Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 162–178 | Cite as

Accepting personality test feedback: A review of the Barnum effect

  • Adrian Furnham
  • Sandra Schofield
Articles Also In This Issue

Abstract

This article attempts a comprehensive and critical review of the by-now fairly extensive literature on the Barnum effect—the approval/acceptance by subjects of bogus personality interpretations supposedly derived from standard tests. Since the last major review eight years ago various methodological extensions have occurred and various rival hypotheses for established findings have been proposed. The present review is divided into three major sections: client and clinician characteristics; feedback statements and test format; and implications for personality assessment and measurement. Nearly 50 studies on the acceptance of personality interpretations are systematically reviewed and criticized.

Keywords

Personality Assessment Personality Feedback Current Psychological Research Personality Interpretation Personality Description 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bachrach, A.K., & Pattishall, E.G. (1960). An experiment in universal and personal validation.Psychiatry, 23, 267–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baillargeon, J., & Danis, C. (1984). Barnum meets the computer: A critical test.Journal of Assessment, 48, 415–419.Google Scholar
  3. Baucom, D.H., & Greene, R.L. (1979). The university of generalized personality statements.Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 497–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayne, R. (1980). Interpretations and uses of research on “Barnum” personality statements.British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 8, 233–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrier, N.A. (1963). Need correlates of “gullibility.”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 84–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, R.W., Dmitruk, V.M., & Ranney, J.J. (1977). Personal validation: Some empirical and ethical considerations.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 70–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dana, R.H., & Fouke, H. (1979). Barnum statements in reports of psychological assessment.Psychological Reports, 44, 1215–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dana, R.H., & Graham, E.D. (1976). Feedback of client-relevant information and clinical practice.Journal of Personality Assessment, 40, 464–469.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Delaney, J.G., & Woodyard, H.D. (1974). Effects of reading an astrological description on responding to a personality inventory.Psychological Reports, 34, 1214.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickson, D.H., & Kelly, I.E. (1985). The “Barnum Effect” in personallity assessment: A review of the literature.Psychological Reports, 57, 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dies, R.R. (1972). Personal gullibility or pseudo-diagnosis: A further test of the “Fallacy of Personality Validation.”Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 47–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dmitruk, V.M., Collins, R.W., & Clinger, D.I. (1973). The “Barnum Effect” and acceptance of negative personal evaluation.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 192–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fichter, C.S., & Sunerton, D. (1983). Popular horoscopes and the “Barnum Effect.”Journal of Psychology, 114, 123–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forer, B.R., (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forer, B.R. (1968). Personality validation and the person.Psychological Reports, 23, 1214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability, and dissimulation.Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Furnham, A., & Henderson, M. (1983). The mote in thy brother’s eye, and the beam in thine own: Predicting one’s own and others’ personality test scores.British Journal of Psychology, 74, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Furnham, A., Borovoy, A., & Henley, S. (1986). Type A behavior pattern, the recall of positive personality information, and self-evaluation.British Journal of Medical Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
  19. Greene, R.L. (1977). Student acceptance of generalized personality interpretations: A reexamination.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greene, R.L. (1978). Can clients provide valuable feedback to clinicians about their personality interpretations? Greene replies.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1496–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greene, R.L., Baucom, D.H., & Macon, R.S. (1980). Students’ acceptance of high and low generalized personality interpretations.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 166–170.Google Scholar
  22. Greene, R.L., Harris, M.E., & Macon, R.S. (1979). Another look at personal validation.Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 419–423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Halperin, K.M., & Snyder, C.R. (1979). Effects of enhanced psychological test feedback on treatment outcomes: therapeutic implications of the Barnum effect.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 140–146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Halperin, K., Snyder, C., Shenkel, R., & Houston, B. (1976). Effects of source status and message favorability on acceptance of personality feedback.Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 85–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hampson, S.E., Gilmour, R., & Harris, P.L. (1978). Accuracy in self-perception: The fallacy of personal validation.British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 231–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris, M.E., & Greene, R.L. (1984). Students’ perception of actual, trivial, and inaccurate personality feedback.Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 179–184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hinrichsen, J.J., & Bradley, L.A. (1974). Situational determinants of personal validation of general personality interpretations.Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackson, D.E. (1978). The effects of test-taking on acceptance of bogus personality statements.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 63–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lattal, K.A., & Lattal, A.D. (1967). Students’ “gullibility”: A systematic replication.Journal of Psychology, 67, 319–322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Layne, C. (1978). Relationship between the Barnum Effect and personality inventory responses.