Understanding the effectiveness of computer graphics for decision support: a cumulative experimental approach

ABSTRACT

A total of 840 junior and senior-level undergraduate business students particpated in three experiments that compared computer-generated graphical forms of data presentation to traditional tabular reports. The first experiment compared tables and bar charts for their effects on readability, interpretation accuracy, and decision making. No differences in interpretation accuracy or decision quality were observed for the two groups, although tabular reports were rated as "easier to read and understand" than graphical reports. The second experiment compared line plots to tables for their effects on interpretation accuracy and decision quality. Subjects with graphical reports outperformed those with tables. There were no meaningful differences in interpretation accuracy across treatment groups. The third experiment compared graphical and tabular reports for their ability to convey a "message" to the reader. Only in situations in which a vast amount of information was presented and relatively simple impressions were to be made, did subjects given graphs outperform those using tables. This program of cumulative experiments indicates that generalized claims of superiority of graphic presentation are unsupported, at least for decision-related activities. In fact, the experiments suggest that the effectiveness of the data display format is largely a function of the characteristics of the task at hand, and that impressions gleaned from "one shot" studies of the effectiveness of the use of graphs may be nothing more than situationally dependent artifacts.

REFERENCES

• 1: Benbasat, I.. and Dexter. AS. An experimental evaluation of graphical and color-enhanced information presentation. Manage. Sci., to be published.
• 2: Benbasat. I.. and Schroeder, R. An experimental investigation of some MIS design variables. MIS Q. I, 1 (1977). 37-50.
• 3: Carter, L.F. An experiment on the design of tables and graphs used for presenting numerical data. J Appl. Psychol. 31, (1947), 640-650.
• 4: Carter, L.F. Relative effectiveness of presenting numerical data by the use of tables and graphs. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 1946.
• 5: DeSanctjs. G. Computer graphics as decision aids: Directions for research. Deck. Sci. 15, 4 (1964). 463-467.
• 6: Feliciano, G.D., Powers, R.D., and Bryant, E.K. The presentation of statistical information. Audio Visual Commun. Rev. II, 13 (1963). 32-39.
• 7: Ghani, }.A. The effects of information representation and modification of decision performance. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1981.
• 8: Ghani. 1.A.. and Lusk, E.J. Human information processing research: Its MIS design consequences. Hum. Syst. Manage. 3, 1 (1962), 32-40.
• 9: Gerry. G.A., and Scott-Morton, MS. A framework for management information systems. Sloan Manage. Rev. 13. 1 (1971), 55-70.
• 10: Grace, G.L. Application of empirical methods to computer-based system design. J. Appl. Psychol. 50, (1966), 442-450.
• 11: Ives, B. Graphical user interfaces for business information systems. MlS Q., Special Issue, (1982), 15-47.
• 12: Irwin M. Jarett, Computer Graphics and Reporting Financial Data, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1983
• 13: Lucas, H.C. An experimental investigation of the use of computerbased graphics in decision making. Manage. Sci. 27, 7 (19&U), 757- 766.
• 14: MacDonald-Ross. M. How numbers are shown. Audio-visual Commu". Rev. 25, 4 (1977). 359-409.
• 15: Nawrocki, L.H. Alphanumeric versus graphic displays in a problemsolving task. Tech. Res. Note 227, U.S. Army Behavior and Systems Research Laboratory, Arlington, Va., Sept. 1972.
• 16: Payne, J.W. Contingent decision behavior. Psychol. Bull. 92, (1982), 382-402.
• 17: Powers, M.. Lashley, C., Sanchez. P.. and Schneiderman, B. An experimental comparison on tabular and graphic data presentation. Computer Science Department, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, Feb. 1962. unpublished.
• 18: Takeuchi, H., and Schmidt, A.H. New promise of computer graphics. Harvard Bus. RPU. 58, 1 (1980). 122-131.
• 19: Tullis. T.S. An evaluation of alphanumeric, graphic, and color displays. Hunt. Facfors 23, 5 (1981), 541-550.
• 20: Vernon, M.D. The use and value of graphical material in presenting quantitative data. Occup. Psychol. 26, (1952), 22-34.
• 21: Wainer, H.. and Reiser, M. Assessing the efficacy of visual displays. In Proceedings of the American Stafistical Association, I, Social Statistics Section, (1976), pp. 89-92.
• 22: Wilcox, W. Numbers and the news: Graph, table or text. Journalism Q. 41. (1964), 38-44.
• 23: Zmud. R.W., Blocher. E., and Moffie, R.P. The impact of color graphic report formats on decision performance and learning. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Society for Information Management, Chicago, Ill., 1983.

INDEX TERMS

Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human factors
  H.4 INFORMATION SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS
      H.4.2 Types of Systems
          Subjects: Decision support (e.g., MIS)

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.3 COMPUTER GRAPHICS

General Terms:
Experimentation, Human Factors, Management