On Nov 14, 2015, at 3:02 PM, Christopher Green <chri...@yorku.ca> wrote:
> I must apologize to all and sundry. One of my intrepid grad stats students > discovered that the “Obamacare Enrollment” bar graph that I sent around > yesterday does not actually come from FOX News, but is from a Saturday Night > Live spoof of Fox News. But as we all know, there are so many other great examples, and not just from Fox News. The attached graph is from Business Insider (June 6, 2012; http://www.businessinsider.com/these-two-charts-prove-a-college-education-just-isnt-worth-the-money-anymore-2012-6 ). I’ve also placed the graph in my dropbox at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1r3cpmj1p8vof12/diminishing-return.jpg?dl=0 Do you see the problem? The graph is discussed on this page: http://www.statisticshowto.com/misleading-graphs/ I also found what sounded like an interesting paper that reported a positive correlation between the use of graphs (versus tables) in psychology journal articles and the perceived “hardness” of the psychological field in which the research was done. But so far, I’ve only read the abstract. I’m wondering if its results section will contain other examples of misleading graphs. Best, Jeff =========================== Smith, L. D., Best, L. A., Stubbs, D. A., Archibald, A. B., & Roberson-Nay, R. (2002). Constructing knowledge: The role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. American Psychologist, 57(10), 749-761. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.10 ABSTRACT Because graphs provide a compact, rhetorically powerful way of representing research findings, recent theories of science have postulated their use as a distinguishing feature of science. Studies have shown that the use of graphs in journal articles correlates highly with the hardness of scientific fields, both across disciplines and across subfields of psychology. In contrast, the use of tables and inferential statistics in psychology is inversely related to subfield hardness, suggesting that the relationship between hardness and graph use is not attributable to differences in the use of quantitative data in subfields or their commitment to empiricism. Enhanced "graphicacy" among psychologists could contribute to the progress of psychological science by providing alternatives to significance testing and by facilitating communication across subfields. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) =========== -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffry Ricker, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Social/Behavioral Sciences Scottsdale Community College 9000 E. Chaparral Road Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626 Office: SB-123 Fax: (480) 423-6298 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DrJeffryRicker/timeline/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeffry-ricker/3b/511/438 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=47394 or send a blank email to leave-47394-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
