7/29/2019 grafologia 4

1/13

Jotmud of Experimental Psychology: Applied Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.2000 , Vol. 6 , No . 4 , 336-348 1076-898X/00/$5 .00 DOI: 10 .1037//1076-898X.6 .4 .336

I l l u s ory C orre l a t i on s i n Grap h o l og i ca l I n f eren ceRoy N. King and Derek J. KoehlerU n i v e r s i t y o f W a t e r l o o

The authors investigate the illusory correlation phenomenon as a possible contributor to the persistenceof graphology's use to predict personality. Participants unfamiliar with graphology inspected handwritingsamples paired with fabricated personality profiles. In Experiment 1, handwriting samples and person-ality profiles were random ly paired. In Experiment 2, discernible correlations near unity were set betweentargeted handwriting-feature-personality-traitpairs in a congruent or incongruent direction with graphol-ogists' claims. In both experiments, participants' judgments of the correlation between designatedhandwriting-feature-personaiity-tralt pairs agreed w ith graphologists' claims, even after controlling fortheir actual statistical association. Semantic association between words used to describe handwritingfeatures and personality traits was the source o f biases in perceived correlation. Results may partiallyaccount for continued use of graphology despite overwhelming evidence against its predictive validity.

" B e w a r e o f a m a n w h o s e w r i ti n g s w a y s l i k e a r e e d i n th e w i n d . "L i k e C o n f u c i u s , t h e g r a p h o l o g i s t m a k e s i n f e r en c e s a b o u t p e r s o n -a l i t y b y e x a m i n i n g a s p e c t s o f h a n d w r i t i n g . I n t h e p a s t s e v e r a ld e c a d e s , o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r o u n d t h e w o r l d h a v e b e g u n t o u s e t h egraph o log is t ' s a ssessme nt a s a dec i s ion a id in pe r sonne l se lec t ion .

T h e u s e o f g r a p h o l o g y i n p e r s o n n e l s e l e c ti o n i s m o s t p r e v a l e n tin Europe , pa r t i cu la r ly F rance , where es t ima tes fo r the pe rcen tageo f o r g a n i z a t io n s u s i n g t h e t e c h n iq u e r a n g e f r o m 3 8 % ( S h a c k l e to n& NeweR, 1994) to 93% (Brn chon-Schw ei tze r & Fer r ieux , 1991).I n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , e s t i m a t e s f o r t h e n u m b e r o f o r g a n i z a t i o n sus ing g raph o logy rose f rom 500 in 1970 (M icke l s , 1970) to 3 ,000in 1977 (Ha ger , 1977), an d mo re recen t r epor t s sugges t tha tg r a p h o l o g y i s q u i e t l y g a i n i n g a c c e p t a n c e i n c o r p o r a t e A m e r i c a(McC ar thy , 1988) . A l tho ugh i t i s d i f f i cu l t to accura te ly assess howm a n y o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e u s i n g g r a p h o l o g y , i t d o e s a p p e a r t h a th i r i n g d e c i s i o n s re g a r d i n g a l a r g e n u m b e r o f j o b a p p l i c a n t s a ro u n dthe wor ld a re de te rmined , a t l eas t in pa r t , by in fe rences made onthe bas i s o f the i r handwr i t ing .

F o r t h e p r a c t i ce o f g r a p h o l o g y t o p e r s is t , a p e r c e p t i o n a m o n g i t su s e r s t h a t t h e m e t h o d b e a r s s o m e u t i li t y o r p r e d i c t i v e v a l id i t y m u s te x i s t . I n d e e d , m a n y h u m a n - r e s o u r c e p r a c t i t i o n e r s g i v e p o s i t i v et e s t im o n y t o t h e p r e d i c t i v e p o w e r o f g r a p h o l o g y a n d c o n t i n u e t oprocure the se rv ices o f g rapho log is t s (Hooper & S tanford , 1992 ;M c C a r t h y , 1 98 8 ). A l t h o u g h t h e i d e a o f d i a g n o s i n g p e r s o n a l it yf r o m h a n d w r i t in g m a y b e a r s o m e i n t u i t i v e a p p ea l , e v i d e n c e f o r it sv a l i d i t y is w e a k .D e s p i t e s o m e e a r l y s u p p o r t f r o m t h e s c i e n ti f ic c o m m u n i t y ( A l l -por t & Verno n , 1933; Dow ney , 1923) , the resu l t s o f r ecen t r e -

Roy N. King and Derek J. Kochler, Department of Psychology, Uni-versity of Waterloo, W aterloo, Ontario, Canada.This research was supported by Natural Sciences and EngineeringResearch Council of Canada Grant OGP 0183792. We are grateful toEmily Marks and Jen Pipe for their assistance with data collection.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to DerekJ. Koehler, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Water-loo, Ontario N2L 3G I, C ana da. Electronic mail may be sent todkoehler@watarts.uwaterloo.ca.

sea rch t e s t ing the va l id i ty o f us ing han dwr i t ing fo r p red ic t ingpersona l i ty t r a i t s have been cons i s ten t ly nega t ive . For example ,F u r n h a m a n d G u n t e r ( 1 9 8 7) i n v e s t i g a te d th e " t r a i t " m e t h o d o fg rapho logy , which p red ic t s spec i f i c pe r sona l i ty t r a i t s f rom ind i -v i d u a i f e a t u r e s o f h a n d w r i t i ng . P a r t ic i p a n t s c o m p l e t e d t h e E y s e n c kPerson a l i ty Ques t ionn a i re (EPQ; Eyse nck & Eysenck , 1975) andc o p i e d a p a s s a g e o f t e x t i n t h e i r o w n h a n d w r i t i n g . T h e w r i t i n gsamp les were coded on 13 handwr i t ing- fea tu re d imen s ions (e .g . ,s i ze , s l an t ) tha t g rapho log is t s r epor t to be d iagnos t ic o f pe r so na l i tyt r ai t s. O n l y c h a n c e - l e v e l c o r r e l a ti o n s w e r e o b s e r v e d b e t w e e n w r i t -i n g f e a t u r e s a n d E P Q s c o r e s o n t h e E x t r o v e r s i o n , N e u r o t i c i s m ,P s y c h o t i c i s m , a n d L i e s c a l e s . A s a n o t h e r e x a m p l e , B a y n e a n dO ' N e i l l ( 1 9 88 ) a s k e d g r a p h o l o g i s t s t o e s t i m a t e p e o p l e ' s M y e r s -B r i g g s t y p e ( E x t r o v e r t - I n t r o v e r t , S e n s i n g - I n t u i t i o n , T h i n k i n g -F e e l i n g , J u d g i n g - P e r c e i v i n g ) f r o m h a n d w r i t i n g s a m p l e s . T h o u g hh i g h l y c o n f i d e n t in t h e i r ju d g m e n t s , n o n e o f t h e g r a p h o l o g i s t s 'a p p r a i s a ls a c c u r a t e ly p r e d i c t e d t h e M y e r s - B r i g g s p r o f i l e o f t h ewr i te r s .

I n a m e t a - a n a l y s i s o f o v e r 2 0 0 s t u d i e s a s s e s s i n g t h e v a l i d i t yo f g r a p h o l o g i c a l i n f e r e n c e s , D e a n ( 1 9 9 2 ) f o u n d o n l y a s m a l le f f e c t s i z e f o r i n f e r r i n g p e r s o n a l i t y f r o m h a n d w r i t i n g a n d n o t e dt h a t t h e i n c l u s i o n o f s t u d i e s w i t h m e t h o d o l o g i c a l s h o r t c o m i n g sm a y h a v e i n f l a t e d t h e e f f e c t - s i z e e s t i m a t e . T h e l i b e r a l e s t i m a t e de f f e c t s i z e o f r = . 1 2 f o r i n f e r r i n g p e r s o n a l i t y fr o m n e u t r a l -c o n t e n t s c r i p t s ( i . e . , s c r ip t s w i t h f i x e d c o n t e n t n o t u n d e r c o n t r o lo f t h e w r i t e r ) i s n o t n e a r l y l a r g e e n o u g h t o b e o f a n y p r a c t i c a lv a l u e a n d w o u l d c e r t a i n l y b e t o o s m a l l to b e p e r c e p t i b l e t o t h eh u m a n j u d g e ( J e n n i n g s , A m a b i l e , & R o s s , 1 9 8 2 ). T h u s , e v e n as m a l l , r e a l e f f e c t - - f o r w h i c h t h e e v i d e n c e i s m i x e d a t b e s t - -c a n n o t a c c o u n t f o r t h e m a g n i t u d e o f h a n d w r i t i n g - f e a t u r e -p e r s o n a l i t y - t r a i t r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e p o r t e d b y g r a p h o l o g i s t s o r t h e i rc l i e n t s .

Gen der (Furnham, 1988) , soc ioeco nom ic s ta tus (Hines , 1988),and degree o f l i t e racy (Osborne , 1929) , a l l p red ic tab le f rom han d-wr i t ing , may in tu rn p red ic t some person a l i ty t r a i t s. Thus , anyw e a k a b i l i t y o f g r a p h o l o g y t o p r e d i c t p e r s o n a l i t y m a y b e m e r e l yb a s e d o n g e n d e r o r s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s i n f o r m a t i o n a s s e s s e df rom hand wr i t ing . Grap ho log ic a l accuracy a t t r ibu tab le to these

33 6

7/29/2019 grafologia 4

2/13

ILLUSORY CORRELATIONS IN GRAPHOLOGICAL INFERENCE 337v a r i a b l e s i s o f d u b i o u s w o r t h b e c a u s e s i m p l e r , m o r e r e l i a b l e m e th -o d s f o r a s s e s s i n g t h e m a r e a v a i l a b l e .

T h e r e s u l ts o f r e s e a r c h i n v e s t i g a ti n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f g r a p h o l o g yf o r p r e d i c t i n g j o b p e r f o r m a n c e h a s b e e n s i m i l a r l y n e g a t i v e ( B e n -Shakhar , Bar -H i l l e l , B i lu , Ben-Abb a , & F lug , 1986 ; Rafae l i &Kl im osk i , 1983) . Grap ho log ica l a ssessmen ts fo r pe r sonn e l se lec -t ion focus on des i red t r a i t s such as de te rmina t ion , sa les d r ive , andh o n e s t y . G i v e n i t s a p p a r e n t l a c k o f v a l i d i t y f o r p r e d i c ti n g p e r s o n -a l i ty , i t w o u l d b e s o m e w h a t s u r p r i si n g i f g r a p h o l o g y p r o v e d t o b ea v a l i d p r e d i c t o r o f j o b p e r f o r m a n c e . I n d e e d , i n a m e t a - a n a ly f i crev iew of 17 s tud ies and us ing s t r i c te r inc lus ion c r i t e r i a fo r as t u d y ' s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l so u n d n e s s t h a n d i d D e a n ( 1 9 92 ) , N e t e r a n dB e n - S h a k h a r ( 1 9 8 9) f o u n d t h a t g r a p h o l o g i s t s p e r f o r m e d n o b e t t e rt h a n d i d n o n g r a p h o l o g i s t s in p r e d i c t i n g j o b p e r f o r m a n c e . W h e nh a n d w r i t i n g s a m p l e s w e r e a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l , t h e t w o g r o u p sa c h i e v e d m o d e s t a c c u r a c y i n p r e d i c t io n . W h e n t h e c o n t e n t o f t h esc r ip t s was neu t ra l ( i .e . , iden t ica l fo r a l l wr i t e r s ) , ne i the r g roup w asa b l e t o d r a w v a l i d i n fe r e n c e s a b o u t j o b p e r f o r m a n c e . T h u s , b e l i e fi n t h e v a l i d i t y o f g r a p h o l o g y , a s i t i s c u r r e n t l y u s e d t o p r e d i c t j o bp e r f o r m a n c e , l a c k s e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t.

As a necessa ry (b u t no t su f f i c ien t ) cond i t ion fo r va l id in fe rence ,t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f p r e d i c t i o n s b a s e d o n g r a p h o l o g y m u s t f i r s t b ees tab l i she d (Goldbe rg , 1986). H oweve r , r e l i ab i l i ty o f g rapho log i -c a l p r e d i c t io n h a s i ts o w n p r e c o n d i t i o n : T h e p r e d i c t o r s - - h a n d w r i t -i n g f e a t u r e s - - m u s t f i r s t b e r e l i a b l y e n c o d e d . T h i s p r e c o n d i t i o na p p e a r s t o b e m e t ; t h e m e a n a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n d i f f e re n t j u d g e smeas ur ing ob jec t ive handw r i t ing fea tu res , such as s l an t o r s lope , isr = .85, and the mean agreem ent abou t sub jec t ive handw r i t ingfea tu res , l ike rhy thm , i s s t i l l r e spec ta b le a t r = .60 (Dean , 1992) .A g r e e m e n t a b o u t w h a t t h e s e f e a t u r e s s i g n i f y i s s o m e w h a t l e s si m p r e s s i v e . I n s t u d i e s r e v i e w e d b y D e a n ( 1 9 9 2) , t h e m e a n a g r e e -ment o f in te rp re ta t ions ( i .e . , in fe rences ) made by g rapho log is t s i sr = .42. In te res t ing ly , even lay judg es exh ib i t some agreem ent inthe i r na ive in te rp re ta t ions , w i th a r e l i ab i l i ty ( r = .30) on ly s l igh t lylower than tha t o f the g rapho log is t s .

F r o m a s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t iv e , t h e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e njudg es i s i t se l f in t r igu ing because such agreem ent cons t i tu tess h a r e d b u t a p p a r e n t l y i n v a l i d b e l i e fs a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e -t w e e n p e r s o n a l i t y a n d h a n d w r i t i n g . A l t h o u g h t h e o r i g i n o f s u c hb e l i e f s a m o n g g r a p h o l o g i s t s m a y l i e i n t h e i r t r a i n i n g , s u c h a ne x p l a n a t i o n c a n n o t a c c o u n t f o r t h e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n n a i v ej u d g e s , w h o h a v e n o f o r m a l t r a i n in g i n g r a p h o l o g i c a l in f e r e n c e. I nr e s e a r c h b y V i n e ( 1 9 7 4 ) , n a i v e j u d g e s m a d e i n v a l i d p r e d i c ti o n sa b o u t p e r s o n a l i t y f r o m h a n d w r i t i n g , y e t t h e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e nt h e m w a s q u i t e h i g h . M o r e r e c e n t l y , J a m e s a n d L o e w e n t h a l ( 1 9 9 1 )repor ted a co ns i s ten t , inva l id be l i e f tha t na ive pa r t i c ipan t s fo rme di n m a k i n g j u d g m e n t s a b o u t d e p r e s s i o n f ro m h a n d w r i ti n g . T h o u g hn o t p r e d i c t i v e o f t h e c r i te r i o n , n a i v e ju d g e s c o n s i s t e n tl y p e r c e i v e dun t idy hand wr i t ing as d iagnos t ic o f depress ion . In a s imi la r ve in ,Loew entha l (1975) found tha t pa r t i c ipan t s knew how to a l t e r the i rh a n d w r i t i n g t o c o n v e y t o n a i v e j u d g e s f a l s e i m p r e s s i o n s o f p e r -s o n a l i ty d i m e n s i o n s s u c h a s m e t h o d i c a l n e s s a n d o r i g i n a li t y .

I n e a c h o f t h e s e s t u d ie s , p a r t ic i p a n t s w e r e c o m p e l l e d t o f o r mc o n j e c t u r a l h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t p e r s o n a l i t y f r o m h a n d w r i t in g o n t h eb a s i s o f t h e i r i n t u it i o n s b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e n o t e x p o s e d t o i n f o r -m a r i o n a b o u t t h e w r i t e r ' s p e r s o n a l i t y . T h e p r a c t i c e o f g r a p h o l o g y ,in con t ras t , i s sa id to be based no t on "a rm cha i r " spec u la t ion bu to n t h e o b s e r v a t i o n o f e m p i r i c a l a s s o c ia t i o n s b e tw e e n h a n d w r i t i n ga n d p e r s o n a l i t y , r i g o r o u s s t u d y o f w h i c h d a t e s b a c k t o t h e p i o n e e r -

i n g 1 9t h c e n t u r y w o r k o f t h e F r e n c h g r a p h o l o g i s t M i c h o n. T h eex ten t to which p rac t i c ing g rapho log is t s genu ine ly be l i eve thesepurpor ted re la t ionsh ips to be p red ic t ive i s an open ques t ion . How-ever , i t i s c lea r f rom prev ious resea rch tha t , once es tab l i shed , be l i e fin e r roneous theor ies can endure even in the face o f d i sconf i rm a-to ry ev idence (Ross , Lepper , & H ubbard , 1975) , pa r t i cu la r ly whent h o s e t h e o r ie s a r e i n t u i t i v e l y a p p e a l i n g ( C h a p m a n & C h a p m a n ,1967) o r a re cons i s ten t wi th one ' s genera l be l i e f s and a t t i tudes(Lord , Ross , & Lepper , 1979) .

A s B e n - S h a k h a r e t a l . ( 1 9 8 6 ) h a v e p o i n t e d o u t , g r a p h o l o g y" s e e m s t o h a v e t h e f i g h t k i n d o f p r o p e r t i e s f o r r e f le c t i n g p e rs o n -a l i ty" (p . 176 ; see a l so Bar -H i l l e l & B en-Shakh ar , 1986) . In tu -i t iv e l y , b e c a u s e b o t h p e r s o n a l i t y a n d h a n d w r i t in g d i f f e r f r o m p e r -son to pe rson , one migh t be expec te d to o f fe r ins igh t in to the o the r .A l t h o u g h a s i m i l a r a r g u m e n t c o u l d b e m a d e r e p l a c i n g " h a n d w r i t-ing" in the p rev ious sen tence wi th "b i r thda tes ," "pa lm l ines ," o r" b u m p s o n t h e s k u l l , " g r a p h o l o g y - - u n l i k e a st r o l o g y , p a l m i s t r y , o rp h r e n o l o g y - - p r o v i d e s a s a m p l e o f e x p r e s s iv e b e h a v i o r fr o mwhich to in fe r pe r sona l i ty (Bar -Hi l l e l & Ben -Shakhar , 1986; Ben-Shakhar , 1989) . Graph o log is t s v iew handw r i t ing as a ca tegory o fnonverba l behav io r tha t i l lumina tes under ly ing menta l cha rac te r -i s t i c s o f the pe rson p roduc ing the wr i t ing , po ten t ia l ly inc lud ingcharac te r i s t i c s tha t the wr i t e r would p re fe r no t to d i sc lose o rp e r h a p s i s n o t e v e n c o n s c i o u s o f p o s s e s s i n g . T h i s p e r s p e c t i v e w a sc o m p e l l i n g e n o u g h f o r a p a i r o f e m i n e n t p s y c h o l o g i s t s , G o r d o nA l l p o r t a n d P h i l l i p E . V e r n o n , t o p r o v i d e g r a p h o l o g y a n e a r l yendorse men t a s a sc ien t i f i c d i sc ip l ine in the i r 1933 boo k S tud ies inE x p r e s s iv e M o v e m e n t .

T h e n a t u r e o f h a n d w r i t i n g i t s e l f c o n v e y s t h e i m p r e s s i o n o fhav ing po ten t ia l d iagnos t ic va lue . Tha t i s , handwr i t ing bea rs ther ichness o f f ea tu res tha t would be necessa ry to re f lec t the manyface t s o f pe r sona l i ty (Ben-Shak har e t a l. , 1986). Indee d , mos tg rapho log ica l se rv ices c la im to use a t l eas t 100 fea tu res o f hand-w r i t in g , a n d o n e m a j o r c o m p a n y , D a t a G r a p h , c l a i m s t o u s e o v e r400 fea tu res o f handwr i t ing to d raw in fe rences abou t pe r sona l i ty .

T h e i n t u i t i v e a p p e a l o f g r a p h o l o g y a p p e a r s t o e x t e n d t o t h espec i f i c r e la t ionsh ips tha t a re c la imed to ex i s t be tween handwr i t -ing and pe rsona l i ty . Indeed , wi th fea tu res as r i ch as the l anguageu s e d t o d e s c r i b e p e r s o n a l it y , p o s s i b l e r e la t i o n s h ip s b e t w e e n h a n d -wr i t ing fea tu res and pe rso na l i ty t r a i t s can be e as i ly hypo thes ize don the bas i s o f in tu i t ion a lone . Al though g rapho log is t s a re o f tenre luc tan t to exp l ica te the spec i f i c f ea tu res o f handwr i t ing tha t theycons ide r d iagnos t ic o f pe r sona l i ty , ce r ta in purpor ted re la t ionsh ipst h a t h a v e b e e n m a d e e x p l i c i t c o n v e y t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f f a ce v a -l i d i t y a n d s e e m a l m o s t m e t a p h o r i c a l i n n a t u re . F o r e x a m p l e , s i z e o fh a n d w r i t i n g i s b e l i e v e d t o b e d i a g n o s t ic w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p e r -s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n o f m o d e s t y - e g o t i s m , w i t h s m a l l h a n d w r i t i n gi m p l y i n g m o d e s t y a n d l a r g e h a n d w r i t i n g i m p l y i n g e g o t i s m . I nm a n y e x a m p l e s l i k e t h is , t h e e m p i r i c a l re l a t io n s h i p s b e tw e e n h a n d -wr i t ing fea tu res and pe rs ona l i ty t ra i t s iden t i f i ed by g rapho log is t sc l o s e l y p a r a l le l s e m a n t i c a s s o c i a ti o n s b e tw e e n w o r d s u s e d t o d e -sc r ibe handwr i t ing fea tu res (e .g . , r e g u l a r r h y t h m ) a n d p e r s o n a l i t ytrai ts (e .g., re l iab le ) .

Research by Chapm an and Chapma n (1967 , 1971) sugges t s tha twhere semant ic re la t ionsh ips such as these ex i s t , the in tu i t ives ta t i s t i c ian may in fe r nonex is ten t o r i l lusory cor re la t ions in thed i r e c t io n d i c t a t e d b y s e m a n t i c a s s o c ia t i o n . C h a p m a n a n d C h a p m a n(1967) be l i ev ed tha t such an e f fec t migh t accoun t fo r the pe rs i s ten tu s e o f a p o p u l a r b u t i n v a l i d d i a g n o s t i c t o o l u s e d b y c l i n i c a l

7/29/2019 grafologia 4

3/13

338 KING AND KOEHLERp s y c h o l o g i s t s , c a l l e d t h e D r a w - A - P e r s o n ( D A P ) T e s t ( M a c h o v e r ,1949) . The DA P i s a p ro jec t ive t e s t in which pa t ien t s a re asked todraw a pe rson , and f rom those d rawings , c l in ic ians mak e in fe r -e n c e s a b o u t t h e i r u n d e r l y i n g p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y . A t t h e t i m e C h a p -man and Chapman (1967) wro te the i r a r t i c le , the re was ex tens ivee m p i r i c a l e v id e n c e d o c u m e n t i n g t h a t t h e D A P h a d n o p r e d i c t iv eva l id i ty wi th respec t to c l in ica l d iagnos i s .

C h a p m a n a n d C h a p m a n ( 1 9 67 ) p r e s e n t e d n a i v e j u d g e s ( i .e . ,those unfam i l ia r wi th the DA P as a c l in ica l too l ) wi th a se t o f DA Pd r a w i n g s , a l o n g w i t h c o n t r i v e d s y m p t o m s t a te m e n t s d e s c r i b i n g t hep a t i e n t w h o p r o v i d e d t h e d r a w i n g . T h o u g h s y m p t o m s t a t e m e n t swere uncor re la ted wi th fea tu res o f the d rawing , na ive pa r t i c ipan t sp e r c e i v e d i l l u s o r y c o r re l a t io n s b e t w e e n t h e s a m e s e m a n t i c a l l yre la ted pa i r s o f d rawing fea tu res and c l in ica l symptoms tha t c l in i -c ians be l i eved to be re la ted . For example , l ike c l in ic ians , na ivep a r t i c ip a n t s p e r c e iv e d d r a w i n g a b i g h e a d a s c o r r e l a t e d w i th c o n -ce rns abou t in te l l igence and e labora t ion o f the eyes as co r re la tedwi th pa rano ia .

Other resea rch a l so sugges t s tha t in tu i t ive assessments o f s t a -t i s t i ca l r e la tedness t end to be in f luenced by semant ic a ssoc ia t ion .K a h n e m a n a n d T v e r s k y ( 1 9 7 3 ) d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t t h e j u d g e d l i k e -l i h o o d o f a n e v e n t i s o f t e n a s s e s s e d b y h o w c l o s e l y t h e e v e n tr e s e m b l e s a p r o t o t y p e . In a r e l a t e d v e i n , S h w e d e r a n d D ' A n d r a d e(1980) have a rgued tha t pe rc e ived t r a i t r e la t ionsh ips tha t cons t i tu tel a y t h e o r i e s o f p e r s o n a l i t y a re d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e c o n c e p t u a l s i m -i la r i ty o f t r a i t s r a the r than by the i r s t a t i s t i ca l a ssoc ia t ions .S i m i l a r i t y - b a s e d u d g m e n t s h a v e b e e n o b s e r v e d i n a r e a s a s d i v e r seas c l in ica l d iagnos i s (Chapman & Chapm an , 1967, 1969; Dowl ing& G raham, 1976) , pe r sona l i ty - t ra i t in fe rence and soc ia l judg men t(Bar -H i l l e l & Nete r , 1993; Koeh le r , Brenner , L ibe rman , & Tver -sky , 1996 ; Shw eder & D 'An drad e , 1980), and p red ic t ions o fo rgan iza t ion a l t r a i t s (Camere r , 1988) . Consequen t ly , peop le some-t imes rep or t see ing sys tem at ic s t a t i s ti ca l r e la t ionsh ips where non eex is t (Chapman & C hapman , 1967, 1969; Gi lov ich , Va l lone , &Tversky , 1986; Rede lm eie r & Tversky , 1996).

Beyo nd the obse rva t ion tha t judgm ents o f s t a t i s ti ca l a ssoc ia t ionappear to be in f luenced by semant ic a ssoc ia t ion , Chapman andChapm an (1967) d id no t o f fe r a de ta i l ed p rocess accoun t o f thei l lusory cor re la t ion phenomenon , which i s no t su rp r i s ing becausethe e f fec t i s l ike ly overde te rmined . I t i s poss ib le , however , toiden t i fy f rom prev ious resea rch a number o f po ten t ia l under ly ingmechan isms tha t cou ld con t r ibu te to the e f fec t , which can bev iew ed as one e xam ple o f the ub iqu i tous "confLrrnat ion b ias" ( seeN i c k e r s o n , 1 9 98 ). A s s u g g e s t e d b y C h a p m a n a n d C h a p m a n , w h e nthe pa r t i c ipan t is inspec t ing the ev idence in a sea rch fo r sys temat icre la t ionsh ips , semant ic a ssoc ia t ion i s l ike ly to gu ide the fo rmula -t i o n o f h y p o t h e s e s a b o u t w h a t g o e s w i t h w h a t , p r o d u c i n g a k i n d o fexpec ta t ion . Other po ten t ia l r e la t ionsh ips may no t be cons ide redand hence no t de tec ted even i f they a re cons i s ten t wi th the ob-se rved ev idence (e .g . , Bey th -Marom & F ischhof f , 1983 ; Doher ty ,Myna t t , Tweney , & Sch iavo , 1979 ; Wason , 1960) . When thee v i d e n c e i s i n s p e c t e d in l i g h t o f s e m a n t i c a ll y d e t e r m i n e d h y p o t h -eses , ambiguous aspec t s o f the ev idence (e .g . , d rawing fea tu res )may be in te rp re ted in a manner cons i s ten t wi th the hypo thes izedre la t ionsh ip (e .g . , F rank & Gi lov ich , 1988 ; Has to r f & Can t r i l ,1954 ; Lord e t a l . , 1979) . Cases o r ins tances cons i s ten t wi th thehypo thes ized re la t ionsh ip , pe rhaps due to the i r sa l i ence , may beg iven g rea te r we igh t in the f ina l a ssessment o f the re la t ionsh ipthan d i sconf i rming ins tances (e .g . , Kuhn , Am se l , & O 'Loug hl in ,

1988 ; Smeds lund , 1963) . Even in the absence o f a b iased assess -m e n t p r o c e s s , c o n f i r m i n g i n st a n c e s m a y s i m p l y b e b e t t e r r e m e m -b e r e d , w i t h s e m a n t i c a s s o c i a t i o n en h a n c i n g b o t h e n c o d i n g a n dre t r i eva l o f cases cons i s ten t wi th the ( sem ant ica l ly based) hypo th -es ized re la t ionsh ip (e .g . , Berndsen , van de r P l ig t , Spears , & Mc-Gar ry , 1996 ; Greenwald , P ra tkan is , Le ippe , & Baumgardner ,1986 ; Ro thbar t , Evans , & Fu le ro , 1979) .

Desp i te i t s l ack o f va l id i ty , the use o f g rapho logy pe rs i s t s . Th isp e r s i st e n c e i s l i k e l y d ri v e n b y a h o s t o f j u d g m e n t a l b i a s e s t h a tresu l t in overes t ima t ion o f the va l id i ty o f g rapho logy ( fo r a com-p le te rev iew, see Dean , Ke l ly , Sak lo fske , & Furnham , 1992) . Inth i s a r t i c le , we i so la te one poss ib le source . Us ing a pa rad igmsimi la r to tha t o f Chapm an and Cha pman (1967) , we inves t iga tethe phenomenon o f i l lusory cor re la t ion as a con t r ibu to r to thea p p e a l a n d p e r s i s t e n c e o f g r a p h o l o g y ' s u s e a s a p r e d i c t o r o fpe rsona l i ty . Our resu l t s sugges t tha t the apparen t va l id i ty o f g ra -p h o l o g y m a y i n d e e d a r i s e f r o m i l l u s o r y c o r re l a t io n s b e t w e e n s e -man t ica l ly re la ted handw r i t ing fea tu res and pe rso na l i ty tr a i t s . Be-cause our exper imenta l me thodo logy d i f fe r s in some c r i t i ca lr e s p e c ts f r o m t h a t o f C h a p m a n a n d C h a p m a n , a s e x p l a i n e d i n t h eGenera l Discuss ion sec t ion , the resu l t s a l so a t t e s t to the genera l -i zab i l i ty o f the i l lusory cor re la t ion phenomenon .

O v e r v i e w o f E x p e r i m e n t s 1 a n d 2Par t i c ipan t s unfami l ia r wi th the p rac t i ce o f g rapho logy in -

spec ted a se t o f 40 cases , where each case cons i s ted o f a hand-wr i t ing samp le and a cor respo nd ing pe rson a l i ty p ro f i l e sa id tobe long to the pe rson who gave the wr i t ing sample . The pa r t i c i -p a n t s ' t a s k w a s t o i n s p e c t th e c a s e b o o k a n d t h e n j u d g e t h e r e l a t -edness ( i .e . , degree o f empi r ica l a ssoc ia t ion , o r co r re la t ion) be -tween fea tu res o f handwr i t ing (e .g . , s i ze ) and pe rsona l i tyd i m e n s i o n s ( e . g ., m o d e s t y - e g o t i s m ) t h a t c o m p r i s e d t h e p r o f i l e s i nthe casebook .

I n E x p e r i m e n t 1 , h a n d w r i t i n g s a m p l e s w e r e r a n d o m l y p a i r e dwi th pe rsona l i ty p ro f i l e s , r e su l t ing in neg l ig ib le co r re la t ions be -tween ha ndwr i t ing fea tu res and pe rso na l i ty t r a i ts . Under the nu l lh y p o t h e s is , p a r t i c i p a n t s ' r e la t e d n e s s j u d g m e n t s s h o u l d b e b a s e dexc lus ive ly on the s ta t i s t i ca l a ssoc ia t ion be tween fea tu res andt ra i ts . The seman t ic -assoc ia t ion hypo thes i s , in con t ras t , impl iestha t the re la tedness judgm ents w i l l be b iase d in the d i rec t ion o f thesemant ic a ssoc ia t ion be tween words desc r ib ing handwr i t ing fea -tu res and pe rson a l i ty t r a i ts . Spec i f i ca l ly , we expec ted th i s phenom -enon to ex tend to the pa r t i cu la r handw r i t ing- fea tu re -p e rsona l i ty -t ra i t pa i r s tha t g raph o log is t s c la im to be re la ted .

The se mant ic -asso c ia t ion hypo thes i s was fu r the r t e s ted in Ex-per iment 2 , in which l a rge , d i sce rn ib le cor re la t ions be tween ta r -ge ted fea tu re - t ra i t pa i r s were bu i l t in to the casebook da ta se t . Inone cond i t ion , d i sce rn ib le cor re la t ions were congruen t wi th g ra -pho lo g is t s ' c l a ims (e .g ., la rge handwr i t ing was cor re la ted r = .98wi th ego t i sm) . In the secon d cond i t ion , the cor re la t ions were o f thesame magni tude , on ly th i s t ime in a d i rec t ion incongruen t wi thgrapho log is t s ' c l a ims (e .g . , l a rge handwr i t ing was cor re la ted r =.98 wi th modes ty ra the r than ego t i sm) . Under the nu l l hypo thes i s ,r e la tedness judgm ents sh ou ld cor respond to the da ta ; thus , thep e r c e i v e d a s s o c i at i o n s h o u ld b e o f e q u a l m a g n i t u d e b u t f a l l i n t h eoppos i te d i rec t ion in the congruen t and incongruen t cond i t ions .The seman t ic -assoc ia t ion hypo thes i s p red ic t s tha t the s t reng th o fthe pe rce ived assoc ia t ion wi l l be g rea te r when the cor re la t ion i s

7/29/2019 grafologia 4

4/13

ILLUSORY CORRELATIONS IN GRAPHOLOGICAL INFERENCE 33 9c o n g r u e n t r a t he r t h a n i n c o n g r u e n t w i t h g r a p h o l o g i s t s' c l a im s , o nt h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t s u c h c l a i m s a r e i n f a c t d e r i v e d f r o m s e m a n t i ca s s o c i a t i o n .

F e a t u r e - T r a i t R e l a t i o n s h ip sT h r o u g h t h e r e s u l t s o f a g r a p h o l o g y b o o k s t o r e s u r v e y , w e i d e n -

t i f i e d a n d c o n s u l t e d t w o b o o k s ( A m e n d & R u i z , 1 9 8 0 ; R o m a n ,1 9 9 6 ) t h a t b o o k s t o r e p a t r o n s r e p o r t e d t o b e m o s t v a l u a b l e i nl e a r n i n g a b o u t g r a p ho l o g y . E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e se b o o k s h e l p e d u st o i d e n t i f y h a n d w r i t i n g f e a t u re s a n d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a it s r e p o r t e d t ob e c o r r e l a t e d b y g r a p h o l o g i s t s . W e c h o s e t o e x a m i n e s i x s p e c i f i cp u r p o r t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s th a t , b e t w e e n t h e m , c o v e r e d a b r o a d r a n g eo f h a n d w r i t i n g f e a t u r e s a n d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s ( s e e T a b l e 1 ) . I t i sw o r t h n o t i n g th a t s o m e s c h o o l s o f g r a p h o l o g y f o c u s o n a h o l i s t i ca n a l y s i s o f a s c r i p t ' s " g e s t a l t " a n d , a s s u c h , a r e l e s s c o m m i t t e d t ot h e e x i s t e n c e o f s y s t e m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n s p e c i f i c h a n d -w r i t i n g f e a t u r e s a n d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , t h o u g h o f c o u r s e s o m ee m p i r i c a l r e g u l a r i t i e s m u s t e x i s t f o r a n y g r a p h o l o g i c a l t e c h n i q u e t oh a v e v a l i d i t y .

