IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2018 Jan;24(1):781-790. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2744298. Epub 2017 Aug 29.
We provide a reappraisal of Tal and Wansink's study "Blinded with Science", where seemingly trivial charts were shown to increase belief in drug efficacy, presumably because charts are associated with science. Through a series of four replications conducted on two crowdsourcing platforms, we investigate an alternative explanation, namely, that the charts allowed participants to better assess the drug's efficacy. Considered together, our experiments suggest that the chart seems to have indeed promoted understanding, although the effect is likely very small. Meanwhile, we were unable to replicate the original study's findings, as text with chart appeared to be no more persuasive - and sometimes less persuasive - than text alone. This suggests that the effect may not be as robust as claimed and may need specific conditions to be reproduced. Regardless, within our experimental settings and considering our study as a whole (), the chart's contribution to understanding was clearly larger than its contribution to persuasion.
我们重新评估了塔尔和万辛克的研究“被科学蒙蔽”，其中展示了看似微不足道的图表，据称这增加了人们对药物疗效的信心，因为图表与科学有关。通过在两个众包平台上进行的一系列四项复制实验，我们研究了另一种解释，即图表使参与者能够更好地评估药物的疗效。综合考虑，我们的实验表明，图表确实促进了理解，尽管效果可能非常小。同时，我们无法复制原始研究的发现，因为带有图表的文本并不比纯文本更有说服力——有时甚至更没有说服力。这表明，这种效果可能不如声称的那样稳健，可能需要特定的条件才能重现。无论如何，在我们的实验环境中，并考虑到我们的整个研究（），图表对理解的贡献显然大于对说服的贡献。
