RELEVANCE OF INTERPRETATION AS THE DETERMINANT OF THE BARNUM EFFECT
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2018-1-133-138
Abstract
The current research features the relevance of the psychological portrait as a factor of influence on the Barnum effect. The article contains some definitions of the phenomenon in question, as well as some other relevant concepts. It offers a brief review of the literature on the matter. The subjects of the research were full-time students of the Far East Federal University and the Admiral Nevelskoy Maritime State University, who were offered to relate a trivial personal description to their self-concept. The study was carried out in accordance with the standard procedure used in empirical studies of the Barnum effect. The processing of the obtained data was carried out with the help of the Pearson statistical criterion χ2 . Based on the results of the study, a statistically significant difference in the assessment of the accuracy of the trivial personal description was found. The difference depends on the type of relevance, which clarifies the current understanding of the Barnum effect. The conclusion features some further ways of investigating the Barnum effect and using the obtained data.
About the Authors
V. V. Kalita
Far Eastern Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. S. Gaidai
Admiral Nevelskoi Maritime State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Forer B. R. The fallacy of personal validation: a classroom demonstration of gullibility. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, no. 44 (1949): 118–123. DOI: 10.1037/h0059240.
2. Rosen G. M. Effects of source prestige on subjects’ acceptance of the Barnum effect: Psychologist versus astrologer. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, no. 43 (1975): 95. DOI: 10.1037/h0076289.
3. Mosher D. L. Approval Motive and Acceptance of "Fake" Personality Test Interpretations which Differ in Favorability. Psychological Reports, no. 17 (1965): 395–402. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1965.17.2.395.
4. Richards W. S., Merrens M. R. Student evaluation of generalized personality interpretations as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, no. 27 (1971): 457–459. DOI: 10.1002/1097-4679 (197110)27:43.0.co;2-i.
5. Kalita V. V., Gaidai A. S. Determinanty effekta Barnuma: ob»ektivnost’ kharaktera trivial’nykh lichnostnykh opisanii [Determinants of the Barnum Effect: Objectivity of the Character of Trivial Personal Descriptions]. Sibirskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Siberian Psychological Journal, no. 54 (2014): 48–61.
6. Mason O. J., Budge K. Schizotypy, self-referential thinking and the Barnum effect. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, no. 42(2) (2011): 145–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2010.11.003.
7. Rogers P., Soule J. Cross-Cultural Differences in the Acceptance of Barnum Profiles Supposedly Derived From Western Versus Chinese Astrology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, no. 40 (2009): 381–399. DOI: 10.1177/0022022109332843.
8. Layne C. Gender and the Barnum Effect: A Reinterpretation of Piper-Terry and Downey’s Results. Psychological Reports, no. 83 (1998): 608–610. DOI:10.2466/pr0.1998.83.2.608.
9. Farley-Icard R. L. (2007). Factors that influence the Barnum Effect: Social desirability, base rates and personalization. (January 1, 2007). ETD Collection for University of Texas, El Paso. Paper AAI1444101.
10. .Kalita V. V., Gaidai A. S. Professional’naia napravlennost’ i tip opisaniia kak determinanty effekta Barnuma [Professional orientation and type of description as determinants of the Barnum effect]. Bulletin of Kemerovo State University, no. 4-1 (2013): 113–117.
11. .Gaidai A. S. Determinanty effekta Barnuma [Determinants of the Barnum effect]. Sbornik dokladov 59-i Mezhdunarodnoi molodezhnoi nauchno-tekhnicheskoi konferentsii «Molodezh’ – nauka – innovatsii» (21– 23 marta 2012) [«Youth – Science – Innovations»: Proc. 59th Intern. Youth Sc.-Prac. Conf. (March 21–23 2012)]. Vladivostok, vol. 2 (2012): 173–177.
12. Golovin S. Iu. Slovar’ prakticheskogo psikhologa [Dictionary of Practical Psychologist]. Minsk: Harvest, 1998, 551.
13. Corsini R. J., Craighead W. E., Weiner I. B. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology: Vol. 1. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010.
14. Rosen G. M. Barnum Effect. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, 2015. 1–3. DOI: 10.1002/9781118625392. wbecp482.
15. Snyder C. R., Larson G. R. A further look at student acceptance of general personality interpretations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, no. 38 (1972): 384–388. DOI: 10.1037/h0032899.
16. Snyder C. R. Acceptance of personality interpretations as a function of assessment procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, no. 42 (1974): 150. DOI: 10.1037/h0036033.
17. Snyder C. R., Larsen D. L., & Bloom L. J. (1976). Acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receipt of diagnostic feedback supposedly based on psychological, grapholo gical, and astrological assessment procedures. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 258–265. DOI:10.1002/1097-4679(197604)32:23.0.co;2-o.
18. Dickson D. H., & Kelly I. W. The ‘Barnum Effect’ in Personality Assessment: A Review of the Literature. Psychological Reports, no. 57 (1985): 367–382. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1985.57.2.367.
19. Snyder C. R., Shenkel R. J. Effects of «favorability,» modality, and relevance on acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, no. 44 (1976): 34–41. DOI:10.1037//0022-006x.44.1.34.
20. Jackson D. E. The effect of test taking on acceptance of bogus perosnality statements. Journal of Clinical Psychology, no. 34 (1978): 63–68. DOI: 10.1002/1097-4679(197801)34:13.0.co;2-x.
21. Baillargeon J., Danis C. Barnum Meets the Computer: A Critical Test. Journal of Personality Assessment, no. 48 (1984): 415–419. DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4804_15.
22. Collins R. W., Dmitruk V. M., Ranney J. T. Personal validation: Some empirical and ethical considerations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, no. 45 (1977): 70–77. doi:10.1037//0022-006x.45.1.70.
23. Vysokov I. E. Matematicheskie metody v psikhologii [Mathematical Methods in Psychology]. Moscow: Iurait, 2016, 388.
24. Ermolaev-Tomin O. Iu. Matematicheskie metody v psikhologii [Mathematical Methods in Psychology]. Moscow: Iurait, 2016, 511.
Review
For citations:
Kalita V.V., Gaidai A.S. RELEVANCE OF INTERPRETATION AS THE DETERMINANT OF THE BARNUM EFFECT. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2018;(1):133-138. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2018-1-133-138
Views:
1534
Email this article 