| Quick find
|
Graphology a valid science (!?) and ethical concernshome > mentalism articles > Graphology a valid science and ethical concerns This article is an excerpt taken from the graphology section of Katterfelto in which graphology is thoroughly discussed including the actual techiques a professional graphologist (or grapho-analyst) uses as well as the theory behind it. There follows a complete structured graphological demostration. “What does the research tell us, and what does it fail to tell us, about graphology? First, there is virtually no research that supports the use of graphology as an effective selection technique… Given that there is little research demonstrating the effectiveness of graphology in employee selection, why do so many companies use it? That is difficult to say. Graphology has face validity to many people. It “makes sense” to them, and seems like it should work. Anecdotal information of coincidence has also served to generate a misplaced faith in the technique.” (Thomas, Vaught, 2001) To most people the ability to tell something about a person by analysing their handwriting seems quite reasonable. For instance, many people with no graphological training can tell the difference between male and female writing and that of older or younger writers. In the UK , there has been less and less emphasis on penmanship in schools. Consequently, there is a noticeable difference in handwritten scripts through the generations. At a basic level, a child's grip on the pen and mastery of stroke is less proficient than that of a more practiced adult. Girls, much more often than boys, embellish their handwriting with over-sized dots over lower-case I's and J's. People angry or under stress will be expected to press harder into the page and write erratically. A well known stereotype of the ‘maniac' is that they pen their missives TOTALLY IN CAPITAL LETTERS! It seems more than reasonable to suggest that the state of a person's handwriting says something about their intentions, or state of mind. As children, we were all instructed at one point or another to write “in our best handwriting”. As adults, we find ourselves doing the same thing for very important samples. Someone whose writing is sloppy or barely legible appears to take little interest in the impression left with the reader. If we want to leave a good impression with the reader we will, as we did as children, write our letters in our best handwriting. The idea that it was possible to tell something about a person by their writing was evident prior to the (recent) advent of chip and pin credit cards. Even though the signature of the credit card holder was written on the back of the card, the signature of the card user would be scrutinised – as if it were not possible for an impostor to successfully copy something so personal as a signature! In fact, when graphologists study signatures, they expect to see variations in genuine samples. Where near perfect copies are found in the same sample, red flags shoot up rapidly. Not only does graphology appear plausible enough, the idea is nothing new. The very fact that such a thing exists, is practiced professionally and is accepted in many areas positively reinforces the idea that graphology, for want of better word, is ‘real'. Analysis of handwriting can be traced back to Ancient Greece; the term ‘graphology' is at least 130 years old (Thomas, et al 2001). On the face of it, graphology passes a simple common sense test, but what hard evidence is there for the validity of graphologist's claims? Crider (1941) tested the abilities of two graphologists. There were eighteen subjects and sixteen personality traits. All the subjects were tested with standard psychological tests. The graphologists did not agree with the psychological tests, or each other. Frederick (1965) tested eighty subjects, half of which were patients from a mental hospital and half were students. All the subjects were asked to produce neutral and personal samples of handwriting. The examiners were graphologists, psychologists and students. The graphologists failed to produce more accurate results. Kimmel and Wertheimer (1966) gave a certified graphologist twenty-two samples of handwriting. All the subjects were tested independently by two psychologists. The psychologists agreed on a statistically significant level for three out of five traits. The graphologist did not agree with either psychologist. Vestewig, Santee , Moss (1976) carried out an investigation called “Validity and Student Acceptance of the Graphoanalytic approach to Personality.” Six graphologists couldn't accurately predict personality from handwriting samples and the differences in their analysis varied so much that their findings were deemed unreliable. There was no agreement between them and a standard personality test carried out on the subjects, and those subjects did not recognise the personality traits ascribed to them by any of the graphologists. Lester, McLaughlin and Noscal (1977) compared graphological ratings for extroversion to objective psychological tests and found no evidence for graphological validity. In another extroversion test, Rosenthal and Lines (1978) measured letter width, slant and shape in an attempt to verify graphologist claims. They found no significant correlation between handwriting and extroversion. Lester and Hoyd (1981) measured handwriting slant and relation to emotion. Their conclusion? Handwriting slant does not measure the influence of emotions. Rafaeli and Klimoski (1983) brought together a hundred and three subjects, all estate salesman, from eleven locations in Ohio . Twenty graphologists and a group of students were asked to make performance predictions and rate specific job traits based on handwriting samples. The findings would be compared against self-ratings, supervisor ratings and dollar value on sales and listings. There was a satisfactory level of reliability among the graphologists but the results showed only minimal support for the ability to rate job traits based on handwriting. Ben-Shakhar, Bar-Hillel, Bilu, Ben-Abba and Flug (1986) carried out two tests with bank employees. In the first test, graphologists, psychologists and graduate students attempted to rate the bankers on job-related traits. These were compared with supervisor reports and the bank's own personality tests. There was no significant difference between the graphologist's findings and that of the control group. In the second test, handwriting samples were used to predict the occupation of the writer. None of the graphologists could predict the occupations of the writers in a statistically meaningful manner. Just because there is scads of research suggesting otherwise, it doesn't mean that graphology isn't a perfectly valid way of determining the likely future behaviour of a particular individual. Graphologists will be quick to point out that much of the so-called research into