Advertisement

Promoting Representational Fluency for Cognitive Bias Mitigation in Information Visualization

  • Paul ParsonsEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Information visualization involves the use of visual representations of data to amplify cognition. While visualizations do generally amplify cognition, they also have representational biases that encourage thinking and reasoning in certain ways at the expense of others. I propose that the development of representational fluency by visualization designers and users can help mitigate such biases, and that promoting representational fluency in visualization education and practice can be a useful general strategy for mitigating cognitive biases. Literature from various disciplines is discussed, including perspectives on meta-visualization, representational competence, and meta-representational competence. Some implications for visualization research, education, and practice are examined. The need for engaging users in deep, effortful cognitive processing is discussed and is situated within literature on established bias-mitigating strategies. A preliminary research agenda comprising five challenges is also proposed.

References

  1. 1.
    Ainsworth S (2006) DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 16(3):183–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson CA, Sechler ES (1986) Effects of explanation and counterexplanation on the development and use of social theories. J. Personality Social Psych 50(1):24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Archambault D, Purchase H, Pinaud B (2011) Animation, small multiples, and the effect of mental map preservation in dynamic graphs. IEEE Trans Visualization Comput Graphics 17(4):539–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arkes HR, Faust D, Guilmette TJ, Hart K (1988) Eliminating the hindsight bias. J Appl Psych 73(2):305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker M, Lund K (1997) Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. J Comput Assisted Learning 13(3):175–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chi MTH, Feltovich PJ, Glaser R (1981) Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Sci 5(2):121–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Correll M, Gleicher M (2014) Bad for Data, Good for the Brain: knowledge-first axioms for visualization design. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on dealing with cognitive biases in visualisations (DECISIVe 2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dimara E, Dragicevic P, Bezerianos A (2014) Accounting for availability biases in information visualization. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on dealing with cognitive biases in visualisations (DECISIVe 2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DiSessa AA (2004) Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition Instruction 22(3):293–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dragicevic P, Jansen Y (2014) Visualization-mediated alleviation of the planning fallacy. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on dealing with cognitive biases in visualisations (DECISIVe 2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flyvbjerg B (2008) Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning: reference class forecasting in practice. Eur Plann Stud 16(1):3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilbert JK (2005) Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. In: Visualization in Science Education, Springer, pp 9–27Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gilbert JK (2008) Visualization: an emergent field of practice and enquiry in science education. Theory and Practice in Science Education, Visualization, pp 3–24Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grove NP, Cooper MM, Rush KM (2012) Decorating with arrows: toward the development of representational competence in organic chemistry. J Chem Educ 89(7):844–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hill M, Sharma M, O’Byrne J, Airey J (2014) Developing and evaluating a survey for representational fluency in science. Int J Innovation Sci Mathe Educ 22(6):22–42Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hirt ER, Markman KD (1995) Multiple explanation: a consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. J Personality Soc Psych 69(6):1069–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jackson SL, Krajcik JS, Soloway E (1998) The design of guided learner-adaptable scaffolding in interactive learning environments. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI ’98) pp 187–194Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Jong T, Ferguson-Hessler MGM (1991) Knowledge of problem situations in physics: a comparison of good and poor novice problem solvers. Learning Instruction 1(4):289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kahneman D (2013) Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kozma R, Russell J (2005) Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence. Visualization in Science Education pp 121–145Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kozma RB, Russell J (1997) Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of Chemical phenomena. J Res Sci Teaching 34(9):949–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Larrick RP (2004) Debiasing. In: Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, Blackwell Publishing, pp 316–337Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leuven KU, Verbeiren T, Leuven KU, Aerts J (2014) A pragmatic approach to biases in visual data analysis. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on dealing with cognitive biases in visualisations (DECISIVe 2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liang HN, Parsons P, Wu HC, Sedig K (2010) An exploratory study of interactivity in visualization tools: ’Flow’ of interaction. J. Interactive Learning Res 21(1):5–45Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nathan MJ, Alibali MW, Masarik K, Stephens AC, Koedinger KR (2010) Enhancing middle school students representational fluency: a classroom-based study. (WCER Working Paper No 2010-9) Retrieved from University of WisconsinMadison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research website: http://www.wcerwiscedu/publications/workingpapers/papersphp
  26. 26.
    Nitz S, Tippett CD (2012) Measuring representational competence in science. In: EARLI SIG 2 Comprehension of Text and Graphics, pp 163–165Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Norman DA (1993) Things that make us smart: defending human attributes in the age of the machine. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Novick L, Hurley SM (2001) To matrix, network, or hierarchy: that is the question. Cognitive psychology 42(2):158–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parsons P, Sedig K (2014) Distribution of information processing while performing complex cognitive activities with visualization tools. In: Huang W (ed) Handbook of human-centric visualization, Springer, New York, chap 28, pp 693–715Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pohl M, Winter LC, Pallaris C, Attfield S, Wong BLW, (2014) Sensemaking and cognitive bias mitigation in visual analytics. Proceedings -, (2014) IEEE joint intelligence and security informatics conference. JISIC 2014:323.  https://doi.org/10.1109/JISIC.2014.68
  31. 31.
    Scaife M, Rogers Y (1996) External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int J Human-Comput Studies 45(2):185–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sedig K, Parsons P (2013) Interaction design for complex cognitive activities with visual representations: a pattern-based approach. AIS Trans on Human-Comput Interact 5(2):84–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sedig K, Klawe M, Westrom M (2001) Role of interface manipulation style and scaffolding on cognition and concept learning in learnware. ACM Trans Comput-Human Interact (TOCHI) 8(1):34–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sedig K, Parsons P, Dittmer M, Haworth R (2014) Human-centered interactivity of visualization tools: micro- and macro-level considerations. In: Huang W (ed) Handbook of human-centric visualization, Springer, New York, chap 29, pp 717–743Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stenning K, Lemon O (2001) Aligning logical and psychological perspectives on diagrammatic reasoning. Artif Intell Rev 15(1–2):29–62Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stenning K, Oberlander J (1995) A cognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: logic and implementation. Cognitive Sci 19(1):97–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stieff M (2011) Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. J Res Sci Teaching 48(10):1137–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Suthers DD (1999) Representational bias as guidance for learning interactions: a research agenda. New computational technologies to support learning, exploration and collaboration, Artificial Intelligence in Education Open learning environments, pp 121–128Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilder A, Brinkerhoff J (2007) Supporting representational competence in high school biology with computer-based biomolecular visualizations. J Comput Mathe Sci Teaching 26:5–26Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zhang J (1997) The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive sci: a Multidisciplinary J 21(2):179–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations