16-10-2010
International Graphological Research Centre
Quality Assured
About us
Graphology Analysis
Graphology Courses
Research Associates
Required in Graphology
Scientific Graphology
IGRC Assessment Model
Contact
graphoresearch.com/scientific-graphol…
Graphological Rresearch|Scientific Gra…
Home | Analysis | Courses | Sitemap | Associates required | Contact
Scientific Graphology
To the casual observer, handwriting analysis enjoys greater plausibility than other occult or pseudoscientific ways of
reading personality. Take astrology or palmistry, for instance. It is hard for a thinking person today to imagine how
the stars or creases on the palm could affect human behavior. But it seems at least possible that, inasmuch as writing
is a form of expressive behavior, it might reveal something about ourselves. After all, our mannerisms and choice of
clothing, jewelry, and hair styles seem to do so -- at least to some degree.
Moreover, because writing and personality are both controlled by the brain, the suggestion that they could be related
doesn't seem inherently absurd. And since both personality and handwriting are undeniably idiosyncratic, many
consider it reasonable that one might reflect the other. Nonetheless, despite their surface plausibility each of these
arguments is seriously flawed.
Graphologists have largely convinced an uninformed public that their craft is a scientifically respectable way of
assessing personality, aptitudes, and predilections. This is reinforced by the unfortunate fact that many large
corporations do consult graphologists. Similarly, many people assume that graphology must be legitimate because it
has occasionally been accepted in court.
What is Graphology?
Graphology is the science and art of determining people's psychological, social, occupational, and medical attributes
from the configuration of their letters, lines, and paragraphs on a page. The term "Graphoanalysis" is the registered
trademark of a particular school of handwriting analysis, the International Graphoanalysis Society, of Chicago,
Illinois. In this chapter "graphology" and "handwriting analysis" will be used interchangeably but "Graphoanalysis"
or "Graphoanalyst" will refer only to followers of the Chicago school. Founded in 1929, it is the best-established of
the training organizations. It offers mail-order courses, publishes its own journal, and confers official-sounding
certification on its graduates. Graphoanalysts are also the most vocal in claiming scientific status while denying that of
their rivals
Such backbiting among graphological factions is frequent. There are over thirty graphological societies in the U.S.
alone, with many using methods that a proponent says are "not easily combined with other systems." This lack of
standardization is compounded by the fact that many local practitioners make up their own intuitive schemes. While
there are some concepts common to most systems of handwriting analysis, there are equally notable disputes as to
what the various "signs" mean. Take, for instance, two books by internationally known graphologists that I reviewed:
one considers a certain way of crossing t's indicative of a vicious, sadistic temperament, the other says it's a sign of a
practical joker.
The History of Graphology
Graphology is a branch of the large, diverse group of practices collectively known as "character reading." Since
ancient times, people have been fascinated by human variability and the uniqueness of the individual. It is on this basis
that we apportion life's richest prizes and most dreadful punishments. Obviously, those whose fates hang in the
balance have a strong incentive to present a favorable face to the world, and for that reason, hucksters promising to
cut through what is euphemistically called "impression management" have always found an eager clientele. Think of
the advantages if potential employers, landlords, spouses, business associates, or courts of law could quickly and
accurately reveal "what someone is really like." At various times, it has been assumed that such a window on
anyone's inner make-up could be gained by interpreting the positions of the stars (astrology), the features of the face
(physiognomy), the lines on the hand (palmistry), bumps on the head (phrenology), and the shape and distribution of
handwriting (graphology). Although modern graphologists have tried to disavow all links to their occult cousins,
handwriting analysis, in its origins, its underlying rationale, and its New Age affiliations, retains obvious ties to these
magical character reading methods.
There are ancient Chinese, Greek, and Roman, as well as early Jewish and Christian ancestors of graphology, but its
modern incarnation can be traced to the speculations of the seventeenth-century Italian physician, Camillo Baldi. The
most recognizable forebears of current devotees, however, are to be found among an influential group of Catholic
clergy in nineteenth-century France. A disciple of that circle, Abb Jean-Hippolyte Michon, coined the term
"graphology" and, in Paris in 1871, founded The Society of Graphology. Michon's several books remain influential
today. He is the progenitor of the so-called "analytic" approach which ascribes specific traits to people based on
isolated "signs" in writing, such as placement of dots on i's and crossbars on t's. Michon's student, Crepieux-Jamin,
broke with his master to become the founder of what is known today as the "holistic" or "gestalt" approach. Rather
than attending to individual elements of letters, etc., Crepieux-Jamin advocated a more intuitive, impressionistic
perusal whereby the analyst absorbs an overall "feel" for the writer by a vague sort of "resonance" with the script as a
1/8
16-10-2010 Graphological Rresearch|Scientific Gra…
whole. Partisans of the analytic and the holistic approaches have perpetuated this split to the present day.

