The effect of visual illusions on the graphical display of information

Journal of Information Systems

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 23-42

  Amer, T S ^a   Ravindran, Sury ^a  

^a NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias in decision making; Graphs; Gridlines; Visual illusions

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052839985     PISSN: 08887985     EISSN: 15587959     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/jis.2010.24.1.23     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Abdel-Hamid, T. K., K. Sengupta, and C. Swett. 1999. The impact of goals on software project management: An experimental investigation. MIS Quarterly 23 4:531-555.
2. Amer, T. S. 2005. Bias due to visual illusion in the graphical presentation of accounting information. Journal of Information Systems 19 Spring: 1-18.
3. Arunachalam, V., B. K. W. Pei, and P. J. Steinbart. 2002. Impression management with graphs: Effects on choices. Journal of Information Systems 16 2:183-202.
4. Ashton, R. H., and S. S. Kramer. 1980. Students as surrogates in behavioral accounting research: Some evidence. Journal of Accounting Research 18 1:1-15.
5. Beattie, V., A. Dhanani, and M. J. Jones. 2008. Investigating presentational change in U.K. annual reports. Journal of Business Communication 45 2:181-222.
6. Beattie, V., A. Dhanani, and M. J. Jones. 2002. Measurement distortion of graphs in corporate reports: An experimental study. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 15 4:546-564.
7. Bertin, J. 1983. The Semiology of Graphics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
8. Block, J. R., and H. E. Yuker. 1989. Can You Believe Your Eyes? New York, NY: Gardner Press.
9. Carpenter, P. A., and P. Shah. 1998. A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied 4 2:75-100.
10. Changizi, M. A. 2001. 'Perceiving the present' as a framework for ecological explanations of the misperception of projected angle and angular size. title typejournalPerception/title 30 2:195-208.
11. Changizi, M, A Hsieh, R. Nijhawan, R. Kanai, and S. Shimojo. 2008. Perceiving the present and a systematization of illusions. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 32 3:459-503.
12. Changizi, M. A, and D. M. Widders. 2002. Latency correction explains the classical geometrical illusions. Perception 31 10: 1241-1262.
13. Few, S. 2005. Data visualization: Bad graphs: The stealth virus. Information Management Magazine January. Available at: http://www.information-management.com/issues/20050101/1016296-1.html
14. Frownfelter-Lohrke, C., and C. L. Fulkerson. 2001. The incidence and quality of graphics in annual reports: An international comparison. Journal of Business Communication 38 3:337-358.
15. Gillam, B. 1980. Geometrical illusions. Scientific American 242 January: 102-111.
16. Gillan, D. J., C. D. Wickens, J. G. Hollands, and C. M. Carswell. 1998. Guidelines for presenting quantitative data in HFES publications. Human Factors 40 1:28-41.
17. Hill, W. Y., and M. M. Milner. 2003. Guidelines for graphical displays in financial reporting. Accounting Education 12 2:135-158.
18. Howe, C. Q., and D. Purves. 2005. Perceiving Geometry: Geometrical Illusions Explained by Natural Scene Statistics. New York, NY: Springer Science Business Media, Inc.
19. Jarvenpaa, S., and G. W. Dickson. 1988. Graphics and managerial decision making: Research based guidelines. Communications of the ACM 31 6:764-774.
20. Koehler, J. J., and M. Mercer. 2009. Selection neglect in mutual fund advertisements. Management Science 55 7:1107-1121.
21. Kosslyn, S. M. 1989. Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology 3 3:185-226.
22. Lawrence, M., and M. O'Connor. 1993. Scale, variability, and the calibration of judgmental prediction intervals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 56 3:441-458.
23. Ninio, J. 2001. The Science of Illusions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
24. Penrose, J. M. 2008. Annual report graphic use: A review of the literature. Journal of Business Communication 45 2:158-180.
25. Pinker, S. 1991. A Theory of Graph Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
26. Poulton, E. C. 1985. Geometric illusions in reading graphs. Perception & Psychophysics 37 6:543-548.
27. Raschke, R. L., and P. J. Steinbart. 2008. Mitigating the effects of misleading graphs on decisions by educating users about the principles of graph design. Journal of Information Systems 22 2:23-52.
28. Robinson, J. O. 1998. The Psychology of Visual Illusion. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.
29. Seckel, A. 2006. Optical Illusions: The Science of Visual Perception. Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books.
30. Shah, P. 2002. Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning. Edited by Anderson, M., B. Meyer, and P. Olivier. London, U.K.: Springer-Verlag.
31. Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., and B. Bridgeman. 1993. Spatial context affects the Poggendorff illusion. Perception & Psychophysics 53 5:467-474.
32. Tractinsky, N., and J. Meyer. 1999. Chartjunk or goldgraph? Effects of presentation objectives and content desirability on information presentation. MIS Quarterly 23 3:397-420.
33. Tufte, E. R. 1983. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
34. Tufte, E. R., 1997. Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
35. Wainer, H. 1997. Visual Revelations: Graphic Tales of Fate and Deception from Napoleon Bonaparte to Ross Perot. New York, NY: Copernicus/Springer-Verlag.
36. Westheimer, G., and C. Wehrhahn. 1997. Real and virtual borders in the Poggendorff illusion. Perception 26 12: 1495-1501.
37. Wickens, C. D., and J. G. Hollands. 2000. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.