Data visualizations are vital to scientific communication on critical issues such as public health, climate change, and socioeconomic policy. They are often designed not just to inform, but to persuade people to make consequential decisions (e.g., to get vaccinated). Are such visualizations persuasive, especially when audiences have beliefs and attitudes that the data contradict? In this paper we examine the impact of existing attitudes (e.g., positive or negative attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination) on changes in beliefs about statistical correlations when viewing scatterplot visualizations with different representations of statistical uncertainty. We find that strong prior attitudes are associated with smaller belief changes when presented with data that contradicts existing views, and that visual uncertainty representations may amplify this effect. Finally, even when participants’ beliefs about correlations shifted their attitudes remained unchanged, highlighting the need for further research on whether data visualizations can drive longer-term changes in views and behavior.

Images are an indispensable part of the news we consume. Highly emotional images from mainstream and misinformation sources can greatly influence our trust in the news. We present two studies on the effects of emotional facial images on users' perception of bias in news content and the credibility of sources. In study 1, we investigate the impact of repeated exposure to content with images containing positive or negative facial expressions on users’ judgements of source credibility and bias. In study 2, we focus on sources' systematic emotional portrayal of specific politicians. Our results show the presence of negative (angry) facial emotions can lead to perceptions of higher bias in content. We also find that systematic portrayal negative portrayal of different politicians leads to lower perceptions of source credibility. These results highlight how implicit visual propositions manifested by emotions in facial expressions might have a substantial effect on our trust in news.

There are a few prominent practices for conducting reviews of academic literature, including searching for specific keywords on Google Scholar or checking citations from some initial seed paper(s). These approaches serve a critical purpose for academic literature reviews, yet there remain challenges in identifying relevant literature when similar work may utilize different terminology (e.g., mixed-initiative visual analytics papers may not use the same terminology as papers on model-steering, yet the two topics are relevant to one another). In this paper, we introduce a system, VITALITY, intended to complement existing practices. In particular, VITALITY promotes serendipitous discovery of relevant literature using transformer language models, allowing users to find semantically similar papers in a word embedding space given (1) a list of input paper(s) or (2) a working abstract. VITALITY visualizes this document-level embedding space in an interactive 2-D scatterplot using dimension reduction. VITALITY also summarizes meta information about the document corpus or search query, including keywords and co-authors, and allows users to save and export papers for use in a literature review. We present qualitative findings from an evaluation of VITALITY, suggesting it can be a promising complementary technique for conducting academic literature reviews. Furthermore, we contribute data from 38 popular data visualization publication venues in VITALITY, and we provide scrapers for the open-source community to continue to grow the list of supported venues.

For many households, investing for retirement is one of the most significant decisions and is fraught with uncertainty. In a classic study in behavioral economics, Benartzi and Thaler (1999) found evidence using bar charts that investors exhibit myopic loss aversion in retirement decisions: Investors overly focus on the potential for short-term losses, leading them to invest less in riskier assets and miss out on higher long-term returns. Recently, advances in uncertainty visualizations have shown improvements in decision-making under uncertainty in a variety of tasks. In this paper, we conduct a controlled and incentivized crowdsourced experiment replicating Benartzi and Thaler (1999) and extending it to measure the effect of different uncertainty representations on myopic loss aversion. Consistent with the original study, we find evidence of myopic loss aversion with bar charts and find that participants make better investment decisions with longer evaluation periods. We also find that common uncertainty representations such as interval plots and bar charts achieve the highest mean expected returns while other uncertainty visualizations lead to poorer long-term performance and strong effects on the equity premium. Qualitative feedback further suggests that different uncertainty representations lead to visual reasoning heuristics that can either mitigate or encourage a focus on potential short-term losses. We discuss implications of our results on using uncertainty visualizations for retirement decisions in practice and possible extensions for future work.