French graphologists continued to dominate the field until the early twentieth century when they started to be eclipsed
by German-speaking authors. At that time, figures such as Preyer, Meyer, Klages, Pulver, and Teltscher began to
suggest that writing was a sub-species of expressive movement and that mental processes and emotionality could be
read by analyzing this kind of psychomotor behavior. Realizing that the brain is responsible for both psychological
traits and the control of writing, they attempted to justify their personality readings with the assertion that "handwriting
is brainwriting."

In the 1930s, the Czech-English graphologist Saudek, attempted to introduce more rigorous, mechanized ways of
measuring writing movements. Increasing the precision of measures that are of doubtful value in the first place must
rank as a dubious contribution, however. Early in this century, graphological speculation began to emerge in North
America. Following Downey in 1919 and the arrival of the European emigre Klara Roman, Americans such as M.N.
Bunker [5] gradually came to the fore. In 1929, Bunker founded the International Graphoanalysis Society.
Handwriting analysis by all estimates continues to grow in popularity throughout North America and Europe but it
seems to enjoy the greatest appeal among employers in France and Israel. In modern China, reading personality
from calligraphy seems not to have permeated official circles but it remains a popular folk superstition.

The Underlying Rationale

Present-day graphologists maintain that their venerable ancestors have taken graphology well beyond its occult
beginnings when itinerant conjurers wandered the countryside practicing the art. Be that as it may, perusal of the
latest graphology texts reveals that the seminal concepts remain precisely what they were in the beginning. Claims of
scientific improvements notwithstanding, my review of dozens of books touted by well-known graphologists shows
that, like all other systems of augury or divination, the underpinnings of graphology remain the ancient principles of
sympathetic magic. It is not encouraging when aspirants to scientific status respond to critics' requests for the
technical treatises of their trade with the same works hawked by popular magazines and New Age booksellers.

Numerous examples to show that very latest graphological celebrities still rely on principles of sympathetic magic to
derive a writer's attributes from his or her script. Graphologists have done their best to disguise this fact by
embedding their speculations in modern-sounding psychobabble, but one need only compare their "signs" with the
traits they supposedly denote to see that the basis of the ascriptions is entirely allegorical.

The founders of every school of graphology began with the implicit assumption that whatever metaphors the features
of an individual's script bring to mind are necessarily descriptive of the writer as well. This kind of free association
and symbolic interpretation underlies all divining practices . This remains as true of graphology today as it was when
ancient oracles foretold the fates of kings by assuming that mental associations triggered by the shapes of animal
entrails would be re-enacted in the affairs of the realm. In another old auguring practice, molybdomancy, the oracle
would drop molten lead on a flat surface and interpret the shape it assumed as it solidified—the blob, it seems,
magically adopts the shape of things to come. After perusing the following examples, you can decide for yourself
whether graphology has really abandoned its roots in divination.

The allegorical thinking in these representative samples culled from graphology textbooks and articles. Wide spacing
between words supposedly denotes someone who does not mix easily and is therefore prone to be isolated and
lonely. Conversely, writers who crowd their words together are so desperate for companionship that they are
indiscriminate in choosing their friends. Writers whose lines drift upward are "uplifting" optimists while those whose
lines sag downward are pessimists who constantly feel they are being dragged down. People who draw the upper,
middle, and lower sections of their letters equally large have "a good sense of proportion." Those with variable letter
slants are unpredictable, or, as one graphologist put it, they are people with "changing inclinations." Writers of
unusually large capital I's have large egos and those who write big, "think big." A past president of a major US
graphological association asserts that if a married woman pens her signature with larger capitals on her given name
than on her husband's surname, she betrays an unhappy marriage. One of Canada's most prominent handwriting
gurus describes a writer with crosses on his it’s that reminded her of whips, thus revealing his sadistic nature.

What do Graphologists Claim?

The vast majority of handwriting analysts are self-taught from popular books or trained by self- accredited
correspondence schools or unaccredited night school classes. "Watch one, do one, teach one" could be the motto of
the field. Although I could not find a single reputable textbook in psychological testing that treated graphology with
anything but disdain, graphologists still claim to be a misunderstood and unfairly maligned branch of psychology. Few
graphologists, in my experience, have had anything close to an adequate background in psychological measurement
or modern personnel methods. Though they claim persecution from a hostile establishment bent on preserving its turf,
graphologists seem oblivious to the fact that if their techniques really worked, and the orthodox professionals were as
venal as they claim, the licensed practitioners would long ago have stolen these powerful tools and muscled out the
self-credentialed amateurs. Sensitive to their resemblance to fortune tellers, graphologists claim they do not foretell
the future. But what conceivable value would there be in describing a stranger if it were not assumed that the
description would predict how he or she would act in the future?

graphoresearch.com/scientific-graphol… 2/8
16-10-2010 Graphological Rresearch|Scientific Gra…

There are few areas of human nature and mental or physical health that graphologists do not feel competent to
assess. That a single technique could apply in so many different areas flies in the face of almost everything in modern
research on psychological measurement. Such grandiosity and ignorance of relevant research is almost grounds in
itself for dismissing graphology.

