Versus Top-Down , 2004, Current Biology.

[73]  Sarah H. Creem-Regehr,et al.  The influence of different graphical displays on nonexpert decision making under uncertainty. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[74]  Mirta Galesic,et al.  When Higher Bars Are Not Larger Quantities: On Individual Differences in the Use of Spatial Information in Graph Comprehension , 2012, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[75]  Brian J Scholl,et al.  Bar graphs depicting averages are perceptually misinterpreted: The within-the-bar bias , 2012, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[76]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[77]  Christof Koch,et al.  A Model of Saliency-Based Visual Attention for Rapid Scene Analysis , 2009 .

[78]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[79]  Erika A. Waters,et al.  Formats for Improving Risk Communication in Medical Tradeoff Decisions , 2006, Journal of health communication.

[80]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Working Memory in Wayfinding - A Dual Task Experiment in a Virtual City , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[81]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

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

[83]  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.

[84]  V. Reyna,et al.  How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[85]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Thinking about the weather: How display salience and knowledge affect performance in a graphic inference task. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[86]  Jeffrey V. Nickerson,et al.  Representing Category and Continuum: Visualizing Thought , 2012, Diagrams.

[87]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study of Information Acquisition , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[88]  Arzu Çöltekin,et al.  An empirical evaluation of three elevation change symbolization methods along routes in bicycle maps , 2017 .

[89]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Visualizing Thought , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[90]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[91]  Priti Shah,et al.  Bar and Line Graph Comprehension: An Interaction of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Processes , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[92]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. , 2009, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

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

[94]  Nelson Cowan,et al.  The many faces of working memory and short-term storage , 2017, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[95]  W. Singer,et al.  Dynamic predictions: Oscillations and synchrony in top–down processing , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[96]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Where bottom-up meets top-down: neuronal interactions during perception and imagery. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.

[97]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  Cognitive workload measurement and modeling under divided attention. , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[98]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making in medicine , 2012, Dialogues in clinical neuroscience.

[99]  Erran Carmel,et al.  The Effectiveness of Different Representations for Managerial Problem Solving: Comparing Tables and Maps , 1997 .

[100]  Priti Shah,et al.  The Comprehension of Quantitative Information in Graphical Displays. , 2005 .

[101]  Peter B. M. Vranas,et al.  Gigerenzer's normative critique of Kahneman and Tversky , 2000, Cognition.

[102]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Effect of Risk Ladder Format on Risk Perception in High‐ and Low‐Numerate Individuals , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[103]  Amy Lobben,et al.  Tasks, Strategies, and Cognitive Processes Associated With Navigational Map Reading: A Review Perspective* , 2004, The Professional Geographer.