Abstract
We compare two visualization methods for interactive portfolio selection: heatmaps and parallel coordinates. To this end, we conducted an experiment to analyze differences in terms of subjective user evaluations and in terms of objective measures referring to effort, convergence, and the structure of the search process. Results indicate that subjects who used the parallel coordinates visualization found the method easier to use, perceived the selection process as being less effortful, and experienced less decisional conflict than subjects who used the heatmap visualization. Concerning objective measures, we did not find significant differences in the time taken to complete the selection task. However, we found that subjects who used parallel coordinates engaged in a more exploratory approach when investigating the space of efficient portfolios. Finally, the experiments clearly showed that decision-making styles play an important role in users’ attitude toward the visualization method. Our findings suggest that the choice of visualization method has a considerable impact on both the users’ subjective experiences when using a decision support system for portfolio selection, and on their objective performance.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aloysius JA, Davis FD, Wilson DD, Taylor AR, Kottemann JE (2006) User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: the impact of preference elicitation techniques. Eur J Oper Res 169(1):273–285
Anderson E (1960) A semigraphical method for the analysis of complex problems. Technometrics 2(3):387–391
Andrews D (1972) Plots of high-dimensional data. Biometrics 28(1):125–136
Auman JT, Boorman GA, Wilson RE, Travlos GS, Paules RS (2007) Heat map visualization of high-density clinical chemistry data. Physiol Genomics 31(2):352–356
Baiocco R, Laghi F, D’Alessio M (2009) Decision-making style among adolescents: relationship with sensation seeking and locus of control. J Adolesc 32(4):963–976
Bierstaker JL, Brody RG (2001) Presentation format, relevant task experience and task performance. Manag Audit J 16(3):124–128
Borthick AF, Bowen PL, Jones DR, Tse MHK (2001) The effects of information request ambiguity and construct incongruence on query development. Decis Support Syst 32(1):3–25
Buchanan JT (1994) An experimental evaluation of interactive MCDM methods and the decision making process. J Oper Res Soc 45(9):1050–1059
Bystroem K, Jaervelin K (1995) Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Inform Process Manag 31(2):191–213
Campbell DJ (1988) Task complexity: a review and analysis. Acad Manag Rev 13(1):40–52
Chernoff H (1973) The use of faces to represent points in k-dimensional space graphically. J Am Stat Assoc 68(342):361–368
Chu PC, Spires EE (2000) The joint effects of effort and quality on decision strategy choice with computerized decision aids. Decis Sci 31(2):259–292
Coll R, Thyagarajan A, Chopra S (1991) An experimental study comparing the effectiveness of computer graphics data versus computer tabular data. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 21(4): 897–900
Coll R, Coll J, Thakur G (1994) Graphs and tables: a four-factor experiment. Commun ACM 37(4):77–86
Cook D, Hofman H, Lee EK, Yang H, Nikolau B, Wurtele E (2007) Exploring gene expression data, using plots. J Data Sci 5(2):151–182
Davis F (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart 13(3):319–340
De P, Sinha AP, Vessey I (2001) An empirical investigation of factors influencing object-oriented database querying. Inform Technol Manag 2(1):71–93
Dickson G, DeSanctis G, McBride DJ (1986) Understanding the effectiveness of computer graphics for decision support: a cumulative experimental approach. Commun ACM 29(1): 40–47
Eisen MB, Spellman PT, Brown PO, Botstein D (1998) Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95(25):14863–14868
Gambetti E, Fabbri M, Bensi L, Tonetti L (2008) A contribution to the Italian validation of the general decision-making style inventory. Pers Indiv Differ 44(4):842–852
Gefen D, Straub D (1997) Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quart 21(4):389–400
Gehlenborg N, Dietzsch J, Nieselt K (2005) A framework for visualization of microarray data and integrated meta information. Inf Vis 4(3):164–175
Hair JF (2010) Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River
Inselberg A (1985) The plane with parallel coordinates. Vis Comput 1(2):69–91
Inselberg A (2009) Parallel coordinates – visual multidimensional geometry and its applications. Springer, Berlin
Inselberg A, Dimsdale B (1990) Parallel coordinates: a tool for visualizing multi-dimensional geometry. In: Proceedings of the first conference on visualization. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, pp 361–378
Kamis A, Stohr E (2006) Parametric search engines: what makes them effective when shopping online for differential products? Inform Manag 43(7):904–918
