A New Look at an Old Study on Information Display: Washburne (1927) Reconsidered

Abstract

Washburne (1927) conducted the largest study to date on the display of quantitative information with tables and graphs. Measuring the accuracy of information recall, he concluded that bar graphs are particularly suited for complex comparisons between values, pictographs are best for simple comparisons, line graphs are best for identifying and comparing trends, and tables are best for specific values. These conclusions have intuitive appeal and were quoted in the literature on comparative displays. A reanalysis of the results indicates that only the claim that tables are best for recalling specific values is clearly supported by Washburne's data. The other conclusions were probably accepted without questioning because they appeal to intuition. Additional findings of the study, such as the importance of the logical ordering of items in a display, were not acknowledged in subsequent studies. In human factors, as in other fields, naive preconceptions exist which can impede the acquisition of new knowledge.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bennett, K. B. , & Flach, J. M. (1992) Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors, 34, 513–533.

Coll, R. , Thyagarajan, A. , & Chopra, S. (1991). An experimental study comparing the effectiveness of computer graphics data versus computer tabular data. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man & Cybernetics, 21, 897–900.

Jarvenpaa, S. L. , & Dickson, G. W. (1988) Graphics and managerial decision making: Research based guidelines. Communications of the ACM, 31, 764–774.

Lohse, G. L. (1993) A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 353–388.

Meyer, J. , Shinar, D. , & Leiser, D. (1997) Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs. Human Factors, 39, 268–286.

Powers, M. , Lashley, C. , Sanchez, P. , & Shneiderman, B. (1984) An experimental comparison of tabular and graphic data representations. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 20, 545–566.

Remus, W. (1987) A study of graphical and tabular displays and their interaction with environmental complexity. Management Science, 33, 1200–1204.

Sparrow, J. A. (1989) Graphical displays in information systems: Some data properties influencing the effectiveness of alternative forms. Behaviour & Information Technology, 8, 43–56.

Umanath, N. S. , & Scamell, R. W. (1988) An experimental evaluation of the impact of data display format on recall performance. Communications of the ACM, 31, 562–570.

10.

Umanath, N. S. , Scamell, R. W. , & Das, S. R. (1990) An examination of two screen/report design variables in an information recall context. Decision Sciences, 21, 216–240.

11.

Vessey, I. (1991) Cognitive fit: A theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences, 22, 219–240.

12.

Vessey, I. (1994) The effect of information presentation on decision making: A cost-benefit analysis. Information & Management, 27, 103–119.

13.

Washburne, J. N. (1927). An experimental study of various graphic, tabular and textual methods of presenting quantitative material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 18, 361–376, 465–476.

14.

Watson, C. J. , & Driver, R. W. (1983) The influence of computer graphics on the recall of information. MIS Quarterly, 7, 45–53.

15.

Wickens, C. D. , & Carswell, C. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37, 473–494.