Barnum effect

The Barnum effect, also called the Forer

effect or, less commonly, the Barnum–
Forer effect, is a common psychological
phenomenon whereby individuals give
high accuracy ratings to descriptions of
their personality that supposedly are
tailored specifically to them, yet which
are in fact vague and general enough to
apply to a wide range of people.[1] This
effect can provide a partial explanation
for the widespread acceptance of some
paranormal beliefs and practices, such
as astrology, fortune telling, aura reading,
and some types of personality tests.[1]

These characterizations are often used

by practitioners as a con-technique to
convince victims that they are endowed
with a paranormal gift. Because the
assessment statements are so vague,
people ascribe their own interpretation,
thus the statement becomes "personal"
to them. Also, individuals are more likely
to accept negative assessments of
themselves if they perceive the person
presenting the assessment as a high-
status professional.
Researcher Bertram Forer originally
named it the "fallacy of personal
validation".[2] The term "Barnum effect"
was coined in 1956 by psychologist Paul
Meehl in his essay "Wanted – A Good
Cookbook", because he relates the vague
personality descriptions used in certain
"pseudo-successful" psychological tests
to those given by showman P. T.
Barnum.[3][4]

Overview
The Barnum effect is manifested in
response to statements that are called
"Barnum statements", meaning that
general characterizations attributed to an
individual are perceived to be true for
them, even though the statements are
such generalizations that they could
apply to almost anyone. Such techniques
are used by fortune tellers, astrologers,
and other practitioners to convince
customers that they, the practitioners,
are in fact endowed with a paranormal
gift.[5] The effect is a specific example of
the so-called "acceptance phenomenon",
which describes the general tendency of
humans "to accept almost any bogus
personality feedback".[6] A related and
more general phenomenon is that of
subjective validation.[7] Subjective
validation occurs when two unrelated or
even random events are perceived to be
related because a belief, expectation, or
hypothesis expects a relationship. For
example, while reading a horoscope,
people actively seek a correspondence
between its contents and their
perception of their personality.

Early research
In 1947, psychologist Ross Stagner
asked a number of personnel managers
to take a personality test. After they had
taken the test, Stagner, instead of
responding with feedback based on their
actual individual answers, presented
each of them with generalized feedback
that had no relation to their test answers
but that was, instead, based on
horoscopes, graphological analyses, and
the like. Each of the managers was then
asked how accurate the assessment of
him or her was. More than half described
the assessment as accurate, and almost
none described it as wrong.[8][9]

In 1948, in what has been described as a

"classic experiment",[10] psychologist
Forer gave a psychology test – his so-
called "Diagnostic Interest Blank" – to 39
of his psychology students, who were
told that they would each receive a brief
personality vignette based on their test
results. One week later Forer gave each
student a purportedly individualized
vignette and asked each of them to rate
it on how well it applied. In reality, each
student received the same vignette,
consisting of the following items:[11]

1. You have a great need for

other people to like and
admire you.
2. You have a tendency to be
critical of yourself.
3. You have a great deal of
unused capacity which
you have not turned to
your advantage.
4. While you have some
personality weaknesses,
you are generally able to
compensate for them.
5. Your sexual adjustment
has presented problems
for you.
6. Disciplined and self-
controlled outside, you
tend to be worrisome and
insecure inside.
7. At times you have serious
doubts as to whether you
have made the right
 decision or done the right
thing.
8. You prefer a certain
amount of change and
variety and become
dissatisfied when hemmed
in by restrictions and
limitations.
9. You pride yourself as an
independent thinker and
do not accept others'
statements without
satisfactory proof.
10. You have found it unwise
to be too frank in
 revealing yourself to
others.
11. At times you are
extroverted, affable,
sociable, while at other
times you are introverted,
wary, reserved.
12. Some of your aspirations
tend to be pretty
unrealistic.
13. Security is one of your
major goals in life.

On average, the students rated its

accuracy as 4.30 on a scale of 0 (very
poor) to 5 (excellent). Only after the
ratings were turned in, it was revealed
that all students had received an
identical vignette assembled by Forer
from a newsstand astrology book.[11] The
vignette contained statements that were
vague and general enough to apply to
most people.

