Cited by 194Data Visualization and AnalyticsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesStatistics Education and Methodologies

Hypothetical Outcome Plots Outperform Error Bars and Violin Plots for Inferences about Reliability of Variable Ordering

Open access
Hullman, Jessica, Resnick, Paul, Adar, Eytan·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Many visual depictions of probability distributions, such as error bars, are difficult for users to accurately interpret. We present and study an alternative representation, Hypothetical Outcome Plots (HOPs), that animates a finite set of individual draws. In contrast to the statistical background required to interpret many static representations of distributions, HOPs require relatively little background knowledge to interpret. Instead, HOPs enables viewers to infer properties of the distribution using mental processes like counting and integration. We conducted an experiment comparing HOPs to error bars and violin plots. With HOPs, people made much more accurate judgments about plots of two and three quantities. Accuracy was similar with all three representations for most questions about distributions of a single quantity.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0142444

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • What works in uncertainty communication is highly dependent on the type of uncertainty being depicted, the type of judgment users need to make, and characteristics of the user.

    “While studies generally demonstrate a positive influence of visualizations on the user’s interpretation of uncertainty, the literature on uncertainty communication so far shows that what “works” is highly dependent on (a) the type of uncertainty being depicted; (b) the type of judgment users need to make; and (c) characteristics of the user (Hullman et al., 2015; Levontin et al., 2020).”

    From Visualizing Uncertainty to Promote Clinicians’ Understanding of Measurement Error (2023) · cites this paper as Hullman et al., 2015

    The Discussion reports that HOPs performed differently across judgment tasks and distribution conditions, supporting the claim that effectiveness depends on what users must judge and on features of the uncertainty depicted. But the Limitations section says the authors do not know whether particular user subpopulations perform better or worse with different representations; this paper does not establish the claim about user characteristics. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • HOP enabled people to make more accurate comparisons of two or three random variables than error bars and violin plots.

    “Hullman et al. [56] show that this visualization enabled people to make more accurate comparisons of two or three random variables than error bars and violin plots”
  • Hypothetical outcome plots (HOP) individually show random draws from the probability distribution as a series of animation frames.

    “One very different approach to conveying uncertainty is to individually show random draws from the probability distribution as a series of animation frames called hypothetical outcome plots (HOP) [56].”

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

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [29]Ipeirotis P. Demographics of Mechanical Turk: Now Live! (April 2015 edition)—A Computer Scientist in a Business School;. Available from: http://www.behind-the-enemy-lines.com/2015/04/demographics-of-mechanical-turk-now.html.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hullman, J., Resnick, P., & Adar, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Hullman, Jessica
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-11-16
Volume
10
Issue
11
Pages
e0142444
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2292312835
Cited by
194
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2
FWCI
4.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
Keywords
error bars, violin plots
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Discrimination, Psychological, Humans, Probability, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Normal Distribution

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