the validity of graphoanalysis isn't valid in itself. For instance, graphologists are looking for indicators of how someone is feeling on a subconscious level. Any researcher who doubts, or downright denies, that such a thing as a ‘subconscious' exists will automatically dismiss graphologist's claims. This kind of ‘proof' merely begs the question, often relying on the reputation of the denier rather than any scientific evidence. The research methods have been criticized in many cases. Subjects were often given the wrong type of pen or even a pencil to write with or were asked to copy from a supplied text. People given pens they are not used to handling will not produce a reliable sample of their penmanship. Copying from a text involves constant shifts in concentration from the supplied passage to your own writing which will obviously disturb any emerging clues as to the nature of your subconscious state. There were, of course, other quibbles. The samples were too small, a simple paragraph is not enough and when larger samples of a subject's writing was available to graphologists, they were more accurate in their analysis (see Harvey, 1934). The main, and most convincing, grievance has been that research has often tested claims genuine graphologists simply don't make for their science/art. No reputable graphologist, for example, would claim to be able to divine a person's occupation merely from reading a sample of their handwriting. There have been studies finding in favour of graphology. Originator of the IQ tests Alfred Binet found positive results (1904). So did Powes (1932) in a test involving 17 graphologists, 143 undergraduates and 25 faculty members, with the graphologists outperforming the others. Harvey (1934) obtained high reliability coefficients by correlating two samples of writing for each subject, carried out in different conditions. His research giving weight to the claim that greater samples of an individual's handwriting are more effective when studying complex character traits. Eysenck (1945), a major contributor to the scientific theory of personality, claimed that graphology “could be of outstanding importance to abnormal as well as experimental psychology.”(Bradley, 2001). Fluckiger, Tripp and Weinberg (1961) reviewed literature from the 30s to the 60s and concluded that personality traits such as “intelligence, neuroticism, feelings of ascendance or dominance, anxiety, impulsiveness, energy and expressiveness” (Sackheim, 1990) could be determined from handwriting. An interesting and macabre study was carried out by Frederick (1968). He wanted to see if graphologists could tell the difference between genuine and copied suicide notes. 180 actual suicide notes were used with groups of trained graphologists, detectives and secretaries. The control consisted of handwritten notes copied from originals. The graphologists were the only group to exceed chance in a statistically meaningful manner. Crumbaugh and Stockholm (1977) gave two graphologists handwriting samples from five subjects and asked them to prepare single page character summaries. The graphologists' findings were judged by people who knew the subjects well. The graphologists exceeded chance at a significant level. Drory (1986) tested one graphologist: sixty employees were appraised on thirteen traits. The appraisal was compared to ones carried out by their company for the same variables. The graphologist's evaluations were highly significant for ten of the thirteen traits. While there seems to be just about as many positive outcomes (for graphology) as there are negative ones, there seems little to convince us of the scientific legitimacy of graphology. The most we can safely assume is that there may be something in it. In certain situations, under certain conditions, graphologists can identify some character traits, recognised by some people, with a better than chance success rate. It's worth noting here that graphology isn't limited to purely psychological investigations. Kanfer and Casten (1958) investigated neuromuscular coordination of cancer patients. They looked at the aberration of written strokes on a microscopic level and managed to predict the presence (or absence) of cancer with statistically significant results (Farberow, Atherton, 1963). Opinion on graphology is certainly divided and ranges from total dismissal to total acceptance. When discussing how parapsychology should be handled in psychology textbooks, Kalat (1993) writes, “[we] do not expect authors to describe the newest approaches in graphology or astrology; the basic ideas are as flawed today as in the past.” Readers of this manuscript will be treating graphology as a form of entertainment similar to palmistry or tarot reading with, perhaps, a heavier emphasis on science. If graphology is a legitimate and useful science (unlike, say, astrology) then the ethics of performing graphology as a sideshow act need to be considered. Obviously there are ethical considerations whenever we deal with the public. If, as performers, we are taken to be doing more than merely entertaining, then there is a chance that advice given flippantly or for the purposes of maintaining a performance may be taken seriously and acted upon by spectators. And so care must be taken with how we present ourselves to the public. The added ethical dimension in this case is that if graphology is a potentially useful science then treating it as a sideshow entertainment may damage the reputation and development of graphology as a professional practice. Bradley (2000) expresses concern for the public image of graphology. He argues that graphology has a poor image, which is due to a poor understanding of what graphology actually is. Misunderstanding of graphology is down to, in large part, the various different groups and types of people who are seen to use it, from psychologists, through private investigators, to charlatans. Bradley isn't the only person to comment on this; almost every writer in support of graphology laments the use of the science/art as a sideshow act. You will have to decide how you are going to use graphology for entertainment. Personally, I think all but the weakest claims for graphology should be taken with a fistful of salt. It is a disturbing fact that over 3000 businesses in the US and 85% of European businesses use graphology to assess and make judgments about their employees (Fischman, 1987). Employer reasons for using graphologists are often cited as graphology being cheaper than assessments by a professional psychologist and that polygraph tests on employees are illegal (Hopper, Stanford, 1982). I do not think that there is sufficient evidence supporting most of the claims made for graphology and so I don't want to lend any support to the idea through my trickery. However, it is not my place nor am I qualified to ‘debunk' graphology. You may also be interested in Real Fake Handwriting Analysis |