pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01359 · v1 · pith:KMXH2VTVnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 💻 cs.HC

Mitigating Confirmation Bias through Hand-Drawing Videos

Chenyu Lin , Cindy Xiong , Icy Zhang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 18:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords confirmation biasdata visualizationhand-drawingbar chartsinterpretation accuracybelief overrideembodied pedagogy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hand-drawn videos of bar charts help viewers interpret data accurately even when it conflicts with their prior beliefs.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests an embodied approach where people watch charts being constructed through hand-drawing instead of seeing finished static images. An experiment compared static bar charts to hand-drawing videos in settings where the data either matched or contradicted participants' existing beliefs. Hand-drawn videos produced higher accuracy overall, fewer errors that fit prior beliefs, and more responses that went against those beliefs. The work argues that revealing the construction process reduces the distorting effect of confirmation bias on data reading. This points toward interface designs that present visualizations dynamically to support more objective interpretation.

Core claim

Observing the dynamic hand-drawing of a visualization supports more accurate reasoning and mitigates the influence of confirmation bias, as shown by improved interpretation accuracy even when data conflicts with prior beliefs, reduced belief-consistent errors, and increased belief-overriding responses.

What carries the argument

Hand-drawing videos that dynamically construct the visualization and thereby expose its construction process.

If this is right

  • Accurate interpretation rises even when data challenges prior beliefs.
  • Belief-consistent errors decrease when the drawing process is visible.
  • Belief-overriding responses become more frequent with hand-drawn videos.
  • Exposing the visualization construction process encourages more accurate reasoning across aligned and conflicting contexts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same construction-exposure principle could be tested on line graphs or scatter plots to check if the benefit generalizes beyond bar charts.
  • Interface builders might add user-controlled playback speed to hand-drawing videos to see whether active pacing strengthens the bias-reduction effect.
  • Educational tools could combine hand-drawing sequences with brief prompts that ask users to predict the next mark, turning passive watching into active engagement.

Load-bearing premise

Differences in interpretation accuracy are caused by the hand-drawing process itself rather than other uncontrolled factors such as video duration, motion, or participant attention.

What would settle it

An experiment that matches hand-drawn videos and static charts on duration, motion, and attention demands and still finds no accuracy difference in belief-conflicting conditions would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01359 by Chenyu Lin, Cindy Xiong, Icy Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Study design and procedure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Screenshots of the control (a) and experimental condition (b)–(d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Counterbalancing design for the transfer task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The distribution of Response Accuracy by condition; (b) The distribution of Response Accuracy by context; (c) The distribution of Response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Understanding data visualizations is essential for informed decision-making, yet interpretation is often shaped and even distorted by prior beliefs. We investigate whether an embodied pedagogical approach, in which viewers observe the dynamic hand-drawing of a visualization, can mitigate confirmation bias and improve interpretation accuracy. We conducted a study comparing static bar charts to videos in which charts are constructed through hand-drawing, across contexts that either align with or challenge participants' prior beliefs. The results indicate that hand-drawn videos helped participants accurately interpret data, even when the data conflicted with their prior beliefs. This approach also reduced belief-consistent errors and increased belief-overriding responses. These findings suggest that exposing the construction process of a visualization supports more accurate reasoning and mitigates the influence of confirmation bias. Consequently, this work introduces a promising design space for bias-mitigating data interfaces.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that an embodied approach of observing dynamic hand-drawing of bar chart visualizations mitigates confirmation bias and improves interpretation accuracy compared to static charts. A user study compared the two formats across belief-aligned and belief-challenging contexts; results are reported to show higher accuracy, fewer belief-consistent errors, and more belief-overriding responses with hand-drawn videos, suggesting that exposing the construction process supports better reasoning.

Significance. If the causal link to the hand-drawing process can be isolated from confounds, the work would open a design space for bias-mitigating visualization interfaces with potential applications in data literacy tools and decision-support systems.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The abstract reports positive results on accuracy and bias reduction but supplies no information on study design, sample size, controls, statistical methods, or exclusion criteria, preventing assessment of whether the data support the stated claims.
  2. Study design (throughout): The central comparison is limited to static bar charts versus hand-drawn construction videos; no matched-duration animated chart condition (e.g., computer-generated reveal or smooth animation) is described. This leaves motion, temporal change, and attention as uncontrolled confounds, directly weakening the attribution of effects specifically to the embodied hand-drawing process.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: The abstract reports positive results on accuracy and bias reduction but supplies no information on study design, sample size, controls, statistical methods, or exclusion criteria, preventing assessment of whether the data support the stated claims.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract omits key methodological details. This stems from typical length constraints, but we will revise the abstract to incorporate essential information including sample size, study design (between-subjects comparison of static charts vs. hand-drawing videos), statistical methods, and any exclusion criteria. Full details will continue to appear in the Methods section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Study design (throughout): The central comparison is limited to static bar charts versus hand-drawn construction videos; no matched-duration animated chart condition (e.g., computer-generated reveal or smooth animation) is described. This leaves motion, temporal change, and attention as uncontrolled confounds, directly weakening the attribution of effects specifically to the embodied hand-drawing process.

