Many Human Resource Management text books show the predictive accuracy for graphology as zero. They usually show Assessment Centres as best, followed by structured interviews, work samples, ability tests, references etc. I have yet to discover the basis for the calculation for graphology.
Of interest is a study that compared 16 Graphological Analyses with Assessment Centre reports. The results were "very similar". See Nauer M.A. - Assessment Center versus Graphologie. (In German in Management No.4 1998 pp42-45. In French in SFDG Graphologie No. 238 pg.74. In English in BAoG Graphology April 2001 No 56 pp23-27))
Also a meta-analysis of over 200 graphology studies concluded, “Yes, graphology is valid” (Beyerstein et al 1992 page 301). This was in a book that is critical of graphology.
There is a clear dispute between graphology supporters and their critics. Supporters accuse the critics of using a suspect methodology, unrealistic situations, unbiased researchers, the “wrong” graphologists, and “isolated signs”. They also say that communication is a problem, down to the meaning of single words. They also say that more research is needed
In my opinion more research is needed; in the meantime I can see no reason to censor its use if it is used alongside other tools. Focus Groups are one of the most used "tools" for developing new products, government policy and management policy. Should they be dismissed as a true tool? Studies don't support their validity. The same goes for job interviews, references etc.
Some people think that it is worth investigating. Eysenck said that graphology could "be of outstanding importance to abnormal as well as to experimental psychology." He was involved with research in graphology right up until his death.
You can read more of Eysenck's involvement with Graphology in a book edited by Nyborg H: The Scientific Study of Human Nature:Tribute to Hans J Eysenck at Eighty. (1997)Pergamon/Elsevier, Oxford. 621pp (Pages 511-542 are by G A Dean, D K B Nias and C C French).
The critics will give you a list of reasons why people feel it works. They will also say that that doesn't mean it really does work. Here are a few of them you can investigate further: the Barnum effect, illusion of control, cold/hot reading, cognitive dissonance reducing behaviour, ignorance, selective memory, sympathetic magic, communal reinforcement, confirmation bias.
Yes it sometimes has that image in some countries. It is taught at University level in some countries. For more on the image see my articles on the subject. Click HERE for one. It may be that graphologists themselves let this happen. They wrote popular graphology books. I would never criticise anyone for raising awareness by popular means. But there are limits after which credibility is affected.
Yes graphology has been applied to many languages. I know of work with Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew and Indian languages.
Last updated 3 September 2001. Please report any corrections to me at this email address bradlen@graphology.ws
3 September 2001