Why do so many people believe in, consult and act upon the predictions
of astrologers and graphologists? But such predictions are not only irreconcilable
with scientific rationalism and Christian beliefs, they have a highly dubious
record when it comes to validly and reliably describing personality accurately,
predicting behaviour or foretelling the future. Social scientists have considered
seriously the possibility that horoscopes and handwriting analyses have
some validity, but impartial research has failed to find any replicable,
significant evidence. Both graphology and astrology are falsifiable, and
both have been falsified, yet people from all backgrounds still believe.
The question is: why?
There are two sorts of answer to this question. One is related to the
fact that in our society we often need to assess, describe or measure people.
Employers, for example, often need to make judgments about which individuals
to employ, perhaps having to make a selection from a large number of candidates.
Bewildered selectors, increasingly under pressure to use 鈥榦bjective鈥� assessment
procedures rather than relying on intuition, turn to any means of assessment
that they feel gives them 鈥榠nsight鈥� into the more and more sophisticated
applicants.
Some resort to school grades or leisure pursuits (always the source
of greatest lies on an application form), despite evidence that these are
poor predictors of success in a job. Indeed, there may even be a reverse
correlation between good grades in certain A-level subjects and success
at work.
Advertisement
Other employers consult occupational psychologists whose carefully constructed
psychometric tests appear to provide objective scientific measures. However,
a combination of distrust of psychology (especially in Britain), a growing
number of unqualified consultants setting up in business and the profusion
of overenthusiastic claims and poorly designed tests means that distraught
and overburdened selectors are turning elsewhere. Many have turned to graphology.
Newspapers such as the Observer, The Independent and the Sunday Times have
all published reports of important, influential and presumably intelligent
people in organisations such as banks and financial houses using the services
of graphologists and other tests for the selection of employees. This is
despite literally dozens of scientific studies that challenge the ability
of graphology to assess or describe an individual鈥檚 character.
The more plausible reason for the popularity of graphological and astrological
interpretations, readings and the like is because, paraodoxically, they
are true. But, and it is an important but, the reason they are true is that
they are vague, positive generalisations which are true of most people and
yet are supposedly derived specifically for a named individual.
This is part of a phenomenon that psychologists refer to as the Barnum
effect, whereby people will accept feedback about their personality, no
matter how trivial or general, because they believe it is based on personality
assessment procedures. The effect is named after Phineas T Barnum, a showman
and circus owner in 19th-century America who claimed 鈥楾here鈥檚 a sucker born
every minute鈥� and whose formula for success was 鈥楢 little something for
everybody鈥�. According to research on the Barnum effect, people believe in
astrology and graphology because they fall victim to the fallacy of personal
validation. In other words they take the generalised, trite, bogus descriptions,
which are true of nearly everybody, to be specifically true of themselves.
Psychologists have been investigating the Barnum effect for about 40
years. During this time, they have isolated some of the circumstances that
determine whether a person will be fooled by bogus feedback, the characteristics
of those that are and are not fooled, and the type of things that people
believe and trust in.
An early classical study took place in the late 1950s when Ross Stagner,
an Ameican psychologist, gave 68 personnel managers a well-established personality
test. But instead of scoring it and giving them the results, he handed each
person a bogus feedback in the form of 13 statements derived from horoscopes,
graphological analyses and so on. He then asked each manager to read the
feedback (supposedly derived for him/herself from the 鈥榮cientific鈥� test)
and decide how accurate the assessment was by marking whether each sentence
was: amazingly accurate, rather good, about half and half, more wrong than
right or almost entirely wrong. More than a third felt their profile was
an amazingly accurate description, while 40 per cent thought it was rather
good (see Table). Almost none believed it to be very wrong.
The response of the personnel managers to the individual statements
also reveals one of the reasons why the Barnum effect occurs. The two statements
the managers considered most accurate were: 鈥榊ou prefer a certain amount
of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions
and limitations鈥� (91 per cent marked it as 鈥榬ather good鈥� or 鈥榓mazingly accurate鈥�)
and 鈥榃hile you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able
to compensate for them鈥� (89 per cent). In comparison, the two statements
rated as least accurate were 鈥榊our sexual adjustment has presented problems
for you鈥� and 鈥楽ome of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic鈥�. General
feedback has to be positive for the Barnum effect to work because, not unnaturally,
people have a penchant for the positive.