    Authors: We acknowledge this as a valid limitation of the current design. The study intentionally contrasted a standard static format against an embodied hand-drawing process to test the pedagogical value of observing construction, rather than general animation. However, without a matched animated control, effects cannot be attributed solely to the hand-drawing aspect versus motion or temporal unfolding. In revision we will explicitly discuss this confound in the Limitations section, temper claims accordingly, and outline it as a direction for future controlled experiments. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical user study with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports direct results from a user study comparing static bar charts to hand-drawn videos, with claims based on observed accuracy, error rates, and response patterns. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, ansatzes, or self-citation chains appear in the derivation of results; the central claims are presented as experimental observations without any reduction to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical HCI study; contains no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5662 in / 980 out tokens · 19040 ms · 2026-07-03T18:52:34.498363+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. W. Barsalou. Perceptual symbol systems.Behavioral and Brain Sci- ences, 22(4):577–660, 1999. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X99002149 1

    work page doi:10.1017/s0140525x99002149 1999

  2. [2]

    L. W. Barsalou. Grounded cognition.Annual Review of Psychology, 59:617–645, 2008. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 1

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 2008

  3. [3]

    A. M. Borghi and D. Pecher. Introduction to the special topic embodied and grounded cognition.Frontiers in Psychology, 2:187, 2011. doi: 10. 3389/fpsyg.2011.00187 1

    work page arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    P. A. Carpenter and P. Shah. A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4(2):75–100, 1998. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.4.2.75 1

    work page doi:10.1037/1076-898x.4.2.75 1998

  5. [5]

    Chaiken and D

    S. Chaiken and D. Maheswaran. Heuristic processing can bias system- atic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3):460–473, 1994. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460 1

    work page doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460 1994

  6. [6]

    Chang, A

    M. Chang, A. Malitek, K. Fukuda, and C. X. Bearfield. Early stage eye- fixations reveal belief-driven bias in correlation perception.Journal of Vision, 25(9):2132–2132, 2025. doi: 10.1167/jov.25.9.2132 1

    work page doi:10.1167/jov.25.9.2132 2025

  7. [7]

    Chuanromanee and R

    K. Chuanromanee and R. Metoyer. A crowdsourced study of visual strategies for mitigating confirmation bias. InProc. VL/HCC, pp. 1–6,

  8. [8]

    doi: 10.1109/VL/HCC53370.2022.9833151 1

    work page doi:10.1109/vl/hcc53370.2022.9833151 2022

  9. [9]

    Clark.Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension

    A. Clark.Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008. doi: 10.1093/acprof: oso/9780195333213.001.0001 1

    work page doi:10.1093/acprof: 2008

  10. [10]

    W. S. Cleveland and R. McGill. Graphical perception: Theory, experimen- tation, and application to the development of graphical methods.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387):531–554, 1984. doi: 10. 1080/01621459.1984.10478080 3

    work page arXiv 1984

  11. [11]

    J. S. B. T. Evans. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition.Annual Review of Psychology, 59:255–278, 2008. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 1

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 2008

  12. [12]

    J. E. Fan, W. A. Bainbridge, R. Chamberlain, and J. D. Wammes. Drawing as a versatile cognitive tool.Nature Reviews Psychology, 2(9):556–568,

  13. [13]

    doi: 10.1038/s44159-023-00212-w 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1038/s44159-023-00212-w

  14. [14]

    Fiorella and R

    L. Fiorella and R. E. Mayer.Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies That Promote Understanding. Cambridge University Press, 2015. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107707085 2

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9781107707085 2015

  15. [15]

    Fiorella and R

    L. Fiorella and R. E. Mayer. Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4):717–741, 2016. doi: 10.1007/ s10648-015-9348-9 2

    2016

  16. [16]

    Fiorella, A

    L. Fiorella, A. T. Stull, S. Kuhlmann, and R. E. Mayer. Instructor presence in video lectures: The role of dynamic drawings, eye contact, and instructor visibility.Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(7):1162–1171, 2019. doi: 10.1037/edu0000325 2

    work page doi:10.1037/edu0000325 2019

  17. [17]

    Fiorella and Q

    L. Fiorella and Q. Zhang. Drawing boundary conditions for learning by drawing.Educational Psychology Review, 30(3):1115–1137, 2018. doi: 10.1007/s10648-018-9444-8 2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10648-018-9444-8 2018

  18. [18]

    S. L. Franconeri, L. M. Padilla, P. Shah, J. M. Zacks, and J. Hullman. The science of visual data communication: What works.Psychologi- cal Science in the Public Interest, 22(3):110–161, 2021. doi: 10.1177/ 15291006211051956 1

    2021

  19. [19]

    Kahneman.Thinking, Fast and Slow

    D. Kahneman.Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. 1

    2011

  20. [20]

    Koonchanok, G

    R. Koonchanok, G. Y . Tawde, G. R. Narayanasamy, S. Walimbe, and K. Reda. Visual belief elicitation reduces the incidence of false discov- ery. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, art. no. 388, 17 pages, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3544548. 3580808 1

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548 2023

  21. [21]

    Z. Kunda. The case for motivated reasoning.Psychological Bulletin, 108(3):480–498, 1990. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 1

    work page doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 1990

  22. [22]

    B. Lee, D. Brown, B. Lee, C. Hurter, S. Drucker, and T. Dwyer. Data visceralization: Enabling deeper understanding of data using virtual reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1095– 1105, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030435 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2020.3030435 2021

  23. [23]

    S. Li, T. J. Davidson, C. X. Bearfield, and E. Wall. Confirmation bias: The double-edged sword of data facts in visual data communication. InProc. CHI, art. no. 1175, 16 pages, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3713831 1

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713831 2025

  24. [24]

    Lisnic, Z

    M. Lisnic, Z. Cutler, M. Kogan, and A. Lex. Visualization guardrails: Designing interventions against cherry-picking in interactive data explor- ers. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–19, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3713385 1

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713385 2025

  25. [25]

    Munzner.Visualization Analysis and Design

    T. Munzner.Visualization Analysis and Design. CRC Press, 2014. doi: 10 .1201/b17511 1

    2014

  26. [26]

    R. S. Nickerson. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.Review of General Psychology, 2(2):175–220, 1998. doi: 10. 1037/1089-2680.2.2.175 1

    1998

  27. [27]

    S. Pinker. A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle, ed.,Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing, pp. 73–126. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1990. 1

    1990

  28. [28]

    Qualtrics survey software

    Qualtrics. Qualtrics survey software. https://www.qualtrics.com,

  29. [29]

    Quillin and S

    K. Quillin and S. Thomas. Drawing-to-learn: A framework for using draw- ings to promote model-based reasoning in biology.CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(1):es2, 2015. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128 2

    work page doi:10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128 2015

  30. [30]

    Shah and J

    P. Shah and J. Hoeffner. Review of graph comprehension research: Impli- cations for instruction.Educational Psychology Review, 14:47–69, 2002. doi: 10.1023/A:1013180410169 1

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1013180410169 2002

  31. [31]

    K. E. Stanovich and R. F. West. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5):645–665, 2000. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00003435 1

    work page doi:10.1017/s0140525x00003435 2000

  32. [32]

    Tversky and D

    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science, 185(4157):1124–1131, 1974. doi: 10.1126/science. 185.4157.1124 3

    work page doi:10.1126/science 1974

  33. [33]

    Van Meter and J

    P. Van Meter and J. Garner. The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis.Educational Psychology Review, 17(4):285–325, 2005. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3 2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10648-005-8136-3 2005

  34. [34]

    Ware.Information Visualization: Perception for Design

    C. Ware.Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000. doi: 10.1016/c2009-0-62432-6 1

    work page doi:10.1016/c2009-0-62432-6 2000

  35. [35]

    M. Wilson. Six views of embodied cognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4):625–636, 2002. doi: 10.3758/BF03196322 1

    work page doi:10.3758/bf03196322 2002

  36. [36]

    Xiong, E

    C. Xiong, E. Lee-Robbins, I. Zhang, A. Gaba, and S. Franconeri. Rea- soning affordances with tables and bar charts.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 30(7):3487–3502, 2022. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2022.323295 1, 2

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Xiong, C

    C. Xiong, C. Stokes, Y .-S. Kim, and S. Franconeri. Seeing what you believe or believing what you see? belief biases correlation estimation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209405 1

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3209405 2022

  38. [38]

    Zhang, K

    I. Zhang, K. B. Givvin, J. M. Sipple, J. Y . Son, and J. W. Stigler. Instructed hand movements affect students’ learning of an abstract concept from video.Cognitive Science, 45(2):e12940, 2021. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12940 1

    work page doi:10.1111/cogs.12940 2021

  39. [39]

    Zhang, X

    I. Zhang, X. Guo, and J. Y . Son. Watching videos of a drawing hand improves students’ understanding of the normal probability distribution. Memory & Cognition, 2025. doi: 10.3758/s13421-024-01526-7 2

    work page doi:10.3758/s13421-024-01526-7 2025

  40. [40]

    Zhang, J

    I. Zhang, J. Y . Son, and J. W. Stigler. Toward a cognitive developmental theory of embodied learning in stem domains.Educational Psychologist, pp. 1–21, 2025. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2025.2576939 1

    work page doi:10.1080/00461520.2025.2576939 2025

  41. [41]

    I. Y . Zhang, M. C. Tucker, and J. W. Stigler. Watching a hands-on activity improves students’ understanding of randomness.Computers & Education, 186:104545, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104545 1

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104545 2022

  42. [42]

    C. Zhu, R. Klapwijk, M. Silva-Ordaz, J. Spandaw, and M. J. de Vries. Cognitive and embodied mapping of data: An examination of children’s spatial thinking in data physicalization.Frontiers in Education, 8:1308117,

  43. [43]

    doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1308117 2 5

    work page doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1308117 2023