Editing Graphology (section)

== Use by employers ==
Although graphology had some support in the scientific community before the mid-twentieth century, more recent research rejects the validity of graphology as a tool to assess personality and job performance.<ref name=nevo1986>Nevo, B ''Scientific Aspects Of Graphology: A Handbook'' Springfield, IL: Thomas: 1986</ref><ref name="kingkoehler">{{cite journal |last1=King |first1=Roy N. |last2=Koehler |first2=Derek J. |title=Illusory correlations in graphological inference |journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied |date=2000 |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=336–348 |doi=10.1037/1076-898X.6.4.336 |pmid=11218342 |citeseerx=10.1.1.135.8305 }}</ref><ref>{{cite document |last1=Lockowandt |first1=Oskar |title=Present status of the investigation of handwriting psychology as a diagnostic method |publisher=American Psychological Association |year=1976 }}</ref> Today it is considered a pseudoscience.<ref name=nevo1986/><ref name='Graph_Beyer_PBS'>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/3282_bbeyerstein.html |title=Barry Beyerstein Q&A |access-date=2008-02-22 |work=Ask the Scientists |publisher=[[Scientific American Frontiers]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070220080111/https://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/3282_bbeyerstein.html |archive-date=2007-02-20 }} "they simply interpret the way we form these various features on the page in much the same way ancient oracles interpreted the entrails of oxen or smoke in the air. i.e., it's a kind of magical divination or fortune telling where 'like begets like'".</ref><ref name="ReferenceA"/><ref name="NYT1"/><ref name="Dunning"/><ref>{{cite book |author=Goodwin CJ |title=Research In Psychology: Methods and Design |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eNsVUGTMcDoC&pg=PA36 |year=2010 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-0-470-52278-3 |page=36}}</ref> Many studies have been conducted to assess its effectiveness to predict personality and job performance. Recent studies testing the validity of using handwriting for predicting personality traits and job performance have been consistently negative.<ref name="nevo1986"/><ref name ="kingkoehler"/>

Measures of job performance appear similarly unrelated to the handwriting metrics of graphologists. Professional graphologists using handwriting analysis were just as ineffective as lay people at predicting performance in a 1989 study.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Neter |first1=Efrat |last2=Ben-Shakhar |first2=Gershon |title=The predictive validity of graphological inferences: A meta-analytic approach |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |date=January 1989 |volume=10 |issue=7 |pages=737–745 |doi=10.1016/0191-8869(89)90120-7 }}</ref> A broad literature screen by King and Koehler confirmed that dozens of studies showing the geometric aspects of graphology (slant, slope, etc.) are essentially worthless as predictors of job performance.<ref name="kingkoehler"/>

===Additional specific objections===
* The [[Forer effect|Barnum effect]] (the tendency to interpret vague statements as specifically meaningful) and the [[Dr. Fox effect]]<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ware |first1=J E |last2=Williams |first2=R G |title=The Dr. Fox effect: a study of lecturer effectiveness and ratings of instruction |journal=Academic Medicine |date=February 1975 |volume=50 |issue=2 |pages=149–156 |doi=10.1097/00001888-197502000-00006 |pmid=1120118 |doi-access=free }}</ref> (the tendency for supposed experts to be validated based on likeability rather than actual skill) make it difficult to validate methods of personality testing. These phenomena describe the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. See, for example, Tallent (1958).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tallent |first1=Norman |title=On individualizing the psychologist's clinical evaluation |journal=Journal of Clinical Psychology |date=1958 |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=243–244 |doi=10.1002/1097-4679(195807)14:3<243::aid-jclp2270140307>3.0.co;2-a |pmid=13549608 }}</ref> Non-individualized graphological reports give credence to this criticism.
* Effect Size: Dean's (1992)<ref>{{Citation
  | last = Dean
  | first = Geoffrey A.
  | title = The Bottom Line: Effect Size
  | journal = In Beyerstein & Beyerstein (1992)
  | pages = 269–341
  }}</ref><ref name ="beyerstein1992">{{Citation
  | last1 = Beyerstein
  | first1 = Barry L.
  | author-link = Barry Beyerstein
  | last2 = Beyerstein
  | first2 = Dale F.
  | title = The Write Stuff: Evaluation of Graphology - The Study of handwriting Analysis
  | place = Buffalo, NY
  | publisher = Prometheus Books
  | year = 1992
  | edition = 1st
  | url = https://archive.org/details/writestuffevalua00beye
  | isbn = 978-0-87975-612-3
  | url-access = registration
  }}</ref> primary argument against the use of graphology is that the [[effect size]] is too small. Regardless of the validity of handwriting analysis, the research results imply that it is not applicable for any specific individual, but may be applicable to a group.
* Vagueness: Some important principles of graphology are vague enough to allow significant room for a graphologist to skew interpretations to suit a subject or preconceived conclusion. For example, one of the main concepts in the theory of [[Ludwig Klages]] is {{lang|fr|form-niveau}} (or ''form-level''): the overall level of originality, beauty, harmony, style, ''etc.'' of a person's handwriting—a quality that, according to Klages, can be perceived but not measured. According to this theory, the same sign has a positive or negative meaning depending on the subject's overall character and personality as revealed by the ''form-niveau''. In practice, this can lead the graphologist to interpret signs positively or negatively depending on whether the subject has high or low social status.<ref>Ulfried Geuter, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=nG9TDItv-QQC&pg=PA95 The Professionalization of Psychology in Nazi Germany]'',  pp. 95–96. [[Cambridge University Press]], 1992.</ref>