Skip to main content

Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • American Psychological Association (1994).Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertin, J. (1983).Semiology of graphics (William J. Berg, Trans.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carswell, C. M., &Wickens, C. D. (1990). The perceptual interaction of graphical attributes: Configurality, stimulus homogeneity, and object integration.Perception & Psychophysics,47, 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H. (1996).Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S. (1993).Elements of graph design. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model for understanding graphical perception.Human-Computer Interaction,8, 353–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simkin, D., &Hastie, R. (1987). An information-processing analysis of graph perception.Journal of the American Statistical Association,82, 454–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B. (1995). Cognitive origins of graphic conventions. In F. T. Marchese (Ed.),Understanding images (pp. 29–53). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., &Winter, A. (1991). Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions.Cognitive Psychology,23, 515–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacks, J., Levy, E., Tversky, B., & Schiano, D. (1996). Ease of processing with spatial representations: Interaction of rendering technique and conceptual task. Unpublished manuscript.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeff Zacks.

Additional information

Portions of these results were presented at the 1997 AAAI Symposium on Diagrammatic Reasoning.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zacks, J., Tversky, B. Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication. Mem Cogn 27, 1073–1079 (1999). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201236

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201236

Keywords

  • Line Graph
  • Conceptual Domain
  • Graph Type
  • Graphic Communication
  • Gestalt Principle