F o r e a c h h a n d w r i t i n g - d i m e n s i o n - p e r s o n a l i t y - d i m e n s i o n p a i rl i s t e d i n T a b l e 1 , t h e l e f t p o l e o f t h e h a n d w r i t i n g d i m e n s i o n i st h o u g h t b y g r a p h o l o g i s t s t o b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e l e f t p o l e o f t h ep e r s o n a l it y d i m e n s i o n , a n d t h e r i g h t p o l e o f t h e h a n d w r i t i n g d i-m e n s i o n i s t h o u g h t t o b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e r i g h t p o l e o f t h ep e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , i n t h e f i r s t ca s e , s m a l l h a n d -w r i t i n g i s b e l i e v e d t o b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m o d e s t y , w h e r e a s l a r g eh a n d w r i t i n g is t h o u g h t t o b e a s s o c i a te d w i t h e g o t i s m . T h e t e r m su s e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e p o l e s o f h a n d w r i t i n g ( w h i c h w e r e f e r t o a s" f e a t u r e s " ) w e r e t a k e n d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e g r a p h o l o g y h a n d b o o k s ,w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f c o m p a c t - e x p a n s i v e a n d a s c e n d i n g -d e s c e n d i n g , w h i c h w e c h o s e a s t h e m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e t e r m s t od e s c r i b e t h e s e f e a t u r e s o f h a n d w r i t i n g . T h e e x p a n s i v e n e s s o f as c r i p t i s o n e o f t h e h a n d w r i t i n g f a c t o r s e x a m i n e d b y A l l p o r t a n dV e r n o n ( 1 9 3 3 , p . 1 1 0 ) ; R o m a n ( 1 9 9 6 ) a l s o m a k e s r e f e r e n c e t o t h es c r i p t ' s " e x p a n s i o n " ( p . 1 2 5 ) . R o m a n ( 1 9 9 6 , p p . 2 9 6 - 2 9 7 ) u s e s" u p h i l l - d o w n h i l l " o r " r i s i n g - f a l l i n g " i n s te a d o f o u r t e r m s ,a s c e n d i n g - d e s c e n d i n g , b u t w e s u s p e c t o u r r e s u lt s w o u l d n o t b e

m u c h d i f f e r e n t h a d w e u s e d h e r t e r m s i n s t e a d . F o r r e a s o n s e l a b o -r a t e d b e l o w , o u r s t u d i e s a l s o i n c l u d e d a s e v e n t h p e r s o n a l i t y d i -m e n s i o n ( c o o p e r a t i v e - c o m p e t i t i v e ) t h a t g r a p h o lo g i s ts d o n o t g e n -e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e ( a n d t h a t w e s u s p e c t e d w o u l d n o t b e s t r o n g l ya s s o c i a t e d s e m a n t i c a l l y ) w i t h a n y o f t h e h a n d w r i t i n g f e a t u r e s w ei n v e s t i g a t e d .

C o l l e ct i o n o f H a n d w r i t i n g S a m p l e sH a n d w r i t i n g s am p l e s w e r e c o l le c t e d f ro m U n i v e r s i t y o f W a t e r -

l o o s t u d e n t s , w h o w e r e a s k e d t o c o p y a 1 4 3 - w o r d c o o k i n g r e c i p ei n t h e i r u s u a l c u r s i v e w r i t i n g . I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r a c t i c e o fg r a p h o l o g y , t h e s a m p l e s c r i p t c o n t a i n e d n u m b e r s a s w e l l a s l e tt e r s ,a n d a l l h a n d w r i t i n g s a m p l e s w e r e w r i t t e n o n a s h e e t o f u n l i n e dp a p e r u s i n g a b a l l p o i n t p e n . S a m p l e s i n w h i c h w o r d s w e r e m i s -s p e l l e d , o m i t t e d , o r c r o s s e d o u t o r t h a t e x c e e d e d o n e p a g e w e r ee x c l u d e d . S a m p l e s t h a t w e r e p r i n t e d r a t h e r t h a n w r i t t e n i n l o n g -h a n d w e r e a l s o e x c l u d e d . T h e f i n a l c o l l e c t i o n o f 4 0 h a n d w r i t i n gs a m p l e s , i d e n t i c a l i n c o n t e n t a n d d i f f e r i n g o n l y i n t e r m s o f w r i t i n gs t y l e , w e r e p h o t o c o p i e d a n d c o m p i l e d i n a b o u n d c a s e b o o k , w h i c hp a r t i c i p a n t s w o u l d i n s p e c t d u r i n g t h e m a i n e x p e r i m e n t s .

R a t i n g o f H a n d w r i t i n g F e a t u r e sF o r p u r p o s e s d e s c r i b e d l a t e r , i t w a s n e c e s s a r y t o o b t a i n r e l i a b l e

r a t i n g s o f e a c h o f t h e 4 0 h a n d w r i t i n g s a m p l e s i n t e r m s o f t h e i rv a l u e s o n t h e s i x h a n d w r i t i n g d i m e n s i o n s . T h u s , t h e 4 0 h a n d w r i t -i n g s a m p l e s w e r e i n d e p e n d e n t l y r a t e d o n e a c h o f th e s i x h a n d w r i t -i n g d i m e n s i o n s b y 1 0 j u d g e s ( R o y N . K i n g , D e r e k J . K o e h l e r ,a n d 8 d e p a r t m e n t c o l l e a g ue s ) . E a c h j u d g e w a s g i v e n t h e s a m ei l l u s t r a t i v e e x a m p l e s h e e t o f h a n d w r i t i n g f e a t u r e s t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t sw o u l d u s e i n t h e m a i n e x p e r i m e n t s a n d w a s a s k e d t o r a t e e a c h o ft h e s a m p l e s o n t h e s i x d i m e n s i o n s u s i n g 7 - p o i n t s c a l e s, l a b e l e d a tt h e e n d p o i n t s w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e f e a t u r e n a m e s ( e . g ., 1 = smalla n d 7 = large, f o r s i z e o f h a n d w r i t i n g ) . N o f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n o ra s s i s t a n c e w a s g i v e n . M e a n i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y e x c e e d e d r ( 1 0 ) =. 8 9 fo r e a c h o f t h e h a n d w r i t i n g d i m e n s i o n s ( se e T a b l e 2 ) . A v e r a g e

T a b l e 1Targeted Pairs o f Handwriting and Personality Dimensions, Reported as Related byGraphologists, Along With Mean Sem antic Association Ratings and Mean RelatednessJudgments From Experiment 1Semantic JudgedHandw riting dim ensio n Personality dimension association relatedness

Size (small-large) Modest-egotistical 0.93 1.30Speed (slow-fast) Cautious-impulsive 1.95 1.65Rhythm (regular-irregular) Reliable-unreliable 1.14 1.28Shape (angular-rounded) Ana lytical-intuit ive 0.15 0.37Spacing (compact-expansive) Introverted-extroverted 1.01 0.85Slope (ascending--descending) Optimistic-pessimistic 0.77 0.76Note. Data are cod ed so that positive values indicate response direction consistent with claims of graphologists.The leftmost pole of each handwriting dimension is thought to be indicative of the leftmost pole of thepersonality dim ensio n paired with it, and the rightmost pole o f each handwriting dimension is thought to beindicative of the rightmost pole of the personality dim ensio n paired with it. Cooperative-competitive was addedso that the otherwise equal nu mb er of personality and handwriting dimensions would no t be interpreted asimplying a one-to-one mapping.

7/29/2019 grafologia 4

5/13

3 4 0 K I N G A N D K O E H L ERT a b l e 2Rel iabi li ty o f Handw ri t ing-Feature Encoding b y 10 Raters

Handwriting dimension R(10)Size (smail-large) .97Speed (slow-fast) .89Rhythm (regular-irregular) .89Shape (angular-rounded) .93Spacing (compact-expansive) .92Slop e (ascending-descending) .97

r a t i n g s a c r o s s j u d g e s w e r e c o m p u t e d t o p r o v i d e a s i n g l e r a ti n g f o rt h e s i x h a n d w r i t i n g d i m e n s i o n s i n e a c h o f th e 4 0 s a m p l e s .S e m a n t i c - A s s o c i a t i o n T a s k

T o a s s e s s t h e d e g r e e o f s e m a n t i c a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n d i m e n -s i o n s o f p e r s o n a l i ty a n d h a n d w r i t i n g f e a t u r es , a s e p a r a te g r o u p o fp a r t i c ip a n t s ( N = 8 0 in t r o d u c t o r y p s y c h o l o g y s t u d e n t s d r a w n f r o mt h e s a m e p o p u l a t i o n u s e d i n t h e m a i n e x p e r i m e n t s ) m a d e s e m a n t i c -a s s o c i a t i o n j u d g m e n t s b e t w e e n t h e p e r s o n a l i t y - t r a i t t e r m s a n d t h ew o r d s u s e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e h a n d w r i t i n g f e a t u r e s i n o u r m a i ne x p e r i m e n t s . P a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e t o l d n o t h i n g o f t h e m a i n e x p e r i -m e n t s , n o r w e r e t h e y t o l d t h a t a n y o f t h e w o r d s w e r e i n t e n d e d t od e s c r i b e f e a t u r e s o f h a n d w r i t i n g ; t h e y w e r e s i m p l y i n f o r m e d t h a to u r i n t e r e s t w a s i n " t h e p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r i t y i n m e a n i n g b e t w e e nw o r d s u s e d t o d e s c r i b e p e o p l e a n d w o r d s u s e d t o d e s c r i b e o b j e c t s . "I n t h i s m a n n e r , s e m a n t i c - a s s o c i a t i o n r a t i n g s w e r e e l i c i t e d f o r e a c ho f t h e 1 6 8 p o s s i b l e c o m b i n a t i o n s o f h a n d w r i t i n g f e a t u r e s a n dpe r sona l i ty t r a i t s .

T h e r e q u i r e d i n i t i a l s et o f 1 6 8 f e a t u r e - t r a i t s e m a n t i c - a s s o c i a t i o nj u d g m e n t s w a s d i s t r ib u t e d e q u a l l y a m o n g f o u r q u e s t io n n a i r ef o r m s , t o w h i c h p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d . O n e a c hf o r m , 4 2 p a i r w i s e ju d g m e n t s w e r e m a d e b e t w e e n s e v e n p e r s o n al i tyt r a it s w i t h s i x f e at u r e s o f h a n d w r i t i n g , s u b j e c t t o t h e c o n s t r a i n t t h a to n l y a s i n g l e p o l e f r o m e a c h d i m e n s i o n a p p e a r e d o n a p a r t i c u l a rf o r m . T o a c h i e v e t h i s , w e b r o k e t h e s e v e n p e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n si n t o t h e i r 1 4 p o l e s ( w h i c h w e r e f e r t o a s " t r a i t s " ) a n d r a n d o m l ya s s i g n e d t h e m t o T r a i t L i s t 1 o r T r a i t L i s t 2, u n d e r t h e c o n s t r a i n tt h a t n o t w o p o l e s o f a p e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n c o u l d a p p e a r o n t h es a m e t r a i t l i s t . A n i d e n t i c a l p r o c e d u r e w a s u s e d f o r t h e s i x h a n d -w r i t i n g f e a t u r e s , d i v i d i n g t h e i r 1 2 p o l e s i n t o F e a t u r e L i s t A a n dF e a t u r e L i s t B , u n d e r t h e c o n s t r a i n t t h a t n o t w o p o l e s o f a h a n d -w r i t i n g d i m e n s i o n c o u l d a p p e a r o n t h e s a m e f e a t u r e l i s t . F o u rq u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r m s w e r e c r e a t e d b y c o m b i n i n g t h e t r a i t a n d f e a -t u r e l i s t s ( 1 A , 1 B , 2 A , 2 B ) . I t e m s o n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w e r ea r r a n g e d s o t h a t o n e a c h p a g e , p a r t i c ip a n t s m a d e ju d g m e n t s a b o u tt h e s e m a n t i c a s s o c i a t i o n o f a s i n g l e p e r s o n a l i t y - t r a i t t e r m w i t he a c h o f s i x w o r d s u s e d t o d e s c r i b e h a n d w r i t i n g f e a t u r e s .

