Graphology: Connections Between Handwriting and Personality are Illusory
Mind-myth 8: At first glance the myth that our personalities might be hidden in our handwriting is attractive. The way each of us writes is so personal, apparently in just the same way our personalities are so individual. Handwriting is also a mode of personal expression, a creative act we have been developing our whole lives.
Sure, people can guess the author's gender from a handwriting sample about 60% to 70% of the time, bearing in mind that 50% is pure chance. People also perform better than chance at guessing an author's socioeconomic status from their handwriting. But can you really read any deep psychological truths into a person's handwriting?
Maybe people who have fast handwriting are impulsive? Maybe untidy handwriting means depression? Graphologists (not to be confused with forensic document examiners) have gone much further, though, in interpreting handwriting. They have made all sorts of claims, including that graphology can help you:
- Select your perfect marriage partner.
- Find out whether your partner is cheating on you.
- Identify which potential employees will become violent on the job.
- Decide which applicants for a loan are credit-worthy.
Impressive claims, no? Let's check them out...
Putting graphology to the test
Geoffrey Dean has reviewed two hundred different studies into whether graphology can tell us anything about personality (Dean, 1992). Adding up the effect of each of these studies showed that graphology has a combined power of about...wait for it...zero. Well, not quite zero but still very, very small - so small as to be insignificant.
The respectability of graphology within the scientific community has now been all but wiped out.That's not to say that some of the plentiful studies on graphology don't find more positive results, some of them do, even though they're usually still small. But unsurprisingly these studies are published by graphologists themselves in sources that cannot be considered reputable. For example they paid for it to be published.
Of the studies that are published in peer-reviewed journals that use rigorous scientific methodologies, hardly any show an effect. As a result the respectability of graphology within the scientific community has now been all but wiped out.
Using graphology in personnel selection
Of course the simple fact that empirical studies show it has no validity hasn't stopped graphologists continuing to make all sorts of claims for their 'science'.
Barry Beyerstein, who was well-known as an investigator of questionable psychological techniques and products, points out that claims about the validity of graphology are potentially damaging. Beyerstein (2007) explains how he was once told by a graphologist that he had been sexually molested by his parents and that he had a drug problem. Needless to say neither of these 'interpretations' were true.
Perhaps one of the most widespread, and potentially damaging uses, is in recruitment. It is thought between 5% and 10% of businesses in both the US and the UK use graphology as part of the recruitment process.
Graphology has exactly the same validity in personnel selection as astrology, i.e. noneIn other parts of the world the figure is even higher. Astonishingly between 38% and 93% of businesses in France use graphology - probably because one of graphology's pioneers, Jean Hyppolyte Michon, was French. Still, it's difficult to know exactly how many companies still use it because many deny it, despite probably using it (Bradley, 2005).
They're right to keep it secret: it's embarrassing.
A recent review of the literature on the use of graphology specifically in recruitment was carried out by the British Psychological Society. They found that graphology has exactly the same validity in personnel selection as astrology, i.e. none.
Accepting the evidence
We have to bow to the sheer weight of evidence against graphology.The reason people tend not to think too critically about graphology is probably because it seems so intuitive. Indeed studies have shown that people know how to change their handwriting so as to affect other people's impression of them (Loewenthal, 1975). In other words we seem to share some beliefs in common about what certain features of handwriting signify although these connections are merely illusory.
Despite the intuitive nature of the connections between handwriting and personality, we have to bow to the sheer weight of evidence against graphology. And this evidence keeps telling us that it doesn't work. Consequently people who believe in graphology should rightly be treated with the same suspicion as those who believe in astrology. Humour them if you wish, educate them if you can, but don't take them seriously.
» Find out if any other mind-myths catch you out.
[Image credit: margolove]
References
Beyerstein, B. L. (2007). Graphology - a total write-off. In: S. D. Sala (Ed.). Tall tales about the mind and brain: separating fact from fiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bradley, N. (2005). Users of Graphology. Graphology, the Journal of the British Academy of Graphology.(January) 69, 55-57.
