A Correlational Analysis Between Handwri

Running head: A CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS BETWEEN HANDWRITING 1
A Correlational Analysis Between Handwriting Characteristics and Personality Type
by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
© 2010, S. Joy Fox, M.A.
University of the Rockies

A CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS BETWEEN HANDWRITING 2
Dedication
To my most treasured supporter, Jerry Dear, who‘s catch-phrase, ―Don‘t hesitate, dissertate‖,
spurred on an otherwise unmotivated work attitude on more than one occasion. The inspiration,
support, and caring behind Jerry‘s motivational stance is unsurpassed and speaks to his belief
in my potential as it manifested into an accomplishment otherwise interpreted as ―mission
completed‖. Thanks, Jerry, for being there for me as a motivator, an intelligent force, and above
all, as a friend.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation committee, David Solly, Ed.D., Chair, Susan
Cooper, Ph.D., and Frederick Gibson, Ph.D. of whom I benefited in writing this dissertation.
There are personal-growth factors in a project of this magnitude involving patience, feedback,
and support. Thanks to them for contributing all of those to me.
I would like to extend a very special thank-you to my two inter-raters, Kenneth Reed and
Jerry Dear, and to the other members of my family of friends that also includes Mindy Helm and
Mark Honeycutt, who have been with me through this entire journey. Your understanding,
support and love have made it worthwhile.
I would like to thank my former husband, Roy Fox, for helping me to find this career
path, and for sparking what will certainly be a lifetime interest in psychology. Finally, I would
like to extend my appreciation to Greg Thaler, Ph.D., for his proof reading skills,
encouragement, and guidance.

Table of Contents
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………. 6
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………… 7
List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………. 8
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….. 9
I. Introduction………………………………………………………………… 10
1.1 General Statement……………………………………………… 11
1.2 Statement of Problem…………………………………………... 15
1.3 Statement of Purpose…………………………………………... 16
1.4 Assumptions and Limitation…………………………………………… 17
II. Review of Literature……………………………………………………….. 19
2.1 Graphology…………………………………………………….. 19
A. The History Graphology………………………………... 19
B. Computer Research and Handwriting…………………... 22
C. Predictive Handwriting…………………………………. 23
D. Gender in Handwriting…………………………………. 25
E. Consistency of Handwriting…………………………….. 26
F. Projective Qualities of Handwriting…………………….. 27
G. Pressure in Handwriting………………………………… 27
H. Size in Handwriting…………………………………….. 30
I. Slant in Handwriting…………………………………….. 31
2.2 Handwriting Link to Jung‘s Typology…………………………. 31
2.3 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator…………………………………... 33
A. The History of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator………. 33
B. Prevalence of Type Between Groups…………………… 35
C. Step II (Form Q) Versus Step I (Form M)……………… 36
D. MBTI Construct Validity of Extroversion……………… 37
E. Psychometrics of the MBTI……………………………...38
III. Methods……………………………………………………………………. 42
3.1 Participant Characteristics……………………………………... 42
3.2 Sampling Procedure……………………………………………. 42
A. Sample Type……………………………………………. 42
B. Sample Size……………………………………………... 42
3.3 Instruments……………………………………………………... 44
A. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Form M………… 44
B. Author-constructed Variables…………………………... 44
C. Handwriting Sample…………………………………….. 45
D. Measurements…………………………………………... 45
1. Slant……………………………………………... 46
2. Size………………………………………………. 46
3. Pressure………………………………………….. 47
3.5 Procedure………………………………………………………. 47
3.6 Data Analysis Plan……………………………………………... 48
IV. Results……………………………………………………………………… 50
4.1 MBTI Data……………………………………………………... 50
4.2 Handwriting Data………………………………………………. 52
4.3 Support for the Hypothesis…………………………………….. 53
A. Statistical Tests…………………………………………. 53
B. Understanding the Hypothesis………………………….. 54
4.3 Supplemental Analyses………………………………………… 55
4.4 Summary in Support of the Hypothesis………………………... 57
V. Discussion………………………………………………………………….. 58
5.1 Confounds and Basic Handwriting Measurement Drawbacks… 58
A. Confounds………………………………………………. 58
B. Measurement Techniques……………………………….. 59
C. Measurement Choices…………………………………... 60
5.2 Considering the Personality Assessment………………………. 60
5.3 MBTI Points of Interest………………………………………... 60
5.4 Considering Participants‘ Demographics……………………… 62
A. Education……………………………………………….. 62
B. Race……………………………………………………... 63
5.5 Categorical Measures…………………………………………... 63
5.6 Conclusion……………………………………………………... 63
VI. References………………………………………………………………….. 64
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Characteristics………………………………………………………... 43
Table 2: Handwriting Inter-Rater Agreement……………………………………………… 46
Table 3: Letter Type and Gender Comparison…………………………………………….. 50
Table 4: Representative MBTI Types by Gender………………………………………….. 51
Table 5: Comparison of Top Types with the National Samples…………………………… 52
Table 6: Thinking / Feeling Crosstabulation with Writing Size…………………………… 54
Table 7: Chi-Square Test…………………………………………………………………... 54
Table 8: Comparison of Significance Levels………………………………………………. 55

List of Figures
Figure 1: MBTI Degrees of Preferences…………………………………………………… 56
Figure 2: Averages of MBTI Ranges………………………………………………………. 56

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Instructional Letter…………………………………………………………... 74
Appendix B: Packet Information With Web Site………………………………………….. 75
Appendix C: Referral………………………………………………………………………. 76
Appendix D: Consent Form………………………………………………………………... 77
Appendix E: Participant Disclosure/Demographic Form………………………………….. 78
Appendix F: Handwriting Directions……………………………………………………….79
Appendix G: Inter-Rater Instructions With Slant/Size Templates………………………… 80
Appendix H: Raw Data…………………………………………………………………….. 83
Appendix I: Strengths of Type Preferences………………………………………………... 85

Abstract
A quantitative study was conducted with 82 right-handed individuals to understand the
relationship between handwriting and personality. Three measurements of handwriting—slant,
size, and pressure—were compared with results of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI),
Form M assessment. The participants were at least 25 years old, but under 56 years old.
Correlational analyses were used to verify relationships among the three measures of
handwriting, and any of the dichotomous scales inherent in the MBTI: Extroversion/Introversion,
Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, and Judging/Perceiving. No significant relationships were
found; therefore, the null hypothesis was retained.
Keywords: MBTI, Form M, personality, right-handed, handwriting, slant, size, pressure
.
A Correlational Analysis Between Handwriting Characteristics and Personality
Type
by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
It seems reasonable to hypothesize that handwriting characteristics represent personality
traits because both are unique for each individual. Srihari, Cha, Arora, and Lee, (2002) have
developed software that can detect 11 distinctive features that characterize the structure of
writing and 512 characteristics of individual letters and numbers. The mathematical permutation
of 11 features alone is 39,916,800, an impressive variety in structural differences in handwriting.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator measures 16 personality types and identifies individuals based
on their preferences. Testing for positive correlations between individuals‘ handwriting and the
results of their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, may prove to be beneficial for self-understanding.
Some researchers have objected to claims made by graphologists that an analysis of
handwriting depicts ―the whole personality‖ (Thiry, 2009, p 26). It is unlikely that handwriting
captures all of the complexities of individuals‘ personalities. Rather, some aspects of handwriting
seem to indicate certain personality constructs.
In general, researchers have failed to examine handwriting at fundamental levels, but
have instead compared the results of handwriting validity between graphologists or have
compared it with that of non-graphologists (Thomas & Vaught, 2001). Some researchers (Ben-
Shakhar, Bilu, Ben-Abba, & Flug, 1986; Honey, 1992) have determined there is little validity in
using handwriting samples as a hiring tool to evaluate applicants‘ employment potential.
Thiry (2008) used the NEO RI-R Five-Factor Model (Costa & McCrae, 1985) as a
correlating reference point with handwriting, but neither the hypothesis, nor the graphological
assumptions were supported. The study did show correlations, but it was pervaded with Type I
errors (error that occurs when a null hypothesis is rejected although it is true) and failed to
account for the whole personality. This outcome is not surprising, since it is unlikely that
handwriting can reveal the whole personality.
Due to the paucity of research in using objective measurements as building blocks for
corollary determinants between handwriting and personality, a study with objective
measurements provided a way to capture a possible relationship, if one existed, between the two.
This research used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Form M, to measure personality
type by self-report for energy attitude (extrovert or introvert), perception function (sensing or
intuitive), judgment function (thinking or feeling), and orientation to the outer world (judging or
perceiving). It also used exact measurements of slant, size, and pressure in handwriting. These
three measurements represent common features of handwriting.
General Statement
Insight into historical and current studies was available in the literature. According to
Ben-Shakhar et al. (1986), graphologists did not perform better than a chance model when
testing for the validity of graphological predictions of relevant personality traits among bank
employees. This classic empirical study was one of the most cited investigations to debunk
handwriting as a valid screen for desirable employee attributes in the hiring process. Ben-
Shakhar et al. found graphological analysis to be a nonstandard assessment, based on qualitative
descriptions of personality that were difficult to correlate with any independent criterion. Two
possible ways were offered to account for this problem: using standardized assessments, or
selecting an evaluation method that supported nonstandard assessments. To standardize the
assessment, the researchers suggested that graphologists should rate the writers only on
predefined traits and eliminate subjective descriptions (Shakhar, et al.). This approach was used
in the present study.
Ben-Shakhar et al., (1986) identified a problem in taking a standardized approach where
proponents of graphology and the graphologists themselves were involved. Most graphologists
reported a sense of discomfort in approaching handwriting analysis from a standardized approach
due to the potential for humans to be inconsistent (Bem & Allen, 1974). They preferred to
provide overall subjective descriptions to allow for the inconsistency. According to Bem and
Allen, how one looked at the measurements determined how one made interpretations. For
example, predictive perspectives were suspect in terms of validity.
It seems reasonable to question what one is measuring and how this measurement is
relevant to the variables being scrutinized. For instance, if a man is neat in appearance, diligent
in the quality of his work, and prompt, one might describe the individual as proficient. However
if he is diligent about his work and prompt, but deficient in his appearance, he may be described
as being dedicated to his job and having time for nothing else, including attention to his personal
appearance. In this sense the employee would not be considered inconsistently proficient. It is
not natural to impose a trait term like proficient, and then modify it by describing the times that it
fails to be uniform. It is more natural and intuitive, yet not particularly empirical, to organize
behaviors into rational sets and then to label them (Bem & Allen, 1974). This labeling does not
dismiss the biases that intrude upon intuitions (i.e., Barnum statements), but merely points out
that predictive qualities, derived by historic research, are not easily found because humans
portray inconsistent behaviors.
Graphologists interpret writing by using intuition in conjunction with their observations
of word and letter formations. The problem is that one cannot measure the successful degree of
one graphologist‘s intuition against another. There is no test to do so, yet much of the anti-
graphological literature tries to compare graphologists by indicating how they fail to agree upon
interpretations of handwriting. This is why control would better be served by standardizing the
way graphologists measure handwriting traits. Additionally, a more useful emphasis may well be
on helping subjects become more self-aware rather than predicating their likely behavior e.g., at
a job setting.
The main reason this author evaluated handwriting quantitatively instead of qualitatively
is not to neglect the factor of human intuition, but to develop a useful tool people can use as an
aid in self-understanding. This potential tool would not depend upon graphologists‘ intuition; it
would depend upon sound research that would satisfy well defined measures of reliability and
validity.
Another objection the Ben-Shakhar et al., (1986) study mentioned was ―contaminated
text‖ (p. 646). This phenomenon is described as a text containing information about the writer
which can be used by the graphologist to gain additional reinforcement for her interpretations.
Ben-Shakhar et al. therefore, designed two experiments: one had spontaneous autobiographical
writing (text containing information about the writer) and the other, had copied text and
numbers. The former compared graphologists‘ interpretations with those of graduate students.
The researchers found there was no significant difference between either group‘s predictions,
although both groups‘ predictive abilities did reach significance when compared with the
outcome of psychologists‘ aptitude and personality batteries on the same group of subjects, a
significant finding in and of itself. The later experiment looked at copied standard scripts on
unlined paper. Five graphologists were asked to predict what professions each writer was
associated with. The participants were included within the following occupational groups:
mathematician, clinical psychologist, philosopher, artist, executive, architect, physician, and
jurist. None of the five graphologists was able to select the correct vocation at more than the
chance level. This outcome leads one to believe that making predictions based upon vocation is
not something that can be measured by handwriting analysis. These two experiments did not
bring handwriting down to an elemental level. They were not designed to investigate whether
certain aspects of handwriting fall into patterns, and if so, what this phenomenon might mean.
Another researcher, (Honey, 1992), was interested in examining pre-employment honesty
testing. This individual noted that polygraph testing was outlawed in 1981 in the United States as
a means to determine how honest candidates for jobs were. As a consequence, other means were
both needed and wanted by employers to screen for problematic employees who might steal from
their companies. Honey speculated that graphology became more popular after the dismissal of
the polygraph, as an affordable means to screen applicant integrity. Although these researchers
failed to go into detail, they surmised that graphological results were subject to similar pitfalls as
the polygraph, namely, the lack of reliability and validity. Based upon this lack, likely erroneous
predictive use of graphology for hiring employees seemed to be in use.
Greasley (2000), a European researcher, tried to answer this question by examining the
history of graphology. The founder of the Society of Graphology in Paris in 1871 was Jean-
Hippolyte Michon. He was a French abbot who compared the handwriting of people he knew
well in order to assign personality characteristics to their script. Eventually, according to
Greasley, Michon compiled approximately 100 graphological features, like the way one crosses
the letter t or dots the letter i, which he associated with certain personality traits. This research
continued with Michon‘s student, Jean Crepieux-Jamin, who found another 100 personality-trait
associations. The original research was methodical and empirical until Dr. Ludwig Klages, a
German graphologist (Greasley, 2000), began using a more intuitive and theoretical means of
expressive behavior in his approach to graphology. According to Greasley‘s research, Lewison
Graumann, who adopted Klages‘ approach, considered graphology to be based in analogy,
symbolism, and metaphor.
Symbolically, McNichol and Nelson (1991) had designated extroverted writing as large
writing with more flare in the letter formations, bolder loops, and a large letter I to denote
expansiveness, while introverted writers use lighter pressure, smaller script, and a smaller letter i,
especially in signatures. McNichol is a handwriting expert who consults with the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice, Scotland Yard, and other institutions, so she is
considered an authority on handwriting interpretation. Greasley‘s (2000) findings are congruent
with McNichol‘s and Nelson‘s symbolic explanations. He further deduced that ―. . . the whole
idea turns out to be founded upon a symbolic code reflected in our use of everyday metaphors‖
(47). Greasley reported that up to 85% of European companies use graphology in their hiring
practices, while only 10% of American firms do so. He added that ―the debate about the use and
validity of graphology is a regular feature in professional journals‖ (48). This notion was
furthered by King & Koehler (2000) when they claimed the persistence of using graphology to
predict personality may be based upon the contribution of illusory correlation phenomenon. In
their research, a bias was discovered between semantic associations between words used to
describe handwriting features and words used to portray personality traits, i.e., when a person
writes with a regular rhythm, he is assumed to be conscientious (King & Koehler, 2000).
Statement of Problem
Thus far, studies have not looked at fundamental aspects of handwriting when
investigating any potential personality trait and have therefore not included information
regarding insights handwriting may have about people. Most of the research evaluated has
debunked using handwriting as a predictive tool in any form (e.g., King & Koehler, 2000). This
present study by contrast is intended to describe and explain this topic through correlational
methods and to show that previous research has not exhausted itself. By doing so, the author will
contribute a fresh perspective to the current psychological body of knowledge on the likely
relationship between personality and graphological analysis. New ideas will be addressed on
developing a standardized method for measuring handwriting in a definitive way to improve
validity for self-understanding rather than for behavioral predictions.
Statement of Purpose
The focus of this study is to analyze handwriting samples to see if there are correlations
among three salient traits in handwriting and the dimensions on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) for personality analysis. One of the reasons this typology was chosen is because of its
acceptable item-level factorial validity (Zumbo & Taylor, 1993). Factorial validity, according to
Gefen and Straus (2005), occurs when each measurement item correlates strongly with the one
construct it is related to, while correlating weakly or not significantly with all other constructs.
Aside from being a popular and well-studied personality assessment tool, the MBTI additionally
measures personality dimensions that handwriting purports to represent, especially introversion
and extroversion (McNichol & Nelson, 1991). The MBTI is based upon type theory, which does
not make predictions about behavior. This differs from assessments based upon trait theory (see
O‘Conner, B. P., 2002; Costa & McCrea, 1992) which are designed to make predictions about
behavior (Pearman, 2007).
If this research determines a positive correlation on any axis studied, it is hoped this
outcome will spur further research in this direction. One possible long-term application includes
developing a screening tool as a means to assist therapy clients, employers, employment
applicants, and students in understanding themselves. Self-understanding through handwriting
determinants could shed light upon directional aspirations, motivations, and adaptations of
therapy goals, or for potential vocations in the workforce. For example, from an employer‘s
perspective, identifying introverted people for accountant positions and extroverted people for
sales positions could prove valuable. From students‘ or applicants‘ perspectives, self-awareness
of temperament and preference could steer them in the right direction toward job selection and
satisfaction. From a therapy client‘s perspective, greater self-understanding could help resolve
interpersonal issues.
Although it may be easier and more reliable to take a pen-and-paper test for personality
analysis than to interpret handwriting, some people do not have very accurate self-insight and
cannot reliably judge subjective experiences and feelings, nor may they be aware of such internal
states such as unconscious thoughts and motivations (Zickar, 2001). A new tool using
handwriting would be helpful for people who fall into this category.
In developing a hypothesis, it will be determined if there is no relationship between the
sixteen personality types from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Form M assessment, and three
measurements of handwriting: pressure, slant and size; or if there is such a relationship.
Assumptions and Limitations
To work toward self-understanding, various personality assessments have been developed
over time. Although the MBTI is a well-researched personality assessment, it may not be robust
enough to capture the many nuances inherent in individual handwriting. By using the results of
the MBTI as the standard by which we measure personality type, it may be too broad a tool;
however, it does demonstrate well-defined and valid results in the introversion and extroversion
scales (Capraro & Capraro, 2002; Piotrowski & Armstrong, 2002; Psychological Publications
Incorporated, 2010; Steele & Kelly, 1976; Zumbo & Taylor, 1993), so it appears the best tool to
use for this study.
The main limitation of using the MBTI is the same as in any self-report tool. If the
respondent does not answer the questions does not answer them accurately or honestly, this will
render the results useless. It is one consolation many of the people invited to participate in this
study seemed genuinely interested and were happy to be involved. It was assumed their results,
collectively, would provide accurate and reliable data.
The number of participants in this study was designed to be between 80 and 100, all from
Denver, Colorado, and vicinity; therefore, the results cannot be generalized to the entire
population of the United States or to the world. This limitation does not pose a particular
problem overall, because the main reason for this study is to determine whether further research
is warranted.
Participation was limited to right-handed individuals between the ages of 25 to 55. The
lower limit was chosen upon Longstaff and Heath (1999), who found that handwriting, does not
become automatic until around age 20 and above. This criterion range was set to exclude
possible variables found in both adolescents and people of advanced years. These variables were
issues characterized by immature writing or writing influenced by heavy medication use on the
part of older individuals. Given the age-range restriction and handedness criteria, the results
cannot be generalized to the population of people who have been excluded.

