Causal Priors and Their Influence on Judgements of Causality in Visualized Data

Arran Zeyu Wang;David Borland;Tabitha C. Peck;Wenyuan Wang;David Gotz
{"title":"Causal Priors and Their Influence on Judgements of Causality in Visualized Data","authors":"Arran Zeyu Wang;David Borland;Tabitha C. Peck;Wenyuan Wang;David Gotz","doi":"10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"“Correlation does not imply causation” is a famous mantra in statistical and visual analysis. However, consumers of visualizations often draw causal conclusions when only correlations between variables are shown. In this paper, we investigate factors that contribute to causal relationships users perceive in visualizations. We collected a corpus of concept pairs from variables in widely used datasets and created visualizations that depict varying correlative associations using three typical statistical chart types. We conducted two MTurk studies on (1) preconceived notions on causal relations without charts, and (2) perceived causal relations with charts, for each concept pair. Our results indicate that people make assumptions about causal relationships between pairs of concepts even without seeing any visualized data. Moreover, our results suggest that these assumptions constitute causal priors that, in combination with visualized association, impact how data visualizations are interpreted. The results also suggest that causal priors may lead to over- or under-estimation in perceived causal relations in different circumstances, and that those priors can also impact users' confidence in their causal assessments. In addition, our results align with prior work, indicating that chart type may also affect causal inference. Using data from the studies, we develop a model to capture the interaction between causal priors and visualized associations as they combine to impact a user's perceived causal relations. In addition to reporting the study results and analyses, we provide an open dataset of causal priors for 56 specific concept pairs that can serve as a potential benchmark for future studies. We also suggest remaining challenges and heuristic-based guidelines to help designers improve visualization design choices to better support visual causal inference.","PeriodicalId":94035,"journal":{"name":"IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics","volume":"31 1","pages":"765-775"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10670433/","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

“Correlation does not imply causation” is a famous mantra in statistical and visual analysis. However, consumers of visualizations often draw causal conclusions when only correlations between variables are shown. In this paper, we investigate factors that contribute to causal relationships users perceive in visualizations. We collected a corpus of concept pairs from variables in widely used datasets and created visualizations that depict varying correlative associations using three typical statistical chart types. We conducted two MTurk studies on (1) preconceived notions on causal relations without charts, and (2) perceived causal relations with charts, for each concept pair. Our results indicate that people make assumptions about causal relationships between pairs of concepts even without seeing any visualized data. Moreover, our results suggest that these assumptions constitute causal priors that, in combination with visualized association, impact how data visualizations are interpreted. The results also suggest that causal priors may lead to over- or under-estimation in perceived causal relations in different circumstances, and that those priors can also impact users' confidence in their causal assessments. In addition, our results align with prior work, indicating that chart type may also affect causal inference. Using data from the studies, we develop a model to capture the interaction between causal priors and visualized associations as they combine to impact a user's perceived causal relations. In addition to reporting the study results and analyses, we provide an open dataset of causal priors for 56 specific concept pairs that can serve as a potential benchmark for future studies. We also suggest remaining challenges and heuristic-based guidelines to help designers improve visualization design choices to better support visual causal inference.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
因果先验及其对可视化数据因果性判断的影响
"相关性并不意味着因果关系 "是统计和可视化分析中的一句名言。然而,当可视化只显示变量之间的相关性时,消费者往往会得出因果关系的结论。在本文中,我们研究了用户在可视化中感知因果关系的因素。我们从广泛使用的数据集中的变量中收集了概念对语料库,并使用三种典型的统计图表类型创建了描述不同相关性的可视化。我们在 MTurk 上进行了两项研究:(1) 在没有图表的情况下,用户对因果关系的先入为主的看法;(2) 在有图表的情况下,用户对每个概念对的感知因果关系。我们的结果表明,即使没有看到任何可视化数据,人们也会对概念对之间的因果关系做出假设。此外,我们的结果表明,这些假设构成了因果先验,与可视化关联相结合,影响了数据可视化的解读方式。结果还表明,在不同情况下,因果先验可能会导致对感知到的因果关系估计过高或过低,而这些先验也会影响用户对其因果评估的信心。此外,我们的研究结果与之前的研究结果一致,表明图表类型也会影响因果推断。利用研究数据,我们建立了一个模型来捕捉因果推断和可视化关联之间的相互作用,因为它们共同影响着用户感知到的因果关系。除了报告研究结果和分析之外,我们还提供了 56 个特定概念对的因果先验开放数据集,可作为未来研究的潜在基准。我们还提出了剩余的挑战和基于启发式的指南,以帮助设计者改进可视化设计选择,从而更好地支持可视化因果推理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
DynAvatar: Dynamic 3D Head Avatar Deformation With Expression Guided Gaussian Splatting. Understanding the Research-Practice Gap in Visualization Design Guidelines. QuRAFT: Enhancing Quantum Algorithm Design by Visual Linking Between Mathematical Concepts and Quantum Circuits. DanceAgent: Dance Movement Refinement With LLM Agent. Do You "Trust" This Visualization? An Inventory to Measure Trust in Visualizations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1