Many researchers have replicated this result. In the late 1960s, a French
psycholgist advertised his services as an astrologer in various newspapers.
He received hundreds of requests for his services, and replied to each letter
with an identical copy of a single, ambiguous, 鈥榟oroscope鈥�. More than 200
of his clients wrote back praising his accuracy and perceptiveness.
In Australia, Robert Trevethan regularly asks his first-year psychology
students at the University of Charles Sturt, in New South Wales, to write
down in detail their dreams, or to describe what they see in an inkblot;
the more mystical the task the better. A week later he gives them a profile
鈥� the same 13 statements that Stagner used 鈥� and asks them to rate it. Only
after they have publicly declared their belief in the test does he encourage
them to swap profiles. The humiliation of being so easily fooled is a powerful
learning experience.
Research on the Barnum effect has shown that belief in this bogus feedback
is influenced by various factors. Curiously, personality of the client and
the analyst have little effect. Of course, naive or gullible people are
(tautologically!) more susceptible. Men and women are equally likely to
accept the feedback. And the status and prestige of the analyst are only
marginally important, which is good news for the more bogus people in this
field.
Some variables are crucial, however. One of the most important is what
kind of information the person is asked to give. The more detailed and specific
the questions the better-for example, specifying exact time, date and place
of birth to astrologers. In one study at the University of Kansas, C R Snyder
gave all his subjects the same horoscope. He found that those told the interpretation
was based on the year, month and day of birth judged it to be more accurate
than those told it was based only on the year and month.
These, and many other studies, show that when people receive general
statements they think pertain only to them, their faith increases in the
procedure and in the analyst. How well the analyst has differentiated a
person from others is no measure of satisfaction; this depends entirely
on the extent to which clients believe the diagnosis is specific to them.
A second crucial component of the Barnum effect is that humans tend
to be hungry for compliments but sceptical of criticism. Feedback must be
favourable. It need not be entirely positive, but if it is by and large
favourable with the occasional mildly negative comment (that itself may
be seen as a compliment) people will believe it. This can easily be demonstrated
by using Stagner鈥檚 13 statements with the opposite, primarily negative,
meaning; for example, 鈥榊ou do not pride yourself as an independent thinker
and accept others鈥� statements without satisfactory truth.鈥�
This confirms another principle in personality measurement, the 鈥楶ollyanna
principle鈥�, which suggests that there is a universal human tendency to use
or accept as true positive words or feedback more than negative words and
feedback. In one experiment, Snyder and his colleagues showed that there
were five times as many favourable as unfavourable statements in feedback
that subjects found highly acceptable. The rarely accepted interpretations,
by comparison, contained twice as many unfavourable as favourable statements.
In the light of the Barnum effect, therefore, it is not difficult to
explain the popularity of astrology and graphology. The lengthy feedback
is based on specific information-time and place of birth for astrology;
slant and size of writing, how the letters are joined, dotting of i鈥檚 and
crossing of t鈥檚, use of loops and so on in graphology. It is nearly always
favourable. Take, for example, an analysis of Nigel Lawson鈥檚 writing published
in the Observer on 3 November 1989. 鈥極ptimistic, forward-looking. Extrovert.
Intelligent. Appreciative of the arts. Cultured. Decisive. Signs of stubbornness.
Quick mind, but not good with trivia; needs people to whom he can delegate.鈥�
A typical example of general positive statements that are applicable to
between five and ten million other people who live in Britain. And note
the praising with faint damns: 鈥楽igns of stubbornness鈥�, for instance, and
鈥榥ot good with trivia鈥�. Not so many people would be happy to hear of themselves
鈥榮igns of intelligence鈥� or 鈥榮low mind, but good with trivia鈥�.
