Journal
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.775721
Keywords
group comparison; graph comprehension; graph schema; mixing-costs paradigm; graph type
Categories
Funding
- Research Cluster D2L2 (Digitalization, Diversity, Lifelong Learning -Consequences for Higher Education) at FernUniversitat in Hagen in Germany
Ask authors/readers for more resources
The study showed that graph schemas are based on a common invariant structure rather than a specific schema for each graph. Tally charts were found to be more efficient for group comparison compared to bar graphs, and processing time increased with greater differences in the positions of compared groups.
Different graph types might differ in group comparison due to differences in underlying graph schemas. Thus, this study examined whether graph schemas are based on perceptual features (i.e., each graph has a specific schema) or common invariant structures (i.e., graphs share several common schemas), and which graphic type (bar vs. dot vs. tally) is the best to compare discrete groups. Three experiments were conducted using the mixing-costs paradigm. Participants received graphs with quantities for three groups in randomized positions and were given the task of comparing two groups. The results suggested that graph schemas are based on a common invariant structure. Tally charts mixed either with bar graphs or with dot graphs showed mixing costs. Yet, bar and dot graphs showed no mixing costs when paired together. Tally charts were the more efficient format for group comparison compared to bar graphs. Moreover, processing time increased when the position difference of compared groups was increased.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available