skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3174122acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

To Put That in Perspective: Generating Analogies that Make Numbers Easier to Understand

Published:21 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Laypeople are frequently exposed to unfamiliar numbers published by journalists, social media users, and algorithms. These figures can be difficult for readers to comprehend, especially when they are extreme in magnitude or contain unfamiliar units. Prior work has shown that adding "perspective sentences" that employ ratios, ranks, and unit changes to such measurements can improve people's ability to understand unfamiliar numbers (e.g., "695,000 square kilometers is about the size of Texas"). However, there are many ways to provide context for a measurement. In this paper we systematically test what factors influence the quality of perspective sentences through randomized experiments involving over 1,000 participants. We develop a statistical model for generating perspectives and test it against several alternatives, finding beneficial effects of perspectives on comprehension that persist for six weeks. We conclude by discussing future work in deploying and testing perspectives at scale.

References

  1. Pablo J Barrio, Daniel G Goldstein, and Jake M Hofman. 2016. Improving Comprehension of Numbers in the News. In Association for Computing Machinery Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA (May 7--12). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S Bautista, R Hervás, P Gervás, Richard R Power, and Sandra Williams. 2011. How to Make Numerical Information Accessible: Experimental Identification of Simplification Strategies. In INTERACT 2011. Vol. 6946. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 57--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Elizabeth M Brannon. 2006. The representation of numerical magnitude. Current opinion in neurobiology 16, 2 (2006), 222--229.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Norman R Brown and Robert S Siegler. 1993. Metrics and mappings: A framework for understanding real-world quantitative estimation. Psychological review 100, 3 (1993), 511.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Arun Tejasvi Chaganty and Percy Liang. 2016. How Much is 131 Million Dollars? Putting Numbers in Perspective with Compositional Descriptions. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Fanny Chevalier, Romain Vuillemot, and Guia Gali. 2013. Using concrete scales: A practical framework for effective visual depiction of complex measures. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 19, 12 (2013), 2426--2435. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Sunaina Dowray, Jonas J. Swartz, Danielle Braxton, and Anthony J. Viera. 2013. Potential effect of physical activity based menu labels on the calorie content of selected fast food meals. Appetite 62, 0 (2013), 173--181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Lisa Feigenson, Stanislas Dehaene, and Elizabeth Spelke. 2004. Core systems of number. Trends in cognitive sciences 8, 7 (2004), 307--314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerd Gigerenzer. 2014. Risk savvy: how to make good decisions. Viking Books, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jessica Hullman, Yea-Seul Kim, Francis Nguyen, Lauren Speers, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2018. Improving Comprehension of Measurements with Concrete Re-expression Strategies. In Association for Computing Machinery Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Canada (April 21--26). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Yea-Seul Kim, Jessica Hullman, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2016. Generating Personalized Spatial Analogies for Distances and Areas. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 38--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Richard P Larrick and Jack B Soll. 2008. The MPG Illusion. Science 320, 5883 (2008), 1593--1594.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. W Mason and S Suri. 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior research methods (Jan 2012). http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Dennis L McNeill and William L Wilkie. 1979. Public policy and consumer information: Impact of the new energy labels. Journal of Consumer Research (1979), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. L Neuhauser, K Paul, B Fischhoff, NT Brewer, and J Downs. 2011. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User's Guide. (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. John Allen Paulos. 1988. Innumeracy: Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Bruce M Ross and Trygg Engen. 1959. Effects of round number preferences in a guessing task. Journal of experimental psychology 58, 6 (1959), 462.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. To Put That in Perspective: Generating Analogies that Make Numbers Easier to Understand

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          April 2018
          8489 pages
          ISBN:9781450356206
          DOI:10.1145/3173574

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 21 April 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader