COMPUTER GRAPHICS AS DECISION AIDS: DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH*

TLDR

Computer‑generated graphics are increasingly used by decision makers, yet evidence shows they do not reliably improve decision speed or quality compared to traditional data displays. The paper reviews literature on human use of graphics, proposes several propositions from persistent trends, and outlines future research directions. The authors conduct a literature review of human use of graphics, formulate propositions from recurring trends, and recommend future research directions. Studies find that graphics are no more effective than tables, require training for correct interpretation, and that visual attractiveness features can hinder accurate comprehension.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Computer‐generated graphics are becoming increasingly available to decision makers. Despite claims on the part of vendors that the use of graphics will improve decision speed and quality over traditional methods of data display, the available evidence is far from supportive. Initial studies show graphics to be no more effective in communicating information than tables. Correct interpretation of graphical displays appears to require training, which most users lack. Furthermore, there is evidence that those features that make a graph visually attractive—such as color, design complexity, and realism—may actually detract from accurate comprehension. This paper summarizes the literature dealing with the human use of graphics, develops several propositions based on persistent trends in the literature, and suggests directions for future research.