The effect of spatial arrangement on judgments and errors in interpreting graphs

Social Networks

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 223-242

  McGrath, Cathleen ^a   Blythe, Jim ^b,c   Krackhardt, David ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Carnegie Mellon University   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Experiment; Graphs; Perceptions; Spatial arrangements

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031206085     PISSN: 03788733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-8733(96)00299-7     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Batini, C., L. Furlani and E. Nardelli, 1985, What is a good diagram? A pragmatic approach, in: 4th International Conference on the Entity Relationship Approach, Chicago.
2. Borgatti, S. and M. Everett, 1992, Regular block models of multiway, multimode matrices, Social Networks 14, 91-120.
3. Di Battista, G., P. Eades, R. Tamassia and I. Tollis, 1994, Algorithms for drawing graphs: An annotated bibliography, Computational geometry: Theory and applications, 4, 235-282.
4. Ding, C. and P. Mateti, 1990, A framework for the automated drawing of data structure diagrams, IEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16, 543-557.
5. Freeman, L.C., 1978, Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification, Social Networks 1, 215-239.
6. Harary, F., 1969, Graph theory (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).
7. Larkin, J. and H. Simon, 1987, Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words, Cognitive Science 11, 65-99.
8. Moreno, J.L., 1953, Who shall survive? (Beacon House, New York).
9. Poulton, E.C., 1982, Influential companions: Effects of one strategy on another in the within-subjects designs of cognitive psychology. Psychological Bulletin 91, 673-690.
10. Scott, J., 1991, Social network analysis: A handbook (Sage, London).