Review of Literature
Graphology
The history of graphology. One of the earliest accounts of graphology is by Camillo
Baldi. According to Nickell (2005), Camillo Baldi, who was a 17th-Century Italian physician,
published a treatise relating personality with handwriting in 1622. It was called ―Trattado come
da una lettera missi va si conoscano la natura e qualita dello scriviente” (p. 18), which, in
translation, means, ―Treatise on Methods to Recognize the Character and Quality of a Writer by
His Letters‖. Although Baldi‘s work incited little interest, a group of Catholic clergymen in 1830
began studying and interpreting handwriting in France (Nickell, 2005).
Graphology has been studied by some eminent psychologists and serious researchers
throughout the historic development of professional psychology. Some of the individuals who
showed an interest in handwriting include Alfred Binet (Binet, 1904); Jean Piaget (Seifer, 2009);
and, indirectly, Carl Jung, through Ania Teillard who ―. . . introduced Jung's psychic function
types into graphology: thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition‖ (Bernard & Reed, 1985, p. 5).
There are three ways of looking at graphology. First is the trait method developed by the
French abbot, Michon (1806-1881), wherein the interpretations rely on finding a subject‘s
personal characteristics by looking at each letter and word formation individually. Second is the
holistic method developed by the German Ludwig Klages (1872-1976), wherein the whole script
is interpreted by looking at its Form Level (Karoh, 1964), which will be discussed later. Third,
the Swiss Psychologist Max Pulver (1889-1952) introduced the use of symbolism as a tool for
handwriting interpretation. This approach integrated elements from both Klages and Michon and
the principles of psychodynamics.

Of the three fundamental approaches to handwriting analysis in the history of
graphology, the French Catholic abbot Jean-Hippolyte Michon developed the first systematic
basis of matching character traits with elements of a person‘s handwriting. He died in 1881, but
he coined the term graphology ten years before his death (Nickell, 2005). According to the
London College of Graphology (2009), Abbé Flandrin and other clergymen preceded Michon in
researching the interpretation of handwriting, but Michon was the one who was most
instrumental in the analysis of handwriting traits, as he assigned various meanings to individual
script characteristics by utilizing minute details in the process. Additionally, Michon founded the
Société Francaise de Graphologie, which still publishes quarterly journals called ―SFDG‖
(London College of Graphology, 2009, para. 3). It was Michon‘s work that set the first standard
for making systematic associations between isolated elements and character traits. These
elements, which he called ―signs‖ (Nickell, 2005, p.18), are represented, for example, by the way
one dots his i’s or crosses her t’s, for example.
Jean Crépieux-Jamin, Michon‘s student, was responsible for the reclassification of his
teacher‘s work (Greasley, 2000), and the London College of Graphology (2009) recognizes
Crépieux-Jamin‘s ten volumes on the subject. He was responsible for incorporating 50 years of
research and for providing a fundamental basis for graphology. According to Teillard (1974),
who was influenced by Carl Jung‘s analytical psychology, Jean Crépieux-Jamin not only began
the notion that handwriting needed to be viewed as a unified whole, rather than by individual
letters, but he additionally created seven large categories for the convenience of observation.
These seven categories are speed, pressure, size, direction, form, continuity, and order. His
approach was a wide deviation from Michon‘s ideas (Saudek, 1926) of personality trait analysis.
Crépieux-Jamin opened the door for the next development in the field, likewise based upon a
more holistic approach.
Next, the locus of activity moved to Germany. According to Nickell (2005), William
Thierry Preyer, a German doctor, coined the term ―brain writing‖ in 1895. He linked the actual
movements in writing with mental processes. Georg Meyer, a German psychiatrist, thought that
emotion was expressed through all psychomotor functions, including handwriting (Nickel,
2005). It was Ludwig Klages who devised an expanded version of graphology when he
introduced the concept of Form Level (Karoh, 1964). Form Level is Klages‘ classification
system for denoting handwriting as having either a positive or negative in polarity in six
divisions ranging from high to low in a person‘s script. Klages examined at the uniqueness of a
person‘s writing, or the Gestalt, first; then he looked at the rhythm and spacing in terms of his
classification process. Scripts with higher Form Levels were interpreted by Klages as those that
expressed good rhythm and had harmonious features with clarity and originality, while lower
Form Levels were classified as conventional forms, such as those learned in school (Karoh,
1964). Additionally, Seifer (2009) linked higher Form Levels of handwriting to a more highly
developed brain.
Seifer (2009) described a highly developed brain as one that is well-coordinated and
integrated with interplay between ―. . . (1) the cerebral cortex; (2) the thalamus, hypothalamus,
and limbic system; (3) the basal ganglia and brainstem; (4) the cerebellum; and (5) the spinal
cord, which send the impulses out to the hands and fingers‖ (p. 189). While the integration of the
brain is paramount in the production of writing, its initiation occurs in the frontal lobes, where
higher reasoning and intentional activities take place. When the frontal lobes are not functioning
correctly, impairments trickle down through the brain, and the resultant handwriting has a lower
form. Research at Stanford University (Canli, et.al, 2002) links the functions of the brain,
particularly the amydgala, with extroversion. This research further suggests that people respond
to something that is potentially pleasant in very different ways because personalities are not the
same between individuals. For instance, when looking at unpleasant or threatening faces, the
same area of the amydgala lit up in both introverts and extroverts; however, happy faces had
more response in the amygdalae of extroverts than introverts (Canli, et.al, 2002).
Next, the first historical figure to apply psychoanalysis to graphology was Max Pulver, a
Swiss psychoanalyst. According to the London College of Graphology (2009), he introduced
symbolism into the interpretation of handwriting in his 1931 book called Symbolik der
Handschrift (Symbolism in Handwriting). Seifer (2009) credits Pulver with emphasizing the
various zones of handwriting, e.g., the lower zone (below the baseline) relating to sexuality and
orientation, fantasy life, materialism, and narcissistic proclivities.
Computer research and handwriting. In recent times computer research has
definitively addressed the reliability of matching handwriting to the writer. For instance, Srihari,
et al. (2002) researched pattern recognition. Their study shows that individual writers can be
recognized by their script. This idea is also supported by other researchers like Ramsay (2000),
who identifies handwriting as the result of a mechanical process which has derivatives. He
further related a differential equation to handwriting in describing its processes by finding
relationships among derivatives. A derivative is a measure of how a function changes as its input
changes. He graphed a mathematical model to approximate the smoothness of subjects‘
handwriting, which results from neural events as they vary in timing and amplitude when they
travel along transmission pathways from cortical areas in the brain. These two studies suggest
that each person‘s writing can tell the analyst something about that individual that is unique to
him or her. As shown through mathematics and computer applications, handwriting is about
individuality and shared patterns (Ramsay, J.O., 2000; Srihari, et al., 2002).
Luria and Rosenblum (2009) studied handwriting with an instrument called the
Computerized Penmanship Evaluation Tool (ComPET), which measures the pause time when the
pen is not in contact with the writing surface as well as the velocity and acceleration, space, and
pressure of the pen on the paper as described by Kanon (2007). In their study Luria and
Rosenblum found that in a false writing condition (one where an individual writes something that
is not true) the mean pressure stroke length and height as well as the standard deviations of
stroke heights are all significantly different from a true writing condition (2009). Based upon
Luria and Rosenblum‘s study, there is variation between true and false writing conditions, which
indicates that some information derived from handwriting can be applied to practical situations,
i.e., the integrity of the written word.
Predictive handwriting. Behavioral predictability from handwriting has not been
substantiated in research studies (Ben-Shakhar, Bilu, Ben-Abba & Flug, 1986; Bowman, 1992;
Jansen, 1973; King & Koehler, 2000), mainly because people are not always going to react the
same way in every situation (Bem & Allen, 1974). The research reviewed did not indicate any
positive substantive correlates for using handwriting to predict likely behaviors, e.g., employee
theft.
Thomas and Vaught (2001) made a salient observation about the validity of handwriting
as a predictive tool in hiring practices. Their statement, which follows, may be generalized to
other areas.
Selection validity is not something inherent in the device, it involves the
relationship between the selection device and some other measure or attribute.
Validity, is therefore an inference that we make regarding the ability to use a
selection device to predict some outcome. We want to predict how well
applicants will perform once hired[,] . . . how long they will remain with
the company, the probability that applicants will steal money or use drugs,
or some other criteria measure of job performance. Thus, any selection
test has not one, but many validities depending upon what we are trying to
predict. In employee selection it is usually meaningless to say a specific
selection device is ―valid‖ without establishing exactly what we are attempting to
predict from that technique. The same is true of graphology. We would not ask
whether it is valid, but what, exactly, is it valid at predicting. (para. 9)
Thomas and Vaught have hit on the very point that this author has also pondered. Why are
employers trying to fit handwriting into predictions about applicants‘ potentials? Even if a
person‘s handwriting is generally predictive about something like honesty, people as a whole are
not predictable because they are constantly changing. For instance, say there was a situation of a
generally honest person who has a sick child; his insurance does not cover the child‘s medical
costs, so that once honest person becomes desperate and steals money to help pay the medical
bills. Stress has a way of negatively impacting personal integrity. The admitted limitation is that
any predictive test is a guide at best and should not be taken as definitive.
Additionally, one older study reprinted from a 1941 article (Super, 1992a) compared the
results of various psychological tests on college men for intelligence, interest patterns, and
personality traits with the predictive results from one graphologist who had advertised in the
local newspaper. The researcher reported no better than chance levels for any predictive
correlations between the handwriting analysis and the Binet Mental Ages, Strong‘s Vocational
Interest Blank, and Bernreuter Personality Inventory—the tests used in this study.
Any psychological-test outcome is a best guess based upon statistical probability.
Nothing is set in stone. Therefore, the supposed predictive characteristics of handwriting do not
seem like the most useful aspects of graphological analysis to study. Based upon this conclusion,
it seems prudent to study graphological characteristics for other purposes like self-awareness.
Gender in handwriting. Researchers have not found any predictive results between
individual writing and behavior (Ben-Shakhar et al., 1986); however, there has been some
evidence indicating a correlation between scripts of handwriting and the ability to know if the
script was produced by a male or a female writer. In a historic research experiment conducted by
Binet (1904), experts and non-experts correctly identified male and female handwriting 78% of
the time and 66% to 73% of the time, respectively.
In a more recent experiment, handwriting has been successfully rated at the 60-70% level
to be either male or female according to a study by Burr (2002). In this research, small sample
sizes of British adult men and women, both students and instructors, were recruited to determine
gender by handwriting samples provided them over three different sessions. It was shown that
success improved with practice and that both men and women were equally successful at
determining scripts by the sex of the writer. The main criteria used to determine gender
differences in this study consisted of careful, neat, and consistent writing for females and
hurried, irregular, and untidy writing for males. Similar results (Hamid & Loewenthal, 1996)
reported about 68% success in identifying gender from handwriting, which did not differ when
evaluating bi-lingual subjects; therefore, these results were found to be significantly stable across
two languages.
In a biological study consisting of 60 females and 60 males, 20 raters correctly
determined the gender of the writers 67% of the time (Beech & Mackintosh, 2005). Notable in
this study was a biological marker, the ring finger length, which was negatively associated with
prenatal testosterone and positively associated with prenatal estrogen. These gender ratings
correlated significantly with the digit ratios of the women‘s right hands, but not with the men‘s
digit ratios. These results suggest hormonal influences may affect developmental inter-
hemispheric differences for females, which can affect the nature of their handwriting (Beech &
Mackintosh, 2005).
Based on these studies, which span over 100 years and were found in more than one
language, it is reasonable to conclude that gender can be determined by looking at handwriting,
even by non-experts, approximately two-thirds of the time, which is statistically significant.
Gender findings in handwriting support the premise that the way people write gives clues to who
they are and adds to the notion that individual scripts represent some characteristic of individual
personality, be that a masculine or feminine aspect.
Consistency of handwriting. In 1933, Allport and Vernon stated in their expressive
movement study that ―it is surely not unreasonable to assume that insofar as personality is
organized, expressive movement is harmonious and self-consistent. . . .‖ (p. 182).
In a longitudinal study Blöte and Hanstra-Bletz (1991) discovered that handwriting
shows consistency from person to person over time. Data in the form of a broad matrix were
compared for 63 school children during a five-year study of their handwriting. The broad matrix
was defined as comparing five handwriting samples collected from each student, side-by-side,
over a five-year period. Additionally, a long matrix was compared. A long matrix was defined as
the same data being arranged beneath each other. Blöte and Hanstra-Bletz found when
considering 13 characteristics of handwriting that three clusters of items stood out. The first was
the children‘s fine-motor abilities, the second was their structural performance, and the third was
their stylistic preference. After statistically removing the effect of differences in the
mathematical means between grades, the researchers found the above clusters of items still
emerged—a result indicating consistency over time for the subjects, all second- through sixth-
grader in the Netherlands.
Projective qualities of handwriting. Loock, Myburgh & Poggenpoel (2003) devised an
interesting qualitative study to develop a model in which art was used as a form of projection to
discern and attend to unresolved trauma in the lives of young adults. It was hoped that through
insight and empowerment, the students would improve their mental health and well-being.
The students in this research were invited to participate in the generation of data by using
drawings, their handwriting, interviews, and Gestalt methods to develop individualized themes as
they emerged. Central concepts were developed by a qualified independent coder who
specialized in theory generation and model development. After reaching agreement on the
identified themes, the principle researchers incorporated graphology results were incorporated to
verify these themes. In the process of creating a model, ―. . . graphology as external triangulation,
showed a striking correspondence with the information made known by the participants‖ (Loock,
Myburgh & Poggenpoel, 2003, para. 32). Of interest in this projective study was the use of
graphology as an adjunct to support relevant findings in helping the young adults heal personal
traumas.
Pressure in handwriting. Measuring pressure in handwriting has some advantages in
differentiating cognitive impairments. Werner, Rosenblum, Bar-On, Heinik, and Korczyn (2006)
were able to measure pressure, spatial, and temporal indices in the handwriting of research
participants by implementing an instrumented pen. This type of analysis is a modern format of
handwriting measurement called kinematic assessment. This functional assessment of
handwriting was introduced by Werner et al. (2006) to determine if there was a way to
differentiate between individuals diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment and those diagnosed
with Alzheimer‘s Disease when measured against healthy participants. Their results did not
indicate functional pressure changes in individuals with mild cognitive impairment; however,
those with Alzheimer‘s Disease showed significant changes in their functional writing abilities
when compared with healthy individuals.
Other information gleaned from writing pressure, as purported by handwriting experts,
(Seifer, 2009; Sonnemann & Mittelmann, 1950; and Teillard, 1948/1974), include the degree of
individual energy expression. This concept was first introduced into handwriting analysis by
Max Pulver (Nickell, 1992). In much of the interpretive handwriting literature reviewed
(McNichol & Nelson, 1991; Seifer, 2009; Sonnemann & Mittelmann, 1950and Teillard,
1948/1974), heavy pressure was construed as suggesting more energy in both a positive and
negative sense while lighter pressure seemed to indicate less energy, again in both senses. For
instance, in heavy-pressure handwriting, a positive connotation could be seen as expressive of
the depth of emotion, whereas it could also be seen in a negative way as inhibiting or blocking
feelings. On the other hand, light-pressure handwriting could be seen positively as the ability to
be flexible and negatively seen as lacking determination or stamina (Sonnemann & Mittelmann,
1950). Intermediate-pressure handwriting would logically be understood as falling between the
two extremes.
Based upon the studies cited, information about the effects of the development of
Alzheimer‘s Disease and about expressive energy tend to be linked to handwriting pressure
variations in handwriting pressure. The point which this research brings one to is that although
handwriting analysis cannot accurately predict future behavior, it can provide useful information
about an individual.
Size in handwriting. When looking at dimensions of handwriting, researchers Warner
and Sugarman (1986) discovered correlations between self-esteem and various features in
handwriting, such as signature size. They termed these features ―potency‖ variables (p.797),
which they found to be the only scale that held consensus among the judges of handwriting in
their research. Additional evidence for a significant and positive relationship between signature
size and self-esteem was determined by Zweigenhaft (1977). His research indicated a consistent
set of findings, with signature size having ―personological attributes‖ (p.177). In this sense,
personology refers to looking at personality from a holistic point of view.
Sonnemann and Mittelmann (1950), who were proponents of Klages‘ graphological
theory, saw large size in handwriting as expressive of leadership and enthusiasm on the positive
side, and distractibility and arrogance on the negative side, with small handwriting being
indicative of either modesty or devotion in on one side or feelings of inferiority on the other.
Evaluations of handwriting research indicate there was a paucity of scholarly research
regarding size in handwriting. Some of the available published investigations focus on Parkinson
Disease and Autistic spectrum disorders. Beversdorf et al. (2001) conducted a study comparing
handwriting size among individuals with Autism spectrum disorder. The researchers used age-
and IQ-matched control participants. Large writing, or macrographia, was observed among test
participants with Autism spectrum disorder. The authors were hopeful that their finding might
correlate with the anatomical abnormalities present in the cerebellum of individuals with Autism
spectrum disorder (Beversdorf et al., 2001).

