ReviewVision (Basel, Switzerland)2023
The Use of Visualizations to Improve Bayesian Reasoning: A Literature Review.
Review in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explaining success in Bayesian reasoning with the adaptive toolbox and expertise.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Interactive, Personalized Patient Decision Aid for COVID-19 Vaccination in Canada: User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Repeated exposure rivals lightweight training in Bayesian inference: accuracy, retention, and generalization.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Presentation format influences the strength of causal illusions.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- The impact of problem domain on Bayesian inferences: A systematic investigation.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- "R" you getting this? Factors contributing to the public's understanding, evaluation, and use of basic reproduction numbers for infectious diseases.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Decisions are often made under uncertainty. The most that one can do is use prior knowledge (e.g., base rates, prior probabilities, etc.) and make the most probable choice given the information we have. Unfortunately, most people struggle with Bayesian reasoning. Poor performance within Bayesian reasoning problems has led researchers to investigate ways to improve Bayesian reasoning. Many have found success in using natural frequencies instead of probabilities to frame problems. Beyond the quantitative format, there is growing literature on the use of visualizations or visual representations to improve Bayesian reasoning, which will be the focus of this review. In this review, we discuss studies that have found visualizations to be effective for improving Bayesian reasoning in a lab or classroom setting and discuss the considerations for using visualizations, paying special attention to individual differences. In addition, we will review the factors that influence Bayesian reasoning, such as natural frequencies vs. probabilities, problem format, individual differences, and interactivity. We also provide general and specific suggestions for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.