A viewer can extract many potential patterns from any set of visualized data values. But that means that two people can see different patterns in the same visualization, potentially leading to miscommunication. Here, we show that when people are primed to see one pattern in the data as visually salient, they believe that nave viewers will experience the same visual salience. Participants were told one of multiple backstories about political events that affected public polling data, before viewing a graph that depicted those data. One pattern in the data was particularly visually salient to them given the backstory that they heard. They then predicted what nave viewers would find most visually salient on the visualization. They were strongly influenced by their own knowledge, despite explicit instructions to ignore it, predicting that others would find the same patterns to be most visually salient. This result reflects a psychological phenomenon known as the curse of knowledge, where an expert struggles to re-create the state of mind of a novice. The present findings show that the curse of knowledge also plagues the visual perception of data, explaining why people can fail to connect with audiences when they communicate patterns in data.

Students who eat breakfast more frequently tend to have a higher grade point average. From this data, many people might confidently state that a before-school breakfast program would lead to higher grades. This is a reasoning error, because correlation does not necessarily indicate causation - X and Y can be correlated without one directly causing the other. While this error is pervasive, its prevalence might be amplified or mitigated by the way that the data is presented to a viewer. Across three crowdsourced experiments, we examined whether how simple data relations are presented would mitigate this reasoning error. The first experiment tested examples similar to the breakfast-GPA relation, varying in the plausibility of the causal link. We asked participants to rate their level of agreement that the relation was correlated, which they rated appropriately as high. However, participants also expressed high agreement with a causal interpretation of the data. Levels of support for the causal interpretation were not equally strong across visualization types: causality ratings were highest for text descriptions and bar graphs, but weaker for scatter plots. But is this effect driven by bar graphs aggregating data into two groups or by the visual encoding type? We isolated data aggregation versus visual encoding type and examined their individual effect on perceived causality. Overall, different visualization designs afford different cognitive reasoning affordances across the same data. High levels of data aggregation by graphs tend to be associated with higher perceived causality in data. Participants perceived line and dot visual encodings as more causal than bar encodings. Our results demonstrate how some visualization designs trigger stronger causal links while choosing others can help mitigate unwarranted perceptions of causality.

When an analyst or scientist has a belief about how the world works, their thinking can be biased in favor of that belief. Therefore, one bedrock principle of science is to minimize that bias by testing the predictions of one's belief against objective data. But interpreting visualized data is a complex perceptual and cognitive process. Through two crowdsourced experiments, we demonstrate that supposedly objective assessments of the strength of a correlational relationship can be influenced by how strongly a viewer believes in the existence of that relationship. Participants viewed scatterplots depicting a relationship between meaningful variable pairs (e.g., number of environmental regulations and air quality) and estimated their correlations. They also estimated the correlation of the same scatterplots labeled instead with generic 'X' and 'Y' axes. In a separate section, they also reported how strongly they believed there to be a correlation between the meaningful variable pairs. Participants estimated correlations more accurately when they viewed scatterplots labeled with generic axes compared to scatterplots labeled with meaningful variable pairs. Furthermore, when viewers believed that two variables should have a strong relationship, they overestimated correlations between those variables by an r-value of about 0.1. When they believed that the variables should be unrelated, they underestimated the correlations by an r-value of about 0.1. While data visualizations are typically thought to present objective truths to the viewer, these results suggest that existing personal beliefs can bias even objective statistical values people extract from data.

Data visualization design has a powerful effect on which patterns we see as salient and how quickly we see them. The visualization practitioner community prescribes two popular guidelines for creating clear and efficient visualizations: declutter and focus. The declutter guidelines suggest removing non-critical gridlines, excessive labeling of data values, and color variability to improve aesthetics and to maximize the emphasis on the data relative to the design itself. The focus guidelines for explanatory communication recommend including a clear headline that describes the relevant data pattern, highlighting a subset of relevant data values with a unique color, and connecting those values to written annotations that contextualize them in a broader argument. We evaluated how these recommendations impact recall of the depicted information across cluttered, decluttered, and decluttered+focused designs of six graph topics. Undergraduate students were asked to redraw previously seen visualizations, to recall their topics and main conclusions, and to rate the varied designs on aesthetics, clarity, professionalism, and trustworthiness. Decluttering designs led to higher ratings on professionalism, and adding focus to the design led to higher ratings on aesthetics and clarity. They also showed better memory for the highlighted pattern in the data, as reflected across redrawings of the original visualization and typed free-response conclusions, though we do not know whether these results would generalize beyond our memory-based tasks. The results largely empirically validate the intuitions of visualization designers and practitioners. The stimuli, data, analysis code, and Supplementary Materials are available at https://osf.io/wes9u/ .

Past studies have shown that when a visualization uses pictographs to encode data, they have a positive effect on memory, engagement, and assessment of risk. However, little is known about how pictographs affect one’s ability to understand a visualization, beyond memory for values and trends. We conducted two crowdsourced experiments to compare the effectiveness of using pictographs when showing part-to-whole relationships. In Experiment 1, we compared pictograph arrays to more traditional bar and pie charts. We tested participants’ ability to generate high-level insights following Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives via 6 free-response questions. We found that accuracy for extracting information and generating insights did not differ overall between the two versions. To explore the motivating differences between the designs, we conducted a second experiment where participants compared charts containing pictograph arrays to more traditional charts on 5 metrics and explained their reasoning. We found that some participants preferred the way that pictographs allowed them to envision the topic more easily, while others preferred traditional bar and pie charts because they seem less cluttered and faster to read. These results suggest that, at least in simple visualizations depicting part-to-whole relationships, the choice of using pictographs has little influence on sensemaking and insight extraction. When deciding whether to use pictograph arrays, designers should consider visual appeal, perceived comprehension time, ease of envisioning the topic, and clutteredness.

Trust is an essential aspect of data visualization, as it plays a crucial role in the interpretation and decision-making processes of users. While research in social sciences outlines the multi-dimensional factors that can play a role in trust formation, most data visualization trust researchers employ a single-item scale to measure trust. We address this gap by proposing a comprehensive, multidimensional conceptualization and operationalization of trust in visualization. We do this by applying general theories of trust from social sciences, as well as synthesizing and extending earlier work and factors identified by studies in the visualization field. We apply a two-dimensional approach to trust in visualization, to distinguish between cognitive and affective elements, as well as between visualization and data-specific trust antecedents. We use our framework to design and run a large crowd-sourced study to quantify the role of visual complexity in establishing trust in science visualizations. Our study provides empirical evidence for several aspects of our proposed theoretical framework, most notably the impact of cognition, affective responses, and individual differences when establishing trust in visualizations.