Graphologists claim to discern temperament (e.g., self-confidence, optimism, profligacy, complacency, or an

explosive temper). They also believe writing reveals mental qualities such as intelligence, reasoning ability, and
intuitiveness, and social traits such as introversion, friendliness, and dominance. In the workplace, they claim to rate
leadership, reliability, diligence, attention to detail, propensity to be a team-player, and far, far more. On the moral
and ethical side, graphologists pass judgement on people's honesty, trustworthiness, generosity, piety, cruelty,
jealousy, criminal tendencies, etc.

How to determine marital suitability occupies a large portion of almost every graphology text. Sexuality is also
supposed to have a multitude of written signs. Although graphologists typically demand to know the gender of the
writer in advance, they are happy to pronounce on his or her secret sexual orientation and/or deviance, as well as
promiscuity and capacity for intimacy. Could it be that they want to know gender in advance because it is too simple
to check the accuracy of such a guess? (Ironically, untrained novices can discern the gender of writers in an
anonymous sample with approximately 70% accuracy.) Probably for similar reasons, handwriting analysts will
not guess the writer's age, but are happy to rate slippery attributes like "maturity" that offer plenty of room to fudge if
challenged.

The alleged ability to derive medical diagnoses from writing has been alluded to already. As I have explained
elsewhere, certain medical problems do affect writing, but in not in the way the graphologists assume. In the
psychological sphere, graphologists claim everything from neuroticism and general stability to psychoses, phobias,
depression, psychopathy, and a host of other clinical symptoms are all there for the asking.
Many of the aforementioned categories are combined when graphologists approach the criminal justice system. They
claim to expose actual or potential criminal behavior as well as deceitfulness, lack of self-control, violence proneness,
and sociopathic tendencies. Graphologists say they can help the police apprehend suspects and aid the courts in
selecting juries and determining both guilt and appropriate punishment. Marne's Sex and Crime in Handwriting offers
numerous ways of exposing different kinds of criminals. Unfortunately, the betraying signs are all recognized after-
the-fact in the writing of previously convicted felons. Marne, as usual, offers no evidence that she could reliably
identify the guilty parties in an anonymous pile composed of scripts of convicts and upright citizens (and providing, of
course, the contents of the scripts contained no useful clues, which they typically do).

Rationale behind graphology, for the essence of magical thinking is that causes resemble their effects and are
therefore interchangeable. Case in point: graphotherapists insist that personality causes writing causes personality.
What better evidence of this could we seek than Bunker's [5] assertion: "He [Bunker's client] had made a few
changes in his writing—not major changes, and he had achieved results." In this case, the writer, with minor
retrenchments in his penmanship, was miraculously redeemed from his previous persona, that of a suicidal
spendthrift. Here we see another common attribute of crackpot science, namely that effects are posited which are
dramatically disproportionate to the magnitude of their alleged causes. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

In philosophy, any doctrine can be dispatched merely by showing it to be internally inconsistent. Graphology is so
vague and self-contradictory that devotees have ample room to explain away blatant errors. On the one hand (no
pun intended), they say writing is such a sensitive psychological barometer that it varies, moment-to-moment, in
response to subtle mood changes. But in the next breath, they will tell you writing is so impervious to change that you
cannot hide your true nature by intentionally falsifying your script—the real you will still shine through. Even though
normal and disguised script from the same person look different, they still denote the same traits for the graphologist;
but if those same disparities were found in the scripts of two different people the graphologist would say they were
indicative of different traits. Graphologists also reply to those who say their writing varies in response to haste,
writing posture, desire to make an impression, etc., that, though the writing is obviously different on those occasions,
it still denotes the same personal attributes. If you try to deceive the graphologist by disguising your handwriting, your
rigid personality stubbornly keeps the graphological signs intact, but if you change your writing at the behest of a
graphotherapist, your malleable personality will realign itself to reflect the new, improved script. One manual for
aspiring graphologists cautioned neophytes not to become discouraged, because not everyone with a given sign has
the suggested trait and not everyone with the trait has the sign. How could the system ever fail? This ability to be all
things to all people makes graphology essentially unfalsifiable. On that ground alone, it can be excluded from the
house of science.

Critiques of the "Official" Rationales for Graphology

Several oft-heard rationalizations for why handwriting analysis ought to work.

