Abstract:Different graph types may differ in their suitability to support group comparisons, due to the underlying graph schemas. This study examined whether graph schemas are based on perceptual features (i.e., each graph type, e.g., bar or line graph, has its own graph schema) or common invariant structures (i.e., graph types share common schemas). Furthermore, it was of interest which graph type (bar, line, or pie) is optimal for comparing discrete groups. A switching paradigm was used in three experiments. Two graph types were examined at a time (Experiment 1: bar vs. line, Experiment 2: bar vs. pie, Experiment 3: line vs. pie). On each trial, participants received a data graph presenting the data from three groups and were to determine the numerical difference of group A and group B displayed in the graph. We scrutinized whether switching the type of graph from one trial to the next prolonged RTs. The slowing of RTs in switch trials in comparison to trials with only one graph type can indicate to what extent the graph schemas differ. As switch costs were observed in all pairings of graph types, none of the different pairs of graph types tested seems to fully share a common schema. Interestingly, there was tentative evidence for differences in switch costs among different pairings of graph types. Smaller switch costs in Experiment 1 suggested that the graph schemas of bar and line graphs overlap more strongly than those of bar graphs and pie graphs or line graphs and pie graphs. This implies that results were not in line with completely distinct schemas for different graph types either. Taken together, the pattern of results is consistent with a hierarchical view according to which a graph schema consists of parts shared for different graphs and parts that are specific for each graph type. Apart from investigating graph schemas, the study provided evidence for performance differences among graph types. We found that bar graphs yielded the fastest group comparisons compared to line graphs and pie graphs, suggesting that they are the most suitable when used to compare discrete groups.

Typicality effect in data graphs

Graph schema and best graph type to compare discrete groups: Bar, line, and pie

Task-Based Effectiveness of Basic Visualizations

Reading a graph is like reading a paragraph.

Expert interpretation of bar and line graphs: the role of graphicacy in reducing the effect of graph format

Visual Arrangements of Bar Charts Influence Comparisons in Viewer Takeaways

Comparing Overlapping Data Distributions Using Visualization

Understanding Spatial Diagram Structure: An Analysis of Hierarchies, Matrices, and Networks

A Simple Descriptive Method & Standard for Comparing Pairs of Stacked Bar Graphs

Illusion of Causality in Visualized Data

Modeling Just Noticeable Differences in Charts

Using dynamic circles and squares to visualize spatio-temporal variation

Graphical Perception in Animated Bar Charts

The Effect of Visual Aids on Reading Numeric Data Tables

Trend judgment as a perceptual building block of graphicacy and mathematics, across age, education, and culture

What Does the Chart Say? Grouping Cues Guide Viewer Comparisons and Conclusions in Bar Charts

Dispersion vs Disparity: Hiding Variability Can Encourage Stereotyping When Visualizing Social Outcomes

The Arrangement of Marks Impacts Afforded Messages: Ordering, Partitioning, Spacing, and Coloring in Bar Charts

Average Estimates in Line Graphs Are Biased Toward Areas of Higher Variability

Consistent Visual Analysis of Multielement Data: A Preliminary Evaluation