Search for: All records

We propose a new approach to uncertainty communication: we keep the uncertainty representation fixed, but adjust the distribution displayed to compensate for biases in people’s subjective probability in decision-making. To do so, we adopt a linear-in-probit model of subjective probability and derive two corrections to a Normal distribution based on the model’s intercept and slope: one correcting all right-tailed probabilities, and the other preserving the mode and one focal probability. We then conduct two experiments on U.S. demographically-representative samples. We show participants hypothetical U.S. Senate election forecasts as text or a histogram and elicit their subjective probabilities using a betting task. The first experiment estimates the linear-in-probit intercepts and slopes, and confirms the biases in participants’ subjective probabilities. The second, preregistered follow-up shows participants the bias-corrected forecast distributions. We find the corrections substantially improve participants’ decision quality by reducing the integrated absolute error of their subjective probabilities compared to the true probabilities. These corrections can be generalized to any univariate probability or confidence distribution, giving them broad applicability. Our preprint, code, data, and preregistration are available at https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/kcwxm 

We contribute an autoethnographic reflection on the complexity of defining and measuring visualization literacy (i.e., the ability to interpret and construct visualizations) to expose our tacit thoughts that often exist in-between polished works and remain unreported in individual research papers. Our work is inspired by the growing number of empirical studies in visualization research that rely on visualization literacy as a basis for developing effective data representations or educational interventions. Researchers have already made various efforts to assess this construct, yet it is often hard to pinpoint either what we want to measure or what we are effectively measuring. In this autoethnography, we gather insights from 14 internal interviews with researchers who are users or designers of visualization literacy tests. We aim to identify what makes visualization literacy assessment a ``wicked'' problem. We further reflect on the fluidity of visualization literacy and discuss how this property may lead to misalignment between what the construct is and how measurements of it are used or designed. We also examine potential threats to measurement validity from conceptual, operational, and methodological perspectives. Based on our experiences and reflections, we propose several calls to action aimed at tackling the wicked problem of visualization literacy measurement, such as by broadening test scopes and modalities, improving test ecological validity, making it easier to use tests, seeking interdisciplinary collaboration, and drawing from continued dialogue on visualization literacy to expect and be more comfortable with its fluidity.