T o o b t a i n d i r e c t m e a s u r e s o f s e m a n t i c a s s o c i a t i o n a n d t o m a k et h e s e m a n t i c - a s s o c i a t i o n t a s k a s d i s t i n c t a s p o s s i b l e f r o m t h er e l a t e d n e s s t a s k o f t h e m a i n e x p e r i m e n t s , w e u s e d a n e l i c i t a t i o nt e c h n i q u e d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t o f t h e m a i n e x p e r i m e n t s . I n t h e m a i ne x p e r i m e n t s , p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e a s k e d t o m a k e r e l a t e d n e s s j u d g -m e n t s b e t w e e n h a n d w r i t i n g f e a t u r es , s u c h a s fa s t h a n d w r i t in g , a n dd i m e n s i o n s o f p e r s o n a l i t y , s u c h a s c a u t i o u s - i m p u l s i v e . T h u s , o n eo f t h e 8 4 re l a t e d n e s s j u d g m e n t s c o n c e r n e d t h e s t a n d i n g o f a p e r s o nw i t h f a s t h a n d w r i t i n g o n t h e c a u t i o u s - i m p u l s i v e d i m e n s i o n , w i t h

l a r g e r n u m b e r s i n d i c a t i n g g r e a t e r i m p u l s i v i t y . F o r t h e s e m a n t i c -a s s o c i a t io n t a s k , i n c o n t r a s t, r a t h e r t h a n m a k i n g a s s o c i a t io n j u d g -m e n t s a b o u t t h e s t a n d i n g o f f a s t o n t h e c a n t i o u s - i m p u l s i v e d i m e n -s i o n , p a r ti c i p a n t s w e r e a s k e d t o j u d g e d i r e c t l y t h e a s s o c i a t i o ne i t h e r b e t w e e n f a s t a n d c a u t i o u s o r f a s t a n d i m p u l s i v e . R e s p o n s e st o t h e s e t w o s c a l e s c o u l d t h e n b e p o o l e d t o d e r i v e a s e m a n t i c -a s s o c i a t i o n v a l u e f o r f a s t w i t h c a u t i o u s - i m p u l s i v e . S e m a n t i c -a s s o c i a t io n j u d g m e n t s w e r e m a d e o n 7 - p o i n t s c a l e s r a n g i n g f r o m- 3 ( oppos it e i n me an i ng ) t h r o u g h 0 (unre la ted in meaning) to + 3(s imi lar in meaning) .

F o r e x a m p l e , t h e a v e r a g e s e m a n t i c - a s s o c i a t i o n j u d g m e n t f o r t h ep a i r f a s t a n d c a u t i o u s w a s - 2 . 0 5 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , t o t h i s d e g r e e ,t h e y w e r e p e r c e i v e d a s h a v i n g o p p o s i n g m e a n i n g s . T h e a v e r a g ej u d g m e n t f o r t h e p a i r fa s t a n d i m p u l s i v e w a s 1 . 75 , i n d i c a t in g t h a t ,t o t h i s d e g r e e , t h e y w e r e p e r c e i v e d a s s i m i l a r i n m e a n i n g . B yn e g a t i n g th e f a s t a n d c a u t i o u s m e a n a s s o c i a t i o n j u d g m e n t s a n da g g r e g a t i n g t h e m w i t h t h e f a s t a n d i m p u l s i v e a s s o c i a t i o n j u d g -m e n t s , a g r a n d m e a n o f 1 . 9 0 i s d e r i v e d f o r t h e r e l a ti o n s h i p o f f a s tw i t h c a u t i o u s - i m p u l s i v e , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t f a s t w a s p e r c e i v e d a sm o r e s e m a n t i c a l l y r e l a t ed t o i m p u l s i v e t h a n t o c a u ti o u s . U s i n g t h i sp r o c e s s , w e r e d u c e d t h e o r i g i n a l d a t a s e t o f 1 6 8 a v e r a g e f e a t u r e -t r a i t s e m a n t i c - a s s o c i a t i o n j u d g m e n t s t o a s e t o f 8 4 h a n d w r i t i n g -f e a t u r e - p e r s o n a l i t y - d i m e n s i o n a s s o c i a t i o n s c o r e s . I n d o i n g s o , t h es e m a n t i c - a s s o c i a t i o n j u d g m e n t s w e r e r e n d e r e d c o m p a r a b l e w i t ht h e r e l a t e d n e s s j u d g m e n t s m a d e i n t h e m a i n e x p e r i m e n t s .

E x p e r i m e n t 1M e t h o d

Participants. The 78 participants were enrolled in introductory psy-chology and recei ved credit for their 1-hr participation. Before the exper-iment, participants completed a questionnaire in which they were asked ifthey were familiar with handwriting analysis, and, if so, to report anyhandwriting-feature-personality-trait pairs they had learned or believed tobe related. No participant reported familiarity with any of the pairs aboutwhich they would be asked to make relatedness judgments. Hence, allparticipants were regarded as essentially naive to graphology's claimsregarding the feature-trait relationships o f interest in our study.Materials. For each of the 40 handwriting samples, an accompanyingpersonality profile was fabricated using the six personality dimensionsgive n in Table 1, plus a seventh personality dimension, coo pera tive-competitive. The seventh dimension was added so that the otherwise equalnumber o f personality and handw riting dimensions w ould no t be inter-preted by participants as implying a one-to-one mapping of handwritingfeatures to personality traits.Each of the seven personality-dimension scores that comprised a write r'sprofile were generated randomly, under the constraint that intuitivelyrelated personality dimensions (e.g., cautious-impulsive with reliable -unreliable) would be moderately intercorrelated in the expected direction,with magnitudes in the range of r = . 1 to r = .4. This procedure was usedto lim it the co-occurrence within a profile o f intuitively incompatible traits(e.g., impulsive and reliable) that might lead participants to question theauthenticity of the profiles.

Writer's scores on each personality dimension were converted to per-centiles, representing a writer's score on a personality scale, relative toother writers. Scores were rounded to the nearest 10 and presented on an1 1 - p o i n t scale. For example, in providing the writer's relative standing onthe mo desty-egotism dimension, participants were presented with the writer'spercentile score on a scale ranging from 0 (most EG OTISTICAL [least mod-est]) through 50 (average modesty-egotism) to 100 (most MODEST [leastegotistical]) in inc re m e nts of 10 pe rc e nt i l e poin t s . The wr i t e r ' s

7/29/2019 grafologia 4

6/13

I L L U S O R Y C O R R E L A T I O N S I N G R A P H O L O G I C A L I N F E R E N C E 341suppose d pe r c e n t i l e s c o r e w a s ha nd- c i r c l e d on t he s c a l e . F o l l ow i ng t her a ndom ge ne r a t i on p r oc e dur e , t h r e e s a l i e n t p r o f i l e s t ha t i nc l ude d t h r e e o rm o r e d i m e n s i o n s a t p e r c e n t i le s o f 0 o r 1 0 0 w e r e a d j u s t e d s l i g h tl y t o m a k et he m l e s s d i s t i nc t i ve .

T he 40 r e su l t i ng pe r sona l i t y p r o f i l e s w e r e r a ndoml y pa i r e d w i t h t he 40h a n d w r i t i n g s a m p l e s a n d p r e s e n t e d a l o n g s i d e o n e a n o t h e r i n a c a s e b o o k ,s u c h t h a t , o n o p e n i n g t h e f i r s t p a g e o f t h e c a s e b o o k , a h a n d w r i t in g s a m p l es t a m p e d " C a s e 1 " w o u l d a p p e a r o n t h e l e f t p ag e a n d a p e r s o n a l i ty p r o f i le ,c o n s i s t i n g o f s e v e n p e r s o n a l i ty d i m e n s i o n s c o r es , s a i d t o b e l o n g t o t h ew r i t e r ( a l so s t a mpe d " Ca se 1" ) , w ou l d a ppe a r on t he r i gh t pa ge . Byr a ndoml y pa i r i ng ha ndw r i t i ng s a mpl e s w i t h pe r sona l i t y p r o f i l e s , a ny c o r -r e la t io n b e t w e e n h a n d w r i t in g f e a t u r e s a n d p e r s o n a li t y d i m e n s i o n s w o u l dbe pu r e l y i nc i de n t a l . I nde e d , t he a ve r a ge c o r r e l a t i on be t w e e n ha ndw r i t i ngf e a t u r e s ( t a ke n f r om t he a ve r a ge r e sponse s o f ou r r a t e r s ) a nd pe r sona l i t ysc o r e s w a s z e r o , w i t h a s t a nda r d de v i a t i on o f . 15 . N one o f t he i nc i de n t a lc o r r e l a t i on ma gn i t ude s e xc e e de d r = . 40 . I n a dd i t i on , imp e r f e c t r e l i a b i li t yi n pe r c e p t ua l e nc od i ng o f t he ha ndw r i t i ng f e a t u r e s a t t e nua t e s , t o somee x t e n t , t he a ppa r e n t c o r r e l a t i on be t w e e n f e a t u r e s a nd pe r sona l i t y d i me n-s i o n s p e r c e iv e d b y a n i n d i v i d u a l j u d g e . ( T h is p o i n t i s c o n s i d e r e d i n m o r ede ta i l la te r . )

A s e c o n d f o r m o f t h e c a s e b o o k ( F o r m B ) w a s c r e a t e d u s i n g r e v e r s edp r o f i le s c o r e s f r o m t h e f i r s t c a s e b o o k ( F o r m A ) . A p p l y i n g t o a l l F o r m Apr of i l e s c o r e s t he f o r mul a 100 - n , w he r e n r e p r e se n t s t he pe r c e n t i l e s c o r e so f F o r m A , t h e r e s u lt i n g s c o r e s y i e l d e d c o m p l e m e n t a r y p e r s o n a l i t y p r o f il e sf o r t h e F o r m B c a s e b o o k . B y p o o l i n g j u d g m e n t s a c r o s s t h e c o u n t er b a l -a n c e d F o r m s A a n d B , a n y e f f e c t s o f w i t h i n - f o r m in c i d e n t al c o r re l a ti o n sbe t w e e n pe r sona l i t y s c o r e s a nd ha ndw r i t i ng f e a t u r e s on t he r e l a t e dne s sj udgme n t s shou l d a ve r a ge t o z e r o unde r t he nu l l hypo t he s i s t ha t pa r t i c i -p a n t s a r e i n f l u e n c e d o n ly b y s t a t i s t i c a l- - a n d n o t s e m a n t i c - - a s s o c i a ti o n .

