Memory & Cognition

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 1073–1079 | Cite as

Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication

  • Jeff ZacksEmail author
  • Barbara Tversky


Interpretations of graphs seem to be rooted in principles of cognitive naturalness and information processing rather than arbitrary correspondences. These predict that people should more readily associate bars with discrete comparisons between data points because bars are discrete entities and facilitate point estimates. They should more readily associate lines with trends because lines connect discrete entities and directly represent slope. The predictions were supported in three experiments—two examining comprehension and one production. The correspondence does not seem to depend on explicit knowledge of rules. Instead, it may reflect the influence of the communicative situation as well as the perceptual properties of graphs.


Line Graph Conceptual Domain Graph Type Graphic Communication Gestalt Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Psychological Association (1994).Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Bertin, J. (1983).Semiology of graphics (William J. Berg, Trans.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  3. Carswell, C. M., &Wickens, C. D. (1990). The perceptual interaction of graphical attributes: Configurality, stimulus homogeneity, and object integration.Perception & Psychophysics,47, 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, H. H. (1996).Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kosslyn, S. (1993).Elements of graph design. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Levy, E., Zacks, J., Tversky, B., &Schiano, D. (1996). Gratuitous graphics? Putting preferences in perspective. In M. J. Tauber (Ed.),Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 42–49). Vancouver, BC: ACM.Google Scholar
  7. Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception.Human-Computer Interaction,8, 353–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.),Artificial intelligence and the future of testing (pp. 73–126). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Simkin, D., &Hastie, R. (1987). An information-processing analysis of graph perception.Journal of the American Statistical Association,82, 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Tversky, B. (1995). Cognitive origins of graphic conventions. In F. T. Marchese (Ed.),Understanding images (pp. 29–53). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., &Winter, A. (1991). Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions.Cognitive Psychology,23, 515–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tversky, B., &Schiano, D. J. (1989). Perceptual and conceptual factors in distortions in memory for graphs and maps.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zacks, J., Levy, E., Tversky, B., & Schiano, D. (1996). Ease of processing with spatial representations: Interaction of rendering technique and conceptual task. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordCalifornia

Personalised recommendations