Handwriting is brainwriting. Yes it is, but walking is also controlled by the brain, so should we henceforth refer
to it as "brainstepping”. Just because something is controlled by the brain, it necessarily correlates with any other

graphoresearch.com/scientific-graphol… 3/8
16-10-2010 Graphological Rresearch|Scientific Gra…
traits, aptitudes or propensities? That is a claim to be supported with evidence, not glibly assumed. Vomiting has an
associated center in the brain too. Does that justify using individual regurgitation styles to assess someone's intimate
make-up?

The neural substrates of writing and personality actually supplies some of the best arguments against graphology. For
instance, brain damage can alter either writing or personality, independently. There is no evidence that if a head injury
affects personality, writing will necessarily change too—as it should if graphology were valid. Furthermore, there is
no reason to suspect that the brain mechanisms responsible for writing and those for temperament and aptitudes
could be linked in the lockstep fashion necessary if graphology were to be taken seriously. Research on the
physiological correlates of personality shows that individual traits are not localized in circumscribed brain areas that
could conceivably be mapped, one-to-one, onto the minute muscle programs that create particular writing features.
The graphologists' naive notions of how the brain determines personality (not to mention their outmoded conceptions
of personality itself are virtually identical to those of the discredited system of phrenology. Graphology would require
a brain organization akin to that posited by the phrenologists to make it remotely plausible. For this necessary but
unlikely brain organization to exist, it would either need to have evolved (and thus be inherited), or be acquired early
in life. Either way, the implications for graphology are daunting.

If natural selection shaped brain structure such that it could allow connection of every minute character trait with a
unique writing movement, graphologists should be able to suggest what possible survival advantages this profligate
use of biological resources might have conferred. So far, no graphologist has even realized that this is a serious
impediment to scientific acceptance of graphology.

If, instead, one views expression of personality in writing as an acquired skill, the difficulties for graphology are
equally grave. Since writing is obviously a learned behavior, how does the brain unerringly modify every learned
writing movement to make it congruent with each of the numerous traits a child will grow up to express? What kind
of mechanism could conceivably ensure that everyone who is destined to be devious will acquire the same neural
program, say, to make l-loops in the same way? Do parents ever say, "Anil, you are obviously gifted with leadership
talents, be sure to form your capitals in this way, instead of the way your teacher showed you"? Writing also varies
across language groups. What differences in early experience in the various linguistic communities ensure that the
infant's brain will develop into the appropriate variant so that it will attach emerging personality traits to quite different
writing movements if the child happens to learn the Chinese as opposed to the Russian, Arabic, Hebrew, or Roman
alphabets? Writing in all of these scripts admittedly becomes personalized, but that individuality arises from
biomechanical factors quite different from, and far more interesting than, the graphologists' parochial conjectures .

The graphologists' "brainwriting" argument is true but irrelevant to their claims. This rationale would only be
necessary if there were a need to explain a proven relationship between writing and other personal attributes.
Unfortunately for graphology, much empirical research, reviewed below, says such correlations are illusory in the first
place.

Writing is individualized and personality is unique, so each must reflect the other. Aside from the obvious
logical flaw in this argument, why should we accept, without good evidence, that any two admittedly idiosyncratic
aspects of a person will necessarily bear any particular relationship to one another?

Writing is a form of expressive movement, so it should reflect our personalities. While it is true that there are
legitimate studies linking a few global aspects of temperament to certain gestural styles, these data offer no comfort
to the graphologists who attempt to ride on their coattails. The kinds of personal styles found to be loosely related to
expressive body movements are much more general than the narrow traits the graphologists claim to infer from
writing. A tendency to be forceful, irascible, or domineering might be readable from body language but, even there,
the correlations are too weak to be useful in making the kind of detailed ascriptions graphologists attempt.
The police and courts use graphology, so it must be valid.
Some misguided officials have employed handwriting analysts in forensic settings, but the practice is not as
widespread as graphologists imply. As a group, police officers, lawyers, and judges are no more or less prone to
erroneous beliefs than anyone else. Faced with difficult decisions where no other method offers certainty (an ideal
breeding ground for superstitions), some in the criminal justice system occasionally get swept up in hopeful nonsense,
just like the rest of us. The vast majority do not endorse graphology or psychics, however. Graphologists
occasionally offer their services to the police and get a polite hearing, as any citizen is entitled to. And for reasons
related to the subjective validation effect.

The artificially inflated reputation enjoyed by handwriting analysis is largely due to the tendency to confuse the
profession of graphologist with that of a questioned document examiner (QDE). As Dale Beyerstein has observed,
nonsense often rides piggyback on sensible knowledge, and graphology, though it bears only the most superficial
resemblance to scientific document examination, misappropriates the latter's well-deserved prestige. Both fields
analyze handwriting, but that is where the similarity ends.

