research-article

Pitfalls of information access with visualizations in remote collaborative analysis

Authors:

Aruna D. Balakrishnan,

Susan R. Fussell,

Aniket KitturAuthors Info & Claims

CSCW '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work

Pages 411 - 420

https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718988

Published: 06 February 2010 Publication History

Abstract

In a world of widespread information access, information can overwhelm collaborators, even with visualizations to help. We extend prior work to study the effect of shared information on collaboration. We analyzed the success and discussion process of remote pairs trying to identify a serial killer in multiple crime cases. Each partner had half of the evidence, or each partner had all the available evidence. Pairs also used one of three tools: spreadsheet only (control condition), unshared visualizations, or shared visualization. Visualizations improved analysis over the control condition but this improvement depended on how much evidence each partner had. When each partner possessed all the evidence with visualizations, discussion flagged and pairs showed evidence of more confirmation bias. They discussed fewer hypotheses and persisted on the wrong hypothesis. We discuss the possible reasons for this phenomenon and implications for design of remote collaboration systems to incorporate awareness of intermediate processes important to collaborative success.

References

[1]

Balakrishnan, A.D., Fussell, S., Kiesler, S. (2008). Do visualizations improve synchronous remote collaboration? Proc. CHI 2008. NY: ACM.

Digital Library

[2]

Barsalou, L. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 211--227.

[3]

Billman, D., Convertino, G., Pirolli, P., Massar, J. P. and Shrager, J. (2005). Collaborative intelligence analysis with CACHE: Bias reduction and information coverage. Unpublished manuscript. Palo Alto Research Center, CA. Retrieved from http://cscl.ist.psu.edu/public/users/gconvert/mypapers/hcic2006_BillmanEtAl.pdf.

[4]

Blockeel, H., & Moyle, S. (2002). Collaborative data mining needs centralised model evaluation. In Lavrac, N., Motoda, H. and Fawcett, T. (Eds.) Proc. ICML-2002 Workshop on Data Mining Lessons Learned (pp. 21--28). Leuven, Belgium.

[5]

Börner, K. (2001). iScape: A collaborative memory palace for digital library search results. Proc. CHI 2001 (pp. 1160--4). NY: ACM press.

[6]

Cleveland, W.S., & Schmieg, G.M. (1987). The elements of graphing data. American Journal of Physics, 55(8), 767.

[7]

Cook, M. B., & Smallman, H. S. (2007). Visual evidence landscapes: Reducing bias in collaborative intelligence analysis. Proc. Human Factors and Ergonomics (Vol. 51, pp. 303--307).

[8]

Convertino, G., Billman, D., Pirolli, P., Massar, J. P., & Shrager, J. (2008). The CACHE study: Group effects in computer-supported collaborative analysis. Proc. CSCW (pp. 353--393). NY: ACM Press.

Digital Library

[9]

Edelson, D., Pea, R., Gomez, L. (1996). Constructive in the collaboratory. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

[10]

Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. J.of Econ Persp, 19(4), 25--42.

[11]

Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155--170.

[12]

Greif, I. & Sarin, S. (1987). Data sharing in group work. ACM Transactions on InfoSys, 5, 187--211.

Digital Library

[13]

Gutwin, C. (2002). Traces: Visualizing the immediate past to support group interaction. In Graphics Interface (pp. 43--50).

[14]

Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of a multi-dimensional workload rating scale. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Ed.), Human mental workload (pp. 139--183). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

[15]

Heuer, Jr., R. J. (1999). The psychology of intelligence. Washington DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence, Government Printing Office.

[16]

Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. NY: John Wiley & Sons.

[17]

www.qresearch.org/Public/QSurveillance.aspx

[18]

Hummel, J., & Holyoak, K. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psych Review, 110(2), 220--264.

[19]

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in work groups. Adm Sci Quarterly, 44, 741--763.

[20]

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. J. Pers & Soc Psych, 65(4), 681--706.

[21]

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Ilgen, D. R., & Klimoski, R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Blackwell Publishers.

[22]

Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65--100.

[23]

Lascara, C., Wheless, G., Cox, D., Patterson, R., Levy, S., Johnson, A. E., & Leigh, J. (1999). TeleImmersive virtual environments for collaborative knowledge discovery. Advanced Simulation Technologies. San Diego, CA.

[24]

Littell, R., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1996). SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

[25]

Mark, G., Carpenter, K., & Kobsa, A. (2003a). Are there benefits in seeing double? A study of collaborative information visualization. Proc. CHI 2004 (pp. 840--841), NY: ACM Press.

Digital Library

[26]

Mark, G., Carpenter, K., & Kobsa, A. (2003b). A model of synchronous collaborative information visualization. Proc. Info Vis 2003 (pp. 373--381). NJ: IEEE Press.

Digital Library

[27]

Mark, G., Kobsa, A., & Gonzalez, V. (2002). Do four eyes see better than two? Collaborative versus individual discovery in data visualization systems. Proc. InfoVis 2002 (pp. 249--255), NJ: IEEE Press.

[28]

Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. (2001). Team mental models: Expanding theory and measurement through cross-disciplinary boundaries. J. Org Behavior, 22, 89--106.

[29]

Mojzisch, A., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2005). Information sampling in group decision making: Sampling biases and their consequences. In K. Fiedler & P. Juslin (Eds.), Information sampling and adaptive cognition (pp. 299--326). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

[30]

Murphy, G., & Medin, D. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289--316.

[31]

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175--220.

[32]

Pang, A., & Wittenbrink, C. (1997). Collaborative 3D visualization with CSpray. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 17(2), 32--41.

Digital Library

[33]

Sawant, N., Scharver, C., Leigh, J., et al. (2000). The tele-immersive data explorer: A distributed architecture for collaborative interactive visualization of large data-sets. Proc. Immersive Projection Technology Workshop, Ames, Iowa.

[34]

Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67--67.

[35]

Shneiderman, Ben. (1996). The eyes have it: A task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. Proc. Visual Languages 1996 (pp. 336--343). NJ: IEEE Press.

Digital Library

[36]

Stasko, J., Catrambone, R., Guzdial, M., & McDonald, K. (2000). An evaluation of space-filling information visualizations for depicting hierarchical structures. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 53, 663--694.

Digital Library

[37]

Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I., & Stewart, D. D. (2000). Pooling unshared information. Org Beh & Human Decision Processes, 82, 102--116.

[38]

Viégas, F., Wattenberg, M., & Dave, K. (2004). Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations. Proc. CHI 2004 (pp. 575--582). NY: ACM Press.

Digital Library

[39]

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Philosophische Untersuchungen.

[40]

Wood, J., Wright, H., & Brodlie, K. (1997). Collaborative visualization. Proc. Vis 1997. NY: IEEE Press.

Digital Library

Cited By

Pinatti de Carvalho AReichel SSanchez Martin MAllen ESchweitzer M(2022)Group Effect Aspects in Digitalisation Production ContextsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35675607:GROUP(1-28)Online publication date: 29-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3567560
Goyal NFussell S(2017)Intelligent Interruption Management using Electro Dermal Activity based Physiological Sensor for Collaborative SensemakingProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/31309171:3(1-21)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3130917
Chung HDasari SNandhakumar SAndrews C(2017)CRICTO: Supporting Sensemaking through Crowdsourced Information Schematization2017 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST)10.1109/VAST.2017.8585484(139-150)Online publication date: Oct-2017
https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2017.8585484
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Pitfalls of information access with visualizations in remote collaborative analysis
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Collaborative and social computing theory, concepts and paradigms
      1. Computer supported cooperative work
2. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing and business
      1. Computer supported cooperative work

Recommendations

Do visualizations improve synchronous remote collaboration?
CHI '08: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Information visualizations can improve collaborative problem solving, but this improvement may depend on whether visualizations promote communication. In an experiment on the effect of network visualizations, remote pairs worked synchronously to ...
Interactive Tree Comparison for Co-located Collaborative Information Visualization

In many domains increased collaboration has lead to more innovation by fostering the sharing of knowledge, skills, and ideas. Shared analysis of information visualizations does not only lead to increased information processing power, but team members ...
The Benefits of Synchronous Collaborative Information Visualization: Evidence from an Experimental Evaluation

A great corpus of studies reports empirical evidence of how information visualization supports comprehension and analysis of data. The benefits of visualization for synchronous group knowledge work, however, have not been addressed extensively.Anecdotal ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CSCW '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work

February 2010

468 pages

ISBN:9781605587950

DOI:10.1145/1718918

General Chairs:
Kori Inkpen
Microsoft Research, USA
,
Carl Gutwin
University of Saskatchewan, Canada
,
Program Chair:
John Tang
Microsoft Research, USA

Copyright © 2010 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 February 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

CSCW '10

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CSCW '10: Computer Supported Cooperative Work

February 6 - 10, 2010

Georgia, Savannah, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 2,235 of 8,521 submissions, 26%

Upcoming Conference

CSCW '25

Sponsor:
sigchi

Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing

October 18 - 22, 2025

Bergen , Norway

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

14
Total Citations
View Citations
691
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)22
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

Reflects downloads up to 23 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Pinatti de Carvalho AReichel SSanchez Martin MAllen ESchweitzer M(2022)Group Effect Aspects in Digitalisation Production ContextsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/35675607:GROUP(1-28)Online publication date: 29-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3567560
Goyal NFussell S(2017)Intelligent Interruption Management using Electro Dermal Activity based Physiological Sensor for Collaborative SensemakingProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/31309171:3(1-21)Online publication date: 11-Sep-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3130917
Chung HDasari SNandhakumar SAndrews C(2017)CRICTO: Supporting Sensemaking through Crowdsourced Information Schematization2017 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST)10.1109/VAST.2017.8585484(139-150)Online publication date: Oct-2017
https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2017.8585484
Goyal NFussell SGergle DMorris MBjørn PKonstan J(2016)Effects of Sensemaking Translucence on Distributed Collaborative AnalysisProceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing10.1145/2818048.2820071(288-302)Online publication date: 27-Feb-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2818048.2820071
Yusoff NSalim S(2015)A systematic review of shared visualisation to achieve common groundJournal of Visual Languages & Computing10.1016/j.jvlc.2014.12.00328(83-99)Online publication date: Jun-2015
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2014.12.003
Trace CFrancisco-Revilla L(2015)The value and complexity of collection arrangement for evidentiary workJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology10.1002/asi.2329566:9(1857-1882)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1002/asi.23295
Bouabid ALepreux SKolski CHavrez C(2014)Context-sensitive and Collaborative application for Distributed User Interfaces on tabletopsProceedings of the 2014 Workshop on Distributed User Interfaces and Multimodal Interaction10.1145/2677356.2677661(23-26)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2677356.2677661
Mahyar NTory M(2014)Supporting Communication and Coordination in Collaborative SensemakingIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics10.1109/TVCG.2014.234657320:12(1633-1642)Online publication date: 31-Dec-2014
https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346573
Brown JWilson JGossage SHack CBiddle R(2013)Surface Computing and Collaborative Analysis WorkSynthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics10.2200/S00492ED1V01Y201303HCI0196:4(1-168)Online publication date: 31-Aug-2013
https://doi.org/10.2200/S00492ED1V01Y201303HCI019
Kang RKiesler SPoltrock SSimone CGrudin JMark GRiedl J(2012)Do collaborators' annotations help or hurt asynchronous analysisProceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion10.1145/2141512.2141558(123-126)Online publication date: 11-Feb-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2141512.2141558
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents