Graphs can represent complex information in accessible ways. Unfortunately, many graphs are poorly designed and lead to errors in judgment and decision-making. Here, we examine the influence of distorted graphs used by advertisers and major news organizations to communicate risks. Results indicated that the distorted graphs were associated with large judgment errors and that cognitive abilities (e.g., numeracy, graph literacy, cognitive reflection) predicted differences in error rates. Eye-tracking results revealed a strong link between elaborative information search and stimuli-memory, which mediated the ability-judgment relationship. Discussion focuses on cognitive mechanisms (e.g., elaborative encoding), implications for HFES graph design guidelines, and emerging opportunities for personalized decision support.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnckerJ. S.SenathirajahY.KukafkaR.StarrenJ. B. (2006). Design features of graphs for communicating health risks: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13, 608-618.
2.
ArunachalamV.PeiB. K.SteinbartP. J. (2002). Impression management with graphs: Effects on choices. Journal of Information System, 16, 183–202.
3.
CokelyE. T.GalesicM.SchulzE.GhazalS.Garcia-RetameroR. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 25-47.
4.
CokelyE. T.KelleyC. M. (2009). Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 20-33.
5.
CokelyE. T.KelleyC. M.GilchristA. H. (2006). Sources of individual differences in working memory: Contributions of strategy to capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 991-997.
6.
CooperR. J.SchrigerD. L.WallaceR. C.MikulichV. J.WilkesM. S. (2003). The quantity and quality of scientific graphs in pharmaceutical advertisements. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 294-297.
7.
EricssonK. A.PrietulaM. J.CokelyE. T. (2007). The making of an expert- response. Harvard Business Review, 85, 146-147.
8.
faceLAB 4.6 [Eye-tracker and software]. (2006). Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia: Seeing Machines.
9.
FrederickS. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42.
10.
FullerR.DudleyN.BlacktopJ. (2002). How informed is consent? Understanding of pictorial and verbal probability information by medical inpatients. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 78, 543-544.
11.
GalesicM.Garcia-RetameroR. (2011). Graph literacy: A cross-cultural comparison. Medical Decision Making, 31, 444-457.
12.
Garcia-RetameroR.CokelyE. T. (2011). Effective communication of risks to young adults: Using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 270-287. doi: 10.1037/a0023677
13.
Garcia-RetameroR.GalesicM. (2010). Who profits from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people’s understanding of risks. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1019−1025
14.
OkanY.CokelyE.T. (2012). Using visual aids to improve communication of risks about health: A review. The Scientific World Journal, Article ID 562637. doi:10.1100/2012/562637.
GigerenzerG.GaissmaierW.Kurz-MilckeE.SchwartzL. M.WoloshinS. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 53–96.
17.
GillanD. J.WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G.CarswellC. M. (1998). Guidelines for presenting quantitative data in HFES publications. Human Factors, 40, 28-41.
18.
GobetF.CharnessN. (2006) Expertise in chess. In
EricssonK. A.CharnessN.FeltovichP.HoffmanR. R.R. R. (Eds.). Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 523-538). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
KosslynS. M. (2006). Graph design for the eye and mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
20.
LipkusI. M. (2007). Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical Decision Making, 27, 696-713.
21.
LipkusI. M.HollandsJ. G. (1999). The visual communication of risk. Journal of National Cancer Institute Monographs, 9, 149-63.
22.
OkanYGarcia-RetameroR.CokelyE. T.MaldonadoA. (2011). Individual differences in graph literacy: Overcoming denominator neglect in risk comprehension. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/bdm.751
23.
OkanY.Garcia-RetameroR.GalesicM.CokelyE. T. (2012). When higher bars are not larger quantities: On individual differences in the use of spatial information in graph comprehension. Spatial Cognition and Computation. 12, 1-25 . doi: 10.1080/13875868.2012.659302
RaynerK.SmithT. J.MalcolmG. L.HendersonJ. M. (2009). Eye movements and visual encoding during scene perception. Psychological Science, 20, 6-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02243.x
26.
ReynaV. F.NelsonW. L.HanP. K.DieckmannN. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 943-973. doi: 10.1037/a0017327
27.
SchwartzL. M.WoloshinS.BlackW. C.WelchH. G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammogr aphy. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 966-72.
28.
TufteE. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information (2nd ed.). Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
