Validation of graphological judgments: An experimental study 9783111556499, 9783111186146

Citation preview

VALIDATION OF GRAPHOLOGICAL JUDGMENTS: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES

Editorial JOHAN T .

Committee BARENDREGT

HANS C . BRENGELMANN / GOSTA EKMANf SIPKE D . F O K K E M A / N I C O H . FRIJDA J O H N P . VAN DE G E E R / A D R I A A N D . DE GROOT MAUK MULDER / RONALD WILIAM RAMSAY SIES WIEGERSMA

Mouton - The Hague - Paris

Validation of Graphological Judgments: An Experimental Study A B R A H A M JANSEN University

of

Amsterdam

Mouton - The Hague - Paris

This b o o k has b e e n published w i t h t h e aid of the N e t h e r l a n d s Organisation for t h e A d v a n c e m e n t of Pure Research (Z.W.O.) Translated f r o m t h e D u t c h b y J . A. A. Spiekerman

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 76-184753 © 1973, Mouton Publishers, The Hague, Netherlands Printed in the Netherlands

PREFACE

In 1955, on the initiative of the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Bedrijfspsychologie (Netherlands Society of Industrial Psychology), a study group for graphology was set up for the purpose of studying some problems of applied graphology, particularly with regard to the practical uses of graphology in industry. Its activities almost exclusively consisted of validation research — carried out by the group itself —, which took the form of four related experiments. The study group continued to exist until the end of 1 9 6 3 , when it was officially dissolved and a report submitted by its Chairman to the Board of the Netherlands Society of Industrial Psychology. The study group was composed as follows: Prof. H.W. Ouweleen (Univ. of Rotterdam)

Chairman, Psychologist M.A. van den Hout M.A. (The Hague) Secretary Prof. C.J.F. Böttcher (Univ. of Leiden) Graphologist Prof. A.D. de Groot (Municipal Univ. of Amsterdam) Psychologist E.A. Hof M.A., LL.D. (The Hague) Psychologist Prof. D.J. van Lennep (Univ. of Utrecht) Psychologist, Graphologist Dr. L. Spanjaard LL.D. (Amsterdam) Graphologist J . J . Wittenberg (Amsterdam) Graphologist Prof. H.R. Wijngaarden (Free Uriiv. of Amsterdam) Psychologist The author (Municipal Univ. of Amsterdam) Psychologist Dr. Spanjaard and Mr. Wittenberg were at the time serving on the board of the largest graphological society in the Netherlands. Owing to pressure of work, Prof, van Lennep, Prof. Böttcher and Prof. Wijngaarden successively had to resign from the study group.

VI Preface The following publications dealing with the research conducted by the study group have appeared: Ouweleen, H.W., Een wetenschappelijk onderzoek van grafologische uitspraken (A Scientific Investigation of Graphological Judgments), The Hague: Netherlands Society of Industrial Psychology, 1963, (16 pp.). Jansen, A., Toetsing van grafologische uitspraken (Testing Graphological Judgments), Amsterdam: van Rossen, 1963 (dissertation, 278 pp.). The former is a concise pamphlet, comprising the Chairman's final report on the study group's activities. It describes in broad outline the experimental research and sets out the main results. For more detailed information the pamphlet refers to the present author's dissertation, a revised and translated edition of which is here offered to the reader. The direction and scope of the research, as well as the basic design of the experiments, were decided by the study group as a whole. All important decisions were taken unanimously — sometimes after prolonged discussions. The actual experimentation, the statistical calculations and analysis of the outcomes, as well as internal reporting to the study group were the responsibility of the author, who wishes to state emphatically that he is solely answerable for the presentation and conclusions in the present b o o k . The author has pleasure in extending his thanks to the Chairman and members of the study group. In particular, he owes a large debt of gratitude to Prof. A.D. de Groot, who supervised his doctoral dissertation. Thanks are also due to all who participated in the experiments as well as to the authorities and individuals who made possible the publication of the Dutch and English editions of this book.