A QDE is a scientifically-trained forensic investigator who also has considerable knowledge of the history of papers,
graphoresearch.com/scientific-graphol… 4/8
16-10-2010 Graphological Rresearch|Scientific Gra…
inks, writing implements, systems of penmanship, and styles of expression. QDEs are respected experts who are
frequently consulted by the police and the courts. Their modus operandi is quite different from that of a graphologist,
however. The job of a QDE is to establish the provenance and authenticity of documents, some of which are
handwritten. Unlike a graphologist, a legitimate QDE would never attempt to discern the personality of the writer
from the script he or she examines. Where appropriate, the QDE will compare the writing in disputed documents to
known samples from the hand of the putative author. Thus a typical question for a QDE might be, "Is this an
authentic letter from Mozart to his patron or a clever forgery? Or, "Did the defendant in the dock write this ransom
note?" By comparison, a typical question for a graphologist might be, "Does this writer harbor a secret resentment of
authority?"

If need be, a QDE will chemically analyze the ink, microscopically examine the fibers and watermarks of the paper,
and look for distinctive marks left by different kinds of writing instruments. In addition, he or she might compare
grammar, style, and punctuation to social or historical norms, all for the purpose of establishing when, where, and by
whom a given document was written. The exposure of the infamous "Hitler Diaries" as forgeries showed QDEs
working at their best. As consultants in litigation or historical disputes they are asked only to rate the probability that
a given person wrote the document in question, not to pass on the guilt, innocence, or any other psychological trait of
the alleged author. That a few QDE's also practice graphology on the side also leads to confusion in the public mind.
Most QDEs are just as unhappy at being confused with a graphologist as an astronomer would be if mistaken for an
astrologer.

Hard-nosed personnel managers swear by graphologists' usefulness in selecting employees. Some do.
Most do not. Regardless, there are many reasons, other than the validity of graphology, that could account for these
relatively rare endorsements. First, there is ample reason to believe that, even if they are not aware of it,
graphologists use other, non- graphological clues that could highlight the better candidates. For instance, the contents
of handwritten application letters are rich in useful biographical information. Although graphologists claim to ignore
these leads, there is evidence to the contrary. Also, graphologists often chat up the managers who consult them to
see which candidates the employers are already leaning toward. Thus the graphologist is often privy to conventional
information about the applicants and, in many cases, merely reinforces the managers' intuitions. Employers are often
interested, as much as anything else, in this kind of reassurance that their hunches are correct. This helps soothe the
unease that surrounds the inherently error-prone practice of hiring and the high costs of a mistake. Graphologists can
supply this peace at mind because they make comforting but highly inflated claims that ethical personnel experts
would not and could not make. And, finally, in a corporate hierarchy, where covering one's backside is a
fundamental imperative, it is also prudent to have someone like a graphologist to blame if the risky procedure of
selecting an employee turns out badly.

Another unearned source of satisfaction with graphology stems from the fact that employers rarely give the scripts of
all applicants to a graphologist—hat would be too expensive. The graphologist usually sees only the scripts of short-
listed applicants, those already selected on the basis of superior education, work experience, supervisors'
recommendations, etc. Thus it is likely that everyone in this much-reduced pool would be at least adequate for the
job. Because the rejects are not given a chance to show what they could do if hired, we have no way of knowing
whether they would have performed as well as or better than the applicant recommended by the graphologist. And,
of course, the mere fact that a graphologist has anointed the successful candidate may affect later appraisal of his or
her job performance. Much research on so-called "halo effects" shows that a recommendation from a trusted source
can make average performance seem better than it is and can also make supervisors more apt to excuse less than
adequate performance as a temporary aberration. The vast literature on "cognitive dissonance" shows that people
who have staked their reputations or significant amounts of money on a course of action, especially if others have
questioned its advisability, have strong psychological motives to interpret the outcome as favorable, even in the face
of contrary evidence.

In scientific tests of the ability of graphologists to recognize job-relevant traits, it is possible to control for these
spurious sources of consumer satisfaction. Klimoski contrasts the methods of scientifically-based personnel selection
with those of graphologists. He conducted many studies designed and carried out with the collaboration of eminent
graphologists who approved all procedures in advance. In controlled tests in the workplace, handwriting analysis has
fared very poorly.

