Abstract
Interpretations of graphs seem to be rooted in principles of cognitive naturalness and information processing rather than arbitrary correspondences. These predict that people should more readily associate bars with discrete comparisons between data points because bars are discrete entities and facilitate point estimates. They should more readily associate lines with trends because lines connect discrete entities and directly represent slope. The predictions were supported in three experiments—two examining comprehension and one production. The correspondence does not seem to depend on explicit knowledge of rules. Instead, it may reflect the influence of the communicative situation as well as the perceptual properties of graphs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Psychological Association (1994).Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Author.
Bertin, J. (1983).Semiology of graphics (William J. Berg, Trans.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Carswell, C. M., &Wickens, C. D. (1990). The perceptual interaction of graphical attributes: Configurality, stimulus homogeneity, and object integration.Perception & Psychophysics,47, 157–168.
Clark, H. H. (1996).Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kosslyn, S. (1993).Elements of graph design. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Levy, E., Zacks, J., Tversky, B., &Schiano, D. (1996). Gratuitous graphics? Putting preferences in perspective. In M. J. Tauber (Ed.),Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 42–49). Vancouver, BC: ACM.
Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception.Human-Computer Interaction,8, 353–388.
Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.),Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73–126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Simkin, D., &Hastie, R. (1987). An information-processing analysis of graph perception.Journal of the American Statistical Association,82, 454–465.
Tversky, B. (1995). Cognitive origins of graphic conventions. In F. T. Marchese (Ed.),Understanding images (pp. 29–53). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., &Winter, A. (1991). Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions.Cognitive Psychology,23, 515–557.
Tversky, B., &Schiano, D. J. (1989). Perceptual and conceptual factors in distortions in memory for graphs and maps.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 387–398.
Zacks, J., Levy, E., Tversky, B., & Schiano, D. (1996). Ease of processing with spatial representations: Interaction of rendering technique and conceptual task. Unpublished manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Portions of these results were presented at the 1997 AAAI Symposium on Diagrammatic Reasoning.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zacks, J., Tversky, B. Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Mem Cogn 27, 1073–1079 (1999). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201236
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201236