T A B L E OF

CONTENTS

PREFACE

V

1 P R E L I M I N A R Y DISCUSSIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS

1

2

1.1 Two basic questions 1.2 Types of validation study 1.3 The criterion 1.4 An examination of the claims of graphologists 1.5 Aim and design of Experiment I

1 2 6 8 14

E X P E R I M E N T I: A P I L O T I N V E S T I G A T I O N

15

2.1 Procedure 2.1.1 The scripts 2.1.2 The instructions 2.1.3 The rating blank 2.1.4 The subjects 2.1.5 The actual experiment 2.1.6 Some hypotheses 2.2 Statistical calculations and analysis of the results 2.2.1 Explanation of the symbols and terms. A first survey 2.2.2 The experimental material: The five folders 2.2.3 The table of hits: The results per group 2.2.4 The scores: Individual results 2.2.5 The group judgments 2.2.6 The certainty of the judgments 2.2.7 The discrepancies in the ( + ) judgments

15 15 16 17 17 17 18 19 19 20 23 24 25 26 26

Vili Table of

contents

2.2.8

2.3

2.4 3

Analysis of variance of the hit results on 58 ink scripts 28 2.2.9 Analysis of variance of the certainty qualifications on 58 ink scripts 29 2.2.10 The relation between hit result and certainty score 31 2.2.11 Intersubjective reliability 33 2.2.12 Determination of

4

S /l4

®/12

7 /l4

7 /l3

5 /l4

6 /l4

C'|/l32

48

3/ 4

2/3

4/lü

»/«

7 /l4

4/7

'/4

7 /l4

S/5

"/»

33/69

48

+ 0?

•/«

9 /l5

12 /l5

I 2 /l5

•/«

12 /lS

13 /l5

12 /l5

12 /lS

"/is

"Viso

74

+ 0

8 /l3

9 /.5

12 /lS

12 /lS

9 /l4

8 /l0

13 /lS

"/l4

12 /l5

"/is

l 0 S /l4l

74

Ah

"/l!

6/e

3/4

3/3

12 /l4

'/»

8/lO

62/76

82

»/«

+ 0?

7/lS

10 /l5

"/is

"/is

«/is

'/is

13 /l5

+ 0

5 /l3

10 /l3

"/l5

'/it

6/8

7 /l2

13/l5

4/4

Vl

2/4

12/l4

12/20

+ 0?

+

fraction

4

8 /l4

+ 0

Total hit

3

4 /l3

+ P

2

5/>S

+ 2

1

total

+ 0?

+

K

each

+ 0

+

K

in

category)

certainty

folder

139

»/»

8 /ll

0

12/ao

Vl

"/so

°/l3

10 /l8

Vi

10 /l9

V'

Vl

4/s

Wh

Vi

7/• 9 /l5

7/io 5/«

10 /l5

9 /lS

93 /lS0

62

10 /l5

9/lS

86 /l28

67

4/s

6 /l0

45/e o

13/20 l2/20 13/üo

12/20

14/20

85/l41

60

I2 /20

14/ao

78/l31

60

«/is

8 /l2

7 /u

42/es

65

10 /l3

+ 0?

"In

5%»

35 /s9

'«/¡tf

31/S9

46/79

51/V9

47

/7.

47/?9

48/T9

431/729

+ 0

31/«4

4 5 /'l

35 /s9

32 /

3

%8

40/68

51/79

43/70

46/77

48/79

40'/668

"/«

2e/45

13 /l6

12 /l8

17/27

45 /s 8

23/37

27/41

27/48

"'/340

+

53

75

+ 0?

