Anchoring in Numeric Judgments of Visual Stimuli

Langeborg, Linda; Eriksson, Mats E.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00225

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(71 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One possible explanation for this effect is that the appearance of a large difference initially anchors judgments, consistent with previous research showing that initially presented values have disproportionate influence (Furnham & Boo, 2011;Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Although most of the literature has focused on numeric anchors, recent articles examined the extent to which this phenomenon generalizes to visual stimuli (Langeborg & Eriksson, 2016;LeBoeuf & Shafir, 2009). Another, nonexclusive explanation relates to Gricean norms of communication (Grice, 1975), in which listeners assume that speakers are providing truthful, relevant, and clear information.…”

Section: Possible Mechanismssupporting

confidence: 70%

Truncating Bar Graphs Persistently Misleads Viewers

Yang¹,

Restrepo²,

Stanley³

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data visualizations and graphs are increasingly common in both scientific and mass media settings. How might graphs mislead? In the present work, we provide empirical evidence across five studies for a clear, persistent means of misleading readers: the truncation effect for bar graphs. This effect occurs when a bar graph with a truncated axis exaggerates the perceived size of an illustrated difference. In the first study, we present participants with bar graphs on a variety of topics and manipulate y-axis truncation within-subjects. We find evidence for a consistent effect of truncation. In four subsequent studies, we explore whether this effect is modified by a warning about the nature of the manipulation, a 24-hour delay, and in a specialized participant population (PhD students in the humanities and quantitative fields). This truncation effect persists in each of these contexts, but is attenuated after warnings and in specialized participant populations.

show abstract

Section: Possible Mechanismssupporting

confidence: 70%

Truncating Bar Graphs Persistently Misleads Viewers

Yang¹,

Restrepo²,

Stanley³

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, one possibility is that the appearance of a large difference initially anchors judgments, consistent with previous research showing that initially presented values have disproportionate influence (Furnham & Boo, 2011; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Although most of the literature has focused on numeric anchors, recent articles examined the extent to which this phenomenon generalizes to visual stimuli (Langeborg & Eriksson, 2016; LeBoeuf & Shafir, 2009). In previous work, warnings were much less effective in the case of visually driven phenomena such as change blindness (Simons, 2000) or optical illusions (e.g., Barlow & Hill, 1963; Williams & Yampolskiy, 2018); visual anchoring as a phenomenon could be compared and contrasted with these phenomena.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Truncating bar graphs persistently misleads viewers.

Yang

Restrepo

Stanley

et al. 2021

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data visualizations and graphs are increasingly common in both scientific and mass media settings. While graphs are useful tools for communicating patterns in data, they also have the potential to mislead viewers. In five studies, we provide empirical evidence that y-axis truncation leads viewers to perceive illustrated differences as larger (i.e., a truncation effect). This effect persisted after viewers were taught about the effects of y-axis truncation and was robust across participants, with 83.5% of participants across all 5 studies showing a truncation effect. We also found that individual differences in graph literacy failed to predict the size of individuals' truncation effects. PhD students in both quantitative fields and the humanities were susceptible to the truncation effect, but quantitative PhD students were slightly more resistant when no warning about truncated axes was provided. We discuss the implications of these results for the underlying mechanisms and make practical recommendations for training critical consumers and creators of graphs.

show abstract

“…Subsequent research by Alards‐Tomalin et al. ( 2015 ) and Lange borg and Eriksson ( 2016 ) further clarified that anchors have the potential to distort estimates when perceptual stimuli are present, aligning with the hypothesis of assimilative bias. However, the interpretation of the perceptual anchoring effect is challenged due to its occurrence in a setting where numeric perceptual information is directly available.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Additional research corroborates that estimates of physical quantities are sensitive to anchoring within an assimilation pattern. Alards-Tomalin et al (2015) show that anchoring affects judgments of loudness (but only when the anchor number was actively held in short-term memory), and Langeborg and Eriksson (2016) show numeric anchoring in a target age estimation and in the estimation of the number of objects that were perceived within a glass.…”

Section: Memory and Perceptual Anchoring Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual anchoring effects: Evidence of response bias and a change in estimates sensitivity

Garcia‐Marques,

Fernandes

2023

Brain and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPeople's estimates of perceptual quantities are commonly biased by the contextual presence of other quantities (like numbers). In this study, we address assimilation anchoring effects (approximation of real quantities to contextual quantities) that occur for visually displayed proportions, defining a new methodological setting for the effect.MethodSimilar to classic approaches, we asked participants across several trials whether the display contained a feature in a proportion higher or lower than “a randomly selected value” (relative judgments), and then estimated the feature proportions (absolute judgments). Across all trials, we presented seven anchors ranging from .20 to .80, each with a visually displayed representation of the same seven proportions (49 judgments in total). This allowed for a psychophysical approach to individual estimates and signal detection indexes, providing new insights into how the anchoring effect is generated in this setting.ResultsOur findings suggest that anchoring effects occur both as a bias (changes in response criteria) and as a change in the ability to discriminate stimuli (affecting sensitivity indexes). Moreover, anchors modulate the level of stimuli features for which estimates were more uncertain. Finally, our results indicate that anchor effects occur immediately in the first phase of the two‐phase paradigm, leading to the availability of values for supporting absolute estimates.ConclusionBy using a psychophysical approach to the anchoring effects, for the first time, we could clarify that this effect is the result of both bias and changes in the ability to discriminate quantity.

show abstract

Anchoring in Numeric Judgments of Visual Stimuli

Cited by 8 publications

References 42 publications

Truncating Bar Graphs Persistently Misleads Viewers

Truncating Bar Graphs Persistently Misleads Viewers

Truncating bar graphs persistently misleads viewers.

Perceptual anchoring effects: Evidence of response bias and a change in estimates sensitivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About