Determinants of the Barnum effect: objectivity of trivial personality descriptions

The subject of this article is the study of Barnum effect, in which we attempt to check a hypothesis concerning its determinants. Although there were many hypotheses about causes of the Barnum effect, including type of assessment procedure, favorability of feedback, prestige of a researcher etc., we can’t say that scientific researches in this field were successful. In this study we are trying to empirically test an assumption about objectivity of trivial personality descriptions as determinants of the Barnum effect. Indeed, it is possible that vague and generalized nature of the trivial feedback makes a really accurate description of almost any personality. In that case, test subjects’ high evaluation of perceived accuracy of the trivial feedback is just a right reflection of the properties of the mentioned feedback. To check this assumption, we offered to test subjects, all of them belonged to one team, a list of questions, calling it “psychological test”, and after one week we showed them “the results” - a list of statements about readers’ personalities. All the test subjects received identical lists. Then we randomly divided the test subjects into two groups. One group performed self-evaluation, and the other group evaluated the members of the first group. With such measure we hoped to use the second group as an objective factor - if our hypothesis was correct, then the results of evaluation of perceived accuracy of statements in both groups would be statistically close to each other. But gathered data did not support the proposed hypothesis. Members of the first group assessed the accuracy of the offered statements as generally high. And members of the second group assessed the accuracy of these statements in describing the members of the first group only as mediocre. But it is important to emphasize that there was a high dispersion of evaluations, they were often opposite to each other, inside the second group. It tells us that the second group was far from objectivity. Such results may be due to the used method of objectivation. If so, then the proposed hypothesis may still find support and be proved.

Keywords

Authors

References