Understanding correlation judgement is important to designing effective visualizations of bivariate data. Prior work on correlation perception has not considered how factors including prior beliefs and uncertainty representation impact such judgements. The present work focuses on the impact of uncertainty communication when judging bivariate visualizations. Specifically, we model how users update their beliefs about variable relationships after seeing a scatterplot with and without uncertainty representation. To model and evaluate the belief updating, we present three studies. Study 1 focuses on a proposed "Line + Cone" visual elicitation method for capturing users' beliefs in an accurate and intuitive fashion. The findings reveal that our proposed method of belief solicitation reduces complexity and accurately captures the users' uncertainty about a range of bivariate relationships. Study 2 leverages the "Line + Cone" elicitation method to measure belief updating on the relationship between different sets of variables when seeing correlation visualization with and without uncertainty representation. We compare changes in users beliefs to the predictions of Bayesian cognitive models which provide normative benchmarks for how users should update their prior beliefs about a relationship in light of observed data. The findings from Study 2 revealed that one of the visualization conditions with uncertainty communication led to users being slightly more confident about their judgement compared to visualization without uncertainty information. Study 3 builds on findings from Study 2 and explores differences in belief update when the bivariate visualization is congruent or incongruent with users' prior belief. Our results highlight the effects of incorporating uncertainty representation, and the potential of measuring belief updating on correlation judgement with Bayesian cognitive models.

We propose a visualization technique, Du Bois wrapped bar chart, inspired by work of W.E.B Du Bois. Du Bois wrapped bar charts enable better large-to-small bar comparison by wrapping large bars over a certain threshold. We first present two crowdsourcing experiments comparing wrapped and standard bar charts to evaluate (1) the benefit of wrapped bars in helping participants identify and compare values; (2) the characteristics of data most suitable for wrapped bars. In the first study (n=98) using real-world datasets, we find that wrapped bar charts lead to higher accuracy in identifying and estimating ratios between bars. In a follow-up study (n=190) with 13 simulated datasets, we find participants were consistently more accurate with wrapped bar charts when certain category values are disproportionate as measured by entropy and H-spread. Finally, in an in-lab study, we investigate participants' experience and strategies, leading to guidelines for when and how to use wrapped bar charts.

Our contribution is the design and evaluation of an interactive machine learning interface that rapidly provides the user with model feedback after every interaction. To address visual scalability, this interface communicates with the user via a "tip of the iceberg" approach, where the user interacts with a small set of recommended instances for each class. To address computational scalability, we developed an O(n) classification algorithm that incorporates user feedback incrementally, and without consulting the data's underlying representation matrix. Our computational evaluation showed that this algorithm has similar accuracy to several off-the-shelf classification algorithms with small amounts of labeled data. Empirical evaluation revealed that users performed better using our design compared to an equivalent active learning setup.

We present Verifi2, a visual analytic system to support the investigation of misinformation on social media. Various models and studies have emerged from multiple disciplines to detect or understand the effects of misinformation. However, there is still a lack of intuitive and accessible tools that help social media users distinguish misinformation from verified news. Verifi2 uses state-of-the-art computational methods to highlight linguistic, network, and image features that can distinguish suspicious news accounts. By exploring news on a source and document level in Verifi2, users can interact with the complex dimensions that characterize misinformation and contrast how real and suspicious news outlets differ on these dimensions. To evaluate Verifi2, we conduct interviews with experts in digital media, communications, education, and psychology who study misinformation. Our interviews highlight the complexity of the problem of combating misinformation and show promising potential for Verifi2 as an educational tool on misinformation.

Abstract Cognitive biases are systematic errors in judgment due to an over‐reliance on rule‐of‐thumb heuristics. Recent research suggests that cognitive biases, like numerical anchoring, transfers to visual analytics in the form of visual anchoring. However, it is unclear how visualization users can be visually anchored and how the anchors affect decision‐making. To investigate, we performed a between‐subjects laboratory experiment with 94 participants to analyze the effects of visual anchors and strategy cues using a visual analytics system. The decision‐making task was to identify misinformation from Twitter news accounts. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions that modified the scenario video (visual anchor) and/or strategy cues provided. Our findings suggest that such interventions affect user activity, speed, confidence, and, under certain circumstances, accuracy. We discuss implications of our results on the forking paths problem and raise concerns on how visualization researchers train users to avoid unintentionally anchoring users and affecting the end result.