Abstract
Graphs are used extensively to facilitate the communication and comprehension of quantitative information, perhaps because they seem to exploit natural properties of our visual system such as the ability to process large amounts of information in parallel. Rather than a holistic pattern recognition process, however, research has found that graph comprehension is a complex, interactive process akin to text comprehension. Viewers form a mental model of the quantitative information displayed in the graph through serial, iterative cycles of identifying and relating the graphic patterns to associated variables. Furthermore, graph comprehension is not only constrained by bottom-up perceptual features of the graphical display, but is also influenced by top-down factors such as the viewer’s expectations about, or familiarity with, the graph’s content. Finally, individual differences in graph comprehension skill and domain knowledge interact with the bottom-up influences such that highly skilled graph viewers are less influenced by both the bottom-up and top-down visual characteristics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams networks maps (W. Berg, trans.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Carpenter, P.A. and Shah, P. (1997). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Under review.
Carswell, C.M., Emery, C. and Lonon, A.M. (1993). Stimulus complexity and information integration in the spontaneous interpretation of line graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology 7:341–357.
Carswell, C.M. and Wickens, C.D. (1987). Information integration and the object display: An interaction of task demands and display superiority. Ergonomics 30:511–527.
Casner, S.M. (1990). Task-analytic design of graphic presentations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Casner, S.M. and Larkin, J.H. (1989). Cognitive efficiency considerations for good graphic design. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cleveland W.S. and McGill, R. (1984). Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association 77:541–547.
Cleveland, W.S. and McGill, R. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science 229:828–833.
Culbertson, H.M. and Powers, R.D. (1959). A study of graph comprehension difficulties. Audio Visual Communication Review 7:97–100.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.
Guthrie, J.T., Weber, S. and Kimmerly, N. (1993). Searching documents: Cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations. Contemporary Educational Psychology 18:186–221.
Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P.A. and Just, M.A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P.D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 2. New York: Longman.
Larkin, J. and Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11:65–99.
Legge, G.E., Gu, Y., and Luebker, A. (1989). Efficiency of graphical perception. Perception and Psychophysics 46:365–374.
Leinhardt, G., Zaslaysky, O. and Stein, M.K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research 60:164.
Lewandowsky, S. and Spence, I. (1989). The perception of statistical graphs. Sociological Methods and Research 18:200–242.
Lohse, G.L. (1993). A cognitive model of understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction 8:353–388.
MacDonald-Ross, M. (1977). Graphics in texts. Review of Research in Education 5:49–85.
McKenzie, D.L. and Padilla, M.J. (1986). The construction and validation of the Test of Graphing in Science (TOGS). Journal of Research in Science Teaching 23:571–579.
Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the future of testing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 73–126.
Roth, S.F. and Hefley, W.E. (1993). Intelligent multimedia presentation systems: Research and principles. In M. Maybury (Ed.), Intelligent multi-media interfaces, pp. 13–58.
Schiano, J.D. and Tversky, B. (1992). Structure and strategy in encoding simplified graphs. Memory and Cognition 20:12–20.
Shah, P. (1995). Cognitive processes in graph comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Shah, P. and Carpenter, P.A. (1995). Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124:43–62.
Shah, P., Mayer, R. and Hegarty, M. (in press). Which graphs are better? Textbook graphs as aids to knowledge construction. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Shah, P. and Shellhammer, D. (1999). The role of domain knowledge and graph reading skills in graph comprehension. Presented at the 1999 meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Boulder, CO.
Tversky, B. and Schiano, D.J. (1989). Perceptual and conceptual factors in distortions in memory for graphs and maps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 118:387–398.
van Dijk, T.A. and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Wainer, H. and Thissen, D. (1981). Graphical data analysis. Annual Review of Psychology 32:191–241.
Winn, B. (1987). Charts, graphs, and diagrams in educational materials. In D. Willows and H.A. Houghton (Eds), The psychology of illustration. New York: Springer.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shah, P. (2002). Graph Comprehension: The Role of Format, Content and Individual Differences. In: Anderson, M., Meyer, B., Olivier, P. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0109-3_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0109-3_10
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-242-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0109-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive