H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 1
Having a Top Spot
How conceptual metaphors affect relevance perception of information in charts
Heleen van de Lustgraaf
ANR 828595
Master thesis
Communication- en Information Sciences
Specialization Communication and Design
Faculties Humanities
University of Tilburg, Tilburg
Mentor: L. van Weelden
Second reader: Dr. J. Schilperoord
July 2013
2 | Having a Top Spot
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 3
Master thesis
HAVING A TOP SPOT
HOW CONCEPTUAL METAP HORS AFFECT
RELEVANCE PERCEPTION OF INFORMATION IN
CHARTS
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf
ANR 828595, University of Tilburg
Abstract
Conceptual metaphors influence our way of thinking. The present study investigated whether
the conceptual metaphors of RELEVANT IS UP, RELEVANT IS RIGHT and RELEVANT IS
BIG are activated when looking at web charts. Two experiments were conducted in which the
perceived relevance was measured by two means; relevance perception and recall order. The
results of the present study suggest that only the conceptual metaphor RELEVANT IS UP
affects our perception of relevance. The experiments indicate that the top spot for information
is in the upper half of the web chart.
Keywords: Importance, relevance, perception, conceptual metaphors, design
Most people think that metaphors are mainly used by writers and poets to make their writings
more lively, but metaphors are not only linguistic embellishments. They influence the way we
structure our thoughts.
The essence of a metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of
another kind of thing (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). As such, a metaphor is build upon two
concepts; a target and a source. The target is the concept the metaphor is about, whereas the
source is used to tell something about the target. Consider the famous sentence of Shakespeare;
JULIET IS THE SUN. In this sentence Juliet is the target and the sun is the source, because the
concept of the sun is used to tell that Juliet is as beautiful and warm as the sun. As such,
characteristics of the sun are transferred to Juliet, as being characteristics of her. We structure
our thoughts about the target, according to the characteristics of the source.
Shakespear’s metaphor only deals with the transfer of certain features from one concept
to another. This kind of metaphor can be made with all possible concepts into numerous
combinations. We can convert Juliet into Tim and all of a sudden the features of the sun are
transferred to him. Alternatively, we can replace the sun with the moon, and then the metaphor
states that Juliet is as cold and lonely as the moon.
This is not the case with conceptual metaphors. They are universal and grounded in our
everyday life experiences in which critical aspects of the target and the source co-occur with
one another (Grady, 1997; 1999). Consider for example the metaphor MORE IS UP. Imagine
yourself as a toddler playing with boxes. You try to make a tower of the boxes and gradually
you notice that the more boxes you use, the higher the tower gets. Based upon numerous of
4 | Having a Top Spot
experiences where the concepts of more and up are tightly correlated, the two concepts of
MORE and UP get integrated (Ortiz, 2010). MORE becomes UP.
Would these conceptual metaphors influence how we process information in a diagram? When
you are designing a chart to represent information about a certain topic, the main reason to pick
particular information is that it is relevant for the topic and important for the reader to know.
Sometimes charts are used for persuasive purposes, like giving multiple arguments for and
against a point of view. However, what if certain information becomes more relevant because
conceptual metaphors become activated by a certain position or size? This could mean that
conceptual metaphors influences the way we process information. If these influences are known
we could use them for our own advantage.
Before we can examine this, it is crucial to select the conceptual metaphors that are likely to
have influence on the process of processing information in a diagram. Furthermore, we should
discover how we normally would process a diagram.
The diagram chosen for this master thesis is a web chart. This is a spider-like chart
design, where the middle box presents the topic of the chart and boxes that contain information
about the topic are presented in different sizes and are placed clockwise around the center. See
figure 1 for an example. This kind of a diagram is chosen, because it has three clear variables.
All the boxes surround the main box in the centre, but they all have a different size, a different
vertical position and a different horizontal position. This results into the research question of
this master thesis; ‘Do frame position and scale affect relevance perception of information in a
web chart?’.
Fig.1. Web Chart
Metaphors
There are three conceptual metaphors that deal with the variables of size, verticality and
horizontality: POWER IS UP (Schubert, 2005), GOOD IS LEFT or RIGHT, depending on hand
coordination of a participant (Casasanto, 2011) and IMPORTANT IS BIG (Schilperoord, to be
published). These metaphors will be discussed in detail below and will be translated to concepts
that present relevance rather than power (Schubert, 2005), goodness (Cassanto, 2011) and
importance (Schilperoord, to be published).
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 5
Vertical position
POWER IS UP is a conceptual metaphor that can be traced back to the experience of laying in a
crib and looking up to your parents above you. They took care of you, made decisions for you
and gave you love. They were important to you, because they controlled your life. When you
got up your feet, people who were taller then you were powerful. Your teacher, your big sister,
your parents, other adults; they were all taller then you. Schubert (2005) examined the metaphor
POWER IS UP to see if this metaphor indeed is embodied. This means, in this case, that the
way we think about something is controlled by how it is presented to us. Research by Goatly
(2007) shows that we are confronted with conceptual metaphors dealing with height and power
on a daily basis. Sentences like “Your highness”, “being in the upper class” and “having a top
job” carry the notion that relevance and power are associated with the concept of height.
Schubert (2005) did a study on this metaphor with the goal to examine whether height is indeed
connected to power.
In his experiment Schubert presented sentences with three different power relations:
powerful, powerless or horizontal, see figure 2 for examples. Participants were presented with
six propositions with a powerful, powerless and horizontal relation between agent and patient.
Then they had to choose a figure that best visualized the notion of the sentence, see figure 3.
The results showed a relation between the figure the participants chose and the power relation
that the sentence contained. The figure ● in the powerful sentence is favoured to be at the top of
the figure and in the bottom for a powerless sentence.. Furthermore, the figures were favoured
to be placed horizontally for a horizontal sentence.
Powerful “● has influence on ○”,
Powerless “● is weaker than ○.”,
Horizontal “● pulls ○.”
Fig. 2 Relations between agent and patient; sentence examples, Schubert 2005.
Fig.3. Figures, Schubert.
This notion of power might be related to the concept of importance. A powerful person is an
important person. However, these concepts cannot be interchanged, because an important
person might not be a powerful person. A man might be important and relevant to his wife, but
he might not have power over her. On the other hand, a powerful person is always important
and relevant. Hence, when someone has power over you, he is important for you, because he
can influence you. From this, it can be concluded that important is a subcategory of the concept
powerful. With this in mind the metaphor RELEVANT IS UP can be subtracted from the
metaphor POWER IS UP.
6 | Having a Top Spot
Horizontal position
The study of Schubert (2005) discussed in the previous section also showed an effect of
horizontality on power perception. The results show that powerful agents are more frequently
given a left position and that powerless agents are more frequently located on the right side.
Whether these results will appear in the present study is unsure, because Schubert stated that
these effects are caused by causality, which flows from left to right (Maass & Russo, 2003), and
hence is not the effect of perceived power.
Casasanto (2011) conducted research on horizontal position related to goodness. The
results showed that the conceptual metaphor GOOD IS RIGHT or LEFT is indeed present in
people’s judgments of what is good. This preference for right or left was congruent with the
dominant hand of the participant. Casasanto found that the participants who where left-handed
placed the animal which was perceived as ‘good’ in a left column, whereas participants that
were right-handed placed it in a right column.
The notion of ‘good’ could be related to the concept of importance. It is possible the
people see their dominant hand as the most important one of their two hands, because they use it
often. Imagine for example that you are being held hostage and to make your family to hurry up
with the money, they are going to chop off one of your hands. You get the terrible choice to
pick the hand that you would like to keep. Most probably, you would like to keep your
dominant hand, because that one is more important to you. From this horrifying story, the
conceptual metaphor IMPORTANCE IS DOMINANT HAND SIDE can be extracted.
Moreover, following the reasoning that important is relevant, RELEVANT IS
DOMINANT HAND SIDE can be subtracted from this metaphor.
Size
Research by Schilperoord on the metaphor IMPORTANT IS BIG was presented in a lecture of
the master course Multimodality and Communication in 20212. In his experiment, inspired by
the research of Schubert (2005), participants were asked to choose drawings for sentences like
“Grey rules over White”. Between drawings, there was a manipulation of size and position. In
the experiment there were two hypotheses about the choice of figure for a powerful sentence
like “● has influence on ○”, see figure 4. The first hypothesis is the verticality hypothesis,
which claims that people choose the drawing in which the powerful grey subject is above the
powerless white subject. The second hypothesis, the size hypothesis, claims that people choose
the drawing in which the grey subject is bigger than the white, regardless of their position. The
results of the study were in favour of this size hypothesis. Participants chose the figure in which
a big circle represented the powerful object and a small circle represented the powerless object
in a horizontal presentation more often than the figure in which equal sized objects where
presented in vertical position of each other, with the powerful object presented above and the
powerless below. This means that a bigger circle next to a small circle is better in visualising a
powerful object, than a circle that was positioned above another circle of the same size.
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 7
Size hypothesis:
Vertical hypothesis:
●= powerful
○= powerless
Fig. 4 Schilperoord´s hypotheses.
This finding is congruent with the literature research of Goatly (2007). Sentences like ‘making a
big thing out of it” and ‘today is a big day’ carry the notion that importance is expressed by the
word ‘big’. These findings suggest a preference of connecting big items to important and
relevant items. It is expected that these findings will be reflected in the results of the present
experiment.
Pro cessing Diagra ms
Now we know what kind of effects we might expect from these three conceptual metaphors, it is
important to see what we know about how diagrams are processed. Hegarty (2011) states that
the visual features of a display influence how that display is remembered. Other cognitive
researchers also argue that if representations are informational equivalent, they are not
computed the same, due to display features (Larkin & Simon, 1987).
Hegarty’s (2011) theory describes how visual displays are understood and which
processes there involved in comprehension. This theory is based upon work of Freedman and
Shah (2002), and Pinker (1990). An adjusted version of this diagram is shown in figure 5.
Conceptual
Metaphors
Salient
Attention
External
Display
Visual
Features
Domain
Knowledge
Inference
Internal
Representation
of Referent
Fig. 5. Diagram of the different representations (indicated by boxes) and processes (indicated by arrows) that
influence the processing of a diagram, with an own addition of the concept of metaphors. Adapted from “The
cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: implications for design.” by M. Hegarty, 2011, Topics in cognitieve
science, 3, 446-474.
The external display is the way the graph is presented on paper. How the reader will remember
the display, the internal representation, is influence by its visual features, such as shape, colour,
and position.
Hegarty’s theory predicts that attention for visual features is directed by a viewer’s goal
and expectations or by what is salient in the display. What is perceived as salient by the reader
8 | Having a Top Spot
can be manipulated. Hegarty gives the example that people might perceive items that are red as
being dangerous and, very relevant for the current study, that items that are higher than other
items are perceived as being better.
This means that the internal representation and the actual representation of a diagram might
differ and that this is caused by what is experienced as salient in a display. Things that are
experienced as salient can be grounded in conceptual metaphors. When content is presented
with certain salient visual features (e.g., particular information might be presented above other
information in a chart), the conceptual metaphor of RELEVANT IS UP might be activated.
Based on this conceptual metaphor, the information at the top of the graph might be perceived
as more important than the information at the bottom of the graph. So, conceptual metaphors
could be the cause for the difference between the external display and the internal
representation.
This must be interesting for a designer, because it seems there are connections in our lives by
which we make sense of things, and these relations influences what we think is important. If
people obtain the information resulting from this research, they can use it to their advantage to
make information seemingly more relevant by applying the right characteristics. As a results,
the viewer may recall them better as well.
Meta-analyses (Benoit, 1998; Wood & Quinn, 2003) show that if people know they are
being influenced, they are less likely to adapt their opinion. This is called the forewarning of
persuasive intent. Logically speaking, when designing a persuasive object, you want to
influence people without them knowing. The results of this experiment might aid in doing so,
because people are not aware of the conceptual metaphors that organise their lives. If the
influences of these metaphors are tested on content, you can design a figure in such a way that it
chooses your side in an argumentative piece, but the readers would not know it. They presume
they are getting objective information, but the figure can be designed in particular ways making
particular content more important and better remembered.
So according to Hegarty’s (2011) theory, some information becomes more salient due to
visual features. In my thesis I claim that what is perceived as more salient, is caused by
conceptual metaphors. This leads to the following hypotheses.
H1. Information in boxes will decrease in relevance when the size of the boxes decreases.
H2. Left-handed participants will perceive information in boxes on the left side as more
relevant and right-handed participants will perceive information on the right side as more
relevant.
H3. Information in the boxes above the middle box will be rated as more relevant than
boxes below the middle.
All independent variables (horizontal position, vertical position and size) will be present in one
figure. This creates the opportunity to examine interaction-effects. Based upon Schilperoord’s
experiment (to be published) that confirmed the size hypothesis, the following hypothesis is
created.
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 9
H4. The size of the boxes has a bigger effect on perceived relevance of information than
the horizontal or vertical position of the boxes.
Experiment 1
The first experiment evaluated the role of Verticality, Horizontality and Size on the perceived
relevance of information. The variables of Horizontal position, Vertical position and Size are
combined in one web chart, which can be seen figure 6. Participants were presented with this
web chart and were asked to give a relevance score for the content in the boxes (for the content
see appendix A).
←Big
←Medium
Up
↑
↓
Down
← Small
Left ← → Right
Fig.6. Web Chart with independent variables
Relevance judgments are typically measured with ranking on contrasting scales (Riddle,
Horwitz and Dietz, 1966), but a recurring finding from such studies is that the inter- and intrajudge reliability of these kinds of judgments is not very high. Two studies of Cuadra et al.
(1966; 1967) show that these judgments can be influenced and manipulated by the kind of
instructions the judges are given. This underlines the importance of finding a correct method
that reflects the judge’s actual opinion of what is relevant. The terms ‘ranking’ and ‘rating’ are
often seen as synonyms of each other, but Katter (1968) shows that this is not the case. Ranking
is putting objects or content in a fixed order. The number of slots in which you can rank the
content is predetermined. This may results in a distortion of the actual perceived rank. This
restricting might result in judges giving information a higher or lower ranking than they would
when their choice would be unrestricted. On the other hand, they also could make a distinction
between two kinds of content when actually this discrimination is not in line with their
judgment.
This problem does not occur when judges are asked to rate the content, because no
predetermined number of slots is given. Katter (1968) recommends using rating-scales instead
of ranking-scales, because the outcome of rating scales reflects the judge’s actual opinion in a
more accurate way. In this experiment relevance will be measured with a 7-point likert-scale.
This is subtracted from Katter’s rating scales, because it meets the requirements of unrestricted
choices and does not force the judges to make distinction.
10 | Having a Top Spot
Method
Participants
Forty-two Tilburg University students and teachers (30 women, 12 men) participated. The mean
age was 22 (SD=4.79) years, ranging from 18 to 50 years. The majority (N=26) of the students
were from the Humanities faculty.
Design
The experiment had a 2 x 2 x 3 x 2 x 3 design, with Vertical position (levels: Up and Down),
Horizontal position (levels: Left and Right) and Size (levels: Big, Medium and Small) as withinsubjects factors and Topic (levels: Licorice and Fire tornado) and List (levels: List 1, List 2 and
List 3) as between-subjects factor.
Materials
The participants received two forms, see Appendix C. The first presented the web chart and
asked the participants to score the information on relevance. The second form was about
demographical information.
The web chart consisted of 12 boxes with information about one of the two topics, fire
tornado or licorice. The boxes differed in size (small, medium and big), vertical position (up and
down) and horizontal position (left and right), see Figure 6.
The size of the boxes increased percentually from 100% (small box), 125 % (medium
box) to 150% (big box), and with this enlargement the font size of the information increased
from 7.5 pt. (small box), 9.5 pt. (medium box) to 11.5 pt. (big box).
To ensure that content did not influence the results, there were three experimental lists
in which the content of the boxes was varied (see appendix B for distribution of content).
The number of words of the created items was between 11 and 14 words (M=11.88, SD=1.03),
and the number of tokens had a range from 57 to 74 tokens (M=64.9, SD=3.65). See appendix B
for the exact numbers and appendix A for the sentences that were used.
In addition, the relevance of an information item for the topic of the web chart and
newness of this information was controlled for with a pilot-test. In total twenty-four participants
(15 women, 9 men) with a mean age of 27 years, ranging from 18 to 49, participated in this
pilot-test. The participants rated the relevance of the 12 licorice items and newness of 12 fire
tornado items on a 7-point likert-scale, or the newness of the 12 licorice items and relevance of
12 fire tornado items on a 7-point likert-scale. A one-way ANOVA revealed no effect of topic
on relevance (F(1, 286)=1,333, p=0.25), but there was an effect of topic on newness (F(1,
286)=13,859, p<0.001). The topic of fire tornado’s (M=5.17, SD=1.67) had a higher overall
newness score then the topic of licorice (M=4.37, SD=1.99). After a close examination of the
items, it was concluded that one item about the flavour of licorice had an extreme low newness
outcome (M=1.42, SD=0.67). For this reason, it was replaced with a new item about licorice
and ice cream. A second pilot study was conducted with this new item. In total 12 participants,
7 female and 5 male, with a mean age of 27 years, ranging from 21 to 58, took part in the
second pilot study. The participants rated the relevance and newness of the 12 sentences of
licorice on a 7-point likert-scale. An analysis showed that the newness score of licorice
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 11
(M=4.94, SD=1.19) had gone up with 0.57 compared to the first pilot study. After implementing
the data of pilot study 1 of the fire tornado’s and the data of pilot study 2 of the licorice items, a
one-way ANOVA revealed that there was no longer an effect of topic on relevance (F<1), or on
newness (F(1, 286)=1,196, p=0.28). It can thus be assumed that any differences between topics
cannot be assigned to structural differences between items of the two topics.
Tab.1 Mean (M) and standard deviation(SD) of the Relevance and Newness Scores of Pilot study 1 (fire
tornado) and 2 (licorice) combined.
Relevance
Newness
M
SD
M
SD
Fire tornado (12)
5.17
1.67
4.68
1.54
Licorice (12)
4.94
1.88
4.77
1.34
Note. Relevance score and newness score has a range of 1 (minimum relevance/newness) till 7
(maximum relevance/newness)
It is important that the relevance score of the items the same, see table 1, because the
distribution of the items is not equal across all independent variables, see table 2. If information
itself influences the perceived relevance, the effects of the independent variables cannot be
measured. With other words, if an effect is found on the perceived relevance it is unsure which
variable caused this effect. Fortunately, the two pilot studies ensure that any found effects are
not caused by the information the items give.
Tab2. Distribution of Item (N) across Independent Variables Size (Small, Medium, Big), Horizontality
(Left, Right) and Verticality (Up, Down).
Size
Item (N)
Horizontality
Verticality
Small
Medium
Big
Left
Right
Up
Down
Type/Root (42)
14
14
14
28
14
28
14
Japan/Giorgio (42)
14
14
14
28
14
28
14
Time/Percentage (42)
14
14
14
28
14
28
14
Names/Kilo (42)
14
14
14
14
28
28
14
Distance/Salt (42)
14
14
14
14
28
28
14
Height/Pressure (42)
14
14
14
14
28
28
14
Trees/Spend (42)
14
14
14
28
14
14
28
Combination/Popular (42)
14
14
14
28
14
14
28
Co-occur/Originate (42)
14
14
14
28
14
14
28
Speed/Hardness (42)
14
14
14
14
28
14
28
Inside/Produced (42)
14
14
14
14
28
14
28
Phenomenon/Producer (42)
14
14
14
14
28
14
28
Total (504)
168
168
168
252
252
252
252
Note. 12 items were used in 6 diagrams, each shown to 7 participants, resulting in 504 items in total.
12 | Having a Top Spot
Procedure
Participants were told that the purpose of the experiment was to examine how people read
diagrams. The participants were randomly assigned to one of two topics and one of the three
experimental lists. They were given a survey on paper showing a web chart and were told to
give every box a random number from 1 till 12 and that they should exclude the middle box.
After this was done, they scored the information items in the boxes on a 7-point likert-scale (1
(minimum relevance) till 7 (maximum relevance)) with the corresponding number. They were
asked to score the information according to how relevant this information was for the general
topic. Afterwards they filled in a form regarding their demographical information.
Results
A one-way ANOVA showed no main-effect of Topic on the relevance score (F<1). Therefore,
Topic is not taken into further analysis. A one-way ANOVA did reveal that the items had a
significant influence on the relevance score (F(11,492)=3.88, p<.001). However, because the
pilot studies ensured that Item would not influence relevance, it is assumed that this effect is
causes by the unequal distribution of items across the independent variables. Therefore, Item is
not taken into further analysis.
An ANOVA analysis showed no main effect of Size (F<1), Verticality (F(1,492)=3.43,
p=0.07) and Horizontality (F(1,492)=3.02, p=0.08) on the relevance score. The analysis showed
no significant two-way interactions between Size and Verticality (F<1), between Size and
Horizontality (F(2,492)=1.66, p=0.19) and between Horizontality and Verticality (F<1).
The analysis did show a three-way interaction between Size, Verticality and
Horizontality (F(2,492)=5.56, p<0.01, η2= .022). An ANOVA separated by Size indicates that
this interaction between Horizontality and Verticality is caused by the medium boxes
(F(1,164)=4.88, p<.05, η2=.029) and small boxes (F(1,164)=6.33, p<.05, η2=.037), see figure 7
and table 2. If the information in a medium upper box that appeared on the left side is compared
to the information in a box that appeared on the right side, the information on the right side had
a higher relevance score as compared to the information on the left side (+1.07). For the
medium lower boxes the increase is minimal (+0.05), see figure 8. The relevance of the
information in a small box responds differently on the movement from left to right. The
information in an upper small box decreases in relevance when being shifted from left to right (0.71), but the information in a lower small box increases when being moved from left to right
(+0.57), see figure 9.
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 13
+1.07
-0.71
+0.57
+0.05
Relevance Score
Fig.7. Changes in the relevance score when medium or small boxes appear left or right. Relevance score has a range
of 1 (minimum relevance) till 7 (maximum relevance)
7
5
3
Up
1
Down
Left
Right
Horizontality
Relevance Score
Fig.8. Two-way interaction of Horizontality, Verticality and Size, focused on the Medium boxes. Relevance score has
a range of 1 (minimum relevance) till 7 (maximum relevance)
7
5
3
Up
1
Down
Left
Right
Horizontality
Fig.9. Two way interaction of Horizontality, Verticality, focused on the Small boxes. Relevance score has a range of
1 (minimum relevance) till 7 (maximum relevance)
14 | Having a Top Spot
Tab.3 Means (and SDs) for the Relevance Score of Size (Big, Medium, Small), Verticality (Up, Down)
and Horizontality (Left, Right)
Left (252)
Big
Medium
Small
Total
Right (252)
Total (504)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Up (84)
4.14
1.63
4.36
1.65
4.25
1.64
Down (84)
4.64
1.53
4.93
1.60
4.79
1.56
Total (168)
4.39
1.59
4.64
1.64
4.52
1.62
Up (84)
3.93
1.55
5.00
1.36
4.46
1.55
Down (84)
4.62
1.56
4.67
1.53
4.64
1.53
Total (168)
4.27
1.59
4.83
1.45
4.55
1.54
Up (84)
4.76
1.57
4.05
1.72
4.40
1.68
Down (84)
4.19
1.74
4.76
1.57
4.48
1.68
Total (168)
4.48
1.68
4.40
1.68
4.44
1.67
Up (126)
4.28
1.61
4.47
1.62
4.37
1.61
Down (126)
4.48
1.61
4.79
1.56
4.63
1.59
Total (252)
4.38
1.61
4.63
1.60
4.50
1.61
Note. Relevance score has a range of 1 (minimum relevance) till 7 (maximum relevance)
If we compare the mean relevance score of the variable Horizontality, see table 3, we notice that
information shown on the left side of the chart is perceived as less relevant (M=4.38, SD=1.61),
than information displayed at the right side (M=4.63, SD=1.60). When looking at the variable
Verticality, the scores show that information that appeared in the top of the chart was perceived
as less relevant (M=4.37, SD=1.61) then information that was shown in the bottom section of
the chart (M=4.63, SD=1.59). The relevance score of the variable Size indicate that the
information in the medium boxes is seen as most relevant (M=4.55, SD=1.54), followed by the
information in the big boxes (M=4.52, SD=1.62) and the small boxes (M=4.44, SD=1.67).
Conclusion
The results of Experiment 1 show that there is a three-way interaction of Size, Verticality and
Horizontality on relevance score, but not one of the variables had influence on his own. Hence it
can be concluded that Size, Verticality and Horizontality (hypothesis 1-3) do not influence the
perceived relevance of information. Hypothesis 4 stated that the Size is more influential on
relevance than Verticality, but neither one of the variables had influence on its own.
Only a combination of the variables did influence the perceived relevance of an item.
Information in big boxes was perceived as most relevant if it appeared in the lower right side.
The information in medium boxes was perceived as most relevant when appearing in the top
right corner, and also increased slightly in perceived relevance when the information was
presented at the bottom right corner. Information in small boxes was perceived as most relevant,
either in the top left corner or in the bottom right corner.
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 15
When we link all these results back to the theory of Hegarty (2011), we now know that
the visual features that make information more relevant are a combination of position and size.
It seems that information in medium boxes becomes more salient when it is on the right side.
Information in small boxes on the other hand, becomes more salient when it is presented on
either the top left corner or the lower right corner.
Concluding, the top spot for information to get a higher relevance score is in a medium
box in the upper right corner (M=5.00, SD=1.36).
Discussion
Figure 10 shows the boxes that were positively affected in the perception of relevance score by
their position. Only the perceived relevance of the information in medium and small boxes was
affected by their horizontal and vertical position. The boxes that are indicated in figure 10 are
the places where information perceived a higher relevance score, then when the same
information was presented in another box.
Whether the participants were left or right handed did not influence the relevance score
when the analysis was divided on horizontality. Due to this RELEVANCE IS DOMINANT
HAND is changed into RELEVANCE IS RIGHT, because there were only two left-handed
participants and in total 40 right-handed participants. RELEVANCE IS RIGHT is found in this
experiment, when looking at the mean relevance score and with an ANOVA but only in
combination with Verticality and Size.
Fig.10. Boxes of which the perceived relevance of the content had benefit from its position and size.
Evidence for RELEVANCE IS UP is not found in this experiment. The only box that had
benefit from an upper position was the medium box, and this was in combination with a right
position. It could be that Size has a neutralizing effect on Verticality, as was found in the
experiment of Schilperoord (to be published). Only the effects predicted from the metaphor of
RELEVANCE IS BIG were not found. Size had no significant influence, or in any other
combination with variables, on relevance.
Sperber and Wilson´s (1995) relevance theory states that messages become more
relevant when they contribute to an increase of the knowledge of a reader. Experiment 1 did not
measure the relevance of information for the reader, but the relevance contribution information
had for the main topic. Experiment 1 indeed did not show an effect of newness of the
information on relevance score. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that some participants
might have thought they had to give a rating on relevance for themselves instead of relevance to
16 | Having a Top Spot
the main topic. This means that relevance ratings can fluctuate due to different relevance types.
To control for this confound, another measurement of importance was used in Experiment 2;
recall.
Experiment 2
The second experiment evaluated the role of Verticality, Horizontality and Size on the recall of
the information in the chart. The same web chart and content were used as in experiment 1.
Participants were presented with the web chart and were asked to study and recall the
information in the boxes.
Multiple researchers (Britton, Meyer, Simpson, Holdredge & Curry, 1979; Freebody &
Anderson, 1986) have found that it is more likely to recall main or superordinate information
then less important or subordinate information. Their research demonstrated that there is a
positive relation between the perception of the importance of the information and the likelihood
that this information will be recalled (Gomulicki, 1956; Johnson, 1970). This could mean that if
the information in a certain position or box size is more often recalled than the same
information presented in another box or position, this is caused by visual features that made the
information seem more relevant and subordinate. The findings of Gomulicki (1956) and
Johnson (1970) support the hierarchical representation hypothesis. This hypothesis states that
important information is represented in the higher levels in the brain, whereas less important
information is stored in lower levels. Due to this way of storing information, information that is
more important is easier to access then less important information and therefore better to recall
(McKoon, 1977).
Method
Participants
Forty-two Tilburg University students (30 women, 12 men) participated for course credit. The
mean age was 22 (SD=2.62) years, ranging from 18 to 28 years. The majority (N=40) of the
students were from the Humanities faculty.
Materials and Design
The materials and design used were the same as in Experiment 1.
Procedure
Participants were told the purpose of the experiment was to examine how people read diagrams
and how this influences recall. The participants were seated in front of a computer screen
showing the web chart and were randomly assigned to one of two topics and one of the three
experimental lists. Participants were granted five minutes to study the content of the chart. After
these five minutes the participants were instructed to resolve a brainteaser in 5 minutes, to
prevent short-term memory influences. Then, the participants received a recall form. They were
asked to write down everything they remembered of the topic they read. The recall form had
twelve places to fill in, to remember participants about the number of boxes they had seen. This
was done in order to get maximal response. Again, the participants were granted five minutes,
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 17
after which they filled in a form about demographical information. For an example of all forms
that were used, see Appendix D.
Results
The recall of an information item and the recall order were converted into a recall score. If an
information item was remembered first, it was assigned a score of 12 points, because there were
twelve items to remember. If an information item was remembered second, it was assigned 11
points, etcetera. Erroneous items were included in the recall order and 'stole away' scores. So if
the third item was recalled incorrectly, but the fourth item was recalled correctly, the latter was
assigned 9 points. In order to evaluate the items on correctness, an evaluation form was
designed. The main principle was that a recalled item had to contain three main concepts to be a
correct recall, see appendix A for these words. Synonyms and different word-orders were also
judged as correct, as long as the semantic meaning did not differ.
