Graphs with logarithmic axes distort lay judgments

Q2 Social Sciences Behavioral Science and Policy Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.1177/237946152000600203
William H. Ryan, E. Evers
{"title":"Graphs with logarithmic axes distort lay judgments","authors":"William H. Ryan, E. Evers","doi":"10.1177/237946152000600203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Graphs that depict numbers of COVID-19 cases often use a linear or logarithmic scale on the y-axis. To examine the effect of scale on how the general public interprets the curves and uses that understanding to infer the urgency of the need for protective actions, we conducted a series of experiments that presented laypeople with the same data plotted on one scale or the other. We found that graphs with a logarithmic, as opposed to a linear, scale resulted in laypeople making less accurate predictions of how fast cases would increase, viewing COVID-19 as less dangerous, and expressing both less support for policy interventions and less intention to take personal actions to combat the disease. Education about the differences between linear and logarithmic graphs reduces but does not eliminate these effects. These results suggest that communications to the general public should mostly use linear graphs. When logarithmic graphs must be used, they should be presented alongside linear graphs of the same data and with guidance on how to interpret the plots.","PeriodicalId":36971,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Science and Policy","volume":"6 1","pages":"13 - 23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Science and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/237946152000600203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Graphs that depict numbers of COVID-19 cases often use a linear or logarithmic scale on the y-axis. To examine the effect of scale on how the general public interprets the curves and uses that understanding to infer the urgency of the need for protective actions, we conducted a series of experiments that presented laypeople with the same data plotted on one scale or the other. We found that graphs with a logarithmic, as opposed to a linear, scale resulted in laypeople making less accurate predictions of how fast cases would increase, viewing COVID-19 as less dangerous, and expressing both less support for policy interventions and less intention to take personal actions to combat the disease. Education about the differences between linear and logarithmic graphs reduces but does not eliminate these effects. These results suggest that communications to the general public should mostly use linear graphs. When logarithmic graphs must be used, they should be presented alongside linear graphs of the same data and with guidance on how to interpret the plots.
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
具有对数轴的图扭曲了布局判断
描述COVID-19病例数的图表通常在y轴上使用线性或对数尺度。为了检验尺度对公众如何解释曲线的影响,并利用这种理解来推断需要采取保护措施的紧迫性,我们进行了一系列实验,向外行人展示了用一种尺度或另一种尺度绘制的相同数据。我们发现,与线性尺度相比,对数尺度的图表导致外行人对病例增长速度的预测不太准确,认为COVID-19不太危险,对政策干预的支持程度较低,采取个人行动抗击疾病的意愿也较低。关于线性图和对数图之间的差异的教育可以减少但不能消除这些影响。这些结果表明,与公众的交流应该主要使用线性图表。当必须使用对数图时,它们应该与相同数据的线性图一起呈现,并提供如何解释这些图的指导。
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
Behavioral Science and Policy
Behavioral Science and Policy Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hierarchy position & personality predict politicians’ choice of information sources Editor's note Election polls are 95% confident but only 60% accurate Penalties for Going Against Type: How Sexism Shapes Voters’ Perceptions of Candidate Character Leadership & overconfidence
×
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:481959085
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