Slant in handwriting. Slant in handwriting is purported to denote movement of energy
in three basic directions, with gradations within the directions. The directions are left slant,
upright slant, and right slant. Seifer (2009) maintains upright writing means the writer expresses
energy more toward the self. Sonnemann and Mittelmann (1950) agree with Seifer, but they see
the upright slant as expressing caution and consistency, on the positive side, and a lack of
empathy and that of rigidity on the negative side. Amend and Ruiz (1980) associate key words
like ―present,‖ ―self-control,‖ and ―suppression‖ (p. 28) with the upright slant in writing. In light
of these varied descriptive terms, upright writing most succinctly represents objectiveness,
according to Bryden, (1983).
A reclined slant, in right-handed writers, sometimes called a back-slant or left-slant, is
associated with the past, a lack of involvement or fear, according to Amend and Ruiz (1980),
while Sonnemann and Mittelmann (1950) relate left-slanted handwriting to cynicism, egotism or
introversion.
The right-slanted writer has been referred to by Amend and Ruiz (1980) as looking
toward the future, being extroverted, and having compassion, while Sonnemann and Mittelmann
(1950) describe right-slanted writers as impatient and possibly being verbose on the negative
side, or passionate and optimistic on the positive side.
No specific studies were found evaluating the validity of interpreting the presence of
slant in handwriting. The information cited above was taken from instructional courses (e.g.,
Bryden, 1983), online common sources, and one well-respected assessment. The Woodcock-
Johnson Tests of Achievement III (WJ-III) utilized handwriting, including slant, in the subjective
portion of its writing sample analysis (Mather & Woodcock, 2001). This portion of the WJ-III
recommended using two inter-raters in the handwriting scoring process, which is what the
current study also utilized. The WJ-III maintained its use of an informal evaluation of six
handwriting elements. One of those elements was the slant, which was rated on whether it was
uniform, consistent, and whether it exceeded 30 degrees of slant. The right or left slant was not
considered in this scoring process. The scale ranged from 100 (artistic), 70-90 (excellent), 30-50
(fair), 10-0 (poor), the last category described as illegible. Other factors analyzed informally
using the same scale included spacing between letters, spacing between words, uniformity of
letter size, distinctions between capital and small letters, and the evenness of the line quality
(Mather & Woodcock, 2001).
Handwriting and Jung’s typology
A historic and important graphological researcher, Ania Teillard, who studied under
Ludwig Klages and was a co-worker of Max Pulver, was the first to apply Jung‘s attitudes of
introversion and extroversion to handwriting. She also included Jung‘s four main functions of
thinking, intuition, sensation, and feeling to handwriting analysis (Bernard & Reed, 1985;
London College of Graphology, 2009; Teillard, 1948/1974). Teillard is a pivotal researcher
because her work connected Jung‘s concepts of analytical psychology to handwriting in a similar
way that Briggs and Myers adapted Jung‘s concepts to assessing personality types in their Type
Indicator.
Interestingly, Teillard (1948/1974) did not interpret Jung‘s typologies as classifications;
she sensed that they were concepts embracing a person‘s conscious and unconscious aspects. She
claimed the way Jung saw individuals translated into the way graphology could be viewed. The
perspective she referred to stemmed from her theme of assessing handwriting through
spontaneity and less by ―acquired nomenclature . . . inherent in the application of topologies‖
(p.66).
Teillard capably described Jung‘s three-layer structure of the psyche as the conscious, the
personal unconscious, and the collective unconscious in her work. She realized that a person
consisted of a dynamic energy-based system ―like a three-story building‖ (p.67) in which all the
functions of the individual (referred to in her terms as the soul) are loaded with specific energy in
a state of tension, ready to be discharged, and the intensity of the energy is governed by outer
conditions of the environment and by the parallel inner conditions of the person. She purported
that, regardless of the way the energy is transformed (internally or externally), its quantity of the
energy remains the same. Additionally, she stated that if the energy gets blocked in some way, it
can cause psychological and/or physical problems for an individual (Teillard, 1948/1974).
The contrast inherent in physical reality requires the idea of dichotomous poles as a way
of knowing, e.g., one knows the light because of the dark. Following this basic premise, Teillard
(1948/1974) interpreted the movement of energy to be either progressive or regressive, i.e., a
permanent attempt to adapt to one‘s outer environment or to withdraw into oneself, respectively.
Extroversion is energy being directed outward by an individual as a behavior, while introversion
derives from repression, but had the additional quality of being directed inward. These terms are
not synonymous; however, they can be seen as similar, according to Teillard (1948/1974). She
makes the distinction that introversion and extroversion are behaviors while progression and
regression refer to the movement of energy. It logical to conclude that progression is the
precursor to extroversion and regression of introversion, although Teillard did not make this
point.
Teillard recognized that inspiration (her term was will) was necessary to stimulate energy
toward a goal. She linked sensation, thinking, intuition, and feeling like Jung did, as the four
principal functions involved in goal-making. More specifically, she described three objective
functions: impressions, which arrive from the outside as sensations, or the existence of
phenomena; thinking as being a logical function; and intuition which seeks out possibilities
within a past-future temporal orientation. Teillard sees feeling as subjective, ―the function which
. . . weighs its subjective worth‖ (1948/1974, p. 69).
Notable in Teillard‘s interpretation of Jung‘s analytic psychology (Jung, 1921/1923) is
the way she paired the functions together as aspects. The first aspect, related by being based in
judgment, consists of feeling and thinking. The second aspect, related by receiving and
recording, and consists of intuition and sensation. Together, these aspects intersect to form
quadrants which can be expressed differently in individuals. These quadrants contribute to
function-types.
Here in her own words in a summary of Teillard‘s us of Jung‘s type theory of personality
(Jung, 1921/1923), which became the foundation of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: ―The
Thinking function decreases the size of the writing trail and concentrates it; the Feeling function
increases it, expands it, softens it; the Sensation function renders it heavy and stabilizes it; the
Intuition function lightens the writing train, gives it movement, rhythm; and sometimes,
instability‖ (Teillard, 1948/1974, p. 74).
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
The history of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. It is well-known that Isabel Briggs
Myers and her mother, Katharine Cook Briggs, devised the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,
hereafter referred to as the MBTI, based on Carl Jung‘s type theory. Early in her research,
Katharine Briggs read autobiographies and began to develop her own typology based on patterns
she was able to discern in them. In the beginning she found the meditative, spontaneous,
executive, and sociable types. After Jung published the English version of Psychological Types
in 1923, Katharine Briggs abandoned her own research on typology for Jung‘s, who encouraged
her to continue her work (Myers, 1995).
Isabel Myers, Katharine‘s daughter, was the key developer of the MBTI during World
War II. She wanted to help various inexperienced women find a place in the workforce, so she
created the first version of the MBTI as a way to help them. Form A of the MBTI appeared in
1943, and Form C appeared in 1944, but not without test-construction guidance. Because Myers
was not conventionally educated in psychology or psychometrics, the academic community
opposed her in her efforts. It was Edward N. Hay, a personnel manager of a large bank in
Philadelphia, who assisted Isabel Myers with test construction, statistics, scoring, and validation
support (Myers, 1995).
The Educational Testing Service (ETS), under the directorship of Henry Chauncey,
offered to distribute the first MBTI for research purposes, but aside from publishing the 1962
MBTI manual, nothing much came of the MBTI at ETS. Donald T. MacKinnon, the director of
the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research at the University of California, published
the first supportive findings about the MBTI when he used it in his battery of instruments to test
creative persons. Then, in 1975, the MBTI was published by the Consulting Psychologists Press
(CPP). Additionally, the Center for Applications of Psychological Type was organized as a
service and research laboratory for the MBTI (Myers, 1995).
One of the most impressive aspects about the development of the MBTI is the sheer
number of people who have taken the test. According to Myers (1995), over five thousand
medical students and ten thousand nursing students from 71 different schools took part in its
early stages of development. When looking at commonly used personality assessments, the
MBTI holds the highest number of administrations. For example, in his quantitative review of
the Five-Factor Model in relation to popular personality inventories, O‘Connor (2002) listed the
number of MBTI administrations as 55,971, with the closest second being the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (PSY-5 Scales) at 2,567 administrations, and the Guilford-
Zimmerman Temperament Survey (GZTS) at 2,465 administrations, a close third. O‘Connor
gleaned these numbers from the publishers‘ respective manuals. In her introduction of the MBTI,
Patel (2006), who is the program director of Masters of International Business, describes it as
―one of the most popular measures of personality assessment tools in the western world‖ (p.
198).
One reason the MBTI may be so popular is because it has been used to help individuals
choose careers. Some people are born knowing exactly what they want to do when they grow up,
but most people benefit from some sort of guidance in the process of choosing a career. Another
reason for the popularity of the MBTI is most likely the positive reputation it has. There is no
right or wrong when it comes to personality types. The test simply provides information about
ones preferences in a way that can be easily understood by diverse populations to make
individuals more effective in getting along with others, like children, spouses, or in the
community. More pragmatic reasons why the MBTI has become so popular are because it has
been marketed well and has been translated into many languages, so it has become accessible to
more people.
Prevalence of type among groups. According to data from 1Consulting Psychologists
Press (1998), the general population distribution rates for each type in the United States vary
from 1.5% for the rarest type (INFJ) to 12.3% for the most common type (ESFJ). These
percentages vary in different professional groups. For instance, among managers in the United
1
The name, Consulting Psychologists Press, was formerly changed to CPP in 2002.
States, the least common type by percentage is ISFP at 1.2%, and most common is ISTJ at 17%
(Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998).
Step II (Form Q) versus Step I (Form M). Most people who have heard of the MBTI
personality profile generally do not think beyond the four-letter type when considering their
preferences; however, the MBTI profiles can actually go much deeper than the basic types.
Although she never saw the finished product, ―Myers began to keep notes on the clusters she saw
in people‘s responses to the MBTI questions; . . . she envisioned the possibility that, one day,
MBTI results could be individualized to provide expanded information . . .‖ (Myers, 1998, p. 40)
based upon pattern responses. After Myers‘ death, her son, Peter Myers, and his wife contracted
with psychometrician David Saunders to perform a factor analysis with all the questions ever
used on MBTI forms. The results of Saunders‘ work eventually became Form K, which evolved
into Form Q, or Step II. On Form Q there are five facets for each of the MBTI dichotomies. This
level of analysis looks at 20 facets within the type dimensions to account for differences in those
individuals who have the same type but different behaviors (Pearman, Lombardo & Eichinger,
2005). For example, one extrovert might prove more intimate or an introvert more enthusiastic
than anticipated (Myers, 1998).
Although the subsequent research presented in this dissertation does not utilize Form Q, it
is worth noting its availability for researchers and coaches who would like to use its more
detailed processes. Step I, represented by Form M, provides the potential for sixteen types of
preferences. It is designed to afford information about the degree to which a person has a
preference. The four ranges for each of the letter types on Form M include slight, moderate,
clear, and very clear (e.g., ESFJ could possibly be designated as E=Slight, S=Moderate,
F=Clear, and J=Very Clear). The degree to which each preference extends depends upon the
frequency of individual selections between each dichotomous mental process, i.e.,
Extrovert/Introvert, Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, or Judging/Perceiving. Form M has
discrete cut-off values within each degree of preference plus a tie-breaking rule (Myers, &
Myers, 1998).
MBTI construct validity of extroversion. For clarification it is helpful to give
operational definitions for the dimensions one is studying. Zumbo & Taylor (1993) examined
whether extroversion was a unitary construct. They used the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
(EPQ), the Howarth Personality Questionnaire (HPQ), and the MBTI, Form G, in a conjoint
factor analysis to tease out disparities between operational definitions among these measures.
They discovered from four comparison factors that ―. . . although each measure is unique, each
contains a high degree of sociability and impulsiveness in its definition.‖ (p. 601). Zumbo &
Taylor found that extroversion is not a unitary construct. Among the three measures used in their
study, the authors determined that extroversion included sociability, impulsiveness, and a lack of
inferiority and anxiety. It also contained the presence of dominance. The MBTI extroversion
factor alone was discovered to be primarily a sociability measure with minimal association with
impulsivity. This study was important because it questioned operational definitions and
examined extroversion from two perspectives: (a) what is included in the definition of
extroversion and (b) what is not included in the definition. In this way others can better
understand exactly what they are measuring when looking at the MBTI extroversion and
introversion scales.
It should be noted that the above study used the MBTI, Form G, while the present study
used the MBTI, Form M. A comparative analysis between the two forms was published by CPP
(2002). Basically, the older Form G did not employ Item Response Theory (IRT), nor was it
based upon a national United States sample. Instead; it drew from a sample of convenience.
Form M is a fully forced-choice response measure with higher test-retest consistency (CPP,
2002). That being said, the operational definition of extroversion did not change between forms.
Psychometrics of the MBTI. There are ambiguous analyses within the MBTI Form M
manual, according to Fleenor & Mastrangelo (2001). For instance, these reviewers make salient
points about the reliability of the assessment being based on continuous preference scores, which
they cite as being contrary to the theory underlying the MBTI. Additionally, the test-retest
average after a four-week interval was only 65% when looking at the four-letter scores.
However, when looking at the four dichotomous scales, each scale has about a 90% four-week
test-retest reliability. After providing these data, these reviewers overall imply this version has
made significant improvements over past versions, but they warn that the MBTI Form M manual
still needs to improve its psychometric assertions. They also advise against using it as a hiring
tool. However, they state that it works well for self-understanding, management development
programs, and career counseling (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2001).
On the other hand, in a meta-analytic study, findings indicate that the construct validity of
the MBTI has been favorable overall, and its test-retest reliability has remained consistent over
time. Researchers concluded that the MBTI . . . ―tends to yield scores with acceptable reliability
across studies‖ (Capraro & Capraro, 2002, p. 599).
Steele & Kelly (1976), using Form F of the MBTI and the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ), found a significant correlation between the two personality assessments for
Extroversion and Introversion (E/I) despite these instruments having diverse orientations, i.e.,
type theory and trait theory, respectively. Similarly, the Keypoint Job Fit Assessment was shown
to correlate significantly with the (E/I) scales on the MBTI (Piotrowski & Armstrong, 2002).
Based on these studies, the MBTI expresses convergent validity on the E/I scale, even across
theories of personality.
The most troublesome scale in older versions of the MBTI, according to Capraro &
Capraro (2002), is the Thinking/Feeling scale. These authors brought out factors detailing gender
bias in its development. They stated it was the only scale on the MBTI that factored in gender
bias in that women are represented as more feeling and men as more thinking in their natures.
There were no studies previously performed that statistically substantiated this assumption—a
fault which substantially weakened its internal validity. However, Capraro & Capraro (2002)
determined in their meta-analysis of the MBTI that the other three scales appeared to have
adequate internal validity.
In the most current version of the MBTI (Form M), the gender differences cited by
Capraro & Capraro (2002) in previous versions have since been eliminated by using differential
item functioning (DIF) analysis (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2001). For more information regarding
DIF, see Donoghue, Holland, and Thayer (1993).
Item Response Theory (IRT) provides a test of item equivalence across groups. It is
utilized as the psychometric method to determine an individual‘s preference on any given scale
on the MBTI. According to Psychological Publications Incorporated (2010),
IRT takes into account the client's response pattern across an entire set of items. Those
that provide the most information- in other words, items that do the best job of
discriminating between opposite preferences at the midpoint of the scale- are assigned
higher weights. Because IRT methodology uses all of the information available about an
item to assign weights, it is much more refined and powerful than the prediction ratio
method or any other item-rating method. (para. 8)

For dichotomously scored personality items, such as those found on the MBTI, the two-
parameter logistic (2PL) model is most appropriate for personality data, according to Zickar
(2001). Zickar continues to explain when using a 2PL formula that it is actually a subordinate
model of the 3PL model and can be achieved by fixing the c parameter to zero. The c parameter
in multiple-choice tests represents the guessing factor, which is altered by making it a fixed value
in a 2PL model. Assuming that ―. . . the a parameter is related to how well the item measures the
construct being assessed by the scale‖ (p. 145), i.e., discrimination; ―. . . the b parameter is
related to the theta level needed for a high probability of item affirmation‖ (p.145), i.e.,
difficulty; and ―. . . the c parameter introduces a nonzero lower asymptote, i.e., ‗a straight line
that a regular curve approaches but never reaches‘ (VandenBos, 2007, p. 79) to the item response
function (IRF), so that respondents with large, negative thetas will have a nonzero probability of
affirming the item‖ (p.145), i.e., guessing. A theta is somewhat like a z score; thus, a zero theta is
designated as the mean of a bell curve and is a unidimensional trait with a standard deviation of
one, i.e., one theta is one standard deviation (Zickar, 2001).
Some researchers have published empirical evidence against type theory using IRT
methodology on the MBTI (Bess & Harvey, 2001); however, they disclosed that their research-
based sample of 1,600 college students may not be generalizable to typical recipients of the
MBTI (work-related) populations.
Zickar (2001) concluded his chapter regarding IRT by alluding to the gap between
research in basic psychometrics and personality research, by stating that he was ―. . . optimistic
about the potential of IRT to affect the practice of personality measurement and look[ed] forward
to a closer collaboration between personality theorists, the VO [vocational/organizational]
psychologists who use personality scales to predict job performance, and measurement
specialists‖ (Zickar, 2001, p. 157). In agreement with Zickar are Salter, Forney, and Evans
(2005). These researchers state there is generally a wide gap between research and practice;
however, they believe that each can inform the other. For instance, in the past decade the MBTI
publishers have addressed some of the most salient problems with its psychometrics as provided
by researchers‘ feedback, e.g., instituting IRT, which has vastly improved its psychometric
properties (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2001).
The common belief by measurement specialists has been that the MBTI is not robust
enough psychometrically to provide adequate predictive evidence for its use in personality
assessment or coaching endeavors. In line with the focus of this study, the MBTI has not been
used to predict anything. Rather, it has functioned to suggest that handwriting may be an
alternate tool to assist people in knowing themselves. The projective stance of handwriting
differs from pen-and-paper personality assessments in that some people do not have self-insight
and cannot reliably judge subjective experiences and feelings which are skills required on
standard personality assessments.
The null hypothesis, as previously stated is to determine if there is no relationship
between the sixteen personality types from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Form M
assessment, and three measurements of handwriting: pressure, slant and size; or if there is such a
relationship.
Methods
Participant Characteristics
To investigate the research hypothesis, a correlational design was used. Participants (N =
82) agreed to supply demographic information, to fill out a personality assessment, to provide a
handwriting sample, to sign a consent form, and to sign a disclosure that they met the criteria for
this study. Six participants did not provide their age, and 16 individuals did not disclose their
vocation. Three people who were given research packets did not return them. Table 1 provides
demographic variables that characterize the participants for gender, ethnicity, education, and
vocation.
Sampling Procedure
Sample Type. Convenience sampling was used to solicit participants. They were targeted
in the greater Denver and Colorado Springs areas in Colorado. The following were the inclusion
criteria for participants: individuals were required to be at least 25 but less than 56 years old;
they were required to be right-handed, and it was essential for them to be unafflicted with
neurological conditions that would otherwise cause shaky handwriting (e.g., Parkinson‘s
Disease). Each participant was required to use a black medium point Bic® pen that was
provided.
Sample Size. This was exploratory research, since the literature did not inform this study
of previous effect sizes. Given that 82 participants contributed to the sample size, a conservative
effect size was assumed (1-β ≥ .75, ≤ .80). (Burkholder, n.d.). In general, significant Pearson
product-moment correlations using a confidence level of .05, a power of .80, and achieving a
medium effect size require 85 people for sample size (Cohen, 1992).
Table 1
Participant Characteristics
______________________________________________________________________________
Total Mean Range Percentage