A one-way ANOVA showed no main effect of topic on the recall score (F(1,231)=1.51,
p=0.22). Due to this Topic is not taken into further analysis. It did show a significant effect of
Recall order score
item on recall score (F(11,231)=3.65, p<.001). However, because the pilot studies ensured that
Item would not influence relevance, it is assumed that this effect is causes by the unequal
distribution of items across the independent variables. Therefore, Item is not taken into further
analysis.
An ANOVA showed no main effect of Size (F<1)), and Horizontality (F(1,220)=1.01,
p=.32). The analysis did show a main effect of Verticality (F(1,220)=8.04, p<0.01, η2= .04). The
upper boxes were recalled faster (M=8.69, SD=2.98) than the lower boxes (M=7.51, SD=2.37),
see figure 11.
9
8
7
6
Up
Down
Verticality
Fig.11. The effect of Verticality on the recall order score.. The recall order score has a range from 12 (remembered
first) to 1 (remembered last).
The analysis showed no significant two-way interactions between Verticality and Horizontality
(F<1) or a two-way interactions between Verticality and Size (F(2,220)=1.05, p=0.35). The
analysis did reveal a two-way interaction between Horizontality and Size (F(2,220)=6.81,
p<.01, η2= .058). A separate ANOVA splitted by Size shows that this interaction with
Horizontality is caused by the big boxes (F(1,71)=12.97, p<.01, η2=.162). The big boxes are
recalled faster when they are positioned at the right side of the diagram (M=9.44, SD=2.36),
than on the left side of the diagram (M=6.97, SD=2.91). So, if the same content in the big boxes
on the left appears in a big box on the right, their recall orders score increases (+2.47), see
figure 12.
There was no three-way interaction between Size, Verticality and Horizontality on
recall order (F(2,220)=2.64, p=0.07).
Recall order score
18 | Having a Top Spot
9
8
7
6
Left
Right
Verticality
Fig.12. The effect of Horizontality on the recall order of the big boxes. The recall order score has a range from 12
(remembered first) to 1 (remembered last).
If we compare the mean recall order score, see table 4, of the variable Horizontality we notice
that information shown on the right side of the chart is recalled earlier (M=8.33, SD=2.64), than
information displayed at the left side (M=8.07, SD=2.94). When looking at the variable
Verticality, the scores show that information that appeared in the top of the chart was recalled
earlier (M=8.70, SD=2.98) then information that was shown in the bottom section of the chart
(M=7.51, SD=2.37). The recall order score of the variable Size indicate that the information in
the small boxes is recalled firstly (M=8.27 SD=2.75), followed by the information in the big
boxes (M=8.23, SD=2.90) and the medium boxes (M=8.10, SD=2.77).
Tab.4. Means (and SDs) for the Recall Order of Size (Big, Medium, Small), Verticality (Up, Down) and
Horizontality (Left, Right)
Left (58)
Big
Medium
Small
Total
Right (66)
Total (124)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Up (40)
6.41
3.73
10.04
2.08
8.50
3.22
Down (31)
7.50
2.36
8.38
2.53
7.87
2.43
Total (71)
6.97
2.91
9.44
2.36
8.23
2.90
Up (47)
9.14
3.09
8.00
2.62
8.68
2.93
Down (36)
7.44
2.71
7.25
2.12
7.33
2.37
Total (83)
8.52
3.04
7.62
2.38
8.10
2.77
Up (46)
9.30
2.90
8.48
2.79
8.89
2.85
Down (32)
7.47
1.91
7.27
2.87
7.38
2.87
Total (78)
8.53
2.66
8.00
2.85
8.27
2.75
Up (133)
8.52
3.29
8.89
2.62
8.69
2.98
Down (99)
7.47
2.29
7.56
2.48
7.52
2.37
Total(232)
8.07
2.94
8.33
2.64
8.19
2.79
Note. The recall order score has a range from 12 (remembered first) to 1 (remembered last).
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 19
Conclusion
Experiment 2 showed that information that appeared in boxes in the upper half of the web chart
were recalled sooner, as compared to when information was presented in the lower half. That
means that boxes in the upper half of the web chart are perceived as more relevant. This
confirms hypothesis 3. Size did not have an effect on the recall order score. This means that
hypothesis 1 is rejected. Horizontality also did not have an effect on the recall score. This means
that hypothesis 2 is rejected as well. This shows that being high has a bigger influence on the
recall then being big. As such, hypothesis 4 is not confirmed.
The combination of a big box (Size) and Horizontality influenced the perceived
relevance of information, and therefore the recall order score. When a big box was on the right,
its content was significantly recalled sooner then when it was on the left.
The top spot for information to get a higher relevance score is in a medium box in the
upper left corner (M=9.75, SD=2.52).
Discussion
Figure 13 shows the boxes that had benefit from their position, when looking at the recall order
score. The information in these boxes was remember sooner and therefore was perceived as
more relevant, than when the same information was presented in another box.
Fig.13. Boxes from which the perceived recall order score of the content was influenced positively by position
Whether participants were left or right-handed did not influence the recall score, when the
analysis was divided by horizontality. That this effect is not found might be caused by the few
number of the left-handed participants; 2 of the 42 participants were left handed. Due to this
RELEVANT IS DOMINANT HAND is changed into RELEVANT IS RIGHT. RELEVANT
IS RIGHT is found with in this experiment. A ANOVA showed an effect of Horizontality, but
only in combination with Size.
The present study found evidence for the role of RELEVANT IS UP in perceived
relevance of information. No evidence was found for the conceptual metaphor of RELEVANT
IS BIG. This is in contradiction with the results of Schilperoord (to be published), who found
that the size of an item is more prominent in deciding what has a powerful role, than verticality.
Research (Pichert & Anderson, 1977; Steffensen, JoagDev, & Anderson, 1979) has
shown that a reader's background knowledge serves to highlight particular elements and
increase their memorability. The amount of background knowledge that the participants
indicated to have of the general topic did have no influence on the mean recall order of items
20 | Having a Top Spot
(F<1). This means the difference in recall is caused by other variables, such as horizontality and
verticality.
General Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the role of the conceptual metaphors,
RELEVANT IS UP, RELEVANT IS RIGHT and RELEVANT IS BIG in the processing of
information in web charts. The predictions were that these three metaphors would influence the
perceived relevance of the information. Two experiments were conducted, in which the
perceived relevance was measured by two means; relevance score and recall score. The results
of the present study suggest that only the conceptual metaphor RELEVANT IS UP affects the
perception of relevance of particular information.
Two experiments showed that the concept of relevance is related to spatial positions and
sizes. Experiment 1 showed a three-way interaction between Verticality, Horizontality and Size.
The main results of this experiment can be seen in figure 14 on the left. Experiment 2 showed
that there is a main effect of Verticality on the recall score, and that there is a two-way
interaction between Size and Horizontality. The main results of this experiment can be found in
figure 14 on the right. The results of Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 are presented in the middle
figure in figure 14. This figure shows an area for which the recall was best; the upper half..
Boxes Relevance Increased
Area of Benefit
Boxes recall Increased
Fig.14. Boxes from which the perceived relevance of the content was influenced by position (left) and the boxes from
which the perceived recall order score of the content was influenced by position (right) are combined to form the
figure in the middle which indicates the area (grey) in which content gets an increased relevance/recall. The stronger
the color, the stronger the evidence is that this area benefits from its location
However, some restrictions to these results are necessary. The division of the web chart into a
left and right side, and in an upper and lower side, has played a main role in this experiment.
For example, in figure 13 the small upper left box is indicated as a position that creates bigger
relevance. Nevertheless, when comparing the two upper boxes on the right and on the left side,
the righter box is placed lower than the small box on the left. It could be that the division of left
and right has played an influence on the results about Horizontality. It could be that the results
are a combination of the variable Horizontality and Verticality. The differences in vertical
position are small, but they are there.
