Examining Effort in 1D Uncertainty Communication Using Individual Differences in Working Memory and NASA-TLX

Evaluating the Use of Uncertainty Visualisations for Imputations of Data Missing At Random in Scatterplots

Most real-world datasets contain missing values yet most exploratory data analysis (EDA) systems only support visualising data points with complete cases. This omission may potentially lead the user to biased analyses and insights. Imputation techniques can help estimate the value of a missing data point, but introduces additional uncertainty. In this work, we investigate the effects of visualising imputed values in charts using different ways of representing data imputations and imputation uncertainty-no imputation, mean, 95% confidence intervals, probability density plots, gradient intervals, and hypothetical outcome plots. We focus on scatterplots, which is a commonly used chart type, and conduct a crowdsourced study with 202 participants. We measure users' bias and precision in performing two tasks-estimating average and detecting trend-and their self-reported confidence in performing these tasks. Our results suggest that, when estimating averages, uncertainty representations may reduce bias but at the cost of decreasing precision. When estimating trend, only hypothetical outcome plots may lead to a small probability of reducing bias while increasing precision. Participants in every uncertainty representation were less certain about their response when compared to the baseline. The findings point towards potential trade-offs in using uncertainty encodings for datasets with a large number of missing values. This paper and the associated analysis materials are available at: https://osf.io/q4y5r/.

Studying Early Decision Making with Progressive Bar Charts

We conduct a user study to quantify and compare user performance for a value comparison task using four bar chart designs, where the bars show the mean values of data loaded progressively and updated every second (progressive bar charts). Progressive visualization divides different stages of the visualization pipeline-data loading, processing, and visualization-into iterative animated steps to limit the latency when loading large amounts of data. An animated visualization appearing quickly, unfolding, and getting more accurate with time, enables users to make early decisions. However, intermediate mean estimates are computed only on partial data and may not have time to converge to the true means, potentially misleading users and resulting in incorrect decisions. To address this issue, we propose two new designs visualizing the history of values in progressive bar charts, in addition to the use of confidence intervals. We comparatively study four progressive bar chart designs: with/without confidence intervals, and using near-history representation with/without confidence intervals, on three realistic data distributions. We evaluate user performance based on the percentage of correct answers (accuracy), response time, and user confidence. Our results show that, overall, users can make early and accurate decisions with 92% accuracy using only 18% of the data, regardless of the design. We find that our proposed bar chart design with only near-history is comparable to bar charts with only confidence intervals in performance, and the qualitative feedback we received indicates a preference for designs with history.

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.

Multiple Forecast Visualizations (MFVs): Trade-offs in Trust and Performance in Multiple COVID-19 Forecast Visualizations

The prevalence of inadequate SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) responses may indicate a lack of trust in forecasts and risk communication. However, no work has empirically tested how multiple forecast visualization choices impact trust and task-based performance. The three studies presented in this paper ( N=1299) examine how visualization choices impact trust in COVID-19 mortality forecasts and how they influence performance in a trend prediction task. These studies focus on line charts populated with real-time COVID-19 data that varied the number and color encoding of the forecasts and the presence of best/worst-case forecasts. The studies reveal that trust in COVID-19 forecast visualizations initially increases with the number of forecasts and then plateaus after 6-9 forecasts. However, participants were most trusting of visualizations that showed less visual information, including a 95% confidence interval, single forecast, and grayscale encoded forecasts. Participants maintained high trust in intervals labeled with 50% and 25% and did not proportionally scale their trust to the indicated interval size. Despite the high trust, the 95% CI condition was the most likely to evoke predictions that did not correspond with the actual COVID-19 trend. Qualitative analysis of participants' strategies confirmed that many participants trusted both the simplistic visualizations and those with numerous forecasts. This work provides practical guides for how COVID-19 forecast visualizations influence trust, including recommendations for identifying the range where forecasts balance trade-offs between trust and task-based performance.

Effects of message delivery on cross-cultural biosecurity compliance: Insights from experimental simulations

Background

Effective biosecurity communication of transmission risks and associated protective behaviors can reduce the impacts of infectious diseases in US animal agriculture. Yet, more than 1/5 of animal production workers speak a language other than English at home, and more than 40 percent are less than fluent in English. Communicating with these workers often involves translating into their primary languages. However, communication strategies targeting different cultural groups are not well-understood.

Aims

To identify cross-linguistic risk communication strategies to facilitate compliance, we hypothesized that uncertainty avoidance cultures associated with the languages might affect biosecurity compliance contingent upon two additional covariates: (1) the risk of acquiring an infection and (2) the delivery method of the infection risk.

Methods

We designed an experimental game simulating a line of separation (LOS) biosecurity tactic in a swine production facility, where participants were tasked with completing tasks inside and outside of the facility. Data were collected using games in the two most spoken languages in the US: English (EN) and Spanish (SP). Participants made binary decisions about whether to use the LOS biosecurity tactic based on the risk information provided. Mixed-effect logistic models were used to test the effects of covariates on using the LOS tactic by different language groups.

Results

We found that biosecurity compliance rates of participants who took the experiments in the language associated with high and low uncertainty cultures showed no significant differences. However, there are substantial differences in how risk information is perceived between the two language groups under different infection risks. Specifically, and counterintuitively, SP participants were more risk-averse in gain scenarios but more risk-taking in loss scenarios. These differences are most pronounced in numeric risk messaging, indicating that numbers may not be the best way to communicate risk information regarding biosecurity cross-culturally.

Conclusions

When confronted with situational biosecurity decisions, risk perception and preferences vary by language group. Effective biosecurity communication needs to account for these differences and not assume that direct translation of risk messages will result in comparable compliance.

Impact of COVID-19 forecast visualizations on pandemic risk perceptions

People worldwide use SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) visualizations to make life and death decisions about pandemic risks. Understanding how these visualizations influence risk perceptions to improve pandemic communication is crucial. To examine how COVID-19 visualizations influence risk perception, we conducted two experiments online in October and December of 2020 (N = 2549) where we presented participants with 34 visualization techniques (available at the time of publication on the CDC’s website) of the same COVID-19 mortality data. We found that visualizing data using a cumulative scale consistently led to participants believing that they and others were at more risk than before viewing the visualizations. In contrast, visualizing the same data with a weekly incident scale led to variable changes in risk perceptions. Further, uncertainty forecast visualizations also affected risk perceptions, with visualizations showing six or more models increasing risk estimates more than the others tested. Differences between COVID-19 visualizations of the same data produce different risk perceptions, fundamentally changing viewers’ interpretation of information.