Demographic Variables
______________________________________________________________________________
Total Age 76 37 25 – 55
No Report 6
Gender
Male 24 38.4 25 – 55 29%
Female 58 36.4 25 – 54 71%
Ethnicity
African American 5 6%
Asian American 1 1%
Caucasian American 61 75%
Hispanic American 9 11%
Native American 2 2%
Mixed or Other American 4 5%
Education
High School/GED 5 6%
Vocational Certificate 1 1%
Some College 6 7%
Two-Year Degree 8 10%
Four-Year Degree 28 34%
Some Graduate School 9 11%
Master Degree 20 24%
Doctorate 3 4.5%
More than one Degree 2 2.5%
Vocation
Financial 8 10%
Medical 2 2%
Mental Health 26 32%
Secretarial 6 7%
Student 5 6%
Technical 15 18%
Miscellaneous 4 5%
Undisclosed 16 20%
Instruments
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Form M. The MBTI is a 93-item, forced-choice
personality assessment based on Carl Jung‘s personality typology (Jung, 1921/1923). It was
authored by Isabel and Peter Myers and published by Consulting Psychologists Press in 1998.
Although Form M is a self-scoring assessment, the instructions for this study specifically stated
not to rip off the binder after completing the assessment. Compliance was 96%. For those who
ripped off the binder and self-scored the assessment, the author re-scored them. The author‘s
qualifications to purchase, administer, score, and interpret this assessment consist of having
attained a Level B license. To earn a Level B license, one must hold an advanced degree in a
profession that provides specialized training in the interpretation of psychological assessments
(CPP, 2009). Additionally, the author passed an 87-question exam developed by Qualifying.org,
Inc., an on-line MBTI certification program (Pearman, R. R, 2007).
As previously stated, the MBTI Form M has a test-retest average after a four-week
interval of 65% in terms of the four-letter scores (type) and a 90% four-week test-retest
reliability on the four dichotomous scales. Additionally, the MBTI was constructed using Item
Response Theory, as discussed in the prior section of this study (Fleenor & Mastrangelo, 2001).
Author-constructed variables. In addition to evaluating the results of the 16 possible
MBTI types, the strengths of the preferences were also configured into a display format (see
Figures 1 and 2). It should be noted that out of a total of 93 questions available, they have been
broken down into the following: 21 points available on the Extroversion (E) / Introversion (I)
scale, 26 points available on the Sensing (S) / Intuition (N) scale, 24 points available on the
Thinking (T) / Feeling (F) scale, and 22 points on the Judging (J) / Perceiving (P) scale. As an
example, a participant may have chosen E=7 / I=14; S=8 / N=18; T=17 / F=7; and J=18 / P=4.
Strength of preference was recorded (see Appendix I), and it was evaluated categorically for
frequency of occurrence as Slight, Moderate, Clear, and Very Clear. Each gradation varies
according to the scale for which it applies. For instance, on the E / I scale, Slight would indicate
the preference to be 11-13 for either E or I; Moderate, 14-16; Clear, 17-19; and Very Clear, 20-
21.
Handwriting sample. A handwriting sample was required of each participant. The
sentence, ―I thought I saw a quite brown fox jumping over the lazy doggy, but when I looked
again it was becoming quite foggy‖, and the numbers, ―0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9‖ (see Appendix F)
were written three times on the top sheet of four pages separated by three pieces of carbon paper
(one per page beneath the top sheet). The samples were written on white, unlined, 20-pound
printer-type paper. This specific sentence was chosen because it represents all 26 letters of the
English alphabet.
Measurements. Three measurements of slant, size, and pressure were made by two raters
who worked independently from the author and each other. The inter-raters were trained by the
author, who holds a certificate in basic (Level I) handwriting analysis granted by The Institute of
Graphological Science (Bryden, 1983). Both inter-raters had no previous experience measuring
handwriting characteristics. Specific instructions were simultaneously made available to each
inter-rater describing the procedure to measure the slant, size, and pressure of 82 handwriting
samples (see Appendix G). Any discrepancies between the two inter-raters‘ results were
evaluated by the author, who made final determinations (see Table 2). The calculations were
made by dividing the number of matched rater measurements by the total participants (82), to get
the percentage that meet agreement of slant, size, and pressure.

Table 2
Handwriting Inter-Rater Agreement

______________________________________________________________________________
Total Percentage of Agreement
Measurements
______________________________________________________________________________
Total Samples 82
Slant 88%
Size 86%
Pressure 56%
______________________________________________________________________________
Slant. For each sample, the slant of the handwriting was determined by using a
graphological template developed and distributed by The Institute of Graphological Science
(Bryden, 1983), (See Appendix G). There were nine possible slant measurements. The
procedure for measuring the slant consisted of using the second of the three sections of each
sample. A baseline was drawn under the words in the line that represented the straightest
possible edge. Three handwriting samples had severe irregularity of the standard baseline
initially used for measurement, so another baseline was employed. Using a straight edge, a
perpendicular line was drawn on all upper-extended letters bisecting the top of the upper loops or
stems from the apex down to the baseline, (e.g., b, d, h, i, k, l, and t). Then, the slant guide was
placed on top of the angles, which were measured and recorded for each sample. These
measurements were tabulated as (7) for left, (6 and 1) for upright, and (2, 3, 4, 5) for right. There
were no 8 or 9 degrees of slant. Since all participants were right-handed by design, it was
expected there would be more right slants.
Size. For each sample, the size of the handwriting was determined by using another
graphological template developed and distributed by The Institute of Graphological Science
(Bryden, 1983), (See Appendix G.) There were three possible size measurements: small writing
(1/16 of an inch or less) = 1, medium writing (2/16th of an inch) = 2, and large writing (3/16th of
an inch or greater) = 3. The template was set on top of the writing sample for a best-fit
determination.
Pressure. Pressure readings were determined by how well the writing could be read
through three carbon copies. There were three measurements possible (light =1, medium =2, and
heavy = 3). The method of obtaining these readings was devised by a pilot study conducted by
the author in a class of 10 graduate students and one professor. A rating of three for heavy was
designated if the writing could be read on the fourth sheet, a rating of two for medium was
designated if the writing could be read on the third sheet, and a rating of 1 for light if the writing
could be read on only the second sheet. The first sheet was the original, which was used for slant
and size readings (See Appendix F).
Procedure
Requests to participate in this study were made by the author through inter-office e-mail
inquiries, by word-of-mouth and verbal requests, or by an electronic announcement board. The
locations targeted included: Colorado workplace personnel (i.e., IBM in Boulder, Denver
Options Inc., in Denver, and Honeywell in Colorado Springs), interested acquaintances, and
professional cohort (i.e., Colorado psychology graduate students at the University of the
Rockies). An instructional letter was included with the test packet provided to each individual
who agreed to participate in this study and met the qualifications (see Appendix A).
To compensate them for their time, which took most individuals approximately 15
minutes, participants were given a black ink Bic® pen and they were offered a website to view
the results of their MBTI assessment and to view the raw data of their handwriting samples (see
Appendix B). Additionally, the author agreed to make the abstract of her findings available on
the same website whence completed. Confidentiality of all participant results was protected by a
unique code ranging from 000 and 081, which was privately assigned at the time of data
collection.
Shawn T. Smith, Psy.D., Licensed Psychologist, agreed to act as a professional referral if
needed. Participants were offered Dr. Smith‘s contact information so they could seek his
assistance if they felt participating in this study was upsetting in any way (see Appendix C).
They were cautioned that any contact with Dr. Smith would be at their own expense. The author
agreed to talk with individuals if they felt any anxiety after their participation. Due to the
minimal risks involved in this study, there were no cases where an individual asked for either
form of care as a result of their participation.
All individuals dated and signed a consent form (see Appendix D) which identified the
researcher, the researcher‘s contact information, the title and focus of the study, the expectations
of participation, the approximate time for completing tasks, and the risks and benefits of
participating, including a statement about their ethical rights and the maintenance of their
confidentiality. The Institutional Review Board‘s contact information and approval number,
including its expiration date which was provided by the University of the Rockies, was also
notated on the consent form. A signed, dated copy of the consent form was kept by the primary
researcher, and a second copy was given to each participant. Their signatures were separated
from the data and placed in an envelope to be held by the committee chair, David Solly, Ed.D.,
upon completion of this study.
Data Analysis Plan
Two independent raters‘ measurements were employed using handwriting characteristics
(slant, size, and pressure) of 82 samples in specific arrays for each characteristic. Additionally,
correlational analyses were performed between these same dimensions of handwriting and the
MBTI results for the same group. The MBTI dimensions of Extroversion/Introversion,
Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, and Judgment/Perception were evaluated for any
relationships with those of the handwriting measurements described previously. Participant
sample results were tabulated using Microsoft Excel and, then, entered into the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program. Finally, hypothesis testing analyses
were run.
Results
MBTI Data
Letter preferences among the participants were considered (see Table 3). The overall
differences between the dichotomous scales were determined to be as follows: Extroversion was
preferred more than Introversion by 12 (E > I = 12); Intuition was preferred more than Sensing
by 28 (I > S = 28); Feeling was preferred more than Thinking by 34 (F > T = 34), which had the
highest difference in sample distribution; and Judging was preferred more Perceiving by 10
(J > P = 10).
A gender comparison by Chi-square testing was performed. The outcome indicated that
there was strong evidence to infer that the gender and MBTI letter-type preferences were related.
If the null hypothesis were true, gender and MBTI factor would be independent of each other (χ2
= 52.596, df = 7, p-value = 0.000). However, this null hypothesis was rejected due to the low p-
value.
Table 3
Letter Type and Gender Comparison

_____________________________________________________________________________
Female Male Total

Letter Type (n=58) (n=24) (N=82)
_____________________________________________________________________________
MBTI Scales
E (Extroversion) 37 10 47
I (Introversion) 21 14 35
N (Intuition) 21 34 55
S (Sensing) 3 24 27
T (Thinking) 13 11 24
F (Feeling) 45 13 58
J (Judging) 34 17 51
P (Perceiving) 24 17 41
_____________________________________________________________________________
Additionally, there were 15 out of the16 possible MBTI four-letter types represented in
the data (see Table 4). Of those represented in the data set, 53% comprised four MBTI types. The
ENFP type superseded all other types, characterizing 20% of the entire data set, with the INFP,
ESFJ, and ISFJ types being the closest second, third, and fourth, respectively, at 12%, 11%, and
10% of the data set, for a total of 53%. This exemplifies, as expected, that this sample (one of
convenience) did not meet the expected (random) base population distribution. For the four types
mentioned, their percentage distributions in the National Representative Sample are as follows:
―ENFP (8.1%)‖, ―INFP (4.4%)‖, ―ESFJ (2.5%)‖, and ―ISFJ (13.8%)‖ (Myers & McCaulley,
1998, p.298), or 28.8% (see Table 5).
Table 4
Representative MBTI Types by Gender

____________________________________________________________________________
Female Male Total Percentage of Total
Four-Letter Type (n=58) (n=24) (N=82) (100%)
_____________________________________________________________________________
1. INFP 6 4 10 12%
2. INFJ 3 2 5 6%
3. INTP 0 5 5 6%
4. INTJ 2 2 4 5%
5. ISFJ 7 1 8 10%
6. ISFP 1 0 1 1%
7. ISTP 1 0 1 1%
8. ISTJ 1 0 1 1%
9. ENFJ 6 0 6 7%
10. ENFP 11 5 16 20%
11. ENTP 4 2 6 7%
12. ENTJ 2 1 3 4%
13. ESFP 2 1 3 4%
14. ESFJ 9 0 9 11%
15. ESTJ 3 1 4 5%
16. ESTP 0 0 0 0%
____________________________________________________________________________
To compare MBTI Types with Gender, as represented on Table 4, a Chi-square test was
employed (χ2 = 22.44, df = 14). However, there were 8 cells with expected counts less than 1, so
the Chi-square approximation was invalid. Additionally, 26 cells had expected counts of less
than five, violating the ―rule of 5‖ required to ensure that the chi-squared distribution provides
adequate approximation of the sampling distribution.
Table 5
Comparison of Top Types with the National Sample

____________________________________________________________________________
Study Results National Results Differences
(n=43) (N=Base Population)
Top Types
____________________________________________________________________________
1. ENFP 20% 8.1% 11.9%
2. INFP 12% 4.4% 7.6%
3. ESFJ 11% 2.5% 8.5%
4. ISFJ 10% 13.8% -3.8 %
Totals 53% 28.8% 24.2%

____________________________________________________________________________
To determine if there was evidence to conclude (at the 5% significance level) that the
proportions of the sample were significantly different than the national sample, a Chi-square
goodness of fit test was conducted. The results indicated there was a difference between the
observed sample and the national sample (χ2 = 17.2175, df = 3, p-value= 0.001). However, one
cell violated the ―rule of 5‖ so a larger sample would have rendered greater information.
Handwriting Data
No significant relationships were observed between handwriting features for the
following groups: (a) Slant and Size, (b) Slant and Pressure, and (c) Size and Pressure. One way
to look at previewing singular analyses is to compare the variances between these three measures
(Gravetter & Wallnau, 1996). Descriptive statistics for slant, size, and pressure show very little
variance within each measure: (a) slant (SD = 1.5 ± 0.7), (b) size (SD = 2 ± 0.5), and (c) pressure
(SD = 2 ± 0.6). This outcome also suggests significance would be found in deviations greater or
less than the 2-rating (possibilities were 1, 2, or 3). Since all of the participants were right-
handed, a left slant was not expected, which was supported by the results (n=1), or 1% of the
participants was left-slanted, which was rated as a seven on the raw data (see Appendix H).
Support for the Hypothesis
The null hypothesis for this study stated there would be no significant relationships
among the three features of handwriting (slant, size, pressure), and measurements of personality
represented by the 16 MBTI types or by any of the four dichotomous scales that compose the
MBTI Form M assessment. The null hypothesis was retained.
Statistical tests. Due to the categorical variables represented in this study, a cross-
tabulation relationship was used to present the results. The Pearson chi-square test of
independence was employed to determine if there was a significant deviation between observed
and corresponding expected values of the variables (George & Mallery, 2007). Additionally, a
phi (φ) statistic and Cramér‘s V was computed using SPSS.
Phi (φ) controls for potentially misleading comparisons between one chi-square value and
another by standardizing measures of association between zero and one (zero meaning no
association and one, a perfect association). Pearson suggested this computation by dividing the
chi-square value by N and taking the positive square root of the result (George & Mallery, 2007).
Cramér‘s V, another statistical test, handles φ values that may be greater than one, which
can occur if the dimensions of the cross-tabulation are larger than two (George & Mallery,
2007). Cramér‘s V is mainly used as a post-test to determine strengths of association after chi-
square has determined significance.
Understanding the hypothesis. Of the 10 chi-square tests that were run, only two
reached significance. The first was found on the Thinking/ Feeling scale, compared with the
three degrees of handwriting size (small, medium, and large), χ2 (2, N = 82) = .04, p < .05. This
finding suggests there was a significantly positive relationship on these dimensions. Despite the
apparent significance, it is likely this occurred by chance since there were no other supporting
relationships were found (see Tables 6, 7, and 8). There is a 5% chance that the results
erroneously reached significance. In the case of the Thinking/ Feeling scale, a false positive was
likely reached.
Table 6
Thinking/Feeling Cross-tabulation with Writing Sizes

___________________________________________________________________________
Thinking Feeling Total
(n=24) (n=58) (N=82)
Sizes
__________________________________________________________________________
1. Small 4 3 7
2. Medium 13 47 60
3. Large 7 8 15
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 7
Chi-Square Test (Thinking/Feeling with Writing Sizes)

_______________________________________________________________________
Value df Significance, p < .05
Tests (2-sided)
___________________________________________________________________________
(χ2) Pearson Chi-Square 6.495a 2 .039
Symmetric Measures
(φ) Phi .281 .039
Cramér‘s V .281 .039
___________________________________________________________________________
Note. a. 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.05.
χ2 (2, N = 82) = .04, p < .05
Table 8
Comparison of Significance Levels

___________________________________________________________________________
E/I S/N F/T J/P
Handwriting
__________________________________________________________________________
Size .275 .837 .039* .456
Slant .286 .116 .712 .097
Pressure .144 .304 .934 .793
__________________________________________________________________________
Note. *p< .05
The second significant finding was on the cross-tabulation between left slant and
Intuition/Sensing (χ2 (1, n = 6) = .01, p < .05); however, due to the low number of qualifying data
points (n=6), this finding was not considered meaningful. It should be noted that most right-
handed people do not slant to the left. Perhaps if the sample criteria included left-handed people,
the results would have been more consequential.
Supplemental Analyses
To further investigate the MBTI data, an ancillary pictorial representation was created to
represent the four categories as depicted on Form M. The four ranges or groupings constitute
preferences chosen as Slight, Moderate, Clear, and Very Clear (Myers & Myers, 1998). The data
indicate more participants had preferences in the Moderate range (n=111) when answering the 93
questions on the MBTI assessment (see Figure 1). The Clear range (n=94) was the second most
selected category for overall preferences. The Slight range (n=69) and the Very Clear range
(n=54) were the last two most chosen ranges, which is expected because they constitute
differences away from the mean in the shape of a bell curve (see Figure 2). There was a wide
variation in the preference selection, particularly on the Thinking/Feeling dichotomous scale
with a range variation of Very Clear = 0 to Moderate =20, respectively.

