Judging Personality Assessments: Putting the Barnum Report in Perspective

Abstract

The ability of expert and naive judges to discriminate between genuine and Barnum assessment statements was assessed. In a 2 x 2 x 2 design (naive vs. expert judges, genuine vs. Barnum test statements, sex), judges rated assessment statements for their information value, usefulness, social desirability, and typicalness. Results indicated that judges were able to make expected discriminations between genuine and Barnum statements. These results were discussed in terms of previous findings which have suggested that judges have seen Barnum statements as "accurate" or "good" as genuine statements. In the present study, the discriminations seemed due to the use of a population of judges more representative of clinical assessment consumers and to the more specific judgments required.