Scholars have argued that imprecise data graphics, specifically those displaying decorative dimensionality of data, may lead to inaccurate interpretations. Empirical tests of decorative dimensionality have produced mixed results. The literature also suggests that the effects of decorative dimensionality may depend on the cognitive demand of a given task. This study employs an experimental design in which participants receive three levels of decorative dimensionality amidst systematically varying levels of cognitive demand. Graph type and subject matter knowledge are controlled for by design. The hypothesis that the impact of decorative dimensionality on comprehension not only depends on the cognitive demand of the task at hand, but also on the user's graphical literacy, is tested. Results indicate that graphical literacy moderates the interaction between cognitive demand and decorative dimensionality. A familiarity effect may also be present during the display of common two-dimensional bars.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Author.
2.
BaddeleyA. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
CarpenterP. A., & ShahP. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 75–100.
4.
CarswellC. M.FrankenbergerS., & BerrnhardD. (1991). Graphing in depth: Perspectives on the use of three-dimensional graphs to represent lower-dimensional data. Behaviour and Information Technology, 106, 459–474.
5.
CasaliJ. G., & GaylinK. B. (1988). Selected graph design variables in four interpretation tasks: A microcomputer-based pilot study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 7, 31–49.
6.
ChandlerP., & SwellerJ. (1991). Evidence for cognitive load theory. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293–332.
7.
ClevelandW. (1985). The elements of graphing data. Monterey, CA: Wadsworth.
8.
ClevelandW.HarrisC., & McGillR. (1983). Experiments on quantitative judgments of graphs and maps. The Bell System Technical Journal, 62, 1659–1674.
9.
ClevelandW., & McGillR. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 531–554.
10.
ClevelandW., & McGillR. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science, 229, 828–833.
11.
CurcioF. R. (1989). Developing graph comprehension: Elementary and middle school activities. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
12.
GarnerW. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
13.
GillanD. J., & LewisR. (1994). A componential model of human interaction with graphs: 1. Linear regression modeling. Human Factors, 363, 419–440.
14.
GillanD. J., & RichmanE. H. (1994). Minimalism and the syntax of graphs. Human Factors, 364, 619–644.
15.
KosslynS. M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 185–225.
16.
MeyerJ.ShinarD., & LeiserD. (1997). Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs. Human Factors, 392, 268–286.
17.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2006). The national assessment of educational progress. Retrieved January, 16, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/
18.
ShahP.FriedmanE., & VekiriI. (2005). The comprehension of quantitative information in graphical displays. In ShahP. & MiyakeA. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 426–476). New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
ShahP., & HoeffnerJ. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 47–69.
20.
SiegristM. (1996). The use or misuse of three-dimensional graphs to represent lower-dimensional data. Behaviour and Information Technology, 152, 96–100.
21.
SimkinD. K., & HastieR. (1987). An information processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 454–465.
22.
SpeierC. (2006). The influence of information presentation formats on complex task decision-making performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 1115–1131
23.
SpenceI. (1990). Visual psychophysics of simple graphical elements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 683–692.
24.
SpenceI. (2004). The apparent and effective dimensionality of representations of objects. Human Factors, 464, 738–747.
25.
SpenceI., & LewandowskyS. (1990). Graphical perception. In FoxJ. & LongJ. S. (Eds.), Modern methods of data analysis (pp. 13–57). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
SuY. (2008). It's easy to produce chartjunk using Microsoft Excel 2007 but hard to make good graphs. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 52, 4594–4601.
27.
SwellerJ. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.
28.
TerryW. S. (2003). Learning and memory: Basic principles, processes, and procedures (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
29.
TufteE. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
30.
TufteE. R. (2006). Beautiful evidence. Connecticut: Graphics Press.
31.
WainerH. (1980). A test of graphicacy in children. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 331–340.
32.
WainerH. (2005). Graphic discovery; A trout in the milk and other visual adventures. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
WainerH.HambletonR. K., & MearaK. (1999). Alternative displays for communicating NAEP results: A redesign and validity study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36, 301–335.
34.
ZacksJ.LevyE.TverskyB., & SchianoD. (1998). Reading bar graphs: Effects of depth cues and graphical context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 119–138.