Figure 1
MBTI DEGREES OF PREFERENCES
25
20
PREFERENCE POINTS
15
SLIGHT
MODERATE
CLEAR
VERY CLEAR
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
E I S N T F J P
Figure 2
Means of MBTI Ranges
120
100
Means
80
60
40
20
0
Slight Moderate Clear Very Clear
Summary in Support of the Hypothesis
After evaluating the data from a correlational perspective using the chi-square test for
independence, no evidence was found that supported retaining the alternative hypothesis.
Instead, the null hypothesis was retained, and various table and pictorial methods of describing
the data were presented. For instance, the significance levels of the cross-tabulation tests were
compared (see Table 8). Also, the top four MBTI types in this study were compared with the top
four from the National Representative population as reported by Myers & McCaulley (1998).
Handwriting results and MBTI results were examined for variation significance and were
described by comparing preference averages (see Figure 2).

Discussion
Reason and intuition have not always operated in unison with the way people approach
knowledge. The same observed disparity has been seen to apply to differences between
knowledge gained by research and information gained from practice (Zickar, 2001). For
instance, in practice graphology seems to work on some levels, e.g., gestalt approaches conjoined
with intuition, but proving this effectiveness by means of quantitative methods has been proved
problematic (Ben-Shakhar, Bilu, Ben-Abba, & Flug, 1986; Honey, 1992). Having said that, the
techniques of measurement that were employed in this study could have been refined more, and
this lack may have made a difference, quantitatively, in the findings that ultimately supported the
null hypothesis.
The design and execution of this empirical research has taken into account the previous
research on the subject. The conclusion is that when compared, that examined aspects of
handwriting and personality types do not correlate. For this reason, it is not recommended that
handwriting be used as a hiring tool as in some American companies, but especially in European
companies (Greasley, 2000). Additionally, there was no evidence in this research to indicate that
handwriting can systematically be used for self-understanding.
Confounds and Basic Handwriting Measurement Drawbacks
There were several confounds and identified drawbacks in the collection and
measurement of data in this study. The main drawback was in the measurement techniques that
were employed, which were hindered by cost concerns and the feasibility of assessment
administration. Quality of the handwriting samples was also a concern.
Confounds. Confounding factors that may have interfered with measurement results
were considered. For instance, the data-collection environment may have presented difficulities
for some participants as they completed the data packets. One person could have been writing on
a clipboard, while another could have been writing on a smooth surface. These variances may
have contributed to some of the erratic pressure readings that were obtained. Additionally,
learned handwriting styles may have interfered with handedness. The participants were not asked
if they were ambidextrous. Another issue was the consideration of the writing size. Perhaps some
of the participants were trained to write small so they could get more words onto a page. If this
were true, the size of one‘s handwriting would not necessarily represent a personality type but
would represent a learned behavior.
Measurement techniques. One of the most difficult measurements undertaken in this
study was the handwriting-pressure reading. A pilot study was conducted using carbon paper to
determine how hard a person pressed down when writing. At the time, this method seemed like it
would accurately capture the pressure of individual handwriting. In retrospect, however,
interpretations of the pressure proved difficult to make. The inter-raters were able to match each
other 56% of the time (see Table 2). The fact that handwriting pressure can be uneven
contributed to the encountered difficulty. To correct for this circumstance, an automated method
of measuring pressure in handwriting would have contributed to greater accuracy.
The cost of using an automated pressure-reading instrument were beyond the monetary
means of this researcher. Additionally, the feasibility of administering an automated writing
pressure measurement, given the time constraints inherent in this research study, would have
placed unreasonable demands upon completion of the data collection.
The recommendation for future attempts in this regard would be to obtain funding to
purchase advanced equipment like a digitizing tablet and an instrumented pen to measure
pressure in handwriting more precisely. There is a precedent for using such equipment in
handwriting research as defined by Werner, Rosenblum, Bar-On, Heinik, and Korczyn (2006).
Such a procedure is called kinematic assessment. Relying upon inter-rater judgment by placing a
certain degree of additional difficulty on them in judging unevenness of pressure was one
drawback of this study. Using a digitizing tablet would have averaged the pressure readings and
thus prevented this problem.
The other measurements obtained from handwriting samples were the slant and the size.
For these measurements, graphological templates were used (see Appendix G). Although the
inter-raters shared greater agreement in their measurements, i.e., >85% agreements (see Table 2),
determining a way to automate these measurements would have added to the standardization and
sensitivity of the overall readings, potentially contributing more support for the alternative
hypothesis.
Measurement choices. Selecting slant, size, and pressure as handwriting dimensions to
study may have been too limiting and thus prevented finding support for the alternative
hypothesis. Although these are common measurements in handwriting among graphologists,
there are many more dimensions that could have been included in a study of this type, for
instance, margin width; upper, middle, and lower zone measurements; broadness and narrowness
of letters, etc. (Bryden, 1983).
Considering the Personality Assessment
Comparing handwriting with the scales of the MBTI was a good research choice. The
MBTI Form M has shown significant improvement with its psychometric properties (Fleenor &
Mastrangelo, 2001). It is also well-known and easily administered. Most importantly, the MBTI
measures the same dimensions graphology purports to measure, like extroversion, introversion,
and emotionality (feeling).

Another possible comparative personality-measurement tool for use in this study is the
Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrea, 1992), which also measures extroversion;
however, the other dimensions on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, Neuroticism for
example, would have been potentially more difficult to ascertain from handwriting than the
features of the dichotomous scales on the MBTI. Additionally, the MBTI is based on type theory,
and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory on trait theory (see O‘Conner, B. P., 2002; Costa &
McCrea, 1992). The main difference between these theories as they pertain to this study is that
trait theory is designed to make predictions about people, while type theory is more about
personal preferences (Pearman, Robert, & Eichinger, 2005). The main focus of this study is self-
understanding, not behavioral predictions.
MBTI points of interest. After careful analysis of the MBTI results, a few unanswered
questions emerged from the data set. The ENFP type superseded all other types, representing
20% of the entire data set. Here is Myers‘ description of this type (1998):
[They are] warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. See life as full of possibilities. Make
connections between events and information very quickly, and confidently proceed based
on the patterns they see. Want a lot of affirmation from others, readily give appreciation
and support. Spontaneous and flexible, often rely on their ability to improvise and
their verbal fluency. (p.13)
Yet there was no demonstrable pattern to suggest why this type emerged from the sample set
more than any other. One of the first relational possibilities cross-checked was occupation type
with the ENFP type, but there were no occupations more than any other represented by the ENFP
type. There were also no patterns of age or education associated with this type. One reason that
could explain the prevalence of this type is that ENFPs may by nature be gracious people who
enjoy helping researchers.
Considering Participant Demographics
When the demographic variables in the data set were compared, it seemed curious that
not as many individuals reported their occupation as their gender, education, age, or race. There
was 100% compliance in reporting gender, education, and race. There was 93% compliance in
reporting age, but only 80% compliance in reporting their occupation. One reason for this
outcome may be the way the form was designed (see Appendix E). Perhaps some participants did
not see the word ―occupation‖ on the form but only the line to the right of the word ―occupation‖
which they interpreted it as a separator line. Another possible reason may be the fact that some
participants, who were student, did not have career-ladder jobs; however, this explanation is less
likely since the targeted sample was generally from work establishments.
The largest participant occupational group was the field of mental health (32%). There
may have been an even higher percentage, since nearly 20% of the total participants did not
report their occupation. The mental-health category included the following vocations: (a) mental
health therapist (n=5); (b) social worker (n=8); (c) case manager (n=9); (d) recreational therapist
(n=1); (e) life counselor (n=1); (f) psychiatrist (n=1); and (g) psychologist (n=1).
Education. The data set consisted of highly educated individuals. The 2008 Colorado
Census lists the average percentage of people with a bachelor‘s degree or higher at 32.7%. Some
91% of the research participants, by contrast, had at least a bachelor‘s degree. As it happened,
the targeted population for this study main consisted of professionals. This circumstance was not
by intent, but resulted from convenience.

Race. The distribution ethnicities for this study were comparable to Colorado‘s current
demographics. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a health organization, reported in 2009
the following ethnicity breakdown in the state: Caucasians 73%, African Americans 4%, and
Hispanics 18%, while this study consisted of Caucasians 75%, African Americans 6%, and
Hispanics 11%.
Categorical Measurements
Statistically, measuring data by nominal or categorical methods contributes to a loss of
information (George & Mallery, 2007). This study exemplified such a loss. In order to gain
more information, a larger sample would be required. For example, this study represented only
15 of the 16 MBTI types. Greater sample size would have provided a greater chance that all 16
types would have been represented.
Conclusion
Although the null hypothesis was retained, it is still hoped that there would be at least
once dimension of handwriting to support a corresponding dimension of personality. As
previously mentioned, aspects of signatures have successfully indicated extroversion (McNichol
& Nelson, 1991); however, for confidentiality reasons, collecting signatures as the focus of this
study was not feasible.
The only current well-respected assessment instrument currently in use that employs
handwriting in its scoring criteria is the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III (WJ-III)
(Mather & Woodcock, 2001). The presupposition in this test is that handwriting understandable
evolves as a person matures and gains greater motor control, which is the focus of the WJ-III
handwriting section. So, in contrast to the present study, the WJ-III does not attempt to correlate
its handwriting analysis with personality types.

The present study, which scores different aspects of handwriting, did not support the
alternative hypothesis. Perhaps another approach, a holistic one, would have yielded different
results. A holistic approach would have differed from an analytic approach by going more into
depth with handwriting by investigating fewer individuals, but finding out more about the
participants. Research questions might have included ―How do people of different levels of
education differ in their handwriting style?‖ or ―Do people who write large have anything in
common?‖
Instead, the present study collected data from 82 individuals consisting of handwriting
samples and a personality assessment, and analyzed it by Cross-tabulation. In the evaluative
process, interesting outcomes regarding the MBTI preferences were discovered. For instance,
most participants were extroverts, intuitive, feeling, and judging-types, as opposed to being
introverted, sensing, thinking or perceiving-types. Additionally, the ENFP-type was most
prevalent among 16 possible personality types, and the ESTP-type was the only type not
represented in the data-set. Finally, the present study supported much of the current data
regarding empirical studies between personality and handwriting.

References
Allport, G. W., & Vernon, P. E. (1933). Studies on expressive movement. New York, NY: The
Macmillan Company.
Amend, K., & Ruiz, M. S. (1980). Handwriting analysis: The complete basic book. North
Hollywood, CA: New Castle Publishing Co., Inc.
Baker, F. B. (1985, 2001). The basics of item response theory. Clearinghouse on Assessment and
Evaluation, 1-185. Retrieved from info.worldbank.org
Baram, D. P. (1986, Mar-Apr). Manifestation of neuroticism in handwriting. Voprosy
Psychologii, 2, 161-163. Retrieved from http://www.voppsy.ru/eng/news.htm
Beech, J. R., & Mackintosh, I. C. (2005). Do differences in sex hormones affect handwriting
style? Evidence from digit ratio and sex role identity as determinants of the sex of
handwriting. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 459–468.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.024
Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search
for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506-520.
Retrieved from http://dbem.ws/Predicting%20Some%20People.pdf
Ben-Shakhar, M., Bilu, Y., Ben-Abba, E., & Flug, A. (1986). Can graphology predict
occupational success? Two empirical studies and some methodological ruminations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 645-653.
Bess, T. L., & Harvey, R. J. (2001, Feb). Bimodal score distributions and the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator: Fact or artifact? Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(1), 176-186. doi:
10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_11
Beversdorf, D. Q., Anderson, J. M., Manning, S. E., Anderson, S. J., Nordgren, R. E., Felopulos,
G. J., & Bauman, M. L. (2001, February). Brief report: Macrographia in high-functioning
adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
31(1), 97-101. doi: 10.1023/A:1005622031943
Bowman, M. L. (1992). Difficulties in assessing personality and predicting behavior:
Psychological tests and handwriting analyses contrasted. In B. L. Beyerstein & D. F.
Beyerstein (Eds.), The write stuff: Evaluations of graphology, the study of handwriting
analysis (pp. 203-231). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Briggs-Myers, I. (1998). Introduction to type (6 ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Bryden, M. L. (1983). The institute of graphological science course: Graphology level I.
Burkholder, G. J. (n.d.). The absolute essentials of sample size analysis: Table supporting the
sample size analysis power-point presentation. Retrieved from Walden University
dissertation course at http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs
Canli, T., Sivers, H., Whitfield, S. L., Gotlib, I. H., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2002, June 21). Amygdala
response to happy faces as a function of extraversion. Science, 296(5576), 2191. doi:
10.1126/science.1068749
Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2002). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator score reliability across
studies: A meta-analytic reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 62(590-602). doi: 10.1177/0013164402062004004
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Colorado Census. (2008). Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html

Consulting Psychologists Press Renamed CPP, Inc. (2001, August 6). The Write News. Retrieved
from http://www.writenews.com/2002/080602_cpp_inc.htm
Costa, P. T., & McCrea, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
CPP. (2009). Educational eligibility for purchase and use of CPP assessments. Retrieved from
https://www.cpp.com/certification/educationaleligibility.aspx
Donoghue, J. R., Holland, P. W., & Thayer, D. T. (1993). A Monte Carlo study of factors that
affect the Mantel-Haenzel and standardization measures of differential item functioning.
In P. W. Holland & H. Waine (Eds.), Differential item functioning (pp. 137-166).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Educational Testing Service.
Eysenck, H. J. (1948). ―Neuroticism‖ and handwriting. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 43(1), 94-96. doi: 10.1037/h0053484
Fleenor, J. W., & Mastrangelo, P. M. (2001). Test review of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Form M. In B. S. Plake & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The Fourteenth mental measurements
yearbook (Electronic Version). Retrieved from http://www.unl/buros
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial
and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
16(5), 91-109. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol16/iss1/5
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2007). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference:
14.0 update (Seventh Edition). Boston: Pearson.
Greasley, P. (2000). Handwriting analysis and personality assessment: The creative use of
analogy, symbolism, and metaphor. European Psychologist, 5(1), 44-51.

Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (1996). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, (Fourth Edition)
St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Hamid, S., Loewenthal, K. M. (1996). Inferring gender from handwriting in Urdu and English.
Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 778–782. Retrieved from
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19296225.html
Harvey, R. J., & Murry, W. D. (1994). Scoring the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Empirical
comparison of preference score versus latent-trait methods. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 62, 116-129. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6201_11
Honey, W. (1992, September). Emerging growth companies and the at-risk employee: The
viability of pre-employment honesty testing. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 57.
Retrieved from http://www.allbusiness.com/management/347140-1.html
Jansen, A. (1973). Validation of graphological judgments: An experimental study. The Hague,
Netherlands: Mouton Publishers.
Jung, C. G. (1923). Psychological types (Trans.) (3rd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. (Original work published 1921)
Kaiser, H. J., Kaiser Family Foundation. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.statehealthfacts.org/
Kanon, S. (2007). Made in Israel tool diagnoses penmanship problems. Retrieved from
http://research.haifa.ac.il/~rosens/cicweb.htm
King, R. N., & Koehler, D. J. (2000). Illusory correlations in graphological inference. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(4), 336-348. doi:10:1037//1076-898X.6.4.336
Longstaff, M. G., & Heath, R. A. (1999). A nonlinear analysis of the temporal characteristics of
handwriting. Human Movement Science, 18, 485-524. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01679457
Luria, G., & Rosenblum, S. (2009). Comparing the handwriting behaviours of true and false
writing with computerized handwriting measures. Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi:
10.1002/acp.1621
Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Examiner‘s Manual. In Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of
Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
MBTI Qualifying Program, (2000-2010). Retrieved from www.qualifying.org
McCaulley, M. H. (2000). Myers-Briggs type indicator: A bridge between counseling and
consulting. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52, 117-132. doi:
10.1037/1061-4087.52.2.117
McNichol, A., & Nelson, J. A. (1991). Handwriting analysis: Putting it to work for you.
Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books.
Myers, I. B. (1998). Introduction to type (6 ed.). Mountain View, CA
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI® manual: A
guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®. Mountain
View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Myers, P. B., & Myers, K. B. (1998). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: [Form M Self-Scorable].
Published instrument. Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Nickell, J. (1992). A brief history of graphology. In B. L. Beyerstein & D. F. Beyerstein (Eds.),
The write stuff: Evaluations of graphology, the study of handwriting analysis (pp. 23-29).
Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
O‘Conner, B. P. (2002). A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model
in relation to popular personality inventions. Assessment, 9, 188-203. doi:
10.1177/1073191102092010
Patel, T. (2006). Comparing the usefulness of conventional and recent personality assessment
tools: Playing the right music with the wrong instrument. Global Business Review, 7,
195-218. doi: 10.1177/097215090600700202
Pearman, R. R. (2007). MBTI® instrument qualifying program. Retrieved from
www.qualifying.org
Pearman, R. R., Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2005). You, being more effective in your
MBTI type. Minneapolis, MN: Lominger International.
Piotrowski, C., & Armstrong, T. (2002). Convergent validity of the KeyPoint pre-employment
measure with the MBTI. Psychology and Education: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 39(1),
49-50. Retrieved from http://psychologyandeducation.net/index.html
Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs type indicator.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210-221. doi:
10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210
Psychological Publications Incorporated. (2010). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Retrieved from
http://www.tjta.com/products/TST_025.htm
Ramsay, J. O. (2000). Functional components of variation in handwriting. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 95(9), 495.
Salter, D. W., Forney, D. S., & Evans, N. J. (2005, Jan). Two approaches to examining the
stability of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scores. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development, 37(4), 208-219. Retrieved from http://mec.sagepub.com/
Seifer, M. J. (2009). The definitive book of handwriting analysis. Franklin Lakes, NJ: The Career
Press, Inc.
Sonnemann, U., & Mittelmann, B. (1950). Handwriting analysis as a psychodiagnostic tool: A
study in general and clinical graphology. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Srihari, S. N., Cha, S., Arora, H., & Lee, S. (2002). Individuality of handwriting. Journal of
Forensic Sciences, 47(4), 856-872. Retrieved from
http://www.cedar.buffalo.edu/~srihari/papers/index.html
Steele, R. S., & Kelly, T. J. (1976). Eysenck personality questionnaire and Jungian Myers-Briggs
type indicator correlation of extraversion-introversion. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 44(4), 690-691.
Teillard, A. (1974). L’ame et l’ecriture (Graphology based on analytical psychology) (E. B.
O‘Neill Trans.). Paris: Editions Traditionnelles. (Original work published 1948)
Thomas, S. L., & Vaught, S. (2001). The write stuff: What the evidence says about using
handwriting analysis in hiring. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 66(4). Retrieved
from http://www.allbusiness.com/sam-advanced-management-journal/41463-1.html
VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA dictionary of psychology. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Warner, R. M., & Sugarman, D. B. (1986). Attributions of personality based on physical
appearance, speech, and handwriting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50
792-799. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.792
Zickar, M. J. (2001). Conquering the next frontier: Modeling personality data with item response
theory. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality Psychology in the Workplace,
Decade of Behavior (pp. 141-160). doi: 10.1037/10434-006
Zumbo, B. D., & Taylor, S. V. (1993). The construct validity of the extraversion subscales of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 25(4), 590-604.

Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1977). The empirical study of signature size. Social Behavior and
Personality: An International Journal, 5(1), 177-185. doi:10.2224/sbp.1977.5.1.177
http://www.allbusiness.com/sam-advanced-management-journal/41463-1.html
Footnote
1
According to The Write News, on Tuesday, August 6, 2002, the name Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc., the exclusive publisher of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator announced
its name change to CPP, Inc.

APPENDIX A
INSTRUCTIONAL LETTER
Are you between 25 and 55 and are you right handed?

If so, read on—otherwise, please return this packet to me
Hello,
I am Joy Fox, an intern working toward my doctorate in Clinical Psychology. Please help me
with my dissertation entitled ―A Correlational Analysis Between Handwriting Traits and
Personality Type as Defined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator". It will take less than 30
minutes for most people. If you decide to complete the participant packet, you may learn more
about yourself.
Please do the following:
(1) Page one – use the pen provided (you may keep the pen if you wish) sign and date at the
top and fill out the ―demographics‖ at the bottom. I will separate the two halves and will
not associate your name with the information.
(2) Page two – Please read about my study, note there are minimal risks, but I am offering a
referral if needed (page three). Also note your rights. Sign and date the consent form.
Please keep a copy for yourself (page four).
(3) Page five – Here are the instructions for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) –
please do not rip the binder off the form when you are done answering 93 questions
over two pages – (I have to rip the binder off). The lower half of this page indicates the
code you will go by—please keep this page—there is a web site where the results will be
posted.
(4) Last part: this is the handwriting sample I am collecting. Please write the sentence and
number string three times in your normal everyday handwriting on the top sheet. I prefer
cursive, but if you only print, that is fine too. Remember to use the pen provided. Note
there is carbon paper—this is because I am measuring your personal ―normal‖ pressure.
Do not feel you have to press down any harder than if you were writing on a single sheet
of paper. Just write the way you always do.
Thanks so much for your participation – please hand back the completed packet (minus the three
pages you keep) to me or my representative. Keep the pen as a token of my appreciation.
Sincerely,
APPENDIX B
PACKET INFORMATION WITH WEB SITE
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Directions and Information
There is no time limit.
When responding to the items, select the most appealing response (not
necessarily what you feel you have to do from day to day).
Remember, there are no rights or wrong answers.
Don‘t think too long on a question as your initial response is most likely true
for you.
Results reflect personal preferences and patterns, not aptitudes or skills.
As a participant in this study, you can gain an understanding of your type from the MBTI
assessment by going to this website:
http://luvjoy46-ivil.tripod.com/
Please keep your code handy so you can reference your individual results. No names will be
posted on the website, only codes. I will also be posting my findings there when all the data has
been analyzed. I hope to have all data collected and posted by April, 2010. Your individual data
will be posted fairly soon after collection and the entire study‘s results will be posted in April.
Thanks again for being a participant in my dissertation.
S. Joy Fox, M.A.

Doctoral Candidate - Clinical Psychology, (Psy.D.)
APPENDIX C
REFERRAL
Psychological Referral if Needed
M E S A Psychological Services, Inc.

Shawn T. Smith, Psy.D.
303-818-5162
121 S. Madison, Suite B

Denver, CO 80209
Shawn@MesaPsych.com
APPENDIX D
CONSENT FORM
Consent Form
You are being invited to participate in a research project conducted by S. Joy Fox, MA, who is a graduate
student at University of the Rockies. This investigation will endeavor to see if various handwriting traits
correspond to any personality traits measured on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). You will be
asked to provide a handwriting sample on unlined paper using a Bic® black ink medium-point pen. The
sentence you will copy three times is,
―I thought I saw the quick brown fox jump over the lazy doggy, but I looked again and saw it was
becoming very foggy.‖ You will also be asked to write the numbers 0-9 three times. After you provide the
handwriting sample, you will be asked to complete the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality
assessment (form M). These tasks will take approximately 35-50 minutes to complete.
There are minimal risks associated with participation in this study. Potentially, taking a personality
assessment could trigger memories that may be uncomfortable, but this would be a rare occurrence. Most
people enjoy taking personality assessments. There are no known risks to providing handwriting samples.
If you feel like you need to talk to someone after your participation, this researcher will be available to
assist you. If you need resources to follow-up with a professional therapist or psychologist, those
references will be made available to you. Any fees incurred in that endeavor would be your responsibility.
Potential benefits of your participation in this research project include knowing your personality type
which can be helpful in self-understanding. You will be given a website on a separate piece of paper to
view the results of this research project.
If you have decided to participate in this project, please understand that your participation is voluntary
and that you have the right to withdraw your consent or discontinue participation at any time with no
penalty. You also have the right to refuse to answer any question(s) for any reason with no penalty. In
addition, your individual privacy will be maintained in all publications or presentations resulting from this
study. To protect your identity, you will be assigned a number between 000 and 100. Some demographic
information will be collected like your race, gender, and age, but this information will not be associated
with your name during the research project. Any identifying information will be kept locked up with the
dissertation chair, Dr. David Solly, on University of the Rockies premises.
If you have any questions regarding this study, you may contact the researcher at 303-748-1406. If you
have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant or any concerns regarding this project,
you may report them to The University of the Rockies Chairperson of the Institutional Review Board at
719-442-0505.
A copy of this consent form will be provided to you.
I understand the above information and voluntarily consent to participation in the research.
Signature of Participant: _____________________________________ Date: _____________

IRB Approval Number: 09-010 IRB Expiration Date: 07-10-2010
APPENDIX E
PARTICIPANT DISCLOSURE/DEMOGRAPHIC FORM
Participant Disclosure
I, ________________________________ disclose on this date, _________________that I do

not have a physical symptom which interferes in the quality of my handwriting. Examples could
be Parkinson‘s Disease, Motor Tic‘s, Multiple Sclerosis, or any other medical or physiological
problem that could cause my handwriting to be uncharacteristically shaky such that it deviants
from my normal handwriting. I also disclose that my dominant writing hand is my right hand,
and I am between the age of 25 and 55 years old.
Code _________
----------------------------------------------------------
I also disclose the following information about myself which will be kept confidential. I
understand this information will not be associated with my name and will be protected by the
researcher, S. Joy Fox, MA, and her dissertation chair, David Solly, Ed.D.
Sex- Male Female Other Race- African-American (Black)

