Psychological problems related to personality assessment

Given that graphology, according to its theoretical assumptions, aims to define individual personality by analyzing a spontaneous piece of writing, it is necessary to recall some issues – as they emerged in psychological research – related to the evaluation of this psychic well-structured reality, which is apparently insubstantial, but can be considered the source of deeply rooted behaviors.

Graphology, being psychology applied to the study of personality, necessarily embraces all the issues related to the definition of the field of research, investigation methodology and theoretical assumptions on which research in individual differences based on: this, being aware that such a goal is highly challenging, as it aims to define the inner core whose development is deeply influenced by both the genetic heritage and the social environment the individual belongs to.

This field of investigation is necessarily broad, requiring theoretical and experimental links to all specific research areas in psychological sciences, related to the individual and the trait organization that describes him/her. Not enough, such a picture is still more complicated, because a personality is a unique and irreplicable result, deriving from a range of previous variables whose respective importance is hardly appreciable, both if we identify them as “genes” according to heritage genetics or as “individual experiences” in terms of personal development.

.

  • Personality characteristic to be evaluated

As previously said, the meaning of the term ‘personality’ is remarkably broad and it is not possible to identify a formal definition -acceptable to all psychologists- for this term: any interpretation is quite arbitrary, because we can consider personality according to different perspectives. Allport, for instance, describes personality as “the dynamic organization, within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behavior and thought” (1). Such highly conceptual definition reminds us, through the use of the term ‘psychophysical’, that personality is not only mental nor exclusively physical. Its organization implies a contemporary functioning of mind and body in a unique, inseparable unity.

The various definitions for ‘personality’, according to different Authors, consider and evaluate most often the following features: physical appearance and temper, to highlight the physiological correlates of personality; intelligence’s qualitative and quantitative issues; motivational disposition, from the lowest level of instincts to the top level of values and interests; social attitudes, such as authoritarianism, despotism, or gregariousness; expressivity traits, such as consistency, loquacity, steadfastness, hesitancy, and so on; and, finally, possible pathological tendencies.

Furthermore, when speaking of personality, we refer to two important basic assumptions -nowadays commonsense knowledge – that explain why we find it so interesting. First, even people lacking specific psychological knowledge finds it obvious the unsettling idea that a specific personality structure affects both the way events are perceived and – at least partially- basic concepts about life the mind expresses and believes it has have freely chosen. This concept, for instance, led to interesting studies on authoritarian personality and on the relationship between ideology expressed and underlying specific structure. Moreover, personality – understood as the dynamic core that coordinates our inner cognitive, emotional and social components according to specific individual patterns, affects our adaptability to environment; for this reason, many cases of social maladjustment can be seen as depending on a disturbed personality rather than on external causes. It is also considered obvious that all personality structures, even the best organized, are limited by the amount of stress they can tolerate and cannot exceed without showing signs of collapse.

Clearly, the progressive acknowledgement of the existence and importance of personality – seen as the inner core capable of coordinating fluidly innate constitutional factors with environmental and upbringing conditioning, by balancing assimilation and creativity – caused a dramatic increase in psychological studies on this investigation field. Both theoretical research, by defining the components involved and their causal connections, and practice, e. g. through the construction of more and more sector-specific personality tests, respond to an increasing need to differentiate individuals according to a psychological view in education, work and in the colorful world of psychopathology. In each of the above-listed applicability contexts, the existence of an inner psychic structure, more or less stable and differentiated, is given as a proven fact, along with the idea such structure determines what we are and how we behave at a mental, emotional and social level.

On these assumptions, it is clearly evident why the study of personality can hardly keep inside the boundaries of formal science. By acknowledging the reality of such a structure and its power to affect our everyday life, we come to feel a burgeoning need for popular psychology books to help us understand why we find ourselves confronting the same problems, day after day. When young, we find it easier to blame our problems on external causes, later in life we come to realize that dynamics recurring again and again in our lives actually belong to us. The conspicuous circulation of psychology handbooks on child upbringing, love relationships, sexual problems and so on, respond to such a need: consistently with the theoretical assumption they are based on, they are meant to be an expendable tool for us to become more balanced in our personal life and, furthermore, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the interpersonal dynamics we are somehow involved- consequently, allowing us to shift from unconscious and automatic to at least partially conscious reactions. Not to mention the fact that some degree of psychological skills cannot be seen as a luxury or reserved for professionals of mental health only, but it belongs to the level of development and universal self-reflection mankind is in now.

.