Kibbey C, Calvet A (2005) Molecular property explorer: a novel approach to visualizing SAR using tree-maps and heatmaps. J Chem Inform Model 45(2):523–532
Kleiner B, Hartigan JA (1981) Representing points in many dimensions by trees and castles. J Am Stat Assoc 76(374):260–269
Koedoot N, Molenaar S, Oosterveld P, Bakker P, de Graeff A, Nooy M, Varekamp I, de Haes H (2001) The decisional conflict scale: further validation in two samples of dutch oncology patients. Patient Educ Couns 45(3):187–193
Korhonen P (1991) Using harmonious houses for visual pairwise comparison of multiple criteria alternatives. Decis Support Syst 7(1):47–54
Korhonen P, Moskowitz H, Wallenius J (1990) Choice behavior in interactive multiple-criteria decision making. Ann Oper Res 23(1):161–179
Korhonen P, Alexander O, Mechitov A, Moshkovich H, Wallenius J (1997) Choice behaviour in a computer-aided multiattribute decision task. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 6(4):233–246
Kottemann J, Davis F (1991) Decisional conflict and user acceptance of multicriteria decision-making aids. Decis Sci 22(4):918–926
Larkin J, Simon H (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn Sci 11(1):65–100
Lee Z, Wagner C, Shin HK (2008) The effect of decision support system expertise on system use behavior and performance. Inform Manag 45(6):349–358
Loo R (2000) A psychometric evaluation of the general decision-making style inventory. Pers Indiv Differ 29(5):895–905
Lotov A, Miettinen K (2008) Visualizing the Pareto frontier. In: Branke J, Deb K, Miettinen K, Slowinski R (eds) Multiobjective optimization (LNCS 5252). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 213–243
Lotov A, Bushenkov V, Chernov A (1997) Internet, GIS and interactive decision maps. J Geogr Inform Decis Anal 1(2):118–149
Lotov AV, Bushenkov VA, Kamenev GK (2004) Interactive decision maps, approximation and visualization of Pareto frontier. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Lusk E, Kersnick M (1979) The effect of cognitive style and report performance on task performance: the MIS design consequences. Manag Sci 25(8):787–798
Mennecke B, Crossland M, Killingsworth B (2000) Is a map more than a picture? The role of SDSS technology, subject characteristics, and problem complexity on map reading and problem solving. MIS Quart 24(4):601–629
Meyer J, Shinar D, Leiser D (1997) Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs. Hum Factors 39(2):268–286
Podowski RM (2006) Visualization of complementary systems biology data with parallel heatmaps. IBM J Res Dev 50(6):575–581
Pyrke A, Mostaghim S, Nazemi A (2007) Heatmap visualisation of population based multi objective algorithms. In: Obayashi S, Deb K, Poloni C, Hiroyasu T, Murata T (eds) Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (LNCS 4403). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 361–375
Scott S, Bruce R (1995) Decision-making style: the development and assessment of a new measure. Educ Psychol Meas 55(5):818–831
Smelcer J, Carmel E (1997) The effectiveness of different representation for managerial problem solving: comparing tables and maps. Decis Sci 28(2):391–420
Spicer D, Sadler-Smith E (2005) An examination of the general decision making style questionnaire in two UK samples. J Manag Psychol 20(2):137–149
Stummer C, Kiesling E, Gutjahr WJ (2009) A multicriteria decision support system for competence-driven project portfolio selection. Int J Inform Technol Decis Making 8(2):379–401
Swink M, Speier C (1999) Presenting geographic information: effects of data aggregation, dispersion, and users’ spatial orientation. Decis Sci 30(1):169–195
Thunholm P (2004) Decision-making style: habit, style or both? Pers Indiv Differ 36(4):931–944
Thunholm P (2008) Decision-making styles and physiological correlates of negative stress: is there a relation? Scand J Psychol 49(3):213–219
Venkatesh V, Davis F (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(2):186–204
Venkatesh V, Morris M (2000) Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quart 24(1):115–139
Vessey I (1991) Cogntive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decis Sci 22(2):219–240
Wood R (1986) Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 37(1):60–82
Zhang L, Kuljis J, Liu X (2008) Information visualization for DNA microarray data analysis: a critical review. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C Appl Rev 38(1):42–54
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kiesling, E., Gettinger, J., Stummer, C., Vetschera, R. (2011). An Experimental Comparison of Two Interactive Visualization Methods for Multicriteria Portfolio Selection. In: Salo, A., Keisler, J., Morton, A. (eds) Portfolio Decision Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 162. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9943-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9943-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-9942-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-9943-6
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)