Cited by 303Data Visualization and AnalyticsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesSpatial Cognition and Navigation

Bars and lines: A study of graphic communication

Zacks, Jeff, Tversky, Barbara·1999·Memory & Cognition

Abstract

Interpretations of graphs seem to be rooted in principles of cognitive naturalness and information processing rather than arbitrary correspondences. These predict that people should more readily associate bars with discrete comparisons between data points because bars are discrete entities and facilitate point estimates. They should more readily associate lines with trends because lines connect discrete entities and directly represent slope. The predictions were supported in three experiments--two examining comprehension and one production. The correspondence does not seem to depend on explicit knowledge of rules. Instead, it may reflect the influence of the communicative situation as well as the perceptual properties of graphs.

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 · 10.3758/bf03201236

Cites

17 of 17 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?

  • Bar graphs facilitate finding clusters, line graphs facilitate finding correlations and scatter plots facilitate finding outliers.

    “Bar graphs facilitate finding clusters, line graphs facilitate finding correlations and scatter plots facilitate finding outliers [41, 50].”

    From Illusion of Causality in Visualized Data (2020) · cites this paper as [50]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zacks, J., & Tversky, B.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
1999-11
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
1073-1079
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W2095738647
Cited by
300
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Keywords
graph interpretation, bar charts, line graphs, graphic communication, information processing, point estimates, communicative situations
MeSH terms
Adult, Communication, Concept Formation, Female, Humans, Male, Mathematics, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving

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