P roc e dure . P a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d t o o n e o f t h e t w of o r m s o f t h e c a s e b o o k a n d w e r e t e s t e d i n g r o u p s . A f t e r c o m p l e t i n g t h ep r e e xpe r i me n t a l que s t i onna i r e me a su r i ng f a mi l i a r i t y w i t h g r a pho l ogy ,ha ndw r i t i ng a na l ys i s w a s de sc r i be d t o pa r t i c i pa n t s a s a p r a c t i c e " use d t oa s se s s pe op l e ' s pe r sona l i t y t r a i t s by e xa mi n i ng spe c i f i c f e a t u r e s o f t he i rh a n d w r i t i n g ." P a r t i ci p a n t s w e r e p r o v i d e d w i t h a l i s t o f " s o m e h a n d w r i t i n gf e a t u r e s o f i n t e r e s t t o g r a pho l o g i s t s , " a l ong w i t h sho r t , i ll u s t r a ti ve e xa m -p i e s o f e a c h ha ndw r i t i ng f e a t u r e t a rge t e d i n t h i s s t udy .Z I n m os t c a se s , t he see x a m p l e s w e r e a d a p t e d f r o m t h o s e f o u n d i n t h e A m e n d a n d R u i z ( 1 9 8 0 )g r a p h o l o g y h a n d b o o k . P a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e w a r n e d t h a t " s o m e o r a l l o ft he se f e a t u r e s o f ha ndw r i t i ng ma y be e n t i r e l y unpr e d i c t i ve o f pe r sona l i t yc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , b u t t h e s e f e a t u r e s a x e a m o n g t h e o n e s t h a t i n t e r e s tg r a pho l og i s t s . "

N e x t , p a r t ic i p a n ts w e r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e s e v e n d i m e n s i o n s o f p e r s o n -a l i t y o f i n t e r e s t i n t he s t ud y , on a s e pa r a t e she e t o f pa pe r t ha t t he y c ou l dr e f e r ba c k t o t h r oughou t t he t a sk . B r i e f de f i n i t i ons o f e a c h pe r sona l i t y -d i m e n s i o n p o l e w e r e i n c l u d e d a s f o l l o w s : m o d e s t ( a w a r e o f o n e ' s o w nl i mi t a t i ons ; humbl e ) v e r sus e go t i s t i c a l ( va in , c onc e i t e d ) ; c a u t i ous ( p r one t oa c t on l y a f t e r r e f l e c ti on ) ve r sus i mpu l s i ve ( p r one t o a c t w i t hou t r e f l e c t i on ) ;r e l i a b l e ( r e spons i b l e , de pe nda b l e ) ve r sus un r e l i a b l e ( i r r e spons i b l e , unde -pe nda b l e ) ; a na l y t i c a l ( i nqu i r i ng , l og i c a l , p r ob l e m- so l v i ng ) ve r sus i n t u i t i ve( i r r a t i ona l ; a c t s on hunc he s ) ; i n t r ove r t e d ( p r e f e r s t o be a l one ) ve r suse x t r ove r t e d ( p r e f e r s t o be w i t h o t he r s ) ; pe s s i mi s t i c ( t e nds t o t a ke t he l e a s th o p e f u l v i e w o f t h i n g s ) v e rs u s o p t i m i s t ic ( t e n d s t o t a k e t h e m o s t h o p e f u lv i e w o f t h i ngs ) ; a nd c oope r a t i ve ( p r e f e r s t o w or k w i t h o t he r s t ow a r dc o m m o n e n d ) v e r s u s c o m p e t i t i v e ( p r e f e r s t o c o m p e t e a g a i n s t o t h e r s ) .A ga i n , pa r t i c i pa n t s w e r e c a u t i one d t ha t t he se pe r sona l i t y d i me ns i on s " ma yo r m a y n o t b e p r e d i c t a b le f r o m a p e r s o n ' s h a n d w r i t i n g . "

Be f o r e r e a d i ng t he p r i n t e d i n s t r uc t i ons ou t l i n i ng t he i r t a sk , pa r t i c i pa n t sw e r e g i ve n a ve r ba l ove r v i e w by t he e xpe r i me n t e r . I n t he p r i n t e d i n s t r uc -t i ons , pa r t i c i pa n t s w e r e l e d t o be l i e ve t ha t i n p r e v i ous r e se a r c h , a g r oupo f 4 0 p e o p l e h a d p r o v i d e d u s w i t h a s a m p l e o f t h e ir h a n d w r i ti n g a n d h a dc o m p l e t e d a p e r s o n a l i ty i n v e n t o r y m a d e u p o f a n u m b e r o f s t a n d a r d i z e dt e s t s , f r om w hi c h t he pe r sona l i t y p r o f i l e s ha d be e n de r i ve d . P a r t i c i pa n t sw e r e r e f e rr e d to t h e c a s e b o o k i n w h i c h w e h a d c o m p i l e d t h e 4 0 h a n d w r i t -

i n g s a m p l e s a n d p e r s o n a l it y p r o f i le s o f t h e w r i te r s . T h e c o n c e p t o f p e r c e n -t i l e s c o r e s w a s d e sc r i be d t o pa r t i c i pa n t s u s i ng e xa m pl e s f r om t he c a se book .P a r t i c i pa n t s w e r e t he n i n s t r uc t e d a s f o l l ow s :

T h e c a s e b o o k i n c l u d e s t h e h a n d w r i t i n g s a m p l e a n d c o r r e s p o n d i n gp e r s o n a l it y p r o f i le s f o r e a c h o f t h e f o r ty p e o p l e f r o m t h e g r o u p w es t ud i ed . W e wo uM l i k e y ou t o e x am i ne t h i s c ase book and , on t he bas i so f y our i n spec ti on, e v a l ua t e whe t he r par t i c u l ar ha ndwr i t i ng f e a t ure sappe ar t o be i nd i c a t iv e o f c e r ta i n pe r sona l i t y f e a t ure s . F o r e x a m p l e ,c ons i de r t he s i z e o f a pe r son ' s ha ndw r i t i ng ( l a r ge vs . sma l l ) . D ope op l e w i t h l a r ge ha n dw r i t i ng d i f f e r i n c e r t a i n pe r sona l i t y t r a i ts f r omp e o p l e w i t h s m a l l h a n d w r i t in g ?Y o u w i l l b e a s k e d t o m a k e y o u r ju d g m e n t s e x c l u s iv e l y o n t h e b a s i s o fy o u r i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e c a s e b o o k , a n d n o t o n y o u r o w n p r e v i o u se xpe r i e nc e o r op i n i ons . F u r t he r i n s t r uc t i ons on e xa c t l y how t o ma key o u r j u d g m e n t s w i l l b e p r o v i d e d a f t er y o u h a v e i n s p e c t e d t h e c a s e -b o o k . Y ou w i l l hav e 15 m i nu t e s t o i n spe c t t he c ase book .A s y o u r e a d t h r o u g h t h e c a se b o o k , y o u s h o u l d k e e p y o u r t a s k i n m i n d ,b e c a u s e o n c e y o u h a v e c o m p l e t e d y o u r i n s p e c ti o n y o u w i l l n o t b ea l l o w e d t o r e - i n s p e c t t h e c a s e b o o k w h e n m a k i n g y o u r j u d g m e n t sa bou t t he r e l a t i onsh i p be t w e e n ha ndw r i t i ng f e a t u r e s a nd pe r sona l i t yt r a i t s . Be c a use w e a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n your ge ne r a l i mpr e s s i ons , no t et a k i ng o r w r i t i ng i n t he c a se book o r on a ny o t he r ma t e r i a l s i s no tpe r mi t t e d . Whi l e i n spe c t i ng t he c a se book , how e ve r , you shou l d f e e lf r e e t o t u r n ba c k t o e a r l i e r pa ge s t o r e v i e w p r e v i ous c a se s . I n sho r t ,y o u s h o u l d u s e t h e i n s p e c t i o n p e r i o d t o f o r m i d e a s a b o u t " w h a t g o e sw i t h w ha t , " t ha t i s , a bou t w h i c h , ( i f a ny) ha ndw r i t i ng f e a t u r e s a r ea s soc i a t e d w i t h w h i c h pe r sona l i t y t r a it s .

P a r ti c ip a n t s w e r e a l s o g i v e n a p r e v i e w o f t h e j u d g m e n t s t h e y w o u l d b ea s k e d t o m a k e b y r e f e r r in g t h e m t o t h e j u d g m e n t t a s k b i n d e r w h e r e t h e yw o u l d m a k e t h e i r r e sp o n s e s f o l l o w i n g t h e i r i n s p e et i u n o f t h e c a s e b o o k .T h e y w e r e n o t , h o w e v e r , a l l o w e d t o r e c o r d a n y j u d g m e n t s d u r i n g t h ei nspe c t i on pe r i od .

W e s e t tl e d o n a 1 5 - m i n i n s p e c ti o n p e r io d o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e r e s u lt s o fi n f o r ma l p i l o t t e s ti ng . P a r t i c ipa n t s g i ve n 15 mi n t o i n spe c t t he c a se b ook d i dn o t c o m p l a i n a b o u t n o t h a v i n g e n o u g h t i m e , a n d w e f e a r ed t h a t a l o n g e ri n s p e c t io n p e r i o d m i g h t p r o d u c e b o r e d o m o r f a t ig u e . C h a p m a n a n d C h a p -ma n ( 1967) r e por t e d t ha t t he i l l u so r y c o r r e l a t i on e f f e c t t he y ob t a i ne d i nt he i r i n it i a l e xpe r i m e n t , i n w h i c h t he pa t i e n t d r a w i ngs w e r e p r e se n t e d onea t a t i me f o r 30 s e a c h , w a s no t r e duc e d a t a l l in a s e c o nd e xpe r i m e n t inw h i c h t h e i n s p e c t i o n p r o c es s w a s c a r r i e d o u t o n c e p e r d a y o v e r 3 c o n s e c -u t i ve da ys , sugg e s t i ng t ha t l i mi t e d i n spe c t i on ti me doe s no t e xa gge r a t e t hes i z e o f t he i l l u so r y c o r re l a t i on e f f e c t . A subse qu e n t e xpe r i me n t ( Cha pma n& Cha pma n , 1967 , E xpe r i me n t 5 ) i n w h i c h pa r t i c i pa n t s c ou l d v i e w e a c hd r a w i n g f o r a s l o n g a s t h e y w i s h e d a l s o p r o d u c e d n o a t te n u a t io n o f t h ei l l u so r y c o r r e l a t i on e f f e c t .

Whi l e i n spe c t i ng t he c a se book , pa r t i c i pa n t s w e r e w a r ne d w he n 10 , 5 ,a n d 1 m i n r e m a i n e d i n t h e i n s p e c t io n p e r io d . A t t h e e n d o f t h e i n s p e c t io npe r i od , t he c a se books w e r e c o l l e c t e d f r om t he pa r t i c i pa n t s . T he j udgme n tt a sk book l e t s w e r e t he n r e d i s t r i bu t e d .

A l t hough w e a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n t he pe r c e i ve d c o r r e l a t i on be t w e e n ha nd-w r i t i ng d i me ns i ons ( e . g . , s i z e ) a nd e a c h pe r sona l i t y d i me ns i on , e l i c i t i ngs u c h j u d g m e n t s d i r ec t ly i s c o m p l i c a t ed b e c a u s e i t w o u l d r e q u i re t h e j u d g et o i nd i c a t e t he d i r e c t i on a s w e l l a s t he ma g n i t ude o f t he pe r c e i ve d s t a t i s ti c a la s soc i a t i on . T o s i mp l i f y the t a sk , w e e l i c i t e d r e l a te dne s s j udgme n t s s e pa -r a t e l y f o r e a c h po l e o r ha nd w r i t i ng f e a t u r e ( e . g . , sma l l a nd l a r ge ) . T ha t i s ,j u d g m e n t s w e r e d e c o m p o s e d a n d c o n d i t i o n e d o n h a n d w r i t i n g f e at u r es . A na l t e r na t ive a ppr oa c h w ou l d b e t o c ond i t i on on pe r sona l i t y t r a it s r a t he r t ha nha ndw r i t i ng f e a t u r e s . We c hose t o c ond i t i on on ha ndw r i t i ng f e a t u r e s be -c a use t he r e su l t i ng j udgm e n t s c a l e i s a nc ho r e d on pe r sona l i t y t r a i ts , w h i c h

1 A c o py o f t he l i s t i s a va i l a b l e upon r e qu e s t f r om D e r e k J . K oe h l e r .

7/29/2019 grafologia 4

7/13

3 4 2 K I N G A N D K O E H L E Ris more in tu i t ive ly compa t ib le wi th the sca les presen t ing personal i ty profileinformat ion in the orig inal casebook.