51

63

59

62

53

58

65

59

59

61

59

+ 0

48

63

59

60

63

59

65

61

60

61

60

54

63

64

81

67

63

66

62

66

56

64

+

140

Appendices

A P P E N D I X

A-6

E X P E R I M E N T

Hit totals of the 3 groups folder

S

grapho logists

group III

total

category

fraction %

fraction %

fraction %

fraction

p

16

0

3

/24

>h 29

/«

67

29

32

/w

53

104

57

35

/"0

50

48

/si

59

/45

64

/203 U1 /200

51

/403

53

/448

54

56

53

68

/l36

50

80

/l41

57

2I5

+0?

83

/I5O

55

' 5 /l48

51

88

/l30

57

244

/l8

44

/8

38

33

14

/35

40

0

ln 19 /M

42

/83 33

49

27

/59

46

88

/l93

46

?

S

30

+0

49

/m

+0?

"/140

?

+0 +0? ? 0

+ +0 +0? ? 0

+ +0 +0?

total

6

50

/l26

+

P

58

51

87

?

0

+ +0

+0?

3 31

/«»

48

35

/72

49

87

/l92

45

40

84

/l32

48

82

/l3l

/385

87

/l40

48

85

189

/420

45

4/

/l40

47

175

37

/26

50

4

70

"/so

13

0

K2

/»

67

%

+0

+

K-l

subjects

psychologists

+

V

of

certainty

/»

6

67

/65

66

43

88

62

«/m

77

I05

/l50

73

U 1

/ z4

46

53

/85

62

"/«

60

28

/41

7/

15

/60

75

/l28

/l50

9

10,

U

M

93

52

/l98

67

/208

88

/404

78

/l50

79

339

/450

75

/4

50

2

%0

40

38

/63

60

132

/216

61

48

/S3

58

I22

/l84

66

67

86

/l46

254

/400

64

88

/l50

59

62

59

274

/450

61

17

/28

61

35

/«6

53

32

65

/46

183

/2Z

62

2J I32

3l5

74

/l26

45 65 82

/l50

/l50

/ll /57

94

74

82

5 37

/82

82

93

45

/l39

/78

/l41

7

46

77 U 4

119

2

39

7 »

70

/108

54

38 66

/

55

38

/65

58

132

/23S

55

/64

53

42

/«5

65

58

/l07

54

134

/236

57

92

/l72

53

78

/l31

60

96

/l72

56

286

103

/200

52

85

/l41

60

»»/200

57

30I

"h» 58

3J

59

38

56 56 50

/l20

49

30

/ei

49

33

/81

54

122

/242

/ 15

56

184

/328

56

172

/304

57

588

/l047

56

/2S5

60

2I7

/340

64

266

/425

63

8 3 7

/1020

62

58

"01/668

60

438

/72.

60

/2.I67

59

59

471

/7»0

60

,W

58

232 4 154

/475

/541

'/.70

« 5 /79 0

56

in b o l d type

— significant at 1 % i

in italics

— significant at 5 %

in normal t y p e — not significant

1225

1347

'

.

?

46

0

64

+

78

+0

71

+0?68

> as regards the deviation f r o m the null line of 5 0 % h i t s , J

I

Appendix APPENDIX Scores:

EXPERIMENT I

A-7

the number

141

A

of hits (+0? ) B: on 58 ink scripts

A: on 79 scripts

3 &

39.5

46.78

49.85

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

1

M,

1

1 1 1 3

1 2 1 1 1

1 1 2 5% 2 2 2

1%

25 26 27 28 29.0 ....29.. 30 31 32 33 34 35 35.25 "36" 37 37.89 "38" 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

5% threshold 1% threshold

58

79 total M

• M,

10 7 10 44.5 47.0 47.1

M t = np = '/2 X 79 = 39.5 s = V npq = ViV 79 = 4.44 One-tailed test: 5%threshold = M t + 1.64 s = 46.78 1%threshold = M t + 2.33 s = 49.85

total M

10 33.8

10 10 34.3 35.7

M, = np = !/2X 58 = 29 s = \ / n p q = 1 / 2 ^ 5 8 = 3.81 One-tailed test: 5% threshold = M t + 1.64 s = 35.25 1%threshold = M t + 2 . 3 3 s = 37.89