A better design of the web chart would have all the upper and lower boxes on the exact
same height and all the left and right boxes on the exact same width, see figure 15 for an
example. This design should also be presented in mirror image, to even out differences. An
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 21
example of such a difference that should be evened out is the upper big box. It is presented
relatively more to the left then the medium and small box. When the mirror images are also
evaluated, this would not cause any problems.
Up
Left
Right
Down
Fig.15. A web charts with clearer upper, bottom, right and left division.
I n Experiment 1 and 2, no main effects of horizontality and size are found, only two-way or
three-way interactions. In the following section, the absence of these effects will be discussed.
Size
The size of the boxes increased from 100% (small), to 125% (medium), to 150% (big). When
increasing the boxes, the font size of the information in the boxes increased with it, see figure
16. This was done in order to prevent the white framework surrounding the text being a
different width, which would create another variable.
Sm a l l box
Font size: 7.5
Box size: 100%
Medi um box
Font size: 9.5
Box size: 125%
Bi g box
Font size: 11.5
Box size: 150%
Fig.16. Example that difference in size also influences difference in font size. Font: Adobe Fangsong Std R Bold.
Translation text; “In some countries they eat licorice in combination with chocolate and vanilla ice-cream”
In the two experiments, no results were found for the dependent variable of size. This could be
caused by the decision to make the font size bigger when the box was made bigger. Research on
tag clouds (Rivadeneira, Gruen, Muller & Millen, 2007) shows that recall for words with a
larger font size is significantly higher than for words with a smaller font size. Strangely, no
significant results were found, even though that there were actually two variables, box size and
font size. This should make the same information better to remember when it is presented large,
then when it is presented small.
The absence of the effect of size can be caused by the minimal difference between the
boxes. An increase of 25% per box might not be enough to make a real difference. In future
experiments it would be wise to create greater difference in box sizes.
22 | Having a Top Spot
Horizontality
A key factor in the absence of an effect might be that the group of left-handed participants were
considerably smaller then a right-handed group. In experiment 1 and 2 only 4 left-handed
people in total participated, compared to 80 right-handed participants. This is a flaw in this
master thesis and future experiments should aim for a better contribution of dominant hands on
participants.
Schubert’s (2005) experiment was used in the introduction for the discussing the
metaphor of POWER IS LEFT or RIGHT. Question marks were presented next to these results
by Schubert, because he blamed it to causality relations among the sentences. But what if these
results are actually the results of the horizontality preferences of power visualizations by left
handed people? Figure 17 shows again the figures that were used in this experiment. As you
might remember, the task was to find a figure that best visualized the notion of the sentences.
These sentences contain a powerful, powerless or horizontal relation among agent () and
patient (○). When focusing on the horizontal figures, the results indicate that these figures were
mainly chosen for horizontal power relation sentences. Figure 18 is taken from Schubert’s
results section (2005) and it gives a closer examination of these results.
Fig.17. Figures Schubert (2005)
These figures make very clear that horizontality is seen for horizontal power relations, because
the majority chooses this when presented with an equivalent sentence. When being presented
with a powerful sentence, only 5.6% chose the figure where the agent is on the left and only
0.6% the figure were the agent is on the right. This indicates a slight favor to the left position for
power and a favor for the right position as powerless. This is incongruent with the findings of
this research. It could be to caused by the dominant-hands of the participants of Schubert.
Unfortunately he does not rapport on this. Holder (1997) claims that 70-90% of the world
population is right-handed. So if a researcher does not take measures to make sure distribution
is equal, the majority will be right-handed.
Powerfull
“● has influence on ○”
Powerless
“● is weaker than ○.”
Equivalent
“● pulls ○.”
Fig.18. Percentages chosen for propositions with powerful and powerless agents, and horizontal relations The end of
the line indicates the agent’s () position. Reprinted from “Your highness: vertical positions as perceptual symbols of
power” by T.W. Schubert, 2005, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, p. 1–21
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 23
To summarize, perceived relevance of information can be influenced by verticality. This
influence is strongest in the medium and small boxes. The experiments indicate that the top spot
to make your information more relevant is in a medium box in the upper half.
Further research should take the following three points in consideration. First, they
should aim for an equal contribution of dominant hands on participants. This should be done in
order to be able to discover whether the dominant hand of participants is an indication on which
he perceives information to be more relevant. Secondly, future research should aim for a greater
difference in box sizes. In the present research effects of size were not found. Another feature to
considered while increasing the size of the boxes is whether the font size should increase with it.
Research of Rivadeneira, Gruen, Muller and Millen (2007) indicated that recall for words with a
larger font size is significantly higher than for words with a smaller font size. Increasing the font
size would increase the possibility of finding an effect, but this would be due to the font size
instead of the box size. Thirdly, researchers should use a web chart with a clean cut between
left/right and up/down and present is to one of the two groups in mirror image. On top of this
all, before we are able to implement the results in the design world, an experiment on a chart
that is found in the ‘real world’ is recommended.
Literature
Benoit, W.L. (1998) Forewarning and persuasion. In M. Allen & R.W. Preiss (eds.),
Persuasion; advances through meta-analysis (pp. 139-154). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press
Britton, B.K., Meyer. B.F., Simpson, R., Holdrcdgc, T.S. & Curry, C. (1979). Effect of the
organization of text on memory: Tests of two implications of a selective attention
hypothesis. Journal of experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 496506.
Casasanto, D., & Chrysikou, E. (2011). When Left is 'Right': Motor fluency shapes abstract
concepts. Psychological Science. 22(4) 419–422
Cuadra, C. A, E. H. Holmes, R. V. Katter & E. M. Wallace (1967) Experimental studies of
relevance judgments: Third Progress Report. TM-3347, System Development
Corporation, Santa Monica, January
Freebody, P. & Anderson, R.C. (1986). Serial position and rated importance in the recall of text.
Discourse Processes, 9,31-36.
Freedman, E.G., & Shah, P. (2002) Toward a model of knowledge-based graph comprehension.
In M.Hegarty, B.Meyer, & N.H. Naryanan (eds.), Diagrammatic representation and
inference (pp. 8-31). Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Goatly, A. (2007) Washing the brain; Metaphor and Hidden ideology, John Benjamins
Publishing company. Chapter 2; Power metaphors.
Gomulicki, B. R. (1956). Recall as an abstractive process. Acta Psychologica, 12, 77-94.
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1997).
24 | Having a Top Spot
Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs.
resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–
100). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
Hegarty, M. (2011) The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: implications for design.
Topics in cognitieve science, 3, 446-474.
Holder, M.K. (1997) Why are more people right-handed? Scientifuc American Inc.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-more-people-right
Retrieved
2013-06-04.
Johnson, R. E. (1970). Recall of prose as a function of the structural importance of the linguistic
unit. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 12-20.
Katter, R.V. (1968). The influence of scale form on relevance judgments, Information Storage
and Retrieval, 4(1), pp. 1-11.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago Press
Maas, A. & Russo, A, (2003). Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events.
Psychological Science, 14, 296-301.
Ortiz, M.J. (2010) Visual Rhetoric: Primary Metaphors and Symmetric Object Alignment .
Metaphor and Symbol, 25: 162–180
Pichert, J.W. and Anderson, R.C. (1977). Taking different perspectives on a story. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69, 309-315
Pinker, S. (1990) A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle (Ed.) Artificial intelligence
and the future of testing (pp. 73-126) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rivadeneira, A.W., Gruen, D.M., Muller, M.J., Millen. (2007). Getting our head in the
clouds: Toward evaluation studies of tagclouds. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 995-998. ACM, New York
Schilperoord, J. (2012, October). Metaphors of Power. Powerpoint presented at the master
course Multimodality and Communication, Tilburg University, Tilburg
Schubert, T.W. (2005). Your highness: vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1–21
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995) Relevance; communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell
Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading
comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 10–29.