Another factor is that it is often the troubled (worried, depressed,
insecure) who visit astrologers, graphologists and fortune tellers. They
are particularly sensitive to the supposedly objective positive and their
future. Therefore, the very type of feedback and the predisposition of the
people who seek it makes the acceptance highly probable.
The Barnum effect also accounts for the popularity of astrological books
and stars columns in newspapers and magazines. They offer a fairly long
description for each Sun sign in positive general terms, but with the caveat
that it is an approximation and that an accurate horoscope needs to be cast
specifically for an individual. But if the general description seems true
(and it probably is), people frequently conclude that it must be even more
accurate when more specific information is used.
Furthermore, this process is enhanced over time for two reasons. The
first is a human chracteristic that psychologists have been aware of since
Freud pointed it out. This is that people selectively remember positive
statements about themselves rather than negative. So people are more likely
to remember feedback that coincides with their own view of themselves than
information that is less relevant or contradicted it. Secondly, people have
to pay for the services of an astrologer or graphologist. If you have paid
for something, you are less likely to admit that you have wasted your money
on inferior items. The more one pays the better. Perhaps one needs a wealth
warning in every astrological statement.
Astrological and graphological readings have other attractions, particularly
for people who are anxious or insecure. The readings not only give useful,
鈥榝ascinating鈥� information about oneself, but they may also predict the future
so reducing anxieties and uncertainties about what will happen. Also, unlike
other forms of therapy that require effort (and often pain) in the form
of recognising one鈥檚 problems and/or modifying one鈥檚 behaviour to obtain
benefit, one merely has to supply the graphologist with a sample of handwriting
or the astrologist with the time and place of birth. There is much to gain
and little to lose. Not surprisingly, a comfortable collaborative illusion
of scientific validity emerges from the buyer and seller of the astrological
reading or handwriting analysis.
Finally, there is one other reason why people validate graphology and
astrology-the self-fulfilling prophecy. The statement, for example, that
鈥楢s a Virgo, you are particularly honest鈥�, may lead to you noticing or selectively
recalling all or any, albeit trivial, instances that confirm this behaviour
(such as pointing out that a person had dropped a bus ticket or returning
excess change). The self-fulfilling prophecy may work on both a conceptual
and a behavioural basis. And Virgos may not only come to include the trait
of honesty in their self-concept, but also become slightly or occasionally
more honest. Thus the predictions of graphology and astrology may come true
in part because they dictate them.
So, beware the fortune cookie, the graphologist, the astronomer! The
moral of the story, of course, is that you can impress anyone with the perspicacity
of your psychological insights provided that you confine yourself to statements
that are vague, relevant for most people, generally favourable, but personalised
just for you. Fortune tellers have been exploiting this fact for hundreds
of years. Crystal balls have been replaced by tarot cards or simple pen
and ink, but the principle remains the same. The fault of false belief is
not in our stars, but in ourselves.
鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
HOW PERSONNEL MANAGERS RATED THEIR 鈥楶ERSONALITY ANALYSIS鈥� 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
Amazingly Rather About More Almost accurate good half wrong entirely
and than wrong half right 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
You have a great need for other people to like and admire you
39 46 13 1 1 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
You have a tendency to be critical of yourself 46 36
15 3 0 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your
advantage 37 36 18 1 4 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate
for them 34 55 9 0 0 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
Your sexual adjustment has presented problems for you
15 16 16 33 19 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
Disciplined and self- controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure
inside 40 21 22 10 4 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision
or done the right thing 27 31 19 18
4 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied
when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations 63
28 7 1 1 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
You pride yourself as an independent thinker and do not accept others鈥� statements
without satisfactory proof 49 31 12 4 4 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others
31 37 22 6 4 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you
are introverted, wary, reserved 43 25 18
9 5 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic 12
16 22 43 7 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
Security is one of your major goals in life 40 31 15
9 5 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
Not all percentages add up to 100 per cent because of omissions by an occasional
subject. 鈥斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌斺赌�
Adrian Furnham is a reader in psychology at University College, London.