“How is your signature?: The way you draw it will reveal your personality”: is the headline of a good handful of online articles that affirm that the size of the letter, the existence of margins or the curvature of the letters can describe many attributes of the author, including his psychology and identity. We are talking about personality tests with no type of validity or proven scientific rigor that yield generic results.
What is the scientific basis for these claims? So far none. Graphology is the pseudoscience we have been believing in for far too long.
For some “experts”, if we are right-handed and tilt the letter on the left, we may have a rebellious spirit. Also the “dotted i”, the “crossed t”, the spacing of the letters, heights, closing movements, and a long etcetera, can be physical manifestations of unconscious mental functions. On the other hand, there are many people who put or do not put their surnames, close the signature with a circle or put a full stop. And that, they say, tells a lot about the author.
So much so that the human resources departments of many companies use graphology for personnel selection, since “it helps to know the aptitudes and possibilities of each subject for a job”.
First of all, and for those who do not know, graphology is the pseudoscience that claims to reveal personality traits through the analysis of the subject’s handwriting. Somehow, with her it has been tried throughout history ‘decipher’ the individuality of people. At the same time, it is suggested that it can determine the general characteristics of the character, their mental and physiological balance, their emotional condition and even their type of intelligence or emotional aptitudes.
Yes, all of that through how you pick up the pencil and move it on the paper.
However, the reality is very different. There are other psychological instruments (and they have been scientifically validated and contrasted), with sufficient empirical evidence, that really manage to measure what graphology intends, such as psychometric tests to measure personality traits. Y most of them contrast with graphology in many ways. In 2009, Carla Dazzi and Luigi Pedrabissi conducted an investigation comparing the results of 101 people who were given the Big Five Questionnaire and, at the same time, were subjected to a graphology test. The results were not assimilated at all.
Not only that. Subsequently, a comparative analysis was carried out with the conclusions of another graphologist, where no similarity was found either. In 1986 Ben-Shakhar, Bar-Hillel, Bilu, Ben-Abba, & Flug evaluated the possible validity of graphology through a study that showed that there were no differences between the evaluations of specialist graphologists, and those made by other professionals without knowledge some of the graphology, evidencing that effectiveness is totally random.
Is this science?
Although some features of our writing could be associated with certain personality traits, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn about the individual behavior of a person. Researcher Geoffrey Dean compiled 16 academic articles studying graphology at work. And the results revealed that there was little relationship between the graphologists’ predictions and job success.
At Magnet, we have discussed the phenomenon before. And we have analyzed that, like this one, there are dozens of studies that repeat these results and insist that graphological analyzes are the (not so) modern equivalent of tea grounds or reading the entrails of dead animals.
Another very characteristic point in graphology that occurs quite easily is the Forer effect. It consists of the observation that people show a high approval rating when their personality is described, descriptions that suit them, when they are actually vague and very general enough to apply to a wide range of people. Let’s dig deeper: psychologist Bertram R. Forer gave his students a personality test, and then asked each to rate the test results on a scale of 0 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). In the end, an average of 4.2 was obtained and it was revealed to them that the description was the same for all the students. In short: the placebo of the tests.
Added to all this is another big problem: the lack of standardization, where the different groups of graphologists use different methods or techniques. For example, an analyst may say that a certain trait is representative of sadistic behavior, while another, of a prankster. In addition, more than 200 studies demonstrate the inexistence of any relationship between the personality of the individual and the features of his writing. It is suggested that the ability of graphology to “guess” is based on the diffuse information of gender and social position implicit in the way the letters are drawn.
Although graphology is commonly recognized as a pseudoscience, it is currently still being applied in various areas such as psychology, medicine, criminalistics, education, and the workplace. A big worrying misconception, as research has repeatedly shown its lack of validity and reliability. It does not surprise us that in a time we begin to hire personnel according to the sign of the zodiac.