Cited by 88Data Visualization and AnalyticsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

The Anchoring Effect in Decision-Making with Visual Analytics

Cho, Isaac, Wesslen, Ryan, Karduni, Alireza, Santhanam, Sashank, Shaikh, Samira, Dou, Wenwen·2017·2017 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST)

Abstract

Anchoring effect is the tendency to focus too heavily on one piece of information when making decisions. In this paper, we present a novel, systematic study and resulting analyses that investigate the effects of anchoring effect on human decision-making using visual analytic systems. Visual analytics interfaces typically contain multiple views that present various aspects of information such as spatial, temporal, and categorical. These views are designed to present complex, heterogeneous data in accessible forms that aid decision-making. However, human decision-making is often hindered by the use of heuristics, or cognitive biases, such as anchoring effect. Anchoring effect can be triggered by the order in which information is presented or the magnitude of information presented. Through carefully designed laboratory experiments, we present evidence of anchoring effect in analysis with visual analytics interfaces when users are primed by representation of different pieces of information. We also describe detailed analyses of users’ interaction logs which reveal the impact of anchoring bias on the visual representation preferred and paths of analysis. We discuss implications for future research to possibly detect and alleviate anchoring bias.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/vast.2017.8585665

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In higher-level decision tasks, visualization design influences data interpretation and decision making.

    “In higher-level decision tasks, visualization design also influences data interpretation and decision making [9, 4].”

    From Illusion of Causality in Visualized Data (2020) · cites this paper as [4]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cho, I., Wesslen, R., Karduni, A., Santhanam, S., Shaikh, S., & Dou, W.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Venue
2017 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-10
Pages
116-126
OpenAlex
W2906640975
Cited by
88
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.92
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
anchoring effect, cognitive biases, visual analytics, human decision-making, heuristics, information presentation order, bias detection, bias mitigation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review