Wood, W. & Quinn, J.M. (2003) Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analytic syntheses of
forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (1), 119-138
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 25
Appendix es Content
Appendix A – Content boxes – text, count and recall words.
Appendix B – List Variable – content distribution
Appendix C – Example forms Experiment 1 – relevance score
Appendix D – Example forms Experiment 2 – recall order score
26 | Having a Top Spot
Appendix A – Content boxes – text, count an d recall words
In table A1 and A2 the information of the items that were used in experiment 1 and 2 are
presented. Table A1 presents the sentences of the fire tornado topic and table A2 presents the
sentences of the licorice topic. In these tables the token count (T), work count (W) and code per
sentence are specified. To see how much a sentence differed from the mean, the token and word
count are subtracted from the mean word(W-M) and token count (T-M).
For experiment 2 (recall) an evaluation form was created in order to approve or disapprove
a recall. In order to get a correct recall, the participants had to recall the concepts visualised in
bold in the tables below.
Tab. A1 Content of Boxes of the Fire tornado Topic Items with Additional Information
Code
T
T- M
W
WM
In 1923 ontstond in Japan een vuurtornado met de
grootte van een stad
(A fire tornado emerged in Japan with a size of a
town in 1923)
Japan
57
-7.8
13
1.1
Er zijn drie types vuurtornado’s, die variëren in hoe
gevaarlijk ze zijn
(There are three types of fire tornado’s, which vary
in how dangerous they are)
Types
61
-3.8
12
0.1
Height
64
-0.8
13
1.1
Distance
63
-1.8
12
0.1
Een vuurtornado wordt ook wel eens een vuurduivel
of een vuurwervel genoemd
(A fire tornado also goes by the name fire devil or
fire whirl )
Names
64
-0.8
12
0.1
Een vuurtornado is een fenomeen waarbij vuur een
verticale wervelwind vormt
(A fire tornado is a phenomenon where a fire forms
vertical whirlwind)
Phenomenon
65
0.3
11
-0.9
Vuurtornado’s zijn een gevreesd fenomeen, omdat
ze moeilijk in bedwang zijn te houden
(Fire tornado’s are a feared phenomenon, because
they are hard to control)
Feared
67
2.3
14
2.1
Speed
70
5.3
11
-0.9
Vuurtornado’s zijn meestal 10 tot 15 meter hoog,
maar kunnen groeien tot 1 kilometer
(Fire tornado’s are 10 till 15 meters high, but can
grow till 1 kilometer)
De langste afstand die een vuurtornado heeft
afgelegd is bijna 5 kilometer
(the longest distance a fire tornado travelled is
almost 5 kilometre)
Vuurtornado’s verspreiden het vuur waaruit ze
ontstaan zijn, met grote snelheden
(Fire tornado’s spread the fire from which they
originated, with large velocities)
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 27
Vuurtornado’s gaan vaak gepaard met wild vuur,
onweer, storm en windtornado’s
(Fire tornado’s are often accompanied by wildfire,
thunder, storm and wind tornadoes)
Co-occur
67
2.3
11
-0.9
Vuurtornado’s ontstaan uit een combinatie van vuur
en stijgende warme lucht
(Fire tornado’ arise from a combination of fire and
rising warm air)
Combined
65
0.3
11
-0.9
Trees
64
-0.8
11
-0.9
Duration
70
5.3
12
0.1
Mean
Range
64.8
61-74
Mean
Range
11.9
11-14
Bomen tot 15 meter worden ontworteld door
vuurtornado’s, die daarna in vlammen opgaan
(Fire tornado’s can uproot trees of 15 meters, which
go up in flames)
Een gemiddelde vuurtornado duurt enkele minuten,
maar kan oplopen tot 20 minuten.
(An average fire tornado takes a few minutes but
this can go up to 20 minutes.)
Note. Theme ‘Fire tornado’ content, with tokens (T) and words (W) per sentence, giving mean tokens
64.8, with a range of 61 till 74 tokens, and a mean word count of 11.9 words, with a range of 11 till 14
words. Further the difference in word count compared with mean word count (W-M) and difference in
token count compared with mean token count (T-M)
Tab. A2 Content of Boxes of the Licorice Items with Additional Information
Code
T
T-M
W
WM
Giorgio
65
-0.1
11
-0.8
Root
64
-1.1
11
-0.8
Het eten van grote hoeveelheden drop veroorzaakt
een te hoge bloeddruk
(Eating large amounts of licorice causes high blood
pressure)
Pressure
60
-5.1
11
-0.8
De zoute smaak van drop wordt veroorzaakt door
ammonium chloride, oftewel salmiak
(The salty taste of licorice is caused by ammonium
chloride, also known as salmiak)
Salt
63
-2.1
11
-0.8
Kilo
63
-2.1
14
2.2
In 1731 ontdekte Giorgio Amarelli hoe drop
industrieel gemaakt moest worden
(Giorgio Amerelli discovered how licorice industrial
should be made in 1731)
Drop wordt gemaakt van de zoethoutstruik, die in
de zon worden gedroogd
(Licorice is made of concentrated licorice root,
which is sundried)
Een Nederlander eet gemiddeld 32 kilo snoep per
jaar, daarvan is 2 kilo drop
(A Dutchmen eats an average of 32 kilo candy per
year, 2 kilo of this is licorice)
28 | Having a Top Spot
Nederland is de grootste producent van drop,
daarna komen Spanje en Duitsland
(The Netherlands are the biggest producer of
licorice, followed by Spain and Germany)
Producer
66
0.9
12
0.2
Nederland produceerde dit jaar voor maar liefst 90
miljoen euro aan drop
(The Netherlands produced an amount of licorice,
worth 90 million Euros)
Produced
61
-4.1
12
0.2
Hardness
74
8.9
12
0.2
Originate
68
2.9
12
0.2
Popular
68
2.9
11
-0.8
20 % van het verkochte snoep in Nederland is drop,
wat gelijk staat aan 168 miljoen euro
(20 % of all the sold candy in the Netherlands is
licorice, this equals to 168 million euro’s. )
Spend
62
-3.1
11
-0.8
In sommige landen eten ze drop in combinatie met
chocolade en vanille-ijs.
(In some countries they eat licorice in combination
with chocolate and vanilla-icecream)
Ice
67
1.9
14
2.2
65.1
60-74
Mean
Range
11.8
11-14
Drop varieert in hardheid door de hoeveelheid
ingedikt zoethoutwortel dat wordt toegevoegd
(Licorice varies in hardness, soft or hard, by the
amount of concentrated licorice root)
Niemand weet precies wanneer drop ontstaan is,
vermoedelijk in de Romeinse tijd
(Nobody exactly knows when licorice originated,
probably in Roman times)
Drop is populair in Nederland, maar ook in
Engeland, Scandinavië, en Duitsland
(Licorice is popular in the Netherlands, but also in
England, Scandinavia and Germany)
Mean
Range
Note. Theme ‘Licorice’ content, with tokens (T) and words (W) per sentence, giving mean tokens 65.1,
with a range of 60 till 74 tokens, and a mean word count of 11.8 words, with a range of 11 till 14 words.
Further the difference in word count compared with mean word count (W-M) and difference in token
count compared with mean token count (T-M)
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 29
Appendix B – List variable – content distribution
In tables B1 and B2 the distribution of the information of the items is presented; the list
variable. Table B1 presents the sentences of the fire tornado topic and table B2 presents the
sentences of the licorice topic.
