4.7 Article

Best Graph Type to Compare Discrete Groups: Bar, Dot, and Tally

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.775721

关键词

group comparison; graph comprehension; graph schema; mixing-costs paradigm; graph type

资金

  1. Research Cluster D2L2 (Digitalization, Diversity, Lifelong Learning -Consequences for Higher Education) at FernUniversitat in Hagen in Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据