142

Appendices

A P P E N D I X A-8

EXPERIMENT I

Score on 58 ink scripts in class

classes 1- 4 5- 8 9-12 13-16 17-20 21-24 25-28 29-32 33-36 37-40 41-44 45-48 49-52 53-56 57-58

f

o psychologists

f

-

-

-

-

—

-

—

f

ft (10)

distribution

o graphologists

o group III

fo all subjects

ft (30)

—

—

0 0.1 1.1 3.4 3.6 1.6 0.2 0

0 1 3 3 2 1 0

0 2 6 2 0

0 1 5 4 0

0 0.4 3.2 10.2 10.8 4.7 0.7 0

—

0 1 6 14 8 1 0

-

—

—

—

—

—

-

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

-

-

-

-

-

-

10

10

10

—

10.0

—

30.0

30

f Q = observed frequency f t = theoretical frequency (according to null hypothesis)

A P P E N D I X A-9 Percentages of the judgments

EXPERIMENT I in the 3 certainty psychologists

(? ) judgments (0) judgments (+) judgments total

categories graphologists

group III

15 53 32

8 45 47

8 38 54

100

100

100

Appendix A

EXPERIMENT 1

A P P E N D I X A-10

Discrepancy

table of the

graphologists total

graphologists graphologists

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

2 2

/3

2

/s 3 /n

2

5

/e 2 li

Vs V« 6

/l2

% 2

/»

4

3

/n 5 /l6

3

/e O/ls

0/l5 S

/l3

%

2

/l3

2

/42

h

5

6

Vs

Ve

2

/e

4

6

/l3

%

/22

12

4

/l5

5

Ae

7

/24

O/o

V u

/l6

9

/28

3

2

10

/23

Vie

Vio /l2

2

7

/o

/l3

4

/l5

V?

/n

6

/l2 9 /22 12

/42

8

9

%

7

/l6

S

/23

7

/24

Vio

°/s

"/l5 8

/22

8/22 3

/l5

8

4

/l3

12

'/18

9

/43

46

/l09

48

/l85

12

/84

V?

V u

2

/ll

16

/79

3

/l5

4

/l3

7

/l8

3l

/lll

8/33

12

/36

9

/43

2

/23

3

/23

27

/l53

6

/27

40

/l64

51

/l86

2

/23

3

/23

total number of pairs of shared (+) judgments — 26% — 19% - 20%

/l6 0/28 /l2

6

/27

number of disparate pairs of shared (+) judgments

Discrepancy of the group of graphologists the group of psychologists group III

/6i!

10

01%

total of 10 graphologists (single addition)

Discrepancy =

18

3

/33

/30

discrepancy fraction

V«

/!5

Vie

/»

10

4

2

%

9

7

V»

3

/l6

3

/5

143

69

1?

/241

%87

% 29 42 26 14 20 28 29 18 24 27 26

144

Appendices

H

2

tel

S 5 W a« X w

+ ii

< M

Q Z

ui

Oh CLh t C 5

I S

N lûtf)^ « N

Appendix APPENDIX A-l 2 and 5 undergraduate

hit fraction psychologists

?

students 40

"/«

105

students

of

hit percentage psychologists students

/72

40

56

/l88

56

56

127

/227

81

/l20

73

/l35

68

54

+ 0

201,

/S47

178

/323

60

55

+ 0?

