Visual displays for communicating scientific uncertainty in influenza forecasts

We offer a general method for testing the usability of visual displays communicating scientific uncertainty, illustrated with publicly available results from CDC's influenza forecasts. The heavy toll of seasonal influenza has prompted major investments in improving these forecasts, making them a focus of machine learning research. However, little research has been devoted to how well users can understand and use these forecasts to inform decisions under uncertainty. Our approach extends psychological theory to experimental tasks posing hypothetical, but realistic decisions using alternative displays based on actual forecasts. Based on Tversky's theory of conceptual-spatial congruence, we predicted actual and perceived usability of four displays (bar chart, tree map, PDF, and 90% confidence interval). Participants (N = 301, recruited on Amazon MTurk) were randomly assigned to use one of four displays for four decision tasks, created to reflect our extension of the theory. We evaluated participants' comprehension, confidence, and judgments of perceived helpfulness, when the display and the decision were congruent or non-congruent. Participants had better comprehension with the most familiar display (bar chart), for all four decisions. However, they did not perceive that display as more helpful or have greater confidence in their responses to it. Participants who reported greater familiarity with a display performed more poorly, despite expressing greater confidence and rating it as more helpful. We discuss the need to evaluate performance, as well as ratings, and the opportunities to extend theoretical frameworks to specific contexts.

[1]  S. Woloshin,et al.  Communicating health information with visual displays , 2023, Nature Medicine.

[2]  Tyler J. Adkins,et al.  Graphs do not lead people to infer causation from correlation. , 2022, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[3]  Lace M. K. Padilla,et al.  Mapping the Landscape of COVID-19 Crisis Visualizations , 2020, CHI.

[4]  M. McDowell,et al.  Risk communication in tables versus text: a registered report randomized trial on ‘fact boxes' , 2020, Royal Society Open Science.

[5]  Jonathan J. Rolison,et al.  Understanding Health Risk Comprehension: The Role of Math Anxiety, Subjective Numeracy, and Objective Numeracy , 2020, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[6]  Eric R. Stone,et al.  Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities , 2020, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[7]  Melissa A. Z. Knoll,et al.  Despite high objective numeracy, lower numeric confidence relates to worse financial and medical outcomes , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  David J. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science , 2019, Royal Society Open Science.

[9]  R. Rosenfeld,et al.  A collaborative multiyear, multimodel assessment of seasonal influenza forecasting in the United States , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  The Met Office Weather Game: investigating how different methods for presenting probabilistic weather forecasts influence decision-making , 2018, Geoscience Communication.

[11]  Philip D. Waggoner,et al.  The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis , 2018, Political Science Research and Methods.

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

[13]  Sean A. Munson,et al.  Uncertainty Displays Using Quantile Dotplots or CDFs Improve Transit Decision-Making , 2018, CHI.

[14]  Aaron M. Scherer,et al.  Communicating infectious disease prevalence through graphics: Results from an international survey , 2017, Vaccine.

[15]  Edward T. Cokely,et al.  Designing Visual Aids That Promote Risk Literacy: A Systematic Review of Health Research and Evidence-Based Design Heuristics , 2017, Hum. Factors.

[16]  Rocio Garcia-Retamero,et al.  Measuring Graph Literacy without a Test , 2016, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[17]  P. Resnick,et al.  Hypothetical Outcome Plots Outperform Error Bars and Violin Plots for Inferences about Reliability of Variable Ordering , 2015, PloS one.

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

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

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

[21]  B. Tversky Visualizing Thought , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

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

[23]  Jeffrey Heer,et al.  Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using mechanical turk to assess visualization design , 2010, CHI.

[24]  Luc Anselin,et al.  Visualizing Seismic Risk and Uncertainty , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[25]  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.

[26]  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.

[27]  N. Schwarz Metacognitive Experiences: Response to Commentaries , 2004 .

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

[29]  Paul U. Lee,et al.  Lines, Blobs, Crosses and Arrows: Diagrammatic Communication with Schematic Figures , 2000, Diagrams.

[30]  Jeffery. M. Zacks,et al.  Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[31]  S. Tetewsky Familiarity effects in visual comparison tasks and their implications for studying human intelligence. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  B. Tversky,et al.  Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  Alisha Malik,et al.  A Psycholinguistic Analysis of the Reading Behavior of EFL-Proficient Readers Using Culturally Familiar and Culturally Nonfamiliar Expository Texts , 1990 .

[34]  M. Granger Morgan,et al.  Graphical Communication of Uncertain Quantities to Nontechnical People , 1987 .

[35]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[36]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  The visual communication of risk. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

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

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

[39]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation , 2009, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.