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
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

Cites in this index (0)

No references match articles in this index.

Also cites 26 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346320
  2. 10.1145/3233756.3233961
  3. 10.1145/3173574.3174012
  4. 10.1145/2702123.2702608
  5. 10.1007/978-1-4471-6596-5_5
  6. 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346419
  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. 10.1559/152304097782439231
  14. 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2744138
  15. 10.1145/2470654.2481410
  16. 10.1109/TVCG.2011.255
  17. 10.1080/1472586X.2011.548488
  18. 10.1109/IPCC.2017.8013960
  19. 10.1063/1.4822401
  20. 10.1177/0963662514549688
  21. 10.2307/2288400
  22. 10.2307/2683253
  23. 10.1145/3290605.3300576
  24. 10.1145/2968219.2968326
  25. 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598594
  26. 10.1109/VAST.2017.8585665