We conducted four studies regarding the representation of probabilistic information. Experiments 1 through 3 compared performance on a simulated stock purchase task, in which information regarding stock profitability was probabilistic. Two variables were manipulated: display format for probabilistic information (blurred and colored icons, linguistic phrases, numeric expressions, and combinations) and specificity level (in which the number and size of discrete steps into which the probabilistic information was mapped differed). Results indicated few performance differences attributable to display format; however, performance did improve with greater specificity. Experiment 4, in which participants generated membership functions corresponding to three display formats, found a high degree of similarity in functions across formats and participants and a strong relationship between the shape of the membership function and the intended meaning of the representation. These results indicate that participants can successfully interpret nonnumeric representations of uncertainty and can use such representations in a manner similar to the way numeric expressions are used in a decision-making task. Actual or potential applications of this research include the use of graphical representations of uncertainty in systems such as command and control and situation displays.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andre, A. D., & Cutler, H. A. (1998). Displaying uncertainty in advanced navigation systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 31-35). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
2.
Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1988). The interaction of spatial and color proximity in aircraft stability information displays. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1371-1375). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
3.
Bennett, K. BToms, M. L & Woods, D.D. (1993). Emergent features and configural elements: Designing more effective configural displays. Human-Computer Interaction, 3571–97.
4.
Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (1990). Dyadic decisions with numerical and verbal probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46240–263.
5.
Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (1995). Processing linguistic probabilities: General principles and empirical evidence. In J. Busemeyer, D. L. Medin, & R. Hastie (Eds.), Decision making from a cognitive perspective (pp. 275–318). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
6.
Budescu, D. VWeinberg, S. & Wallsten, T.S. (1988). Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed uncertainties. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14281–294.
7.
Carswell, C. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1996). Mixing and matching lower-level codes for object displays: Evidence for two sources of proximity compatibility. Human Factors, 381–22.
8.
Curley, S., & Yates, J. (1985). The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36273–287.
9.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychological Review, 92433–461.
10.
Endsley, M. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 3765–84.
11.
Erev, I., & Cohen, B. L. (1990). Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 451–18.
12.
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a non-search task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16143–149.
13.
Finger, R., & Bisantz, A. M. (2002). Utilizing graphical formats to convey uncertainty in a decision making task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 31–25.
14.
Gardenfors, P., & Sahlin, N. (1983). Decision making with unreliable probabilities. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 36240–251.
15.
Hamm, R. M. (1991). Selection of verbal probabilities: A solution for some problems of verbal probability expression. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48193–223.
16.
Holahan, C. JCuller, R. E & Wilcox, B.L. (1978). Effects of visual distraction on reaction time in a simulated traffic environment. Human Factors, 20409–413.
17.
Honekopp, J. (2003). Precision of probability information and prominence of outcomes: A description and evaluation of decisions under uncertainty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90124–138.
18.
Kahneman, D.Slovic, P.Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Kirschenbaum, S. S., & Arruda, J. E. (1994). Effects of graphic and verbal probability information on command decision making. Human Factors, 36406–418.
20.
Kramer, A. F., & Jacobson, A. (1991). Perceptual organization of focused attention: The role of objects and proximity in visual processing. Perception and Psychophysics, 50267–284.
21.
Lodha, S. KSheehan, R. EPang, A. T & Wittenbrink, C.M. (1996). Visualizing geometric uncertainty of surface inter-polants. In W. A. Davis (Ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Graphics Interface 1996 (pp. 238-245). Toronto: Canadian Information Processing Society.
22.
MacEachren, A. (1992). Visualizing uncertain information. Cartographic Perspective, 1310–19.
23.
Murphy, T. D., & Eriksen, C. W. (1987). Temporal changes in the distribution of attention in the visual field in response to precues. Perception and Psychophysics, 42576–586.
24.
Nisbett, R. EKrantz, D. HJepson, C. & Kunda, Z. (1983). The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90339–363.
25.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things.New York: Basic Books.
26.
Pang, A. TWittenbrink, C. M & Lodha, S.K. (1997). Approaches to uncertainty visualization. Visual Computer, 13370–390.
27.
Rapaport, A.Wallsten, T. S., & Cox, J. A. (1987). Direct and indirect scaling of membership functions of probability phrases. Mathematical Modelling, 9397–417.
28.
Wallsten, T. S. (1990). The costs and benefits of vague information. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making (pp. 28–43). Chicago: University of Chicago.
29.
Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1995). A review of human linguistic probability processing: General principles and empirical evidence. Knowledge Engineering Review, 1043–62.
30.
Wallsten, T. SBudescu, D. V & Erev, I. (1988). Understanding and using linguistic uncertainties. Acta Psychologica, 6839–52.
31.
Wallsten, T. SBudescu, D. VRapaport, A.Zwick, R. & Forsyth, B. (1986). Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115348–365.
32.
Wallsten, T. SBudescu, D. V & Tsao, C.J. (1997). Combining linguistic probabilities. In R. W. Scholz & A. C. Zimmer (Eds.), Qualitative aspects of decision making (pp. 27–55). Miami, FL: Pabst Science.
33.
Wickens, C. D., & Carswell, C. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37473–494.
