How People Are Influenced by Deceptive Tactics in Everyday Charts and Graphs

Claire Lauer Arizona State University ; Shaun O'Brien Arizona State University

Abstract

Background: Visualizations are used to communicate data about important political, social, environmental, and health topics to a wide range of audiences; however, perceptions of graphs as objective conduits of factual data make them an easy means for spreading misinformation. Research questions: 1. Are people deceived by common deceptive tactics or exaggerated titles used in data visualizations about non-controversial topics? 2. Does a person's previous data visualization coursework mitigate the extent to which they are deceived by deceptive tactics used in data visualizations? 3. What parts of data visualizations (title, shape, data labels) do people use to answer questions about the information being presented in data visualizations? Literature review: Although scholarship from psychology, human-computer interaction, and computer science has examined how data visualizations are processed by readers, scholars have not adequately researched how susceptible people are to a range of deceptive tactics used in data visualizations, especially when paired with textual content. Methodology: Participants (n = 329) were randomly assigned to view one of four treatments for four different graph types (bar, line, pie, and bubble) and then asked to answer a question about each graph. Participants were asked to rank the ease with which they read each graph and comment on what they used to respond to the question about each graph. Results/Discussion: Results show that deceptive tactics caused participants to misinterpret information in the deceptive versus control visualizations across all graph types. Neither graph titles nor previous coursework impacted responses for any of the graphs. Qualitative responses illuminate people's perceptions of graph readability and what information they use to read different types of graphs. Conclusions: Recommendations are made to improve data visualization instruction, including critically examining software defaults and the ease with which people give agency over to software when preparing data visualizations. Avenues of future research are discussed.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2020-12-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2020.3032053
CompPile
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

  1. Communication Design Quarterly
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

References (42)

  1. 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346320
  2. A theory of graph comprehension
    Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing
  3. 10.1145/3233756.3233961
  4. How to lie with charts
  5. How to Lie with Statistics
Show all 42 →
  1. 10.1145/3173574.3174012
  2. 10.1145/2702123.2702608
  3. 10.1007/978-1-4471-6596-5_5
  4. How to Lie With Maps
  5. 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346419
  6. Data Visualization A Successful Design Process
  7. 10.1145/3290605.3300423
  8. 10.1109/TVCG.2011.279
  9. 10.1109/TVCG.2013.234
  10. 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467732
  11. 10.1007/978-3-319-95831-6_3
  12. 10.1109/MCG.2007.323435
  13. 10.1109/TVCG.2011.279
  14. 10.1559/152304097782439231
  15. 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2744138
  16. Dynamics in Document Design Creating Texts for Readers
  17. 10.1145/2470654.2481410
  18. Visual Explanations Images and Quantities Evidence and Narrative
  19. Shut up about the y-axis. It shouldn't always start at zero
    Video
  20. 10.1109/TVCG.2011.255
  21. Most of Trump's charts skew the data and not always in his favor
    Washington Post
  22. 10.1080/1472586X.2011.548488
  23. 10.1109/IPCC.2017.8013960
  24. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information
  25. 10.1063/1.4822401
  26. 10.1177/0963662514549688
  27. 10.2307/2288400
  28. 7 Gestalt principles of visual perception: Cognitive psychology for UX
  29. 10.2307/2683253
  30. 10.1145/3290605.3300576
  31. 10.1145/2968219.2968326
  32. 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598594
  33. 10.1109/VAST.2017.8585665