227

/3»S

2l

»/3.6

57

55

0

+

APPENDIX A-13

The instructions

145

EXPERIMENT I

Hit totals of 5 graduate psychologists psychology certainty category

A

E X P E R I M E N T II

(folder

This folder contains 20 scripts written by 20 individuals. You are requested to study the handwriting of these scripts and judge the writers on the group of characteristics that make up the dimension energetic — weak. In this experiment we understand by these terms: energetic: a person who acts vigorously and decisively and is not easily flustered. He shows initiative and is not quickly discouraged by disappointments. weak: a person who goes about his duties slackly and spiritlessly. He lets things slide without taking action at critical moments. He has little 'push', and his perseverance and stamina are low. The purpose of this experiment is to establish the degree of correspondence between graphological and psychological judgments on this one aspect of the personality. The scripts were all written by persons w h o have undergone psychological testing for a particular job, so that judgments by psychologists are already available. The results of this experiment will make it possible to compare the two kinds of judgments. The scripts in this folder have been selected in such a way that there are

146

Appendices

about equal numbers of individuals judged energetic and weak by psychologists. For your rating the following five categories are available, b y means of which you can at the same time indicate the degree of certainty of your judgments: practically certain to be energetic — most probably energetic — most probably weak — practically certain to be weak — no opinion. Please indicate your rating for each script by placing a cross in the column which you consider most appropriate.

Some factual

data

1. The scripts were all written by male individuals. 2. The writer's age is stated on each script. 3. All individuals who have furnished scripts for this folder were tested for the same job: salesman for a large firm dealing in coffee, tea and tobacco. The job consists in canvassing orders from storekeepers and retail outlets and thus involves establishing and maintaining contacts with these buyers. It is emphatically pointed out, however, that you are not asked to judge the writers' fitness for this job, but only to rate them on the energetic — weak dimension. N.B. At the risk of laboring the obvious, we would urge you to base your judgments only on the graphological aspects of the scripts, not on their contents. Experience with this kind of test material has shown that if the contents themselves are directly interpreted, they may be very misleading for a personality diagnosis. Finally, we draw your attention once more to the meaning which the terms 'energetic' and 'weak' have in this experiment; to prevent any misunderstandings, the definitions given are repeated below: energetic: a person who acts vigorously and decisively and is not easily flustered. He shows initiative and is not quickly discouraged by disappointments. weak: a person who goes about his duties slackly and spiritlessly. He lets things slide without taking action at critical moments. He has little 'push', and his perseverance and stamina are low.

Appendix

A

147

E X P E R I M E N T II

APPENDIX A-14

The rating blank You are requested to place a cross opposite each script n u m b e r in the column which y o u consider appropriate rating categories

no. of script 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

practically certain to be energetic

most probably energetic

no opinion

most probably weak

practically certain to be weak

148

Appendices

APPENDIX

A-15

EXPERIMENT

Hit totals of the 4 groups of

subjects

folder S 2 certainty category

psychologists M.U. fraction %

?

13

0

58

+

45

/23

57

graphologists

laymen

fraction %

fraction

S

/.

56

6

/b6

59

49

/»5

62

"hi

/l04

56

S7

/73

62

59

/l77

58

116

/ü00

58

121

+ 0

103

+ 0?

ll9

/m

61

106

/ü00

61

112

/l2

/»4

%

psychologists F.U. fraction %

50

7

52

66

61

i3

/l3 /ll3

hi

/l88

56

10

/200

56

11S

»/l87 /200

total fraction

54

31

58

230

58

204

58

434

58

465

%

/5 7

54

/407

57

/330

61

/743

58

/800

58

folder Ph certainty category

psychologists graphologists

laymen

M.U. fraction %

fraction %

?

fraction % /l3

62

4

58

/»o

59

60

/88

49

42

A87

54

102

/200

55

108

63

S

/ll3

61

0

69

+

29

/«8

43

43

+ 0

e8

/l81

54

101

hoo

55

109

+ 0?

