But new research shows that in some cases, it’s possible to sway them with just the right presentation of that data.

In a recent study co-authored by David Budescu, Ph.D., Fordham’s Anne Anastasi Professor of Psychometrics and Quantitative Psychology, 217 policymakers who attended the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris were asked to predict how much global temperatures will increase by the year 2100.

In a control study, a group of MBA students were recruited and asked to predict the same question.

The question was put to both groups before seeing three different graphical depictions of predicted temperature increases from data gathered from 30 climate models, and again after they viewed each graph.

Budescu said the idea was to see if policymakers and climate negotiators—who tend to use scientific information in a very conservative way and rarely allow it to influence their beliefs—might reconsider their perspective if the same information were presented to them in different formats.

In “COP21 Climate Negotiators’ Responses to Climate Model Forecasts,” a paper published in 2017 in the journal Nature Climate Change, Budescu and his co-authors show how one graphical model proved more persuasive than the other two.

One graph was a boxplot that covered 90 percent of the predicted temperatures from the 5th to 95th percentile of the data; The second graph was the same boxplot but also showed the extreme  data points outside the 90 percent range of predicted temperatures;  The Third graph contained the same boxplot but also included all 30 data points (inside and outside of the box).

The original judgments of the two groups were highly similar, but the MBA students, who had no preconceived notions about the subject, updated their beliefs about future temperature increases after seeing each of the model predictions. But policymakers were largely unconvinced.

It was only the last format, with more detail, that convinced some policymakers to alter their predictions of future temperature increases, even though all three graph presentations illustrated the temperature increases.

Budescu and his team hypothesized beforehand that policymakers would resist changing their perspective after viewing the first two graphs. Their hypothesis was that the less-detailed presentations would be associated with less credible information by the policymakers, who might then assume the information presented didn’t merit their reconsideration.

He said that the study was geared toward climate change because the issues are a uniquely challenging one for policymakers to grasp.

“They need to make decisions based on models that predict rises in global temperatures that are inherently uncertain,” he said.

The same lessons can be applied for any complex topic in need of straightforward answers, where presentation makes a difference in persuasion, said Budescu.

“Quite often the decision about how to present information is not done by persons who have an expertise in communication. It’s often people who are scientists or lawyers. They’ll say “Here’s the data, we’ll present it to them, and if they are smart and they understand what’s best for them, they will figure it out,’” he said.

But that’s a naïve assumption, he said.

“You can have first-rate data, but if you cannot communicate it in a way that the recipients of the information will understand and digest, then the data will not have the impact you’d would like it to have.”

Budescu is congratulated by Father McShane, left, and Stephen Freedman, Ph.D., senior vice president for academic affairs, right. Photos by Chris Taggart

The prestigious chair, established with a bequest created in Anastasi’s name, enhances the legacy of the former Fordham professor whose book, Psychological Testing, is considered by many to be the definitive text in the field of testing.

Anastasi was a member of the Fordham faculty from 1947 to 1985 and chair of the Department of Psychology. Her career as a researcher, mentor and educator began when she was accepted to Barnard College as a 15 year old. In 1987, she received the National Medal of Science from President Ronald Reagan. She also broke boundaries as one of the few female presidents of the American Psychological Association. Anastasi died in 2001.

“All things were possible with Anne Anastasi,” said Joseph M. McShane, S.J., president of Fordham. “She was a force of nature, both on campus and in her field. We will be forever in her debt for what she did for Fordham. Because of her generosity, she continues to enable us to take our place in the front ranks.”

“It is always an honor for a researcher to be recognized by being endowed with a chair,” Budescu said. “It is even greater that it is named for someone who was a role model for so many of us.”

Following his inauguration, Budescu gave the first annual Anastasi Lecture on “A Decision Theoretical Perspective on Psychometrics: Analyzing Test-Taking Behavior.” He said that psychometric theorists could devise more accurate test measurements if they incorporated the test-takers’ behaviors into the standardized multiple-choice test design.

Budescu delivers the first Anastasi Lecture.

“There is commonality in the decision process that goes into betting on a horse, or betting on commodities, [or]when a test taker takes multiple choice tests,” Budescu said. That commonality includes patterns of human behavior that are not part of a psychometric approach, he explained. Unfortunately, ignoring patterns of behavior can affect the  quality of measurement in tests.

Budescu pointed to several examples from his research of ways to improve the accuracy of multiple-choice tests:

–    while psychometric-designed tests typically favor small numbers of multiple choice options—typically three or four—tests actually improve when there are more multiple choice options—say five or six;

–    current formula scoring in the SAT test is not optimal because it only recognizes “perfect knowledge or absolutely no knowledge,” leaving no room for “partial knowledge.” (On SATs, students are not penalized for leaving a blank, but are penalized for a wrong answer.)

“It assumes that people are perfectly clear about what they know, when data shows that people are very bad at judging their own state of knowledge—therefore we can’t expect them to judge correctly whether they know or not,” he said.

In fact, research showed that students did better when they ignored SAT instructions to “answer only what you know” and answered everything based on what they thought most likely to be correct.

Lastly, Budescu said that the psychometric-based design of “key balancing,” where answers appear with equal probability in all positions (A, B, C, D) can be exploited by smart test-takers.

“The cartoon character Linus said that ‘if you’re smart, you can pass a true or false test without being smart,’ and he was right,” Budescu said.

Budescu said he tells students to follow the “underdog strategy” when taking standardized tests. First, answer all the questions to which you think you know the answer. Then, count how many times you used each letter (A, B, C, etc.)

“Then you take the least used letter and fill in the rest,” Budescu said to laughter. “You can gain between 10 and 16 points, which is usually in line with the results of what people gain from coaching.”

Budescu suggested new test designs that include randomizing keys, developing new item choice formats and instructing students to always answer the questions.

“Theory can be improved if it reflects empirical observations about behavior,” he said. “Economic theorists have become more aware of behavioral results. I’d like to think that psychometric theorists will adopt the same approach.

“It will improve the quality of the measures,” he said.
–Janet Sassi