Forer attributed the effect to gullibility.[12]

The effect has been said to confirm the
Pollyanna principle, where individuals
tend "to use or accept positive words of
feedback more frequently than negative
words of feedback".[8]

Factors influencing the

effect
Two factors are important in producing
the Forer effect, according to the findings
of replication studies. The content of the
description offered is important, with
specific emphasis on the ratio of positive
to negative trait assessments. The other
important factor is that the subject trusts
the honesty of the person providing
feedback.[13][14]

The effect is consistently found when the

assessment statements are vague.
People are able to read their own
meaning into the statements they
receive, and thus the statement becomes
"personal" to them. The most effective
statements include the phrase "at times",
such as "At times you feel very sure of
yourself, while at other times you are not
as confident." This phrase can apply to
almost anyone, and thus each person
can read a "personal" meaning into it.
Keeping statements vague in this
manner ensures observing the Forer
effect in replication studies.[15]

Individuals are more likely to accept

negative assessments of themselves if
they perceive the persons presenting the
assessments as high-status
professionals. Evidence also suggests
that people with authoritarian or neurotic
personalities or who have a greater than
usual need for approval are more likely to
manifest the Barnum effect.[8]

Later studies have found that subjects

give higher accuracy ratings if the
following are true:[16]

The subject believes that the analysis

applies only to him or her, and thus
applies his or her own meaning to the
statements.[15]
The subject believes in the authority of
the evaluator.
The analysis lists mainly positive traits.

Exploiting the effect

In 1977, Ray Hyman wrote about the way
in which hucksters exploit the Forer
effect to take advantage of victims (or
"marks"). He provided a list of factors
that help these tricksters to dupe their
prey. For example, hucksters are more
likely to be successful if they exude an
air of confidence ("If you look and act as
if you believe in what you are doing, you
will be able to sell even a bad reading to
most of your subjects"), if they "[m]ake
creative use of the latest statistical
abstracts, polls, and surveys" showing
"what various subclasses of our society
believe, do, want, worry about, and so on",
if they employ "a gimmick, such as a
crystal ball, tarot cards, or palm reading",
if they are alert to the clues provided
about their clients by such details as
their "clothing, jewelry, mannerisms and
speech", if they are not afraid of
"hamming it up", and if they use
flattery.[8]

Michael Birnbaum, a professor of

psychology at California State University,
Fullerton, has noted that the Forer effect
is used by magicians and psychics when
they give so-called "cold readings", as
well as by certain TV personalities who
claim psychoanalytical expertise and
profess to be able to diagnose a guest's
psychological problems in a few
minutes. "Real psychologists are
horrified by this practice", states
Birnbaum, but they fail to criticize it
vigorously enough in public, and so it
continues to be treated with a respect it
doesn't deserve.[17] "It is regrettable that
academic psychology has not paid more
attention to the cold reading technique",
Denis Dutton wrote in 1988, "in as much
as the widespread practice of successful
cold reading forms the basis for much of
the belief in paranormal powers to be
found in society today." While academic
psychologists had focused in their
studies on students, Dutton called for
"analysis of the actual techniques and
methods used by proficient cold
readers".[10]
"The moral of the Barnum
demonstration", Birnbaum has said, is
that "self-validation is no validation. Do
not be fooled by a psychic, quack
psychotherapist, or a phony faith healer
who uses this trick on you! Be skeptical
and ask for proof. Keep your money in
your wallet, your wallet in your pocket,
and your hand on your wallet."[17]

See also
Confirmation bias
Hawthorne effect
List of cognitive biases
Law of truly large numbers
 Myers–Briggs Type Indicator
§ Criticism
Placebo
Thinking, Fast and Slow