Graphologists must have noticed over the centuries that certain kinds of people write in certain ways.
They might have, but they didn't. Systematically tabulating any relationships between personality and writing is the
way a scientific investigator would have proceeded but, there is overwhelming evidence that graphology has always
followed the rules of divination rather than those of modern personality research. In fact, as Dean, Kelly, Saklofske,
and Furnham forcefully argue, the founders of graphology couldn't possibly have kept track of the huge number of
independently varying combinations of writing and personality traits necessary to be able to extract any such
patterns, had they existed in the first place.
As they also point out, that is because:
Graphological effects are too small to have been reliably observed.
Graphological features are too numerous to be reliably combined.
graphoresearch.com/scientific-graphol… 5/8
16-10-2010 Graphological Rresearch|Scientific Gra…
Assessment of the match between graphology and the person suffers from too many biases to allow valid

Psychologists have shown that, without sophisticated aids, human cognitive abilities are not capable of tracking the
interrelationships of that many variables simultaneously. As it turns out, modern mathematical techniques that would
reveal such patterns find none, but even if they had been there, graphologists did not really go about looking for them
systematically. The intuitive approach they did adopt would have been incapable of extracting any possible signals
from the noise.

The Empirical Evidence For and Against Graphology

Geoffrey Dean, who has carried out an exhaustive review of the literature. In any area of scientific controversy, a
single study practically never decides the issue. It is only through the patient accumulation of many experiments,
replicated by different investigators with converging methodologies, that a dependable pattern will emerge. Until
recently, the most common way of trying to settle disputes in contentious areas was essentially to take a "box
score"—i.e., so many studies for conclusion X and so many against—the preponderance carrying the day. Not all
empirical findings should count equally in such a tally, however. Those studies with larger sample sizes, better
methodology, and less noisy data ought to carry heavier weight in the grand adjudication. Fortunately, there has
emerged a way of factoring such considerations into the overall assessment, and thereby drawing more reliable
conclusions from multiple studies on a given topic. It is called "meta-analysis." Dean's review of the empirical
research on graphology applied this mathematical technique to assess the cumulative effect of over 200 published
studies from numerous countries and in several languages .

In deciding whether graphology really works, Dean addressed questions about both its reliability and validity. In the
case of reliability, we are asking about the consistency or repeatability with a given measurement technique. I.e., if an
operator repeats a measurement, or different operators use it on the same object, will the results concur? The former
is called "test-retest reliability," the latter, "inter-rater reliability." Imagine a rubber yardstick that gave variable results
on each attempt—how useful would such an implement be? In technical terms, we would say that it had low
reliability. Reliability is an essential, but not sufficient, condition for acceptance of a measurement method.

Unless a measuring instrument is reliable, it cannot have validity which is defined as the ability of the technique, test,
etc., to measure what its proponents say it measures. A mercury thermometer provides a valid measure of mean
kinetic energy, for instance, but it would lack validity as a measure of gravitational pull. A thermometer is reliable in
that, all things being equal, repeated observations usually produce very close to the same result. That reliability, by
itself, is no guarantee of validity can be seen from the following. If I assert that counting the number of moles on your
back is a good way to estimate your intelligence, I could probably get roughly the same total on successive counts
(i.e., the measure has reliability), but you would be right to ask me for evidence of its validity as an index of
intelligence. To satisfy you, I would need to present independent confirmation that variability in mole density in the
population at large correlates well with accepted criteria of intelligence. Obviously, this it would not do, so the
measure lacks validity.

With respect to graphology, reliability within and across practitioners trained by the same school has been tolerable
in some, but not all, studies. Sometimes when the same sample of writing was submitted twice it came back with
more or less the same profile after two perusals by the same graphologist or from both tries by two different
graphologists where even this minimum requirement was not met). Since the various graphological schools often
disagree, one would not expect the same result from followers of different systems. But even if graphology in the
hands of well-practiced disciples of the same school gives the same answer on repeated assessments of the same
script, is that sufficient reason to believe that it will be accurate when it is used to predict your degree of friendliness,
honesty, creativity, or devotion to an organization?

Computing scientists constantly warn us about the GIGO problem: "Garbage In, Garbage Out." In other words, no
matter how accurately a computer might follow its program, if you feed it meaningless input, it will methodically grind
out equally inane results. Consistently-processed rubbish is still rubbish. Increasingly, graphologists are appealing to
the unwary by advertising that they now use computers, hoping by adopting these trappings of science to acquire a
patina of respectability. Computerization may increase the reliability of graphological attributions, but if the raw
materials of an analysis (slants, pressures, flourishes, i-dots, etc.) are not valid indicators of personality traits, then the
fact that the computer derives a similar portrait of the client on multiple tries is of little comfort. And that, in a nutshell,
is the question: "Are graphological 'signs' valid indicators of their supposedly correlated personality traits or
aptitudes?"

