🤖 AI Summary
This study investigates how non-literal visual metaphors in data visualization—such as the “octopus diagram”—can unintentionally elicit conspiracy-style causal attribution: the over-attribution of diverse, unrelated events to a single, hidden central agent. Employing historical image analysis, a large-scale crowdsourced experiment (N = 1,248), visual rhetoric analysis, and semantic interpretation modeling, the research systematically demonstrates—for the first time—that even in the absence of explicit octopus imagery, specific visual features (e.g., radial centrality, high-weighted connections, ambiguous boundaries) reliably activate analogous cognitive patterns. Six high-risk visual design features are identified, and a novel analytical framework—linking *visual rhetoric*, *cognitive attribution*, and *ethical responsibility*—is proposed to expose the latent epistemic and ethical impacts of visualization. The findings yield the first empirically grounded, ethics-oriented design guidelines for mitigating conspiracy-prone interpretations in data visualization practice.
📝 Abstract
Conspiratorial thinking can connect many distinct or distant ills to a central cause. This belief has visual form in the octopus map: a map where a central force (for instance a nation, an ideology, or an ethnicity) is depicted as a literal or figurative octopus, with extending tendrils. In this paper, we explore how octopus maps function as visual arguments through an analysis of historical examples as well as a through a crowd-sourced study on how the underlying data and the use of visual metaphors contribute to specific negative or conspiratorial interpretations. We find that many features of the data or visual style can lead to"octopus-like"thinking in visualizations, even without the use of an explicit octopus motif. We conclude with a call for a deeper analysis of visual rhetoric, and an acknowledgment of the potential for the design of data visualizations to contribute to harmful or conspiratorial thinking.