A Componential Model of Human Interaction with Graphs: VI. Cognitive Engineering of Pie Graphs

Abstract

This paper proposes and tests the following three-component model of reading a pie graph to estimate segment size: (a) selecting a mentally represented anchor segment (25%, 50%, or 75%), (b) mentally aligning representations of the anchor and target segments, and (c) mentally adjusting the size of the anchor to match the target. Experiment 1 showed that the size difference between the target and closest anchor and the angular displacement of the target from vertical predicted response times (RTs) and absolute error. Experiment 2 demonstrated that an aligned pie graph, designed to reduce the "align" portion of the process, produced faster RTs and lower error than did a regular pie graph. Experiment 3 showed that a pie graph labeled at the anchor values produced the same response times and absolute error as a regular pie graph but that a pie labeled off the anchor points produced a very different pattern of results. The discussion relates the results to the componential model and describes applications in increasing pie graph usability and developing design guidelines. Actual or potential applications of this research include guidelines for graph design and more usable pie graphs.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphic methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70, 531–555.

Cohen, J. , & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ericcson, K. A. , & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–252.

Gillan, D. J. (1995). Visual arithmetic, computational graphics, and the spatial metaphor. Human Factors, 37, 766–780.

Gillan, D. J. (2000). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: V. Using pie graphs to make comparisons. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 44th Annual Meeting (pp. 439–442). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Gillan, D. J., & Crosby, K. (2001). Visualizing arithmetic operations and properties. Manuscript in preparation.

Gillan, D. J. , & LaSalle, S. M. (1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: III. Spatial orientation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting (pp. 285–289). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Gillan, D. J. , & Lewis, R. (1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: I. Linear regression modeling. Human Factors, 36, 419–440.

10.

Gillan, D. J. , & Neary, M. (1992). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: II. The effect of distance between graphical elements. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 365–368). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

11.

Gillan, D. J. , Wickens, C. D. , Hollands, J. G. , & Carswell, C. M. (1998). Guidelines for presenting quantitative data in HFES publications. Human Factors, 40, 28–41.

12.

Hollands, J. G. (1992). Alignment, scaling, and size effects in discrimination of graphical elements. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 1393–1397). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

13.

Hollands, J. G. , & Dyre, B. P. (1997). Bias in proportion judgments with pie charts: The cyclical power model. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting (pp. 1357–1361). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

14.

Hollands, J. G. , & Spence, I. (1992). Judgments of change and proportion in graphical perception. Human Factors, 34, 313–334.

15.

Hollands, J. G. , & Spence, I. (1998). Judging proportion with graphs: The summation model. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 173–190.

16.

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York: Longmans, Green.

17.

Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18.

Kosslyn, S. M. (1994a). Elements of graph design. New York: Freeman.

19.

Kosslyn, S. M. (1994b). Image and brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

20.

Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 313–334.

21.

Shepard, R. N. , & Cooper, L. A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

22.

Shepard, R. N. , & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.

23.

Simkin, D. , & Hastie, R. (1987). An information processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 454–465.

24.

Spence, I. , & Lewandowsky, S. (1991). Displaying proportions and percentages. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 61–77.

25.

Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics.

26.

Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics.

27.

Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations. Cheshire, CT: Graphics.

28.

Wainer, H. (1980). Making newspaper graphs fit to print. In P. A. Kolers , M. E. Wrolstad , & H. Bouma (Eds.), Processing of visible language 2 (pp. 125–142). New York: Plenum.

29.

Wainer, H. (1984). How to display data badly. American Statistician, 38, 137–147.

30.

Wainer, H. (1997). Visual revelations: Graphical tales of fate and deception from Napoleon Bonaparte to Ross Perot. New York: Copernicus.