In order to answer questions about validity, one must have a criterion for the trait that is supposedly indicated by the
measure. If we are evaluating a test that claims to predict superior sales ability, for instance, the criterion might be the
agent's total annual sales or the number of deals closed per number of contacts. An acceptable test would have to
show not only that those who do the test tend to be high on such criteria but also that those who do poorly end up at
the bottom of the sales charts. In his worldwide search for empirical evaluations of graphology, Dean unearthed
more than 200 studies that had unambiguous criteria of this sort and were acceptable with respect to sample sizes,
experimental controls, statistical analyses, etc. After subjecting these studies to a meta-analysis, Dean showed that
graphoresearch.com/scientific-graphol… 6/8
16-10-2010 Graphological Rresearch|Scientific Gra…
graphologists have failed unequivocally to demonstrate the validity or reliability of their art for predicting work
performance, aptitudes, or personality. Graphology thus fails according to the standards a genuine psychological test
must pass before it can ethically be released for use on an unsuspecting public.

Dean found that no particular school of graphology fared better than any other, belying the smug claims of
Graphoanalysis that it is scientifically superior to its rivals. In fact, no graphologist of any stripe was able to show
reliably better performance than untrained amateurs making guesses from the same materials. In the vast majority of
studies, neither group exceeded chance expectancy.

Perusing Dean's accumulated corpus of studies, an interesting relationship emerges. The better a given study is,
methodologically, and the more stringent the peer review process of the journal in which it is published, the more
likely it is that the results will be unfavorable to graphology. For this reason, it is not surprising that the majority of
studies that find any merit whatever in graphology are published by graphologists themselves—in promotional
pamphlets, their own proprietary journals, or the for-profit popular press. When pro-graphology pieces occasionally
make it into scientific journals they are typically the organs that have the lowest rejection rates and charge the authors
for the privilege of publishing.

Graphologists hotly contest the foregoing conclusions, claiming that the tests that belittle their abilities are unfair and
irrelevant. The fact remains, however, that, in many of the best studies, graphologists gave prior approval to the tasks
they would be asked to perform and the assessment criteria; i.e., they were willing participants until the negative
results became known. Often graphological societies nominated their best to represent them in these tests. In one
rigorous series of studies, by Klimoski and his colleagues, the graphologists were so confident they would excel that
they even funded the projects. They agreed at the outset that the assigned tasks were a fair approximation of what
they do in their everyday practices. Only when the results turned out disastrously for them did the graphologists begin
to quibble about the fairness of the tests, at one point even going so far as to threaten legal action to suppress
publication of the results. Summarizing his own research and that of many others, Klimoski concludes, "...a manager
receiving solicitations for graphological services or seeing assistance in personnel decision making would be wise to
heed the American credo, 'Caveat Emptor'—let the buyer beware."

Why Graphology Seems to Work—The "Barnum Effect"

Faced with the consistently poor showing of handwriting analysis in scientific tests, the typical response from
graphologists is, "I don't need to prove anything to you. I know it works and I have hundreds of satisfied customers
to prove it."

If graphology's track record in large-scale, carefully controlled tests is as poor as critics say it is, how could so many
intelligent, well-educated people still believe it has merit? As mentioned earlier, the power of personal experience
often overshadows reams of tables and graphs when people try to make complex judgements about the world.
Hope and uncertainty evoke powerful psychological processes that keep all occult and pseudoscientific character
readers in business. In everyday settings, their pronouncements can seem remarkably specific and telling, even
though they are not. The spurious feeling that something deeply informative has been revealed in an astrological,
graphological, or psychic reading arises from a kind of cognitive slippage that has come to be known as "the Barnum
effect." Its other names are the "subjective validation effect" or the "personal validation effect." The more colorful
appellation recalls the famous American showman, P.T. Barnum, who advertised, "I have a little something for
everyone."

As many studies have demonstrated, people invariably interpret vague, positive generalizations that are true, in some
form, of nearly everyone as if they applied specifically to the particulars of their own lives.The fascinating thing is that
we "read in" the specifics with practically no awareness that they arise from our own associative processes, rather
than the character reader's insights. This is not mere gullibility. It stems, instead, from the overapplication of one of
our most useful cognitive skills—the ability to make sense out of the barrage of disconnected information we face
daily. In fact, we become so good at filling in to make a reasonable scenario out of disjointed input that we
sometimes make sense out of nonsense. Human nature is so complex and individual behavior so varied, there is
almost always something in our background to fit a reader's pronouncement. Psychologists have learned a great deal
about the social and cognitive variables that make Barnum-type generalities seem so penetrating and personally
relevant.

The Barnum effect is so powerful that an informal demonstration of any personality test, fringe or orthodox, is all but
useless. Our enquiring minds will automatically embellish the bare bones of such output to make it seem self-
referential. Once again, this is not feeblemindedness; in fact, more intelligent people are more facile at inserting these
extrapolations. For that reason, a proper test of any character reading scheme will need to control for this false sense
of accuracy. Thus, instead of simply asking clients if the palm reader or astrologer has accurately portrayed them, a
proper test would first have readings done for a large number of clients and then remove the names from the profiles
(coding them so they could later be matched to their rightful owners). After all clients had read all of the anonymous
personality sketches, each would be asked to pick the one that described him or her best. If the reader has actually
included enough uniquely-pertinent material, members of the group, on average, should be able to exceed chance in

graphoresearch.com/scientific-graphol… 7/8
16-10-2010 Graphological Rresearch|Scientific Gra…
choosing their own from the pile. No occult or pseudoscientific character reading method, graphology included, has
successfully passed such a test.

