Getting Students Interested in Psychological Measurement by Experiencing the Barnum Effect

Abstract

Background

Fake psychological tests tend to be viewed as completely believable (Barnum effect), meaning psychometric properties cannot be judged subjectively. Experiencing this effect first-hand could help get students interested in the science of psychological assessment.

Objective

In a blended learning perspective, we created materials to elicit a Barnum effect with a brief online fake test and tested the benefits of this procedure for student engagement.

Method

Five cohorts of undergraduate psychology students (total N = 2,269) completed the fake test online prior to their first psychometrics course. We collected single-item ratings of perceived effectiveness for the test, willingness to use it, and course engagement (interest and enthusiasm for the course). We also retrieved grades.

Results

Eighty-five percent of students rated the effectiveness of the fake test above the neutral point; 77% were willing to use it as future psychologists. Experiencing the effect was related to significantly increased interest and enthusiasm, and higher grades.

Conclusion

Having students experience the Barnum effect for themselves is a useful and effortless approach to get them interested in psychometrics.

Teaching Implications

Teachers of introductory courses related to psychological measurement should consider having all students experience the Barnum effect. All materials are provided.

Keywords

psychometrics Forer effect Barnum effect student interest teaching experiment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Accreditation process . https://irp.cdn-website.com/a14f9462/files/uploaded/Table%202%20Discipline-specific%20Knowledge.docx

American Psychological Association. (2023). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct . https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

Bachrach

A. J.

Pattishall

E. G.

Jr. (1960) An experiment in universal and personal validation. Psychiatry, 23(3), 267–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1960.11023225

Baillargeon

Danis

(1984). Barnum meets the computer: A critical test. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(4), 415–419. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4804_15

Beins

B. C.

(1993). Using the Barnum effect to teach about ethics and deception in research. Teaching of Psychology, 20(1), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2001_6

Boyce

T. E.

Geller

E. S.

(2002). Using the Barnum effect to teach psychological research methods. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 316–318. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2904_13

Boynton

M. H.

Portnoy

D. B.

Johnson

B. T.

(2013). Exploring the ethics and psychological impact of deception in psychological research. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 35(2), 7–13.

British Psychological Society. (2019). Standards for the accreditation of undergraduate, conversion and integrated Masters programmes in psychology . https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-07/Undergraduate%20Accreditation%20Handbook%202019.pdf

Chappell

Tomcho

T. J.

Foels

(2021). Content of measurement courses in the undergraduate psychology curriculum. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. http://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000311

10.

Christensen

(1988). Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(4), 664–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167288144002

11.

Dana

R. H.

Graham

D. E.

(1976). Feedback of client-relevant information and clinical practice. Journal of Personality Assessment, 40(5), 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4005_3

12.

Dickson

D. H.

Kelly

I. W.

(1985). The “Barnum effect” in personality assessment: A review of the literature. Psychological Reports, 57(2), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.57.2.367

13.

Dies

R. R.

(1972). Personal gullibility or pseudodiagnosis: A further test of the “fallacy of personal validation”. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(1), 47–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197201)28:1

14.

Dreyfus

Jungwirth

Eliovitch

(1990). Applying the “cognitive conflict” strategy for conceptual change-some implications, difficulties, and problems. Science Education, 74(5), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740506

15.

Forer

B. R.

(1948). A diagnostic interest blank. Rorschach Research Exchange, 12(2), 119–129.

16.

Forer

B. R.

(1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(1), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059240

17.

Forer

B. R.

(1968). Personal validation and the person. Psychological Reports, 23(3f), 1214–1214. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1968.23.3f.1214

18.

Fredricks

J. A.

Blumenfeld

P. C.

Paris

A. H.

(2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

19.

Furnham

Schofield

(1987). Accepting personality test feedback: A review of the Barnum effect. Current Psychological Research & Reviews, 6(2), 162–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686623

20.

Gauchat

(2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167–187. http://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225

21.

Gonthier

(2024). Getting students interested in psychological measurement by experiencing the Barnum effect. Open Science Framework. https://osf.io/sc6a4/

22.