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 94–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Layne, C. (1979). The Barnum Effect: Rationality versus gullibility.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 219–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Layne, C., & Alley, G. (1980). How and why people accept personality feedback.Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 541–546.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Layne, C., & Michels, P.Y. (1979). Inventory responding as a model of people’s acceptance of personality interpretations.Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 509–513.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Manning, E.J. (1968). “Personal validation”: Replication of Forer’s study.Psychological Reports, 23, 181–182.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Marks, P.A., & Seeman, W. (1962). On the Barnum Effect.Psychological Record, 12, 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meehl, P.E. (1956). Wanted—a good cookbook.American Psychologist, 11, 262–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Merrens, M.R., & Richards, W.S. (1970). Acceptance of generalized versus bona fide personality interpretations.Psychological Reports, 27, 691–694.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Merrens, M.R., & Richards, W.S. (1973). Length of personality inventory and the evaluation of a generalized personality interpretation.Journal of Personality Assessment, 37, 83–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mosher, D.L. (1965). Approval motive and acceptance of “fake” personality test interpretations which differ in favorability.Psychological Reports, 17, 395–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Dell, J.W. (1972). P.T. Barnum explores the computer.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 270–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Orpen, R.B., & Jamotte, A. (1975). The acceptance of generalized personality interpretations.Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 147–148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Richards, W.S., & Merrens, M.R. (1971). Student evaluation of generalized personality assessment as a function of method of assessment.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 457–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosen, G.M. (1975). Effects of source prestige on subjects’ acceptance of the Barnum Effect: Psychologist versus astrologer.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schroeder, H.E., & Lesyk, C.K. (1976). Judging personality assessments: Putting the Barnum Effect in perspective.Journal of Personality Assessment, 40, 470–474.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Snyder, C.R. (1974a). Why horoscopes are true: The effects of specificity on acceptance of astrological interpretations.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 577–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Snyder, C.R. (1974b). Acceptance of personality interpretations as a function of assessment procedures.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Snyder, C.R., & Clair, M.S. (1977). Does insecurity breed acceptance?: Effects of trait and situational insecurity on acceptance of positive and negative diagnostic feedback.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 843–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Snyder, C.R., Handelsman, M.M., & Endelman, J.R. (1978). Can clients provide valuable feedback to clinicians about their personality interpretations? A reply to Greene.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1493–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Snyder, C.R., & Larsen, G.R. (1972). A further look at student acceptance of general personality interpretations.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 384–388.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Snyder, C.R., Larsen, D.K., & Bloom, L.J. (1976). Acceptance of personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback supposedly based on psychological, graphological and astrological assessment procedures.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 258–265.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Snyder, C.R., & Shenkel, R.J. (1975). Astrologers, handwriting analysts, and sometimes psychologists use the P.T. Barnum effect.Psychology Today, March, 52–54.Google Scholar
  52. Snyder, C.R., & Shenkel, R.J. (1976). Effects of favorability, modality, and relevance upon acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 34–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Snyder, C.R., Shenkel, R.J., & Lowery, C.R. (1977). Acceptance of personality interpretations: the “Barnum Effect” and beyond.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 104–114.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Stachnik, R., & Stachnik, B. (1980). Acceptance of nonspecific astrological personality descriptions: an empirical demonstration.Psychological Reports, 47, 537–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stagner, R. (1958). The gullibility of personel managers.Personnel Psychology, 11, 347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sundberg, N.D. (1955). The acceptability of “fake” versus “bona fide” personality test interpretations.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tyson, G. (1982a). People who consult astrologers: A profile.Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tyson, G. (1982b). Why people perceive horoscopes as being true: A review.Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 35, 186–188.Google Scholar
  59. Ulrich, R.E., Strachnik, T.J., & Stainton, N.R. (1963). Student acceptance of generalized personality interpretations.Psychological Reports, 13, 831–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weinberger, W.S., & Bradley, L.A. (1980). Effects of favorability and type af assessment device upon acceptance of general personality interpretations.Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 44–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Weisberg, P. (1970). Student acceptance of bogus personality interpretations differing in level of social desirability.Psychological Reports, 27, 743–746.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian Furnham
    • 1
  • Sandra Schofield
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.University of BathUK

Personalised recommendations