110

in b o l d t y p e — significant at 1 % in italics — significant at 5 % in n o r m a l t y p e — not significant

psychologists F.U. fraction %

total fraction % /eo

60

/428

58

/8

50

12

/20

60

36

/90

63

62

/l20

52

249

/S6

44

28

/60

47

142

/l92

53

9

%80

50

391

/200

53

102

51

427

/200

/312

46

/740

53

/800

53

as regards t h e deviation f r o m the null line of 50% hits

II

Appendix APPENDIX

S2

psychol-

13.67 15.21

149

E X P E R I M E N T II

A-16

Scores on the 20 scripts of folder

10.0

A

psychol-

ogists

graphol-

M.U.

ogists

ogists laymen

F.U.

total

3 •• 6 5

9 10 11 12

13 9

13 14 15 ! 16

1

1

•M,

5 « threshold Ie/, t h r e s h o l d

17 18 19 20 total M

10

10

10

10

40

11.6

12.1

11.2

11.6

11.63

M, = n p = !/aX 20 = 10 s = \ / n p q = Vi\J 20 = 2 . 2 3 6

One-tailed t e s t : 5 % threshold = M, + 1.64 s = 1 3.67 1 % t h r e s h o l d = \ l t + 2 . 3 3 s = 15.21

150

Appendices

APPENDIX A-l 7 Percentages

E X P E R I M E N T II

of the judgments

in 3 certainty

categories

psychologists M.U.

psychologists graphologists

laymen

F.U.

( ? ) judgments

12

5

6

7

(0) judgments

52

48

47

57

(+) judgments

37

48

47

37

101

101

100

101

total

APPENDIX A-18 Discrepancy

E X P E R I M E N T II

table of the

graphologists

graphologists graphol-

3 4 7

4

7

V2

0/1

3

ogists

'/«

%

4 4

A

V«

9

0/3

10

0/4

11

0/2

V»

12

'/>

3

13

l

'/»

9

10

11

V«

0/3

0/4

0/2

'/>

2

V»

V«

2

/4

V« Va l

/s

h

0/2

8

Va

8

14

/e

total

/e

2

/*

4

/n

7? 'A

2

/s

°/5

% 2

/5

O/2

5

h

0/5

%

0/2

V«

'/«

n u m b e r of disparate

/26

23

/39

41

/46

35

2

16 U

0/2

3

/7

V»

°/4

V«

'/is

V'

V.

4

2

/3

V»

3

/ll

4

/5

4/11

h

V* 4

2

/5

/3

V»

3

7?

/5

/v

/ll

4

/?

%

/48

23

S

/37

22

I7

/57

30

"/« 36 h

41

10

20

48

/50

9

10

total of 10 g r a p h o l o g i s t s (single a d d i t i o n )

Discrepancy =

6

A.

22

/ 2 23

31

pairs of s h a r e d ( + ) j u d g m e n t s

t o t a l n u m b e r of pairs of s h a r e d ( + ) j u d g m e n t s

D i s c r e p a n c y of t h e g r o u p of

%

16

0/.

2

V«

/»

v>

discrepancy fraction

%

0/3

V*

/5

3

14

/»

/2

/s

'/l2

3

13

5

2

2

/s

%

v>

12

graphologists

— 31%

laymen

— 29%

p s y c h o l o g i s t s M.U.

—13%

p s y c h o l o g i s t s F.U.

—20%

Appendix A P P E N D I X A-19

A

151

E X P E R I M E N T II

Correlation

table hit score — certainty

certainty

5~7

score

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

score per script (40

subjects)

hit score

39 - 4 0 37-- 3 8 35 - 3 6 33-- 3 4 31-- 3 2 29-- 3 0 27 - 2 8 25-- 2 6 23 - 2 4 21 - 2 2 19 - 2 0 17 - 1 8 15-- 1 6 13-- 1 4 11 - 1 2 9 -10 7-- 8 5-- 6 3- 4 1- 2

9 11 13 15 17 19

21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 22 24 26 28 30 32 3 4 36 38 4 0

1 1

1

1

correlation coefficient r = + . 2 3

correlation ratio TJ yx = + . 8 1

N = 20

152

Appendices E X P E R I M E N T I II

A P P E N D I X A-20 Correlation tables of judgments given in Experiment 5 identical scripts by identical subjects

I and Experiment

II on

A. 6 graphologists judgment in

judgment in Experiment II

Experiment I

s +

e e e s s s

s

s?

e?

+ 1 ? ? +

total

1 6

1 4 2

7

8

0

0

e

e +

3 2 2

2 1

total 5 4 2

2 2

1

7 11

11

4

30

T

= +.54

N.B. In 9 cases a graphologist gave twice the judgment 'practically certain' on the same script; these include one discrepancy.

B. 10 psychologists judgment in

judgment in Experiment II

Experiment I

s +

e e e s s s

+

s

s?

e?

e

e +

1 1

2 5 1

3 3 2 1 2 1

6 10 4 3 19 8

12

50

1 1

? ? +

2 3

2 5 4

total

6

12

2

1

7

2

3

15

total

T= + . 4 1

N.B. In 7 cases a psychologist gave twice the judgment 'practically certain' on the same script; these include one discrepancy.

Appendix A A P P E N D I X A-21

153

E X P E R I M E N T II and 5 undergraduate

Hit totals of 5 graduate psychologists psychology

students

of

A. of the Municipal University

category

hit percentage

hit fraction

certainty

psychologists

?

students

>

•lio

0

2

+

"¡47

+ 0

54

+ 0 ?

80

«/43

54

/«i

60

52

/2«

60

65

60

56

60

56

/.o /l00

5e

students

60

S2

l7

psychologists

/ioo

B. of the Free University

certainty category

hit fraction psychologists

?

4

h

0

3

+

21

+ 0

8

+ 0 ?

84

»/«i /S4

%s /l00

hit percentage

students

psychologists

students

80

38

/S2

64

52

/40

62

55

49

/« 2

63

53

62

/l00

64

52

S 27

22

/8

154

Appendices

APPENDIX A-22 Rank

orders

EXPERIMENTS

of 18 subjects

scripts),

Experiment

of folder

S 2/ ) and Experiment

based on their scores

I (15

scripts

of folder

III (20 scripts of

score subject

in Experiment

S), Experiment

I-II-III

I (58

II (20

ink

scripts

folder

rank order

Exp. I

Exp. I

E x p . II

Exp. Ill Exp. I

Exp. I

E x p . II

E x p . II!

5 8 ink

15-S

20-S2

20-K3

5 8 ink

15-S

20-S2

2O-K3

3

35

7

11

16

6%

11%

15

4

4

36

8

11

16

5

7

15

4

7

38

6

13

15

2

14%

3

7

8

34

6

13

10

9%

14%

3

14%

9

35

8

12

14

6V2

7

33

12

9'/2 9V2 9'/2

10

8

3

13

12

17

11

—

12

14

—

-

12

—

-

-

10

13

12

A

37

9

11

15

B

32

7

12

-

C

41

11

12

19

D

34

8

12

13

7

3%

3%

2 10

15

7

11%

9'/2

1

2

9%

1

9%

7

9%

12

13

-

E

31

7

13

16

14%

11 Vi

3

4

F

31

8

13

8

14%

7

3

16

G

27

5

10

10

16

17

H

37

12

12

-

3%

1

K

34

9

9

15

9%

L

34

7

12

14

9%

3'/2 1 l'/2

Exp. I ( 5 8 ) - E x p . II ( S 2 ) P 16 subjects

-

P

-

6 graphologists

-.02

-

.00

E x p . I ( 5 8 ) - E x p . II ( S 2 ) - E x p . I l l ^ 1 4 subjects ^

6 graphologists

^

8 psychologists

=

=

14%

9'A

-

7

18

9V2

10

E x p . I (S) - E x p . II ( S 2 )