Additional evidence that the apparent accuracy of nonscientific character readings is, like beauty, in the eye of the
beholder can be found in many studies that led people to think they were receiving a reading done specifically for
them. When experimental subjects are asked to rate how well the resulting profile describes them, they
overwhelmingly endorse its contents although, unbeknownst to them, they are all given the identical astrologer or
graphologist's report. In one recent study, subjects read statements about other people produced by a certified
Graphoanalyst and a number of "Barnum statements," intentionally written to be so vague as to be applicable to
virtually everyone [11]. The subjects rated the Graphoanalyst's descriptions of strangers as being just as good
descriptors of themselves as the intentionally-vague Barnum statements. When a group is given random profiles from
valid psychological tests under the same conditions, they do not rate them as good a match to themselves because
legitimate diagnostic tools do produce profiles that are not equally applicable to everyone.

Conclusion
The graphology, despite its scientific pretensions, remains mired in its occult past. I have shown why the
graphologists' favorite justifications are inadequate and alluded to many well-controlled studies which have found that
handwriting analysts, denied non-graphological clues about their clients, do no better than chance in describing them.
The clients, on the other hand, cannot exceed chance either when asked to select their own from a stack of
anonymous graphological profiles. Despite graphology's poor showing in these well-controlled tests, both
practitioners and an a goodly portion of the public at large steadfastly continue to believe it works. The interesting
cognitive biases have kept graphology alive by giving customers the strong illusion that it is revealing and accurate
when it is not. If graphology cannot legitimately claim to be a scientific means of measuring human talents and
leanings, what is it really? In short, it is a pseudoscience.

Pseudosciences are thinly disguised occultisms that have the trappings and usurp the prestige of science but lack the
attitudes, the methods, and the repeatable findings that define a real science. Pseudosciences have a number of
telltale signs. They are typically isolated from the legitimate scientific disciplines that relate to their subject matter.
Devotees are apt to be proud of their lack of orthodox credentials and hostile toward an "establishment" they see as
ignoring if not outright persecuting them. They claim powerful but secret techniques that only work for believers, but
frown upon skepticism and demands for proof. Pseudoscientists tend to shun mathematical analyses and cling to
anecdotal data. Testimonials from satisfied customers substitute for rigorous tests. The idea of a simple control group
is foreign to their way of thinking.

Pseudosciences are overrun by cranks who are not only ignorant of the theory and data in relevant scientific fields
but claim fantastic results that run counter to well-established research. Often these putative effects would be highly
desirable if true, but are postulated without plausible theories and mechanisms to account for why they might occur.
What passes for theory in a pseudoscience is typically so vague that it is virtually impossible to test.

Such fields encourage ad hoc assumptions to explain away negative findings. In a word, they are unfalsifiable—
nothing could possibly count against the theory. For instance, when graphologist Jane Paterson found that Gandhi
failed to exhibit the large writing she said was typical of great leaders, she explained that his writing showed that he
was modest and preferred to lead from a position of inferiority. Special pleading, after-the-fact, in place of firm,
testable predictions—the pseudoscientist's stock in trade.

Data gathering in pseudosciences is slapdash; and research, if published at all, is usually self-distributed rather than
found in the appropriate peer-reviewed journals. Pseudosciences abound with nonreplicable results. Their typical
response to critics is ad hominem, while ignoring the disconfirming data. Bogus sciences are quick to misappropriate
the prestige of legitimate science when it suits their purposes, but they are equally quick to vilify science when it
disallows their fanciful claims. When they fail by conventional standards, pseudoscientists suddenly claim to be part
of "a new paradigm" that stodgy orthodox scientists can't hope to comprehend. In fact, it is pseudosciences that are
stodgy and unchanging. One of their most common features is a reverence for ancient texts that are never updated
with new discoveries. An earmark of a pseudoscience is stagnation where there should be intellectual ferment and
constant modification by new findings, as in genuine scientific fields. As Carl Sagan recently observed, real science
reserves its highest praise for the young who prove their predecessors wrong. Pseudosciences drum doubters out of
the corps.

International graphology research centre’s purpose is to conduct research in graphology and arrive at results which
can be validated scientifically.
Consultancy in
Learning Cour
Home| Graphology Analysis | Graphology Courses | Scientific Graphology | Graphology Associates| Assessment Model| Contact graphologist| Sitemap|© 2009 www.graphoresearch.com

graphoresearch.com/scientific-graphol… 8/8