Many people believe that handwriting can infer a person's personality, but no one has yet come up with clear data to prove that there is an inevitable correlation between the two. However, in 1992, psychologist Geoffrey A. Dean conducted a meta-analysis of more than 200 studies on handwriting and personality and found that the correlation coefficient between handwriting analysis and personality was only 0.12, which means that graphology can accurately predict personality. The ratio is less than 2. So the conclusion drawn is that handwriting actually has little to do with a person’s personality.
If handwriting analysis is so inaccurate, why do many people still want to believe it?
First of all, the simple idea of ??graphology caters to the public’s thinking mode. Personality itself is invisible and intangible, but graphology connects abstract personality characteristics with specific handwriting characteristics, and establishes intuitive correspondences through semantic association. This system is approachable and can meet the needs of ordinary people to understand themselves and others.
Secondly, in the practice of handwriting analysis, handwriting analysts often use many clues other than handwriting to make inferences, so it sounds reasonable. For example, some analysts will analyze the personalities of historical figures or contemporary celebrities based on their handwritings, and they will make a clear statement. However, this kind of analysis actually involves first understanding the target's personality characteristics and then applying the handwriting characteristics. In addition, the writing content will also provide clues. For example, the writer of a very sad text is more likely to have a melancholic personality. This inference has nothing to do with handwriting clues. As mentioned above, under rigorous scientific testing, analysts' accuracy is about as good as pure guessing.
The last is the famous "Barnum effect", also known as the "Fowler effect". In 1948, psychologist Fowler experimentally demonstrated that people tend to believe that some vague and general descriptions are particularly suitable for them, even if these descriptions are randomly selected. Pseudosciences such as horoscopes and graphology all take advantage of this cognitive bias. The predictions and inferences they give are generalized and widely applicable. The Barnum effect makes it easy for us to accept such statements and think that they are There is some truth.