Yi-Na Li
Kang Zhang
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
High-quality decision making requires accurate estimation of relative values. The perceptual bias when estimating relative values displayed by a visual sign may weaken the accuracy and cause misjudgment. This research explores the heuristic estimation of relative values using visual cues, namely linear, areal, and volumetric information. We conduct experiments to empirically test the influences of dimensional information on perceptual biases. First, we investigate the conspicuity of areal information. Our experiments indicate that the responses of participants instructed to estimate rates defined by either linear or volumetric information are biased by the corresponding rates determined by areal information. Second, visual cues implying three-dimensional information (e.g., depth) can lead to overestimation. Third, we probe the influence of vividness as the boundary condition on relative value estimation. Empirical evidence on perceptual bias sheds light on the pragmatics of visual signs, helps suggest guidelines for visual persuasions, and improves decision-making quality.
- A. D. Baddeley and J. Andrade. 2000. Working memory and the vividness of imagery. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 129, 1 (2000), 126--145. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- A. D. Baddeley. 1998. Human Memory: Theory and Practice. Allyn 8 Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.Google Scholar
- R. T. Been, M. L. Braunstein, and M. H. Piazza. 1964. Judgment of volume reduction in distorted metal containers. J. Eng. Psychol. 3, 1 (1964), 23--27.Google Scholar
- Bertin Jacques. 1983. Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps, W. J Berg, Trans. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
- J. Blondé and F. Girandola. 2016. Revealing the elusive effects of vividness: a meta-analysis of empirical evidence assessing the effect of vividness on persuasion, Soc. Infl. 11:2, 111--129, DOI:10.1080/15534510.2016.1157096 Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Brewer and A. J. Campbell. 1998. Beyond graduated circles: Varied point symbols for representing quantitative data on maps. Cartogr. Perspect. 29 (1998), 6--25. Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. C. Burns, A. Biswas, and L. A. Babin. 1993. The operation of visual imagery as a mediator of advertising effects. J. Advert. 22 (1993), 71--85. doi:10.1080/00913367.1993.10673405 Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Chandon and N. Ordabayeva. 2009. Supersize in one dimension, downsize in three dimensions: Effects of spatial dimensionality on size perceptions and preferences. J. Market. Res. 46, 6 (2009), 739--753. Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. S. Cleveland and R. McGill. 1987. Graphical perception: The visual decoding of quantitative information on graphical displays of data. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. A 150, 3, 192--229. Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. W. Cox. 1976. Anchor effects and the estimation of graduated circles and squares. Am. Cartogr. 3, 1 (1976), 65--74. Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Dixon. 1978. Numerical comparison processes. Mem. Cogn. 6 (1978), 454--461. Google ScholarCross Ref
- V. Folkes and S. Matta. 2004. The effect of package shape on consumers’ judgments of product volume: attention as a mental contaminant. J. Cons. Res. 31, 2 (2004), 390--401. Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. J. Flannery. 1971. The relative effectiveness of some common graduated point symbols in the presentation of quantitative data. Tire Can. Cartogr. 8, 2 (1971), 96--109. Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Gebuis and B. Reynvoet. 2012. The role of visual information in numerosity estimation. PlosONE, 7, 5, e37426.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Holmberg. 1975. The influence of elongation on the perception of volume of geometrically simple objects. Psychological Research Bulletin 15, 2, 1--18.Google Scholar
- Donald H. House, Alethea S. Bair, and Colin Ware. 2006. An approach to the perceptual optimization of complex visualizations. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 12.4: 509--521.Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. S. Houthakker. 1957. An international comparison of household expenditure patterns, commemorating the centenary of Engel's law. Econometrica 25, 4, 532--551. Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. K. Hsee, Yuval Rottenstreich, and Zhixing Xiao. 2005. When is more better? On the relationship between magnitude and subjective value. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 14, 5 (2005), 234--237. Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. K. Hsee. 1996. The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Org. Behav. Hum. Dec. Process. 67, 3 (1996). Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. K. Hsee and J. Zhang. 2004. Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86, 5 (2004), 680--95. Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Huff. 1954 How to Lie with Statistics, W. W. Norton 8 Company, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- A. F. Hayes. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- A. F. Hayes and J. Matthes. 2009. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behav. Res. Methods 41, 3 (2009), 924--936. Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. O. Johnson and L. C. Fay. 1950. The johnson-neyman technique, its theory and application. Psychometrika 15, 4 (1950), 349--367. Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. A. Keller and L. G. Block. 1997. Vividness effects: A resource-matching perspective. J. Cons. Res. 24 (1997), 295--304. doi:10.1086/209511 Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. E. Krider, P. Raghubir, and A. Krishna. 2001. Pizzas: π or square? Psychophysical biases in area comparisons. Market. Sci. 20, 4 (2001), 405--425. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Krishna and P. Raghubir. 1997. The effect of line configuration on perceived numerosity of dotted lines. Mem. Cogn. 25, 4, 492--507. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. N. Li, D. J. Li, and K. Zhang. 2015. Metaphoric transfer effect in information visualization using glyphs. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction (VINCI 2015). ACM. 121--130 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. N. Li and D. J. Li. 2016. How people deploy dimensional information to estimate relative values. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction (VINCI 2016). ACM, 83--90. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. MacEachern. 1995 How Maps Work. Guilford, New York.Google Scholar
- P. Messaris. 1996. Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- R. E. Nisbett and L. Ross. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
- A. M. Ozimec, M. Natter, and T. Reutterer. 2010. Geographical information systems-based marketing decisions: Effects of alternative visualizations on decision quality. J. Market. 74, 6 (2010), 94--110. Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. V. Pandey, K. Rall, M. L. Satterthwaite, O. Nov, and E. Bertini. 2015. How deceptive are deceptive visualization? An empirical analysis of common distortion technique. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1469--1478.Google Scholar
- A. V. Pandey, A. Manivannan, O. Nov, M. Satterthwaite, and E. Bertini. 2014. The persuasive power of data visualization. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 20, 12, 2211--2220. Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. G. Pearson. 1964. Judgment of volume from photographs of complex shapes. Percept. Motor Skills 18, 3 (1964), 889--900. Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Raghubir and A. Krishna. 1999. Vital dimensions in volume perception: can the eye fool the stomach? J. Market. Res. 36, 3 (1999), 313--326. Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. E. Taylor and S. C. Thompson. 1982. Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychol. Rev. 89 (1982), 155--181. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.89.2.155 Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Teghtsoonian. 1965. The Judgment of Size, Am. J. Psychol. 78, 3 (1965), 392--402. Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Tory and T. Möller. 2004. Human factors in visualization research. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 10, 1 (2004), 72--84. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. R. Tufte. 2006 Beautiful Evidence. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT. 152.Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. R. Tufte. 1985. The visual display of quantitative information. Journal for Healthcare Quality, 7, 3, 15.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. J. Zhang, J. Li, and K. Zhang. 2016. An immersive approach to the visual exploration of geospatial network datasets, In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry (VRCAI 2016). ACM, 381--390. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- How Dimensional and Semantic Attributes of Visual Sign Influence Relative Value Estimation
Recommendations
How People Deploy Dimensional Information to Estimate Relative Values
VINCI '16: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and InteractionA high quality decision-making requires accurate estimations of relative values. When one estimates relative values relying on visual stimuli, perceptual bias may weaken the accuracy and bring about risks. This research explores how people estimate ...
A novel method to calculate looming cue for threat of collision
ISCV '95: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer VisionVisual looming is related to an increased projected size of an object on a viewer's retina as the relative distance between the viewer and the object decreases. Psychologists have reported about subjects avoiding collision using this information by ...
Effect of Visual Cues on Line Drawing Performance
SMC '13: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and CyberneticsThis paper investigates how visual cues affect human performance at a line drawing task. Line drawing is a primitive and fundamental task using tools such as pens, (soldering) irons, and cutters. Many situations (for example, home, office, studio, and ...
Comments