  • Personality traits and their organization

A possible approach to the study of personality is based on the assumption that a very complex object of study, as personality structure appears, can be separated into components, identifying inside it a number of basic psychic features and subordinate behavioral modes. This perspective informs all models of study of individual differences based on a search for personality traits.

Actually, this concept seems indispensable, though dealing with an apparently impalpable reality like psychic reality, in the sense that there is no other way for the progressive path of scientific research but shifting from a complex, composite unit to subordinate components. In this case, however, differently from decomposition of atom in physics, in psychology assuming the existence of basic components of personality – traits – does not lead to a widely shared definition, as the different Authors do not agree on the list of traits identified as basic units of behavior, nor on a model to describe their interactions. Although the aim of such a search is clear, as Allport wondered (2), when shifting to an empiric level a question spontaneously arises: traits identified by different psychologists are real or arbitrary dispositions? The importance of this issue is actually understandable, as – at the present state of research -personality traits are hypothetical constructs, a mere presumption in need of new methods because those used till now proved inadequate to give evidence of its existence.

Though facing the undeniable fact that there is not a single trait theory, we can say there is quite a remarkable agreement on this term’s meaning: a systematic observation of behavior enlightened, beyond doubt, that any individual is characterized by a number of habits and behavior tendencies which are decontextualized, i.e. put into action independently from actual circumstances. For instance, people prone to aggressive behavior will put it into action even in untroubled situations, since such inner tendency is projected outwards. This habit of decontextualized behavior discriminates between trait and motivation, which is, on the contrary, related to attaining specific goals.

Personality analysis carried out using tests in order to identify specific behavioral traits is an outstanding area of psychology that studies individual differences. In spite of the admission that all these methods are based on quite arbitrary assumptions, still a non-casual differentiation takes place.

In addition to a remarkable applicability in practice, trait theory appears quite convenient to understanding personality, as it is grounded on the search of the psychical features and behavioral modes all human beings share; at the same time, it explains individual differences, as traits differ among different subjects both in intensity of the single trait and trait interaction model. Moreover, trait theory enables us to perceive the prodigious work performed by the Ego, integrating different and sometimes opposite tendencies to a balanced structure, both steady and capable of more or less flexible adaptation.

Such a complex and dynamic view of personality requires an articulate theoretical frame as well, capable of identifying personality traits at the core of human experience in its instinctive, cognitive, emotional, social and also ideal dimensions. We have also to consider that, when studying personality in terms of traits, besides the difficult identification of specific units of analysis, i. e. primary behavior tendencies, it is necessary to describe how such components are organized, as personality is not only a whole, but also a structure.

We are not describing in detail this intricate issue; though, we can summarize now by reminding of the issues that are presently in-progress: an unambiguous definition for the significant units that constitute personality (trait identification); construction of a theoretical model that can explain how such units interact (trait organization).

.

  • The object of study of Graphology

At the present state of research on personality traits, a tight analogy between the critical issues in personality assessment through tests and through graphological analysis cannot pass unnoticed: both traits in personality and signs in writing have not been univocally defined by all Authors. Actually, the graphologists’ thought, through the definition of graphological signs, is a research that aims to identify and determine the basic components in human personality, understood as personality traits. At the foundation of all graphological systems we find first the definition of graphical signs, i.e. of “those individual features in human writing which are an index of cognitive, emotional-active and somatic human characteristics.” (3) Graphological signs are essentially the psychological synthesis of a number of characteristics and, in order to match with real personality traits -as previously suggested about psychology- have to comply with two conditions: to be able to identify specific personality features unambiguously defined, the identified features not overlapping. In other words, each sign should be a perfect match for a stable and well-determined facet of individual personality; moreover, the theoretical system we select should not include more differently named signs that identify the same feature. The problems in identifying personality’s significant units in psychology and, furthermore, the high number of different theories on personality trait organization presently available enable us to understand how the same problems emerge also in the field of graphology. People eager to understand human personality quickly, by approaching psychology or graphology, at the beginning feel confused when confronting the fact they have first of all to choose a school of thought or a graphological orientation.

Actually, such a lack of general agreement both in the psychological and graphological field cannot be surprising for people who understand the high complexity of these issues. In this regard, many scientists -like Jung- who studied personality often remarked that psychology is a very young science.

The research work of the Italian graphologist Girolamo Moretti (born in Recanati, 1879 – died in Ancona, 1963) focused especially on understanding personality and its components through the identification of a wide range of graphological signs, related to specific psychological features and structuring at the same time a theoretical model in order to describe the trait organization.

(traslated by Carla Bertolli)