Tab.B1 Distribution of Items among List Variable for the Fire Tornado Topic.
Fire to rnado
Box
Content code
List 1
List 2
List 3
Box
Content code
List 1
List 2
List 3
1
Type
Sul
Mur
Bdl
7
Trees
Sdl
Mdr
Bul
2
Japan
Mul
Bur
Sdl
8
Combination
Mdl
Bdr
Sul
3
Time
Bul
Sur
Mdl
9
Co-occur
Bdl
Sdr
Mul
4
Names
Sur
Mul
Bdr
10
Speed
Sdr
Mdl
Bur
5
Distance
Mur
Bul
Sdr
11
Feared
Mdr
Bdl
Sur
6
Height
Bur
Sul
Mdr
12
Phenomenon
Bdr
Sdl
Mur
Note. Circulation of content, themed ‘fire tornado’. First letter: small box, big box, second letter: up vertical
position, down vertical position, third letter: left horizontal position, right horizontal position.
Tab.B2 Distribution of Items among List Variable for the Licorice Topic.
Lico rice
Box
Content code
List 1
List 2
List 3
Box
Content code
List 1
List 2
List 3
1
Root
Sul
Mur
Bdl
7
Spend
Sdl
Mdr
Bul
2
Giorgio
Mul
Bur
Sdl
8
Popular
Mdl
Bdr
Sul
3
Percentage
Bul
Sur
Mdl
9
Originate
Bdl
Sdr
Mul
4
Kilo
Sur
Mul
Bdr
10
Hardness
Sdr
Mdl
Bur
5
Salt
Mur
Bul
Sdr
11
Produced
Mdr
Bdl
Sur
6
Pressure
Bur
Sul
Mdr
12
Producer
Bdr
Sdl
Mur
Note. Circulation of content, themed ‘licorice’. First letter: small box, big box, second letter: up vertical
position, down vertical position, third letter: left horizontal position, right horizontal position.
30 | Having a Top Spot
Appendix C – Example forms Exp erim ent 1 – releva nce scor e
This appendix presents an example of the forms that are used in experiment 1. The forms are in
Dutch, as the experiment was executed in Dutch. Throughout this appendix translations will be
given of the forms when needed.
Fig.C1. Example Web Chart
Figure C1 contains the sentences used for the fire tornado, for the translation see Appendix A,
table A1. This figure was presented with the following accompanying text; “Randomly assign
the twelve squares above a number from 1 to 12. Make sure the number is clearly written in the
square. You can skip the square with “Fire tornado”. After this, give a number that states how
relevant you find this information for the topic ‘fire tornado’ on the scale with the
corresponding number.” The scale was a 7-point liker-scale that varied form 1 (minimal
relevance) to 7 (maximal relevance). See Table C2 for the original text in Dutch.
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 31
Tab.C2. The Original Accompanying Text of Figure C1 in Dutch.
Geef de twaalf vierkanten hierboven willekeurig nummers van 1 t/m 12. Zorg ervoor dat de
nummers duidelijk in het vierkant staan. Daarbij kunt u het vierkant met “Vuurtornado”
overslaan. Geef daarna bij hetzelfde nummer hieronder op de schaal aan, hoe relevant u deze
informatie vindt voor het onderwerp “Vuurtornado”.
1. minimale relevantie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 maximale relevantie
2. minimale relevantie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 maximale relevantie
3. minimale relevantie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 maximale relevantie
4.
5.
6.
7.
minimale relevantie
minimale relevantie
minimale relevantie
minimale relevantie
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
maximale relevantie
maximale relevantie
maximale relevantie
maximale relevantie
8.
9.
10.
11.
minimale relevantie
minimale relevantie
minimale relevantie
minimale relevantie
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
maximale relevantie
maximale relevantie
maximale relevantie
maximale relevantie
12. minimale relevantie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 maximale relevantie
Note. The relevance score scale varied from 1 (minimal relevance) to 7 (maximal relevance).
After figure C1 and table C2, a form with demographic information was given. This form asked
the participants about their sex, their age, their dominant hand, their faculty and study year.
They were also given 3 statements about figure C1, which they had to respond on with a 7-point
likert-scale, see table C3. The last question was a multiple answer that asked how the read the
web chart. The original questions in Dutch are specified in table C4.
Tab.C3. The Statements about the Information in Figure C1.
Before this research, I already knew a lot about the topic
0
5
0
6
0
7
The information in this research was new for me
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not new
Nothing
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
3
0
4
3
4
5
6
7
The information was interesting
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not interesting 1
4
5
6
7
2
3
Note. For the original text in Dutch, see figure C4.
Everything
New
Interesting
32 | Having a Top Spot
Fig.C4. The Original Question about Demographical Information and the Web Chart in Dutch
–Vragenlijst –
Ik ben een
0 man
0 vrouw
Ik ben
0 linkshandig
0 rechtshandig
0 Zowel links- als rechtshandig
Mijn leeftijd is
Mijn faculteit
0 Humanities
0 Economics and Management
0 Law School
0 Social and Behavioural
0 Theology
Ik ben een
0 eerstejaars
0 tweedejaars
0 derdejaars
0 vierdejaars of ouder
0 pre-master
0 master
Stellingen
Ik wist voorafgaand aan het onderzoek al veel over het onderwerp
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Niets
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Alles
De informatie in dit onderzoek was nieuw voor mij
0
0
0
0
0
Niet nieuw
1
2
3
4
5
0
6
0
7
Nieuw
Ik vond de informatie interessant
0
0
0
Oninteressant 1
2
3
0
6
0
7
Interessant
0
4
0
5
Ik heb het figuur gelezen (meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)
0 van rechts naar links
0 van links naar rechts
0 van grote vierkanten naar kleine vierkanten
0 van onder naar boven
0 kriskas
0 van boven naar onder
0 van kleine vierkanten naar grote vierkanten
0 anders, namelijk …
0 weet ik niet
H.M. (Heleen) van de Lustgraaf | 33
Appendix D – Exampl e forms Exp eriment 2 – recall order scor e
This appendix gives an example of the forms that are used in experiment 2. The forms are in
Dutch, as the experiment was executed in Dutch. Throughout this appendix translations will be
given of the forms when needed. The form about demographical information in Appendix C is
also used in experiment 2, but will not be shown here.
Experiment 2 worked with a PowerPoint and forms. The first slide of the PowerPoint asked the
participant to follow the instruction on the slides and not to touch the keyboard to prevent
complications. Between slides participants were explained what would follow, what was
expected from them and how much time they would be given.
An important slide showed for example figure C1 of appendix C, with the question to
study the web chart. They had several minutes to observe the web chart, before the brainteaser
in figure D1 emerged. This translation of the accompanying text; “Find the six-numbered code
with help from the clues below. De numbers can vary from 0 to 6. The numbers 7, 8 and 9 are
not used in the code. Scratch off the numbers on the buttons A-F until the correct answer
remains. “
Fig.D1 Brainteaser
After the brainteaser the participants received the form presented in table D2. The translation of
this form; “Write down everything you know about the topic. There were 12 items in total; try
to write them all down. Keep an eye on the time!” Afterwards the form about demographical
information was given, see appendix C; figure C4.
Tab.D2. Recall Form
–Geheugentest –
Schrijf alles op wat je nog weet over het onderwerp. Er waren 12 feiten in totaal, probeer ze
allemaal op te schrijven. Houd de tijd in de gaten!
1.
2.
Etc.
Note. The original text had 12 lines to write down recall, to remember participants of the number of items.