Dean, G. (1992). The bottom line: effect size. In: B. L. Beyerstein, D. F. Beyerstein (Eds.). The write stuff: evaluations of graphology - the study of handwriting analysis. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Loewenthal, K. (1975). Handwriting and self-presentation. Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 267-270.
Join 22301 readers
Is a bit of fun though, nothing more.
And the article still does not explain why we develop such varied ways of writing. Can anyone answer me that?
Laura.
One thing is for sure...
A person who writes legibly cares somewhat about whether others can read what he/she has written.
A person who writes with beautiful penmanship will bring pleasure to a percentage of those who read his or her writings. That certainly tells tou something about the personality of the writer.
This article seems to be suffering from a few fallacies of discourse--mainly that it's begging the question (that, of course, Graphology is un-scientific) and thus assumes precisely what it's arguing. So the article's not overly informative, which is sad as I'm really quite interested in the phenomenon of graphology and how it's viewed in the scientific community.
I know the art/psuedoscience of it and practice it occasionally; it's a fun way to get to know people and occasionally freak them out. I know easily 70% of my interpretations are cold-reading, but there does seem to be some substance to that last 30% ;)
Graphology is much more specific then identifying gender or socio-economic statis. In fact, the graphology I'm familiar with doesn't even attempt such overly-broad generalizations.
Instead, it suggests particular character traits will be found in an individual, to a greater or lesser degree. Perhaps the reason these researchers didn't find what they were looking for was because they were looking for the wrong thing?
It makes sense that one's personality will impact how shapes are formed and connected. I have never seen this proven wrong in any person's handwriting yet.
How about they subject volunteers to a character assessment test, and then submit handwriting examples to graphologists? Please be sure to use a fair number of women graphologists, though, the men aren't as emphathetic and they tend to fill gaps in their knowledge with hyperbole.
Neither gender nor income level is a character trait, you fool, so of course you won't find that in someone's handwriting.
Apologies for the fool comment, it only occurred to me at the last second why the researchers were having trouble. They need to look for character traits, not genetic or social markers.
Roger, maybe a little, but not that much.
Jaded, it may seem that way, but there isn't much substance!
stupidwhiteperson, I think you've misread the article. The research has looked at the connection between character traits and personality and they found very little connection.
When I was training a wide variety of personnel, I found those with less education and who rarely wrote during the job often wrote neater than the highly educated. My theory is that those who had to take university notes at top speed (e.g., med student) got use to doing what it took, so long as they could still read it. Those who learned to write properly but never pushed it to those limits kept their nice writing. Admittedly, in a group assignment, they'd chose the best writer, but some of those almost illiterate men had beautiful handwriting. My grandfather was manager of a mine, and once told me, a junior engineer, "I refused to read handwritten reports. That's what typists are for." His other grand-daughter, a doctor, prides herself in neat penmanship, at least in notes to others. She's a tidy and successful person and shows it in her dress, office decoration, demeanor, and handwriting. Also, her audience and what she has to say are important.
However, you can tell some things. Europeans have a very different cursive than Americans. The system taught in America has changed several times, with different levels of slant and fancy useless strokes.
Jeremy's article suffers from stereotypical criticisms of graphology. Over many years I have carefully reviewed all of the "evidence" he cites with a different interpretation.
For example Geoffrey Dean did not examine 200 studies - because that many do not exist: he used meta-analysis which does have problems - but even then he detected validity. His work should be updated (or repeated).
The Psychological Society Position Paper is exactly that - a position - which is fair enough. But tracing the evidence used in the paper one must feel that the subject deserves more research. The reality is that good evidence is not available to support or to attack graphology.
When I met Dean in London he told me he felt that it merits further attention. Eysenck also held this view. I find the stance taken by this post to be extremely narrow-minded.
Nigel Bradley, University of Westminster