Greene

R. L.

(1977). Student acceptance of generalized personality interpretations: A reexamination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(5), 965–966. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.45.5.965

23.

Greene

R. L.

Harris

M. E.

Macon

R. S.

(1979). Another look at personal validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43(4), 419–423. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4304_16

24.

Gurung

R. A. R.

(2012). Consuming scholarship of teaching and learning: Using evidence-based pedagogy ethically. In Landrum

R. E.

McCarthy

M. A.

(Eds.), Teaching ethically: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 67–76). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13496-006.

25.

Halperin

Snyder

C. R.

Shenkel

R. J.

Houston

B. K.

(1976). Effects of source status and message favorability on acceptance of personality feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 85–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.1.85

26.

Handelsman

M. M.

Woody

W. D.

(2015). Ethical teaching in the classroom and beyond. In Dunn

D. S.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of undergraduate psychology education (pp. 113–128). Oxford University Press.

27.

Hertwig

Ortmann

(2008). Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics & Behavior, 18(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420701712990

28.

Hewson

P. W.

Hewson

M. G.

(1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00051837

29.

Hinrichsen

J. J.

Bradley

L. A.

(1974). Situational determinants of personal validation of general personality interpretations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38(6), 530–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1974.10120012

30.

Kitchener

K. S.

(1992). Psychologist as teacher and mentor: Affirming ethical values throughout the curriculum. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(3), 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.23.3.190

31.

Landrum

R. E.

McCarthy

M. A.

(Eds.). (2012). Teaching ethically: Challenges and opportunities. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13496-000

32.

Meehl

P. E.

(1956). Wanted – a good cookbook. American Psychologist, 11(6), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044164

33.

Merrens

M. R.

Richards

W. S.

(1970). Acceptance of generalized versus “bona fide” personality interpretation. Psychological Reports, 27(3), 691–694. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1970.27.3.691

34.

Merrens

M. R.

Richards

W. S.

(1973). Length of personality inventory and the evaluation of a generalized personality interpretation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 37(1), 83–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.1973.10119833

35.

Morey

R. D.

(2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 61–64. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061

36.

Nussbaum

Novick

(1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict, and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy. Instructional Science, 11, 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00414279

37.

Orpen

Jamotte

(1975). The acceptance of generalized personality interpretations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 96(1), 147–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1975.9923276

38.

Poškus

M. S.

(2014). A new way of looking at the Barnum effect and its links to personality traits in groups receiving different types of personality feedback. Psichologija, 50, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.15388/Psichol.2014.50.4893

39.

Posner

G. J.

Strike

K. A.

Hewson

P. W.

Gertzog

W. A.

(1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207

40.

Smith

S. S.

Richardson

(1983). Amelioration of deception and harm in psychological research: The important role of debriefing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(5), 1075–1082. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.5.1075

41.

Snyder

C. R.

(1974). Acceptance of personality interpretations as a function of assessment procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(1), 150. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036033

42.

Snyder

C. R.

Larson

G. R.

(1972). A further look at student acceptance of general personality interpretations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 384–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032899

43.

Snyder

C. R.

Shenkel

R. J.

(1976). 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, 44(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.44.1.34

44.

Sundberg

N. D.

(1955). The acceptability of “fake” versus “bona fide” personality test interpretations. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50(1), 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044374

45.

Swenson

E. V.

McCarthy

M. A.

(2012). Ethically conducting the scholarship of teaching and learning research. In Landrum

R. E.

McCarthy

M. A.

(Eds.), Teaching ethically: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 21–29). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13496-002.

46.

Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking “Generation Me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976-2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 58–75. http://doi.org/10.1177/1745691609356789

47.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

W. K.

Carter

N. T.

(2014). Declines in trust in others and confidence in institutions among American adults and late adolescents, 1972–2012. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1914–1923. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614545133

48.

Weinberger

L. J.

Bradley

L. A.

(1980). Effects of “favorability” and type of assessment device upon acceptance of general personality interpretations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44(1), 44–47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4401_6