-.20

P l O psychologists

16

.,38

=

-.16

=

-.46

P 10 psychologists *-

.00

P 16 subjects P

6 graphologists

E x p . I (S) - E x p . II ( S 2 ) - E x p . I l l =

.24

6 graphologists = 8 psychologists =

.17

^ 14 subjects

16

^

.43

^

.41

Appendix A

155

rCM

CO o

tO CM m CM

TP

Tp CM

to

eo CM

CM t

Tf iO

CM

to to

CM

in o

CM o

to CM

§

^

in

CM CM

Tf CO If) r -

CM

to o co o If) If) IT) co

o CM

co o

»

CO o

If) cr> CM o to to IT) xf) TP

CO Tp

CM

TP

o Tp

»O CO CM

»ft Tp if) Tp

O CM

If) CM Tp o

CM Tf

co CO

o

r - to if) CM

o>

r-» o

rCO

CO Tp

O) co

CM 00 to if) Tp .CO

if) 00 TP

o to

cr> CM r - CO

a> to

CM If) CO TP to If) If) r-. Tt1 to

a> CM

a> CM

o r-

CO CO

to CM

oo cO

00 Tp

©

co

CO

if)

Tp

CM CM

o CO

r» O

iO O)

co

?

rr-

»f> o ifi Tp

O) ic

0)

CM o if) to

If) a> If) m

Tp CO

o CM

if) r-. CM to if) CO

o to

r^

to TP

r-

CM

CO o If) m

• m

o ^

oo

co

i—i & co o

co

CO

to ©

o

^

to CO

if) Tf CO

o

O

CM 9

CM o

o

CO

0) co

o CM

to co co

o CM

co CM

if) CO

to co

o

if) CO if) CO

r-

If) to

CM if) Tp if) if) co

CM CM

CM to

o to

to Tf

O IC

* 2 u ,0

e

a 5

_2

* ^

I 8

v a-

O >

m »

b e d « v

156

Appendices

APPENDIX A-24 Factor

variables

6. self-reliance

W

factors

factors

h2

I

II

III

IV

845

-017

029

035

717

18. organizing and planning ability

880

027

-228

038

829

20. initiative

843

21. perseverance

696

067

094

2 2 . resourcefulness and creative thinking

886

007

2 4 . persuasiveness

754 -059

- 0 2 6 -107 - 0 7 7

730

-206

541

-019

114

799

232

095

635

1. occupational know-how

554

571

-178

048

668

2. knowledge of company's business

627

491

-072

126

656

3. understanding of client's needs

733

288

000

-028

622

4. business acumen

745

337

-021

022

671

5. cost awareness

5 09

301

-049

026

353

7. sense of duty

427

347

035

-010

305

11. team spirit

664

221

147

045

514

15. analytic thinking

756

404

-097

-162

771

16. common sense

770

339

171

162

764

17. systematic handling o f work

450

485

-076

007

444

23. accuracy

617

603

016

-098

755

2 5 . verbal expressiveness

593

296

122 - 1 3 9

474

446

-152 -017

469

-007

443

303

-154

610

397

-087

702 666

201

650

218

-030

580

-040

386

9. optimism 1 2 . contact with others L. 13. manners 14. grooming

291

153

395

483

498

2 6 . salary bracket

470

077

-132

669

693

2 7 . age

242

026

-241

652

543

-020 -040 -063

501

257

8. self-control cb

ANALYSIS

matrix

loadings of the 26 variables on the 4 extracted

E

CRITERION

28. education decimal points and + signs have been omitted

factor analysis by the multiple group centroid method

Appendix A (sje3A ui) Ajuoiuss

CO ID CJ +

I

I +

+

I

I

I

I

+

+

C 0

+

+

^O 00 oo

3JODS pouiuins

I

+

oo

a

CO n o -e c e H^ « t s i f l ^

o

JZ

158 >

Appendices

3§E Pi

135pEjq ÀJE[12S

tí o. X a

|OJJUOD-J[3S

f¡ > < z