A comparison of the diagnoses of a graphologist with the results of psychological tests.

Abstract

A class of twenty-four students who had previously been given intelligence, interest, and personality tests wrote to a newspaper graphologist for vocational guidance, their university connection being disguised and the requests being staggered over a period of more than one week. The vocational recommendations and the diagnoses of personality traits were then compared with the test scores. It was found that: 1. Assuming that a certain minimum intelligence is necessary for a given occupation, the occupations recommended by the graphologist showed no more than a change relationship with the recommendations which a psychologist would have made on the basis of intelligence tests. 2. Assuming that a certain pattern of interests is desirable for adjustment in an occupation, the occupation recommended by the graphologist were quite different from those which a psychologist would have recommended on the basis of an interest inventory, certain unsuitable occupations being recommended with more than chance frequency by the graphologist. 3. The graphologist's estimates of the students' personality traits showed no more than a chance agreement with those made by a psychologist on the basis of personality inventories in the case of four traits, and in the case of the two others were worse than change, again revealing a constant error. 4. There was reason for ascribing these constant errors to a belief in the existence of opportunities in certain areas rather than to poor diagnosis alone, and to the use of clues to personality traits not intrinsic in handwriting. 5. It was pointed out that, with certain graphological principles gaining acceptance in scientific circles, it is still important to check the activities of persons who claim to use these newer principles.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.