Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accepting personality test feedback: A review of the Barnum effect

  • Articles
  • Also In This Issue
  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bachrach, A.K., & Pattishall, E.G. (1960). An experiment in universal and personal validation.Psychiatry, 23, 267–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baillargeon, J., & Danis, C. (1984). Barnum meets the computer: A critical test.Journal of Assessment, 48, 415–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baucom, D.H., & Greene, R.L. (1979). The university of generalized personality statements.Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 497–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bayne, R. (1980). Interpretations and uses of research on “Barnum” personality statements.British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 8, 233–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, N.A. (1963). Need correlates of “gullibility.”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 84–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dana, R.H., & Fouke, H. (1979). Barnum statements in reports of psychological assessment.Psychological Reports, 44, 1215–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dana, R.H., & Graham, E.D. (1976). Feedback of client-relevant information and clinical practice.Journal of Personality Assessment, 40, 464–469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, J.G., & Woodyard, H.D. (1974). Effects of reading an astrological description on responding to a personality inventory.Psychological Reports, 34, 1214.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, D.H., & Kelly, I.E. (1985). The “Barnum Effect” in personallity assessment: A review of the literature.Psychological Reports, 57, 367–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fichter, C.S., & Sunerton, D. (1983). Popular horoscopes and the “Barnum Effect.”Journal of Psychology, 114, 123–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forer, B.R., (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forer, B.R. (1968). Personality validation and the person.Psychological Reports, 23, 1214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability, and dissimulation.Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Greene, R.L. (1977). Student acceptance of generalized personality interpretations: A reexamination.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Greene, R.L., Harris, M.E., & Macon, R.S. (1979). Another look at personal validation.Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 419–423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M.E., & Greene, R.L. (1984). Students’ perception of actual, trivial, and inaccurate personality feedback.Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 179–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichsen, J.J., & Bradley, L.A. (1974). Situational determinants of personal validation of general personality interpretations.Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D.E. (1978). The effects of test-taking on acceptance of bogus personality statements.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 63–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lattal, K.A., & Lattal, A.D. (1967). Students’ “gullibility”: A systematic replication.Journal of Psychology, 67, 319–322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. (1978). Relationship between the Barnum Effect and personality inventory responses.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 94–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C. (1979). The Barnum Effect: Rationality versus gullibility.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 219–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layne, C., & Alley, G. (1980). How and why people accept personality feedback.Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 541–546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, E.J. (1968). “Personal validation”: Replication of Forer’s study.Psychological Reports, 23, 181–182.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, P.A., & Seeman, W. (1962). On the Barnum Effect.Psychological Record, 12, 203–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P.E. (1956). Wanted—a good cookbook.American Psychologist, 11, 262–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrens, M.R., & Richards, W.S. (1970). Acceptance of generalized versus bona fide personality interpretations.Psychological Reports, 27, 691–694.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mosher, D.L. (1965). Approval motive and acceptance of “fake” personality test interpretations which differ in favorability.Psychological Reports, 17, 395–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dell, J.W. (1972). P.T. Barnum explores the computer.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 270–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orpen, R.B., & Jamotte, A. (1975). The acceptance of generalized personality interpretations.Journal of Social Psychology, 96, 147–148.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, H.E., & Lesyk, C.K. (1976). Judging personality assessments: Putting the Barnum Effect in perspective.Journal of Personality Assessment, 40, 470–474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, C.R. (1974a). Why horoscopes are true: The effects of specificity on acceptance of astrological interpretations.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 577–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, C.R. (1974b). Acceptance of personality interpretations as a function of assessment procedures.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 150.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, C.R., & Shenkel, R.J. (1975). Astrologers, handwriting analysts, and sometimes psychologists use the P.T. Barnum effect.Psychology Today, March, 52–54.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stachnik, R., & Stachnik, B. (1980). Acceptance of nonspecific astrological personality descriptions: an empirical demonstration.Psychological Reports, 47, 537–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stagner, R. (1958). The gullibility of personel managers.Personnel Psychology, 11, 347–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundberg, N.D. (1955). The acceptability of “fake” versus “bona fide” personality test interpretations.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 145–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, G. (1982a). People who consult astrologers: A profile.Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 119–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, G. (1982b). Why people perceive horoscopes as being true: A review.Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 35, 186–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, R.E., Strachnik, T.J., & Stainton, N.R. (1963). Student acceptance of generalized personality interpretations.Psychological Reports, 13, 831–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, P. (1970). Student acceptance of bogus personality interpretations differing in level of social desirability.Psychological Reports, 27, 743–746.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, WC1H OAP, London, UK

    Adrian Furnham

  2. University of Bath, UK

    Sandra Schofield

Authors
  1. Adrian Furnham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sandra Schofield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Furnham, A., Schofield, S. Accepting personality test feedback: A review of the Barnum effect. Current Psychology 6, 162–178 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686623

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686623

Keywords

Search

Navigation