Er education or numeracy because they require no familiarity with scientific graphic conventions such as axes and because qualitative studies find that they are relatively well liked by consumers.3? Stick-figure graphics can effectively draw people’s attention to statistical information, reduce the influence of vivid text anecdotes on decision making,6 and help explain risk-reduction information.7 These graphics are most likely to be useful if viewers correctly interpret the proportions they depict. Previous studies have used a variety of designs for these graphics, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the best design formats. Some graphics have used a random arrangement, in which the stick figures affected by the health hazard are scattered randomly throughout a larger group of unaffected figures.8 Others have used a sequential arrangement in which the affected stick figures are lined up in blocks along an edge or at a Pyrvinium pamoate C.I. 75535 chemical information chemical information corner of the rectangular field.6,7 In a previous qualitative study,5 we found that sequential arrangements were generally perceived as easier to understand and estimate, which appears consistent with psychophysical research showing that estimation tasks that require mentally summing noncontiguous areas (as in the random graphic) are less accurate than estimating proportions in lines or blocks as in the sequential one.9?1 However, in our qualitative study, many people also considered random arrangements more realistic. “The chance is random, it’s not everybody bunched in one area,” one focus group participant told us.5 This appears consistent with the findings of others that random graphics are perceived as more “true.”12 The findings might indicate that randomly arranged figures would be more useful for expressing the concept of unpredictability. However, it also appeared that randomly arranged graphics might be less successful at conveying proportion. A quantitative study was indicated, as viewers’ opinions about which graphic format they prefer do not strongly predict accuracy in judgment.13,14 Graph comprehension appears to take place in multiple steps: the initial rapid perception of visual elements such as line and area, followed by more cognitively effortful integration and interpretation steps that are influenced by the viewer’s goals and background knowledge.10,15?7 Depending on the design of the graph, proportion may be immediately visible through a part-whole relationship, or it may require more cognitive steps such as mentally summing noncontiguous areas.10 Thus, if random and sequential designs had different effects on risk perception or decision making, this could be attributable to difficulties in ascertaining the proportion or effects on subsequent interpretation steps, or both. The current study was designed to examine the initial visual perception step only. Participants were asked to estimate proportions depicted in a rectangular array of randomlyMed Decis Making. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 02.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAncker et al.Pageor sequentially arranged stick-figure graphics under a 10-s time limit. We hypothesized that estimates of proportion would be different within person and across people when the graphic was in a random arrangement than when it was in a sequential arrangement. We also hypothesized that random arrangements would be estimated with less accuracy. Finally, we hypothesized that poor numerical skills w.Er education or numeracy because they require no familiarity with scientific graphic conventions such as axes and because qualitative studies find that they are relatively well liked by consumers.3? Stick-figure graphics can effectively draw people’s attention to statistical information, reduce the influence of vivid text anecdotes on decision making,6 and help explain risk-reduction information.7 These graphics are most likely to be useful if viewers correctly interpret the proportions they depict. Previous studies have used a variety of designs for these graphics, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the best design formats. Some graphics have used a random arrangement, in which the stick figures affected by the health hazard are scattered randomly throughout a larger group of unaffected figures.8 Others have used a sequential arrangement in which the affected stick figures are lined up in blocks along an edge or at a corner of the rectangular field.6,7 In a previous qualitative study,5 we found that sequential arrangements were generally perceived as easier to understand and estimate, which appears consistent with psychophysical research showing that estimation tasks that require mentally summing noncontiguous areas (as in the random graphic) are less accurate than estimating proportions in lines or blocks as in the sequential one.9?1 However, in our qualitative study, many people also considered random arrangements more realistic. “The chance is random, it’s not everybody bunched in one area,” one focus group participant told us.5 This appears consistent with the findings of others that random graphics are perceived as more “true.”12 The findings might indicate that randomly arranged figures would be more useful for expressing the concept of unpredictability. However, it also appeared that randomly arranged graphics might be less successful at conveying proportion. A quantitative study was indicated, as viewers’ opinions about which graphic format they prefer do not strongly predict accuracy in judgment.13,14 Graph comprehension appears to take place in multiple steps: the initial rapid perception of visual elements such as line and area, followed by more cognitively effortful integration and interpretation steps that are influenced by the viewer’s goals and background knowledge.10,15?7 Depending on the design of the graph, proportion may be immediately visible through a part-whole relationship, or it may require more cognitive steps such as mentally summing noncontiguous areas.10 Thus, if random and sequential designs had different effects on risk perception or decision making, this could be attributable to difficulties in ascertaining the proportion or effects on subsequent interpretation steps, or both. The current study was designed to examine the initial visual perception step only. Participants were asked to estimate proportions depicted in a rectangular array of randomlyMed Decis Making. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 02.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAncker et al.Pageor sequentially arranged stick-figure graphics under a 10-s time limit. We hypothesized that estimates of proportion would be different within person and across people when the graphic was in a random arrangement than when it was in a sequential arrangement. We also hypothesized that random arrangements would be estimated with less accuracy. Finally, we hypothesized that poor numerical skills w.
http://calcium-channel.com
Calcium Channel
