Article

The Bar-Tip Limit Error: a Common, Qualitative Misinterpretation of Bar Graphs of Means Revealed by the DDoG Method

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... This technique, while conventional and accurate [13,50,76], can lead to systematic misinterpretation of data [4,37,44,69]. For example, people tend to think data values that fall within the bar are more likely than points outside the bar [51] or that the tip of each bar represents the outer limit of the group data, rather than the average value [41]. The presentation of mean differences in bar charts can influence how they are assessed [52,67]. ...
Preprint
Visualization research often focuses on perceptual accuracy or helping readers interpret key messages. However, we know very little about how chart designs might influence readers' perceptions of the people behind the data. Specifically, could designs interact with readers' social cognitive biases in ways that perpetuate harmful stereotypes? For example, when analyzing social inequality, bar charts are a popular choice to present outcome disparities between race, gender, or other groups. But bar charts may encourage deficit thinking, the perception that outcome disparities are caused by groups' personal strengths or deficiencies, rather than external factors. These faulty personal attributions can then reinforce stereotypes about the groups being visualized. We conducted four experiments examining design choices that influence attribution biases (and therefore deficit thinking). Crowdworkers viewed visualizations depicting social outcomes that either mask variability in data, such as bar charts or dot plots, or emphasize variability in data, such as jitter plots or prediction intervals. They reported their agreement with both personal and external explanations for the visualized disparities. Overall, when participants saw visualizations that hide within-group variability, they agreed more with personal explanations. When they saw visualizations that emphasize within-group variability, they agreed less with personal explanations. These results demonstrate that data visualizations about social inequity can be misinterpreted in harmful ways and lead to stereotyping. Design choices can influence these biases: Hiding variability tends to increase stereotyping while emphasizing variability reduces it.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.