A Bayesian cognition approach for belief updating of correlation judgement through uncertainty visualizations

What Can Interactive Visualization Do for Participatory Budgeting in Chicago?

Participatory budgeting (PB) is a democratic approach to allocating municipal spending that has been adopted in many places in recent years, including in Chicago. Current PB voting resembles a ballot where residents are asked which municipal projects, such as school improvements and road repairs, to fund with a limited budget. In this work, we ask how interactive visualization can benefit PB by conducting a design probe-based interview study (N=13) with policy workers and academics with expertise in PB, urban planning, and civic HCI. Our probe explores how graphical elicitation of voter preferences and a dashboard of voting statistics can be incorporated into a realistic PB tool. Through qualitative analysis, we find that visualization creates opportunities for city government to set expectations about budget constraints while also granting their constituents greater freedom to articulate a wider range of preferences. However, using visualization to provide transparency about PB requires efforts to mitigate potential access barriers and mistrust. We call for more visualization professionals to help build civic capacity by working in and studying political systems.

Trust Your Gut: Comparing Human and Machine Inference from Noisy Visualizations

People commonly utilize visualizations not only to examine a given dataset, but also to draw generalizable conclusions about the underlying models or phenomena. Prior research has compared human visual inference to that of an optimal Bayesian agent, with deviations from rational analysis viewed as problematic. However, human reliance on non-normative heuristics may prove advantageous in certain circumstances. We investigate scenarios where human intuition might surpass idealized statistical rationality. In two experiments, we examine individuals' accuracy in characterizing the parameters of known data-generating models from bivariate visualizations. Our findings indicate that, although participants generally exhibited lower accuracy compared to statistical models, they frequently outperformed Bayesian agents, particularly when faced with extreme samples. Participants appeared to rely on their internal models to filter out noisy visualizations, thus improving their resilience against spurious data. However, participants displayed overconfidence and struggled with uncertainty estimation. They also exhibited higher variance than statistical machines. Our findings suggest that analyst gut reactions to visualizations may provide an advantage, even when departing from rationality. These results carry implications for designing visual analytics tools, offering new perspectives on how to integrate statistical models and analyst intuition for improved inference and decision-making. The data and materials for this paper are available at https://osf.io/qmfv6.

Effects of outlier and familiar context in trend-line estimates in scatterplots

Lately, there has been a growing fascination with blending research on visualizing data and understanding how our basic visual perception works. Taking this path, this research delved into the connection between ensemble perception, which involves quickly and accurately grasping essential information from sets of visually similar objects, and how we process scatterplots. Across two experiments, we aimed to answer a couple of connected questions. First, we investigated whether having an outlier in a scatterplot affects how people draw trend-line estimates. Second, we explored whether what we are familiar with and the presence of outliers that match the trend affect how we draw trend-line estimates in scatterplots. In both experiments, we showed participants scatterplots for a short time, manipulating whether there were outliers or not. Then, using a computer mouse, participants drew their trend-line estimates. By comparing what they drew with possible trend-line solutions, we discovered that when there is no context, the outlier and the other points in a scatterplot are seen as equally important in drawing the trend-line estimate. But when the scatterplot depicted a familiar context and the outlier fitted the trend, people tended to give more weight to those outlier points in their drawings. This suggested that what we already believe can sway how we draw trend-line estimates even from quickly shown scatterplots.

Polarizing Political Polls: How Visualization Design Choices Can Shape Public Opinion and Increase Political Polarization

While we typically focus on data visualization as a tool for facilitating cognitive tasks (e.g. learning facts, making decisions), we know relatively little about their second-order impacts on our opinions, attitudes, and values. For example, could design or framing choices interact with viewers' social cognitive biases in ways that promote political polarization? When reporting on U.S. attitudes toward public policies, it is popular to highlight the gap between Democrats and Republicans (e.g. with blue vs red connected dot plots). But these charts may encourage social-normative conformity, influencing viewers' attitudes to match the divided opinions shown in the visualization. We conducted three experiments examining visualization framing in the context of social conformity and polarization. Crowdworkers viewed charts showing simulated polling results for public policy proposals. We varied framing (aggregating data as non-partisan "All US Adults," or partisan "Democrat" / "Republican") and the visualized groups' support levels. Participants then reported their own support for each policy. We found that participants' attitudes biased significantly toward the group attitudes shown in the stimuli and this can increase inter-party attitude divergence. These results demonstrate that data visualizations can induce social conformity and accelerate political polarization. Choosing to visualize partisan divisions can divide us further.

How Do Viewers Synthesize Conflicting Information from Data Visualizations?

Scientific knowledge develops through cumulative discoveries that build on, contradict, contextualize, or correct prior findings. Scientists and journalists often communicate these incremental findings to lay people through visualizations and text (e.g., the positive and negative effects of caffeine intake). Consequently, readers need to integrate diverse and contrasting evidence from multiple sources to form opinions or make decisions. However, the underlying mechanism for synthesizing information from multiple visualizations remains under-explored. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a series of four experiments ( N=1166) in which participants synthesized empirical evidence from a pair of line charts presented sequentially. In Experiment 1, we administered a baseline condition with charts depicting no specific context where participants held no strong belief. To test for the generalizability, we introduced real-world scenarios to our visualizations in Experiment 2 and added accompanying text descriptions similar to online news articles or blog posts in Experiment 3. In all three experiments, we varied the relative direction and magnitude of line slopes within the chart pairs. We found that participants tended to weigh the positive slope more when the two charts depicted relationships in the opposite direction (e.g., one positive slope and one negative slope). Participants tended to weigh the less steep slope more when the two charts depicted relationships in the same direction (e.g., both positive). Through these experiments, we characterize participants' synthesis behaviors depending on the relationship between the information they viewed, contribute to theories describing underlying cognitive mechanisms in information synthesis, and describe design implications for data storytelling.

Seeing What You Believe or Believing What You See? Belief Biases Correlation Estimation

When an analyst or scientist has a belief about how the world works, their thinking can be biased in favor of that belief. Therefore, one bedrock principle of science is to minimize that bias by testing the predictions of one's belief against objective data. But interpreting visualized data is a complex perceptual and cognitive process. Through two crowdsourced experiments, we demonstrate that supposedly objective assessments of the strength of a correlational relationship can be influenced by how strongly a viewer believes in the existence of that relationship. Participants viewed scatterplots depicting a relationship between meaningful variable pairs (e.g., number of environmental regulations and air quality) and estimated their correlations. They also estimated the correlation of the same scatterplots labeled instead with generic 'X' and 'Y' axes. In a separate section, they also reported how strongly they believed there to be a correlation between the meaningful variable pairs. Participants estimated correlations more accurately when they viewed scatterplots labeled with generic axes compared to scatterplots labeled with meaningful variable pairs. Furthermore, when viewers believed that two variables should have a strong relationship, they overestimated correlations between those variables by an r-value of about 0.1. When they believed that the variables should be unrelated, they underestimated the correlations by an r-value of about 0.1. While data visualizations are typically thought to present objective truths to the viewer, these results suggest that existing personal beliefs can bias even objective statistical values people extract from data.