Graphic Comparisons by Bars, Squares, Circles, and Cubes

Croxton, Frederick E.; Stein, Harold

doi:10.1080/01621459.1932.10503227

Cited by 46 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Pie charts and bar graphs are only two of many widely used visual devices for comparing the size of two numbers. Previous research has demonstrated that people are able to effectively evaluate data based on the size of elements in a drawing or picture although relative size judgments are subject to a number of possibly confounding factors (Croxton 1932, Kridder et al 2001. In any case it is clear that dashboards, graphs, and charts are useful in presenting and analyzing financial data.…”

Section: Key Accounting Concepts To Be Modeledmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visualizing Basic Accounting Flows: Does XBRL + Model + Animation = Understanding?

Marshall¹,

Mortenson

Bourne³

2010

IJDAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The usefulness of XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) in facilitating efficient data sharing is clear, but widespread use of XBRL also promises to support more effective analysis processes. This format should allow managers, investors, regulators, and students to aggregate, compare and analyze financial information. This study explores an XBRL-based visualization tool that maps the organization of financial statements captured in the XBRL formalism into a graphical representation that organizes, depicts, and animates financial data. We show that our tool integrates and presents profitability, liquidity, financing, and market value data in a manner recognizable to business students. Our findings suggest the promise of XBRL-based visualization tools both in helping students grasp basic accounting concepts and in facilitating financial analysis in general.

show abstract

Section: Key Accounting Concepts To Be Modeledmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visualizing Basic Accounting Flows: Does XBRL + Model + Animation = Understanding?

Marshall¹,

Mortenson

Bourne³

2010

IJDAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eells (1926) showed that subjects could estimate the size of a proportion more quickly and accurately when the data were in pie chart rather than bar chart form. His advocacy quickly produced critics who conducted their own experiments (Croxton, 1927;Croxton & Stein, 1932;Croxton & Stryker, 1927;von Huhn, 1927), but these early empirical studies were of widely varying quality, were generally inconclusive, and did not convincingly reverse Eells's findings. Nonetheless, by the middle of the 20th century, many statisticians held strong opinions against the pie, although a number of later studies had demonstrated that the pie was not inferior to the divided bar when users had to estimate or compare simple proportions (Culbertson & Powers, 1959;Peterson & Schramm, 1955).…”

Section: Empirical Evaluation Of the Pie Chart And Other Formsmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Humble Pie: The Origins and Usage of a Statistical Chart

Spence

2005

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There are many ways in which the preferences may be visualized (Miettinen 2014), however, two of them are considered as the classic ones: bars and circles. In the literature one can find some advice regarding the suitability of graphical elements for the representation of numerical quantities, however, there is no strict consensus which way of visualization is the best (Croxton and Stein 1932;Macdonald-Ross 1977;Spence and Lewandowsky 1991).…”

Section: Bars and Circles In Visualizing The Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The exponent a derived in the four studies varies from 0.8 to 0.91. Croxton and Stein (1932), summing up the results experiments concerning graphic comparison of bars, squares, circles and cubes advised using bars rather than other graphical elements. They showed that comparisons based on the bar charts were more accurate than comparisons based upon circles or squares and comparisons based on the latter were more accurate than comparisons based on cubes.…”

Section: Bars and Circles In Visualizing The Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do I tell you what I want? Agent’s interpretation of principal’s preferences and its impact on understanding the negotiation process and outcomes

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we analyze how the way in which the principal's preferences are visualized may affect the accuracy of representation of this principal by their agent. We study the processes of multi-issue electronic representative negotiations conducted by agents on behalf of their principals by means of the negotiation support system that implements a simple decision support tool for eliciting the preferences and building a system of cardinal ratings for feasible negotiation offers. First, we investigate the accuracy of agents' scoring systems and compare their concordance to the preferential information provided to them by their principals by means of single verbal description and two different visualization techniques, one using bar graphs and the second-circles (pies). The concordance is measured by means of the notions of ordinal and cardinal accuracy. Then we analyze how the scoring systems with various inaccuracy indexes influence the agents' perception of negotiation process, i.e. the interpretation of concessions made by parties and the structures of concession paths. We also study what is an impact of inaccurate scoring systems on the negotiation outcomes, i.e. the final contracts, their ratings and efficiency. The results obtained show that the bars are slightly better in more precise representation of principals preferences. They allow agent to determine a little more accurate scoring systems, which help to understand the negotiation process better by minimizing the cardinal error of evaluation of the offers in concession paths. Yet, no significant impact on the outcomes have been found. An interesting prescriptive conclusion that can be drawn is that to assure an adequate representation of principal's preferences the agents should be offered the bar-based visualization. Also, a checkup mechanism should be introduced to the preference elicitation procedure that assure the agents to be ordinally concordant with the priorities of their principal's preferences.

show abstract

Graphic Comparisons by Bars, Squares, Circles, and Cubes

Cited by 46 publications

References 0 publications

Visualizing Basic Accounting Flows: Does XBRL + Model + Animation = Understanding?

Visualizing Basic Accounting Flows: Does XBRL + Model + Animation = Understanding?

No Humble Pie: The Origins and Usage of a Statistical Chart

How do I tell you what I want? Agent’s interpretation of principal’s preferences and its impact on understanding the negotiation process and outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About