As an example (one presen ted to part ic ipants as part o f the judgmentinst ruct ions) , consider the assessment of a wri ter ' s s tanding on thec o o p e ra t i v e -c o mp e t i t iv e d i me n s i o n g i v e n t h a t t h e w r i t er h a s sma l l h a n d -wr it in g . Th i s i t e m wo u ld b e h e a d ed , "C OOP ER A TIVE-C O M PET ITIVE:re la t ive to o ther wri ters in th is sample , people wi th small h a n d wr i t i n g t e n dto be . . . " Part ic ipants would m ake such an assess ment on a 9-poin t sca lecentered a t zero (average cooperativeness-competitiveness). Scale valuesincreased from 1 to 4 in bo th d i rec t ions from the cen ter sca le value of 0 ,wi th the far- lef t va lue on the sca le labeled most COMPETITIVE ( leastcooperative) and the far-r igh t va lue labeled most COOPERATIVE ( leastcompetitive). This sca le was designed to maximize compat ib i l i ty wi th thescale on which w ri ters ' percent i le scores w ere presen ted in the casebook.Presen ted w i th th is sample judgm ent sca le , part ic ipants were inst ructed :

This quest ion asks whether the casebook samples of smal l handwri t -ing are associa ted wi th the personal i ty d imension of coopera t ive-competi tive. If , upon rev iew ing the casebook, you fe l t tha t peoplewi th sma l l handw ri t ing were no m ore coopera t ive /compe t i t ive thanother wri ters in the casebook, you would c i rc le the number "0 ,"labeled "average coopera t iveness/average compet i t iveness ." If youdecided tha t people wi th smal l handwri t ing were the most cooperativewri ters in the casebook, you would c i rc le the "4" labeled "mostC OO PER A TIVE ( l e a s t c o mp e t i t iv e )" a t t h e e n d o f t h e a r ro w p o i n t i n gfigh t . Converse ly , i f you decided tha t the people wi th smal l wri t ingwere the most com petitive wri ters in the casebook, you w ould c i rc let h e n u mb e r "4 " l a b e le d "mo s t C O M PET ITIVE ( l e a s t c o o p e ra t iv e )" a tthe end o f the arrow poin t ing left .

On each page in the judgment task bookle t , part ic ipants made re la ted-ness judgments ab out a s ing le handw ri t ing fea ture ' s re la t ionsh ip wi th eachof the seven d ime nsions of personal i ty . For exam ple , on the page for w hichthe sca le g iven above would appear, the phrase "smal l handwri t ing" wasprin ted across the top of the page . T he page w ould inc lude seven judgm entscales , one for each o f the seven personal i ty d imensions. Part ic ipants weregiven unl imi ted t ime to complete the judgment task .R e s u l t s

F o r e a c h r e l a t e d n e s s j u d g m e n t , t h e r e a r e t w o p o s s i b l e p r e d i c -t o r s : t h e a c t u a l c o r r e l a t i o n i n t h e c a s e b o o k , w h i c h i n t h i s s t u d y i sj u s t a n i n c i d e n t a l r e s u l t o f th e r a n d o m p a i r i n g p r o c e d u r e , a n d t h es e m a n t i c a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t r a i t a n d f e a t u r e , a s r a t e d b y o u rs e p a r a t e g r o u p o f p a r t i c i p a nt s g i v e n t h e s e m a n t i c - a s s o c i a ti o n j u d g -m e n t t a s k.

W e u s e d h i e r a r c h i c a l r e g r e s s i o n , r e g r e s s i n g s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a -t i o n f i rs t a n d s e m a n t i c a s s o c i a t i o n s e c o n d a s p r e d i c t o r s o f t h e 8 4a v e r a g e h a n d w r i t i n g - f e a t u r e - p e r s o n a l i t y - d i m e n s i o n r e l a t e d n e s sj u d g m e n t s , s e p a r a t e l y f o r e a c h f o r m . A s c a n b e s e e n i n T a b l e 3 ,

i n c i d e n t a l c o r r e l a t i o n s i n t h e d a t a s e t a c c o u n t e d f o r n o n s i g n i f i c a n t ,n e a r - z e r o v a r i a n c e i n r e l a t e d n e s s j u d g m e n t s f o r e a c h f o r m . S e m a n -t ic a s s o c i a t i o n a c c o u n t e d f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l 3 9 % o f t h e v a r i a n c e i nF o r m A j u d g m e n t s ( p < . 0 1) a n d a n a d d i t io n a l 4 4 % o f t h ev a r i a n c e in F o r m B j u d g m e n t s ( p < . 0 1) . U n d e r t h e n u l l h y p o t h -e s i s , w h i c h a s s u m e s t h a t p e o p l e a r e a t t u n e d o n l y t o s t a ti s t i c a la s s o c i a ti o n , t h e s e m a n t i c - a s s o c i a t i o n m e a s u r e s h o u l d n o t a c c o u n tf o r a n y v a r i a n c e .

T h e b i v a r i a t e c o r r e la t i o n b e t w e e n t h e 8 4 a v e r a g e ju d g m e n t s o nt h e t w o f o r m s p r o v i d e s a s i m p l e a n a l y s i s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s ' r e s p o n s et e n d e n c i e s . B e c a u s e t h e F o r m B i n c i d e n t a l f e a t u r e - t r a i t c o rr e l a -t i o n s a c t u a l l y p r e s e n t i n t h e c a s e b o o k w e r e r e v e r s e d r e l a t i v e t ot h o s e o f F o r m A , d a t a - c o n s i s t e n t j u d g m e n t s w o u l d i m p l y a n e g a -t i v e c o r r e l a t io n b e t w e e n j u d g m e n t s f r o m t h e t w o f o r m s . H o w e v e r ,b e c a u s e t h e v a r i a n c e i n t h e i n c i d e n t a l c o r r e l a t io n s w a s s m a l l(S D = . 1 45 ) , d a t a - c o n s is t e n t r e s p o n d i n g m i g h t s i m i l a r l y p r o d u c el i m i t e d v a r ia b i f it y . T h i s w o u l d i n c l u d e t h e c a s e o f r e s p o n d i n g w i t ha j u d g m e n t o f 0 ( i. e ., u n r e l a t e d ) t o m o s t o f t h e 8 4 j u d g m e n t s , ar e s p o n s e p a t t e r n a r g u a b l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c a s e b o o k d a t a , a n do n e w h i c h w o u l d p r o d u c e a n i n t e r - f o r m c o r r e l a ti o n n e a r z er o . T h en u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t j u d g m e n t s a r e b a s e d e x c l u s i v e l y o n s t a ti s ti c a la s s o c i a ti o n , t h e n , i m p l i e s t h a t t h e c o r r e l a t io n b e t w e e n j u d g m e n t sf r o m t h e t w o f o r m s s h o u l d b e n e g a t i v e o r z e ro . I n s t e a d , th ec o r r e l a t i o n i s p o s i t i v e : r = . 8 3. T h i s r e s u l t im p l i e s a s y s t e m a t i cb i a s i n t h e j u d g m e n t s , u n r e l a t e d t o t h e a c t u a l c o r r e l a t i o n s i n t h ec a s e b o o k , w h i c h d e p e n d s o n l y o n t h e f e a t u r e - t r a i t p a i r b e i n ge v a l u a t e d .

T h e h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n i n j u d g m e n t s b e t w e e n t h e t w o f o r m s p e r -m i t t e d a g g r e g a t i o n a c r o s s f o r m s f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s e s o f f e a t u r e -t r a it r e l a t e d n e s s j u d g m e n t s . I n t h i s p r o c e s s , a n y v a r i a n c e i n j u d g -m e n t s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e a c t u a l s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n i n t h ec a s e b o o k s i s e s s e n t i a l l y e l i m i n a t e d . I n d e e d , a s t r i c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o no f t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s w o u l d l e a d t o a p r e d i c t i o n t h a t t h e r e s h o u l db e n o ( e x p l a i n a b l e ) v a r i a n c e i n t h e r e s u l t in g s e t o f m e a n j u d g -m e n t s , w h i c h i n s t e a d s h o u l d a l l b e a t o r n e a r z e r o. I n f a c t , s e m a n t i ca s s o c i a t i o n a c c o u n t e d f o r 4 7 % o f t h e ( s u b s t a n t i a l ) v a r i a n c e i nt h e 8 4 m e a n r e l a t e d n e s s j u d g m e n t s w h e n p o o l e d a c r o s s f o r m s .

M o r e s p e c i f i c t e s t s c o n c e r n t h e s i x t a r g e t e d h a n d w r i t i n g -f e a t u r e - p e r s o n a l i t y - tr a i t r e l a t i o n s h ip s t h a t g r a p h o l o g i s t s r e p o r t t ob e c o r r e l a te d . W e e x p e c t e d t h a t p a r t ic i p a n t s w o u l d p e r c e i v e i U u -s o r y c o r r e l a t io n s f o r t h e t a r g e t e d h a n d w r i t i n g - f e a t u r e - p e r s o n a l i t y -d i m e n s i o n p a i r s b e c a u s e o f t h e i r s e m a n t i c a s s o c i a t io n . T h a t i s , w ee x p e c t e d b o t h t h e s e m a n t i c - a s s o c i a ti o n r a t i n g s a n d t h e r e l a t e d n e s sj u d g m e n t s t o f a l l i n a d i r e c t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h g r a p h o l o g i s t s 'c l a im s . T a b l e 1 s h o w s t h e r e l e v a n t m e a n s .

T a b l e 3S u m m a r y o f H i e r a r c h i c a l R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s o f R e l a t e d n e s s J u d g m e n t s i n E x p e r i m e n t 1

Depe ndent variab le Pred ic tor B S EB [3 R 2 AR zFo rm A (n = 3 9 )R e l a t e dn e ss j u d g m e n tFo rm B (n = 3 9 )R e l a t ed n e ss j u d g m e n t

Sta t i s t ica l associa t ion 0 .22 0 .54 .05 .002Sem antic assoc iation 0.75 0.10 .63** .396 .394**Sta ti s tica l associa t ion -0 .93 0 .70 - . 14 .021Sem antic assoc iation 1.04 0.13 .67** .458 .437**

** p < .01.

7/29/2019 grafologia 4

8/13

ILLUSORY CORRELATIONS IN GRAPHOLOGICAL NFERENCE 343To derive a single value representing the perceived relationship

between a dimension of handwriting and a dimension of person-ality in Table 1, two transformations were necessary. First, averagevalues for handwriting-feature-personality-dimension airs werecoded as positive when the direction of responding was consistentwith the claims of graphologists and coded as negative when thedirection of responding was inconsistent with those claims. Forexample, the average feature-trait relatedness judgment of -1.4 0for the judgmen t pair fast with cautious-impulsive indicated thatfast was perceived as related to the right pole (impulsive) of thepersonality dimension cautious-impulsive. Because this was con-sistent with graphologists' claims, it was coded + 1.40. Likewise,the average feature-tr ait relatedness judgment of 1.89 to the judg-ment slow with cantious -impulsive indicated that slow was per-ceived as related to the left pole (cautious) of the personali tydimension cautious-impulsive, again consistent with the claims ofgraphology. Next, these data were aggregated to produce a singlevalue representing the perceived relationship between a personal-ity dimension and its associated handwriting dimension. For ex-ample, by averaging the mean values 1.40 and 1.89 given inTable 1, the resulting mean of 1.65 represents the slow-fas t withcantious- impulsi ve relationship. A similar procedure was used toderive a single feature-trai t measure of semantic association.

