Reducing the Linear Perception of Nonlinearity: Use of a Physical Representation

Abstract

Research shows that while judging accumulations of quantities over time (e.g., money in a bank account or CO 2 in Earth's atmosphere), people assume that the shape of the accumulation is similar to the shape of the inflow (i.e., people rely on a correlation heuristic). Relying on the correlation heuristic is particularly worrisome for Earth's climate, as judging the CO 2 accumulation according to its emissions (inflow) would underestimate the actual (nonlinear) increase. This misperception undermines the seriousness of climate problem and results in wait-and-see behavior. We report two experiments where the effectiveness of a physical representation is compared with graphical and text representations in reducing people's underestimation of nonlinear accumulation in different contexts and problems. A physical representation presents an accumulation using a picture that works as a metaphor. In the first experiment, participants drew the shape of an accumulation over time relying on physical or graphical representations in one of two contexts: carbon dioxide and marbles. Although the participants underestimated the accumulation in both contexts, underestimations were reduced in the physical representation compared with the graphical representation. In the second experiment, we extended the evaluation of physical representations against both text and graphical representations in two different climate problems (with linearly increasing or decreasing inflow). Again, underestimations of the accumulation were reduced in the physical representation compared with the other two representations, regardless of the nature of the problem. We discuss implications of using the physical representation for improving people's estimates of nonlinear CO 2 accumulation.

Knowing how and knowing when: unpacking public understanding of atmospheric CO2 accumulation

“…In the main SF task, the answer alternative that was selected by most participants (about 45%) was the pattern matching alternative, and pattern reasoning was the most frequently used explanation for choosing this alternative. This finding is in line with previous research, demonstrating a strong tendency for pattern matching (e.g., Dutt and Gonzalez 2013;Reichert et al 2015;Cronin et al 2009;Sterman 2008).…”

The Average Fuel‐Efficiency Fallacy: Overestimation of Average Fuel Efficiency and How It Can Lead to Biased Decisions

“…This average speed fallacy, along with both the AFEF and the MPG illusion, relates to a basic tendency to treat nonlinear relationships as linear. Various studies have shown this "illusion of linearity" to exist in a range of situations demanding relational estimates, including population growth, the heating and cooling of objects, and others (Confrey & Smith, 1995;De Bock, Van Dooren, Janssens, & Verschaffel, 2002;De Bock, Verschaffel, & Janssens, 1998;Dutt & Gonzalez, 2013;Freudenthal, 1983;Van Dooren, De Bock, Depaepe, Janssens, & Verschaffel, 2003;Van Dooren, De Bock, Hessels, Janssens, & Verschaffel, 2004). As Freudenthal has noted, "Linearity is such a suggestive property of relations that one readily yields to the seduction to deal with each numerical relation as though it were linear" (Freudenthal, 1983, p. 267).…”

Experience in a Climate Microworld: Influence of Surface and Structure Learning, Problem Difficulty, and Decision Aids in Reducing Stock-Flow Misconceptions

“…This misconception assumes that stabilizing emissions would rapidly stabilize the concentration; and, emission cuts would quickly reduce the concentration and damages from climate change. This reasoning is incorrect because reliance on the correlation heuristic significantly underestimates the time delays existent between reductions in CO 2 emissions and their effect on the CO 2 concentration ( Sterman, 2008 ; Dutt and Gonzalez, 2012a , 2013a , b ; Kumar and Dutt, unpublished).…”