Age- ________ Native American
Occupation- ___________________________________ Caucasian (White)
Education- Some High School Hispanic
High School or GED Asian
Two-Year Degree Other
Vocational Certificate
Some College
Four-Year Degree
Some Graduate School
Master‘s Degree
Doctorate Degree
More than one Degree Code _________
APPENDIX F
HANDWRITING DIRECTIONS
I thought I saw the quick brown fox jump over the lazy doggy, but I looked again
and saw it was becoming very foggy. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Directions: Please write the above sentence and number string on this page three times in your
normal, everyday penmanship with the pen provided.
APPENDIX G
INTER RATER INSTRUCTIONS WITH SLANT/SIZE TEMPLATES
After beginning the handwriting scoring process, it became evident, due to some
miscommunication, that there was a need for a written detailed procedure rather than a verbal
one for the two inter-raters. The following was instituted as the official key used in grading:
Slant:
SL1 = minimally right (slant gauge= 2) SL5 = upright (slant gauge= 1)
SL2 = slightly right (slant gauge= 3) SL6 = slightly left (slant gauge=6)
SL3 = some right (slant gauge= 4) SL7 = moderately left (slant gauge= 7)
SL4 = significantly right (slant gauge= 5) SL8 = significantly left (slant gauge= 8)
SL9 = baseline slant either direction (slant gauge=9)
(Emotional Slant Gauge© IGS, Bryden)
Size: Pressure:
Sz1 = Small (1/16) Pr1 = Light
Sz2 = Medium (2/16) Pr2 = Moderate
Sz3 = Large (3/16) Pr3 = Heavy
(© Size Chart IGS-Bryden)
These are detailed instructions for measuring slant, size, and pressure for the handwriting
samples submitted by the primary investigator (PI).
Slant
The inter-raters will use the standard slant gage provided (Emotional Slant Gauge© IGS,
Bryden)
The slant shall be measured with an understanding that the numbers on the gauge are to
the right of the line mark they are measuring for numbers 1 through 5, and to the left of
the line mark they are measuring for numbers 6 through 8, with 9 being the baseline.
Each inter-rater will use the middle sample, and the second line of writing within that
sample to take measurements from.
Each inter-rater will use the top original sheet of the sample above the carbons, for slant
measurements.
A light line will be drawn under the designated section connecting as many features as
possible to make a drawn baseline.
A light line will be drawn to dissect all upper stems and loops exactly in half, or will be
drawn exactly to trace the tip of the stem down to the baseline, perpendicular to it of all
higher zone letters, (e.g., l, d, b)
The slant gage baseline will be superimposed on top of the drawn sample baseline, and
will be moved until the perpendicularly drawn line matches a slant-line on the gauge.
o If the sample measures half way between one line and the next, it shall be
designated as a number and ―one-half‖, (e.g., 1.5)
o If the sample measures closer to one line than another, it will be called the line it
is closest to.
o If the two inter-raters cannot agree, the PI will make a determination after
consulting with the inter-raters.
o If the sample measurements are inconsistent, an average will be used (e.g., 1, 1, 2
= 1); therefore a minimum of three measurements will be taken per sample
measurement.
The two inter-raters will perform their measurements independent from one another.
The PI will transfer the measurements onto a spreadsheet and post the results to the
website provided to the participants.
Size
The inter-raters will use the standard size gage provided (© Size Chart IGS-Bryden).
The gauge zone depicting 1/16th is considered small, 2/16ths is considered medium, and
3/16ths considered large writing.
Each inter-rater will use the top, original sheet of the sample that did not involve a carbon
copy for size measurements.
The same middle area used for the slant measurement will be utilized for the size
measurement for each participant sample supplied by the PI.
Each inter-rater will determine if each participant sample fits within the guidelines on the
size gauge and assign a number of 1 for small, 2 for medium, and 3 for large.
The middle zone letters (i.e. a, e, o etc…) will be used for these measurements.
Pressure
Each inter-rater will examine the pressure template provided by the PI. (The template was
devised during a pilot study in which 11 volunteers from a graduate class wrote the
sample sentence used in this study on a blank page once each, with three carbons all on
the same unlined page).
If the inter-raters can read the third copy of the handwriting sample, they will designate a
3 rating.
If the inter-raters can read the second copy of the handwriting sample, and not the third,
they will designate a 2 rating.
If the inter-raters can read only the first copy of the handwriting sample, they will
designate a 1 rating.
Being able to read a copy constitutes making out either all the words or most of the words
with few exceptions. The exceptions will not number more than four words to allow for
uneven pressure.
Each rater will use the middle line of the middle sentence, all words for this
measurement.
APPEMDIX H
RAW DATA
Number Inter Raters Actual Inter Raters Actual Inter Raters Actual MBTI
pressure pressure
Sample slant J slant K Final 1 size J size K Final 2 J K Final 3 TYPE
000 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ENFP
001 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 ENFP
002 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 INFP
003 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 ENFJ
004 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 INTJ
005 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 INFJ
006 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 INFP
007 2.5 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 INFJ
008 5 5 5 2 2 2 1 2 1 INFP
009 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 ENTJ
010 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 1 2 ESFP
011 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 INFP
012 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 ENTP
013 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 ENFP
014 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 ENFP
015 5 5 5 3 3 3 1 1 1 ENTP
016 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 INTP
017 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 INTP
018 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 INTJ
019 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 ENFP
020 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 ISFJ
021 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 INTJ
022 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 ISFJ
023 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 ESFJ
024 6 1 6 2 2 2 1 2 2 INFJ
025 6 6 6 2 2 2 2 3 3 ENFJ
026 2.5 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 INTP
027 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 3 2 ENFP
028 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 ESFP
029 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 INFP
030 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 INFP
031 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 ESTJ
032 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 ESFP
033 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 INFP
034 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 ENFP
035 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 ENTP
036 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 INFJ
037 4 3 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 ENFP
038 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 ENFP
039 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 ESFJ
040 7 1 6 2 2 2 2 3 3 ENFP
041 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 ENFP
042 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 INTP
043 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 INFP
044 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 ENTJ
045 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 ENFP
046 1 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 ESTJ
047 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 ENTP
048 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 ESFJ
049 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 ESFJ
050 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 ISFJ
051 6 1 6 2 2 2 3 3 3 ENFJ
052 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 3 3 ENFP
053 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 ENFP
054 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 ESTJ
055 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 INFP
056 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 INTP
057 7 7 7 1 2 2 3 2 3 ESFJ
058 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 ISFJ
059 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 ENTP
060 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 ENFJ
061 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 ENFP
062 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 ISFJ
063 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 INFP
064 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 ENFJ
065 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 ENFP
066 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 ESFJ
067 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 ISTP
068 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 ESFJ
069 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 ISTJ
070 6.5 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 ENTJ
071 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 ESFJ
072 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 ISFJ
073 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 ISFJ
074 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 ISFP
075 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 ENFJ
076 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 ESTJ
077 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 ISFJ
078 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 ISFJ
079 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 INTJ
080 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 ESFJ
081 6 6 6 2 1 2 2 3 3 INFJ
APPENDIX I
STRENGTHS OF TYPE PREFERENCES
E I S N T F J P
000 ENFP 16 5 12 14 12 12 2 20
001 ENFP 20 1 5 21 5 19 4 18
002 INFP 8 13 5 20 7 16 2 20
003 ENFJ 17 4 12 14 9 15 19 3
004 INTJ 0 21 1 25 14 10 17 5
005 INFJ 6 15 2 24 8 16 15 6
006 INFP 8 13 13 13 9 15 3 19
007 INFJ 4 17 9 16 6 17 20 2
008 INFP 5 16 3 23 12 12 11 11
009 ENTJ 15 5 7 19 12 11 14 8
010 ESFP 12 9 16 10 2 22 5 17
011 INFP 5 16 2 24 1 23 5 17
012 ENTP 21 0 11 15 15 9 3 19
013 ENFP 21 0 1 25 0 24 0 21
014 ENFP 12 10 12 12 12 14 7 15
015 ENTP 13 8 2 24 13 11 2 20
016 INTP 6 14 0 26 18 6 1 21
017 INTP 0 21 12 14 15 9 8 14
018 INTJ 7 14 8 18 14 10 22 0
019 ENFP 17 4 2 24 0 24 6 16
020 ISFJ 6 15 21 1 7 17 22 0
021 INTJ 3 18 7 19 15 8 21 1
022 ISFJ 1 20 15 11 11 13 14 8
023 ESFJ 12 9 5 21 11 13 15 7
024 INFJ 8 13 0 26 10 14 16 6
025 ENFJ 13 8 7 19 11 14 18 4
026 INTP 3 18 2 24 14 10 5 17
027 ENFP 20 1 2 24 0 24 2 20
028 ESFP 16 5 15 11 1 23 10 12
029 INFP 2 19 0 26 8 16 0 22
030 INFP 8 13 3 23 7 17 7 15
031 ESTJ 20 1 16 10 19 5 17 5
032 ESFP 13 8 21 5 8 16 6 16
033 INFP 6 15 5 21 11 13 3 19
034 ENFP 19 2 10 16 11 13 11 11
035 ENTP 16 5 7 19 19 5 7 15
036 INFJ 4 17 2 24 3 21 11 10
037 ENFP 16 5 0 26 10 14 2 19
038 ENFP 21 0 4 22 12 12 0 22
039 ESFJ 11 10 19 8 8 16 20 2
040 ENFP 16 5 6 20 8 16 11 11
041 ENFP 14 7 0 26 8 16 8 14
042 INTP 8 13 4 22 14 10 5 17
043 INFP 2 19 1 25 5 19 3 19
044 ENTJ 16 5 7 19 12 11 17 5
045 ENFP 16 5 0 26 7 17 4 18
046 ESTJ 17 4 18 8 13 11 15 7
047 ENTP 15 6 0 26 19 5 10 12
048 ESFJ 18 3 23 3 0 24 17 5
049 ESFJ 14 7 16 10 8 16 20 2
050 ISFJ 0 21 21 5 3 21 20 2
051 ENFJ 18 3 3 23 2 22 12 10
052 ENFP 11 10 12 14 11 13 9 13
053 ENFP 14 7 1 25 9 15 0 22
054 ESTJ 19 2 22 4 13 11 16 6
055 INFP 10 11 2 24 0 24 11 11
056 INTP 1 20 1 25 15 9 6 16
057 ESFJ 19 2 19 7 7 17 14 8
058 ISFJ 0 21 19 7 6 18 22 0
059 ENTP 15 6 6 20 15 9 4 18
060 ENFJ 15 6 5 21 4 20 14 8
061 ENFP 16 5 13 13 2 22 11 11
062 ISFJ 9 12 18 8 10 14 18 4
063 INFP 3 18 0 26 0 24 0 22
064 ENFJ 15 6 9 17 2 22 14 8
065 ENFP 14 7 8 18 11 13 9 13
066 ESFJ 17 4 18 8 11 13 19 3
067 ISTP 7 14 16 10 16 7 3 19
068 ESFJ 13 8 17 9 0 24 14 8
069 ISTJ 1 20 19 7 13 11 21 1
070 ENTJ 21 0 9 17 19 5 13 9
071 ESFJ 19 2 18 8 5 19 22 0
072 ENTP 13 3 12 14 15 9 6 16
073 ISFJ 0 21 19 7 5 19 19 3
074 ISFP 3 18 22 4 6 18 10 12
075 ENJF 16 5 7 19 3 21 13 9
076 ESTJ 13 8 20 6 19 5 15 7
077 ISFJ 0 21 16 10 7 17 20 2
078 ISFJ 6 15 14 12 4 20 17 5
079 INTJ 7 14 8 18 17 7 18 4
080 ESFJ 21 0 17 9 1 23 19 3
081 INFJ 2 19 2 24 8 16 13 9

A Correlational Analysis Between Handwri

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Correlational Analysis Between Handwri

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Running head: A CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS BETWEEN HANDWRITING 1

A Correlational Analysis Between Handwriting Characteristics and Personality Type

by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

© 2010, S. Joy Fox, M.A.

University of the Rockies

in my potential as it manifested into an accomplishment otherwise interpreted as ―mission

and support. Thanks to them for contributing all of those to me.

support and love have made it worthwhile.

encouragement, and guidance.

Table 1: Participant Characteristics………………………………………………………... 43

Table 2: Handwriting Inter-Rater Agreement……………………………………………… 46

Table 3: Letter Type and Gender Comparison…………………………………………….. 50

Table 4: Representative MBTI Types by Gender………………………………………….. 51

Table 5: Comparison of Top Types with the National Samples…………………………… 52

Table 6: Thinking / Feeling Crosstabulation with Writing Size…………………………… 54

Table 7: Chi-Square Test…………………………………………………………………... 54

Table 8: Comparison of Significance Levels………………………………………………. 55

Figure 1: MBTI Degrees of Preferences…………………………………………………… 56

Figure 2: Averages of MBTI Ranges………………………………………………………. 56

Appendix A: Instructional Letter…………………………………………………………... 74

Appendix B: Packet Information With Web Site………………………………………….. 75

Appendix D: Consent Form………………………………………………………………... 77

Appendix E: Participant Disclosure/Demographic Form………………………………….. 78

Appendix F: Handwriting Directions……………………………………………………….79

Appendix G: Inter-Rater Instructions With Slant/Size Templates………………………… 80

Appendix H: Raw Data…………………………………………………………………….. 83

Appendix I: Strengths of Type Preferences………………………………………………... 85

A quantitative study was conducted with 82 right-handed individuals to understand the

relationship between handwriting and personality. Three measurements of handwriting—slant,

Sensing/Intuition, Thinking/Feeling, and Judging/Perceiving. No significant relationships were

found; therefore, the null hypothesis was retained.

Keywords: MBTI, Form M, personality, right-handed, handwriting, slant, size, pressure

A Correlational Analysis Between Handwriting Characteristics and Personality

by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

It seems reasonable to hypothesize that handwriting characteristics represent personality

of 11 features alone is 39,916,800, an impressive variety in structural differences in handwriting.

Some researchers have objected to claims made by graphologists that an analysis of

seem to indicate certain personality constructs.

In general, researchers have failed to examine handwriting at fundamental levels, but

using handwriting samples as a hiring tool to evaluate applicants‘ employment potential.

handwriting can reveal the whole personality.

corollary determinants between handwriting and personality, a study with objective

three measurements represent common features of handwriting.

Shakhar et al. found graphological analysis to be a nonstandard assessment, based on qualitative

selecting an evaluation method that supported nonstandard assessments. To standardize the

in the present study.

Ben-Shakhar et al., (1986) identified a problem in taking a standardized approach where

reported a sense of discomfort in approaching handwriting analysis from a standardized approach

example, predictive perspectives were suspect in terms of validity.

portray inconsistent behaviors.

Graphologists interpret writing by using intuition in conjunction with their observations

mathematician, clinical psychologist, philosopher, artist, executive, architect, physician, and

Another researcher, (Honey, 1992), was interested in examining pre-employment honesty

predictive use of graphology for hiring employees seemed to be in use.

well in order to assign personality characteristics to their script. Eventually, according to

expressive behavior in his approach to graphology. According to Greasley‘s research, Lewison

Graumann, who adopted Klages‘ approach, considered graphology to be based in analogy,

symbolism, and metaphor.

considered an authority on handwriting interpretation. Greasley‘s (2000) findings are congruent

developing a standardized method for measuring handwriting in a definitive way to improve

validity for self-understanding rather than for behavioral predictions.

measures personality dimensions that handwriting purports to represent, especially introversion

behavior (Pearman, 2007).