Table 1 shows the mean relatedness judgments and semantic-association ratings for the six targeted handwriting-dimension-personality-dimensionpairs. In all six cases, participants' related-ness judgments fell in a direction consistent with graphologists'claims, despite the lack of any statistical association. Semanticassociation between the words describing the handwriting featuresand the personality traits also fell in a direction consistent withgraphologists' claims. The rank-order and zero-order correlationsbetween semantic-association and relatedness judgments in thetable are r = .83 and r = .91, respectively. Semantic association,then, appears to be responsible for the direction and magnitude ofrelatedness judgmen ts regarding the targeted pairs because noactual correlations held between handwriting and personalityacross the data sets.

The average magnitude of semantic-association ratings forfeature- trai t pairs that graphologists claim to be correlated (M =.99) was significantly greater ( p < .01) than for those of theremaining feature- trai t pairs (M = .34). In other words, as ex-pected, the semant ic association of the targeted feature-t rait pairsreported by graphologists is signif icant ly greater than the chance-level semantic association found in the set of all possible pairwisecomparisons among the features and traits we examined.Di s c u s s i o n

In this experiment, participants inspected a data set in which, asappears to be the case in practice, negligible correlat ions existedbetween handwriting features and personality dimensions. Theythen made judgments about their statistical relatedness. True,incidental statistical association accounted for near-zero variancein the relatedness judgments , whereas semantic association, asexpected, was predictive of these judgments. Though entirelyuncorrelated when pooled across counterbalanced forms of case-books, mean judged relatedness between handwriting features andpersonality traits fell in a direction consistent with their semanticassociation. This perception of uncorre lated variables as empir i-

cally related constitutes what Chapman and Chapman (1967) re-ferred to as illusory correlation.

Of the 84 judgments made by participants in this study, we wereparticularly interested in the targeted feature-t rait pairs that gra-phologists (Amend & Ruiz, 1980) claim to be related. Naivejudges, who expressed no prior intuitions about these relationships,"discovered" the same relationships as those identi fied by graphol-ogists (see Table 1), despite the absence of any reliable statisticalassociation in the casebooks. For example , like graphologists,naive judges consistently reported a relationship between ascend-ing handwriting and optimism even though these dimensions wereuncorrelated across the data sets. Semantic association betweentrait terms (e.g., optimistic) and words used to describe handwrit-ing (e.g., ascending) was identified as the likely source of theillusory correlations experienced by our participants.

The negligible feature-trait correlations in the casebooks ofExperiment 1 are consistent with what research evidence suggeststo be their actual magnitude. Although, in this sense, randompairing rendered the contrived relationships ecologically valid, thelack of any feature-trait relationships that might be discernible tothe human judge introduces the possibility of an alternative expla-nation of the results. It could be argued that a participant, expect-ing to discern correlations in the casebook, might have respondedin a direction consistent with the semantic-association hypothesisdespite not actually having perceived any correlations in thecasebook.

This alternative explanation for the results of Experiment 1relies rather heavily on the assumption that participants intention-ally violated the task instructions to (a) respond with a 0 (i.e.,unrelated) judgment if they did not perceive a relationship betweena handwriting feature and personality dimension and (b) base theirjudgments solely on the data presented in the casebook rather thanon opin ion or intuition. Despite such ins tructions, however, it mayconceivably be difficult in practice for a participant who genu inelydetected no relationships to indicate this percept ion by giving aresponse of zero to each and every one of the 84 relatednessjudgments. Put differently, some participants may have inferredfrom the nature of the task and the number of judgments they wereasked to make that at least some predictive relationships must haveexisted in the data set, even if they failed to perceive them. Thus,feeling compelled to report perceiving at least some correlations,such a participant might have provided non-zero responses, eventhough in truth he or she perceived no relationships in the data.

Although such a response tendency would misrepresent theperceptions of an individual participant, it would not present aserious methodological problem, provided that judgments deviat-ing from zero on the response scale were made on an arbitrarybasis. Such a response pattern would simply introduce randomerror, the expected value of which would be cons istent with thenul l hypothesis. However, if participants who perceived no rela-tionships in the data chose to deviate from zero in a systematicmanner on the basis of semant ic association, their data would beapparently consistent with the semantic-association hypothesis.

Experiment 2 was designed to address the possibility that suchdemand characteristics might account for the results of Experi-ment 1. Given that the source of the possible demand character-istics is the absence of discernible relationships in the casebooks,in Experiment 2, large, discernible relationships were set betweentargeted handwriting-fea ture-personality-dimension airs.

7/29/2019 grafologia 4

9/13

3 4 4 K I N G A N D K O E H L E R

E x p e r i m e n t 2Method

Participants. T h e 5 8 p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e e n r o l l e d i n a n i n t r o d u c t o r yp s y c h o l o g y c o u r s e a n d r e c e i v e d c r e d i t f o r t h e i r 1 - h r p a r t i c ip a t i o n . A s i n t h ef i r s t e x p e r i m e n t , p a r t i c i p a n ts c o m p l e t e d a q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n c e r n i n g t h e i rf a m i l i a r i t y w i t h g r a p h o l o g y . N o n e o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s r e p o r t e d f a m i l i a r i tyw i t h t h e f e a t u r e - ~ i t p a i rs o f i n t e re s t i n th e s t u d y .Procedure. T h e d e s i g n a n d p r o c e d u r e o f E x p e r i m e n t 2 w e r e i d e n t i c a lt o t h o s e o f E x p e r i m e n t 1 , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h ep e r s o n a l i t y p r o f i l e s . U s i n g o u r r a t e r s ' a v e r a g e f e a t u r e r a t i n g s f o r t h e 4 0h a n d w r i t i n g s a m p l e s , p r o f i l e s w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d a n d p a i r e d w i t h s a m p l e ss u c h t h a t c o r r e l a t i o n s n e a r u n i t y w e r e s e t f o r f o u r o f t h e s i x h a n d w r i t i n g -d i m e n s i o n - - p e r s o n a l i t y - d i m e n s i o n p a i r s c l a i m e d t o b e r e l a t e d b y g r a p h o l -o g i s t s ( f o r a t o t a l o f e i g h t t a r g e t e d h a n d w r i t i n g - f e a t u r e - p e r s o n a l i t y -d i m e n s i o n p a i r s ) . P e r s o n a l i t y p r o f i l e s c o r e s w e r e d e r i v e d u n d e r t h ec o n s t r a i n t t h a t t h e f o u r t a r g e t e d f e a t u r e -- t ra i t c o r r e l a t i o n s h a d t o e x c e e d r =. 9 5 , w h i l e s t i l l p r e s e r v i n g t h e i n t u i t i v e d i r e c t i o n a n d a p p r o x i m a t e m a g n i -t u d e o f t h e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s a m o n g p e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n s f o u n d i n t h ep r o f i l e s o f E x p e r i m e n t 1 . T h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e s e t s u c ht h a t t w o o f t h e f o u r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t h e c a s e b o o k d a t a s e t w o u l d b ec o n g r u e n t w i t h g r a p h o l o g i s t s ' c l a i m s ( a n d , h e n c e , s e m a n t i c a s s o c i a t i o n ) ,a n d t h e o t h e r t w o w o u l d b e i n c o n g r u e n t w i t h g r a p h o l o g i s t s ' c l a i m s . T h e s ef o u r t a r g e t e d h a n d w r i t i n g - d i m e n s i o n - p e r s o n a l i t y - d i m e n s i o n p a i r s a n d t h e i rn e a r - u n i t y c o r r e l a t io n s a r e l i s t e d i n T a b l e 4 . A s i n E x p e r i m e n t 1 , i m p e r f e c tr e l i a b i li t y i n p e r c e p t u a l e n c o d i n g o f t h e h a n d w r i t i n g f e a t u r e s a t t e n u a t e s , t os o m e e x t e n t , t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e p e r c e i v e d c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n f e a t u r e sa n d p e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n s f o r a n i n d i v i d u a l j u d g e . R e s u l t i n g i n c i d e n t a lc o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e r e m a i n i n g t a r g e t e d p a i r s ( a n g u l a r - r o u n d e d w i t ha n a l y t i c a l - i n t u i t i v e , a n d r e g u l a r - i r r e g u l a r w i t h r e l i a b l e - u n r e l i a b l e ) a r ea l s o l i s t e d i n T a b l e 4 ; t h e s e v a l u e s a r e n o n - z e r o a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h ep e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n i n t e r c o r r e l a ti o n s b u i l t i n t o t h e p r o f il e s .

T h e s a m e m e t h o d u s e d i n E x p e r i m e n t 1 f or c o u n t e rb a l a n c in g f o r m s o fc a s e b o o k s w a s a l s o u s e d i n E x p e r i m e n t 2 . I n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t , c o u n t e r b a l -a n c i n g a l s o i n f l u e n c e s c o n g r u e n c y w i t h g r a p h o l o g i s t s ' c l a i m s , s u c h t h a tw h e n t h e t a r g e t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e c o n g r u e n t o n o n e f o r m , t h e y w o u l d b ei n c o n g r u e n t o n t h e o p p o s i t e f o rm . C o r r e l a t i o n s a m o n g t h e r e m a i n i n gh a n d w r i t i n g - f e a t u r e - p e r s o n a l i t y - d i m e n s i o n p a i r s w e r e p u r e l y i n c i d e n t a lc o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e s c o r e -c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o c e d u r e o u t l i n e d a b o v e . B e c a u s eo f t h e i n c r e a s e d c o n s t r a i n t s p l a c e d o n t h e p r o f i l e - c o n s t r u c ti o n p r o c e d u r e i nE x p e r i m e n t 2 , h o w e v e r , t h e t y p i c a l m a g n i t u d e o f t h e i n c i d e n t a l c o r r e l a t io n sw a s s o m e w h a t l a rg e r i n E x p e r i m e n t 2 ( m e a n r = . 2 3 2 ) t h a n i n E x p e r i -m e n t 1 ( m e a n r = . 1 4 5 ). G i v e n a t l e a s t s o m e d e g r e e o f u n r e l i a b i l i t y o f a ni n d i v i d u a l ' s e n c o d i n g o f h a n d w r i t i n g f e a t u r e s , t h o u g h , w e d o u b t t h a t t h e s es o m e w h a t l a r g e r i n c i d e n t a l c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y m o r e d i s c e r n -

i b l e t h a n t h o s e f o u n d i n E x p e r i m e n t 1 . I n a n y c a s e , t h e y s t i l l f a l l w e l l b e l o wt h e l e v e l g e n e r a l l y re q u i r e d t o b e p e r c e i v e d b y a n i n d i v i d u a l j u d g e ( J e n -n i n g s e t a l . , 1 9 8 2 ) .

I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o r e c a l l t h e a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e r e s u l t s o b -t a i n e d i n E x p e r i m e n t 1 : G i v e n n o a c t u a l s t a t i s t i c a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , t h e p a r -t i c i p a n t p e r c e i v e s n o s y s t e m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s b u t n o n e t h e l e s s f e e l s c o m -p e l l e d t o r e p o r t s o m e n o n - z e r o c o r r e l a t i o n s a n d d o e s s o o n t h e b a s i s o fi n t u i t i v e j u d g m e n t s d r i v e n b y s e m a n t i c a s s o c i a t io n . I n E x p e r i m e n t 2 , t h ep a r t i c i p a n t w h o i s c o m p e l l e d t o p r o v i d e n o n - z e r o r e s p o n s e s n o w h a