Display of Quantitative Information: Are Grables better than Plain Graphs or Tables?

Abstract

Previous research is equivocal on the most efficient, effective methods for displaying quantitative information in tables and graphs. Guidelines suggest different display types are more appropriate for certain purposes but not others. However, there is little empirical evidence to support the recommendations. This study examines several methods of displaying quantitative information (e.g., line graphs, bar charts, tables) factorially crossed with different kinds of data extraction questions (i.e., inquiries about trends, comparisons, and exact numerical quantities). Results showed that tables, bar grables (combined bar graph and table) and line grables produced the most accurate responses, and line graphs and bar charts produced the fastest responses across question types. Results are discussed with respect to prior theoretical work and the potential benefits of hybrid forms of quantitative data displays for multiple kinds of data extraction inquiries.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bennett

Flach

(1992). Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors, 34, 513–533.

Carswell

C. M.

, (1992). Choosing specifiers: An evaluation of the basic tasks model of graphical perception. Human Factors, 34, 535–554.

Cleveland

W. S.

McGill

(1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 531–554.

Croxton

F. E.

(1927). Further Studies in the Graphics Use of Circles and Bars II: Some Additional Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22, 36–39.

Croxton

F. E.

Stryker

R. E.

(1927). Bar charts versus circle diagrams. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22, 473–482.

Eells

W. C.

(1926). The relative merits of circles and bars for representing component parts. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 21, 119–132.

Kosslyn

S. M.

(1989). Understanding Charts and Graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 185–193.

Kosslyn

S. M.

(1994). Elements of Graph Design, New York: W. H. Freeman.

10.

MacDonald-Ross

(1977). How numbers are shown: A review of research on the presentation of quantitative data in texts. Audio Visual Communication Review, 25, 359–407.

11.

Playfair

(1786). The Commercial and Political Atlas. London.

12.

Powers

Lashley

Sanchez

Shneiderman

(1984). An experimental comparison of tabular and graphic data presentation. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 20, 545–566.

13.

Robinson

A. H.

Sale

R. D.

Morrison

(1978). Elements of Cartography. New York: John Wiley.

14.

Sanderson

P. M.

Flach

J. M.

Buttigieg

M. A.

Casey

E. J.

(1989). Object displays do not always support better integrated task performance. Human Factors, 31, 183–198.

15.

Spence

Lewandowsky

(1991). Displaying proportions and percentages. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 61–77.

16.

Tufte

E. R.

(1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Chesire, CT: Graphics Press.

17.

Von Huhn

(1927). Further studies in the graphic use of circles and bars: A discussion of Eels experiment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22, 31–36.

18.

Wickens

C. D.

(1992). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. New York: Harper Collins.

19.

Wickens

Andre

, (1990). Proximity compatibility and display: Effects of color, space, and objectness on information integration. Human Factors, 32, 61–77.