Abstract
Humans tend to systematically underestimate exponential growth and perceive it in linear terms, which can have severe consequences in a variety of fields. Recent studies attempted to examine the origins of this bias and to mitigate it by using the logarithmic vs. the linear scale in graphical representations. However, they yielded conflicting results as to which scale induces more perceptual errors. In the current study, in an experiment with a short educational intervention, we further examine the factors modulating the exponential bias in graphs and suggest a theoretical explanation for our findings. Specifically, we test the hypothesis that each of the scales can induce misperceptions in a particular context. In addition to this, we explore the effect of mathematical education by testing two groups of participants (with a background in humanities vs. formal sciences). The results of this study confirm that when used in an inadequate context, these scales can have a dramatic effect on the interpretation of visualizations representing exponential growth. In particular, while the log scale leads to more errors in graph description tasks, the linear scale misleads people when they have to make predictions on the future trajectory of exponential growth. The second part of the study revealed that the difficulties with both scales can be reduced by means of a short educational intervention. Importantly, while no difference between participants groups was observed prior to the intervention, participants with a better mathematical education showed a stronger learning effect at posttest. The findings of this study are discussed in light of a dual-process model.