References
1. "Barnum Effect" (https://www.britannica.
com/topic/Barnum-Effect) .
Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved
February 14, 2018.
2. "Barnum Effect" (https://dictionary.apa.or
g/barnum-effect) . APA Dictionary of
Psychology. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. n.d. Retrieved
December 31, 2021. "The effect was
termed the fallacy of personal validation
by U.S. psychologist Bertram Robin Forer
(1914–2000), who first studied it in
1949."
3. Meehl, Paul E. (1956). "Wanted – A Good
Cookbook". American Psychologist. 11
(6): 263–272. doi:10.1037/h0044164 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0044164) .
4. Dutton, D. L. (1988). "The cold reading
technique" (https://web.archive.org/web/
20200114055246/http://www.denisdutto
n.com/cold_reading.htm) . Experientia.
44 (4): 326–332.
doi:10.1007/BF01961271 (https://doi.or
g/10.1007%2FBF01961271) .
PMID 3360083 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/3360083) . S2CID 2382430 (ht
tps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
2382430) . Archived from the original (htt
p://denisdutton.com/cold_reading.htm)
on January 14, 2020. Retrieved
November 28, 2012.
5. Carroll, Robert. "Barnum effect" (http://sk
epdic.com/barnum.html) . The Skeptic's
Dictionary. The Skeptic's Dictionary.
Retrieved February 26, 2017.
6. Tobacyk, Jerome; Milford, Gary; Springer,
Thomas; Tobacyk, Zofia (June 10, 2010).
"Paranormal Beliefs and the Barnum
Effect". Journal of Personality
Assessment. 52 (4): 737–739.
doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5204_13 (http
s://doi.org/10.1207%2Fs15327752jpa52
04_13) .
7. Marks, David F. (2000). The Psychology
of the Psychic (2 ed.). Amherst, New
York: Prometheus Books. p. 41.
ISBN 978-1-57392-798-7.
8. Adrian Furnham (November 21, 2014).
"We've Got Something for Everyone: The
Barnum Effect" (https://www.psychologyt
oday.com/blog/sideways-view/201411/w
eve-got-something-everyone-the-barnum-
effect) . Psychology Today. Retrieved
February 25, 2017.
9. Stagner, Ross (September 1, 1958). "The
Gullibility of Personnel Managers".
Personnel Psychology. 11 (3): 347–352.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1958.tb00022.x
(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.
1958.tb00022.x) . ISSN 1744-6570 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/issn/1744-6570) .
10. Dutton, Denis (1988). "The Cold Reading
Technique" (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20200114055246/http://www.denisdut
ton.com/cold_reading.htm) . Experientia.
Denis Dutton. 44 (4): 326–332.
doi:10.1007/BF01961271 (https://doi.or
g/10.1007%2FBF01961271) .
PMID 3360083 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/3360083) . S2CID 2382430 (ht
tps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
2382430) . Archived from the original (htt
p://www.denisdutton.com/cold_reading.
htm) on January 14, 2020. Retrieved
February 26, 2017.
11. Forer, B. R. (1949). "The fallacy of
personal validation: A classroom
demonstration of gullibility" (http://apsyc
hoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprint
s/PSYC621/Forer_The%20fallacy%20of%
20personal%20validation_1949.pdf)
(PDF). Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology. 44 (1): 118–123.
doi:10.1037/h0059240 (https://doi.org/1
0.1037%2Fh0059240) . PMID 18110193
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1811
0193) . Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20160305220420/http://apsycho
server.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/
PSYC621/Forer_The%20fallacy%20of%20
personal%20validation_1949.pdf) (PDF)
from the original on March 5, 2016.
12. Michael H. Birnbaum. "The Barnum
Demonstration" (http://psych.fullerton.ed
u/mbirnbaum/psych101/barnum_demo.
htm) . Psych 101 Web Site for
Introductory Psychology. CSUF
Psychology Department. Retrieved
February 14, 2018.
13. Claridge, G.; Clark, K.; Powney, E.; Hassan,
E. (2008). "Schizotypy and the Barnum
effect". Personality and Individual
Differences. 44 (2): 436–444.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.006 (https://d
oi.org/10.1016%2Fj.paid.2007.09.006) .
14. Rutledge, Brett (2012). "Something for
Everyone – The Barnum Effect" (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20130612010845/htt
p://thearticulateceo.typepad.com/my-blo
g/2012/01/something-for-everyone-the-b
arnum-effect.html) . The Articulate CEO.
Archived from the original (http://theartic
ulateceo.typepad.com/my-blog/2012/01/
something-for-everyone-the-barnum-effec
t.html) on June 12, 2013. Retrieved
November 25, 2012.
15. Krauss-Whitbourne, Susan (August 10,
2010). "When it comes to personality
tests, skepticism is a good thing" (http://
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillm
ent-any-age/201008/when-it-comes-pers
onality-tests-dose-skepticism-is-good-thi
ng) . Psychology Today. Retrieved
November 25, 2012.
16. Dickson, D. H.; Kelly, I. W. (1985). "The
'Barnum Effect' in Personality
Assessment: A Review of the Literature".
Psychological Reports. 57 (1): 367–382.
doi:10.2466/pr0.1985.57.2.367 (https://d
oi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.1985.57.2.367) .
S2CID 145434649 (https://api.semantics
cholar.org/CorpusID:145434649) .
 17. "The Barnum Effect" (http://psych.fullerto
n.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/barnum_de
mo.htm) . California State University,
Fullerton. Retrieved February 28, 2017.

External links
The Fallacy of Personal Validation: A
Classroom Demonstration of Gullibility
By: Bertram R. Forer (Full Text) (http
s://www.scribd.com/doc/17378132/T
he-Fallacy-of-Personal-Validation-a-Cla
ssroom-Demonstration-of-Gullibility)
Skeptic's Dictionary: the Forer effect (h
ttp://www.skepdic.com/forer.html)

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Barnum_effect&oldid=1134294063"
This page was last edited on 17 January 2023, at
23:43 (UTC). •
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless
otherwise noted.