Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 436444

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Schizotypy and the Barnum Eect

Gordon Claridge
a

a,*

, Ken Clark b, Ellen Powney a, Emma Hassan

University of Oxford, Department of Experimental Psychology, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3U, UK
b
Prospect Park Hospital, Reading, RG30 4EJ, UK
c
Department of Psychology, Brookes University, Oxford, OX 3OFL, UK
Received 3 May 2007; received in revised form 7 September 2007; accepted 12 September 2007
Available online 24 October 2007

Abstract
Barnum Eect refers to a tendency for people to endorse, as an accurate description of themselves, personality descriptions that are essentially bogus, often derived from horoscopes or other dubious sources.
The study reported examined individual dierences in this bias as it relates to schizotypy. Participants completed the O-LIFE (a multiscale measure of psychotic traits) and judged the self-accuracy of personality
descriptions derived from an open-source test, Brain Works, claimed as a measure of creative potential.
Overall there was a highly signicant Barnum Eect and, within the sample, signicant positive correlations
between the degree of bias and the two cognitive subscales of the O-LIFE: Unusual Experiences and Cognitive Disorganisation. On further examination, it transpired that it was the latter scale that accounted for
most of the variance. The other two scales Introvertive Anhedonia and Impulsive Nonconformity
showed no association with Barnum susceptibility.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Barnum Eect; Schizotypy; O-LIFE

1. Introduction
The term Barnum Eect rst appeared in a rather arcane paper by the late Paul Meehl
(1956) in which he discussed the dicult task that experienced clinicians face in trying to
*

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gordon.claridge@psy.ox.ac.uk (G. Claridge).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.006

G. Claridge et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 436444

437

balance their intuitive interpretation of a clients psychological test scores against the cold facts
of psychometric precision. The latter, he noted, can provide information that has high statistical
validity and reliability but is often trivial, whereas the former naturally introduces subjective
bias. He noted that many psychometric reports contain personality descriptions which, quoting
his colleague D.G. Patterson, are after the manner of P.T. Barnum. The reference here was to
Phineas Taylor Barnum, the 19th century circus showman, famous for his entertaining hoaxes
and his claim that the recipe for the success of his shows was that they provided a little something for everybody.
In later psychological literature Barnum Eect came to refer more narrowly to the tendency
for individuals to endorse, as uniquely their own, personality descriptions that are actually fake;
or, more properly speaking (Emery & Lilienfeld, 2004), statements that are so general and have
such a high-base rate that they can describe almost anyone. The classic demonstration of this phenomenon was an experiment by Forer (1949) in which subjects rst completed the Diagnostic
Interest Blank. A week later they were presented with what they believed to be their own results
from the test but which was actually an identical personality description obtained from a news
stand astrology book. Asked to estimate on a scale from 0 to 5 the accuracy or similarity
of this description to themselves the group had a mean rating of 4.3, indicating a strong bias
to endorse the bogus prole.
The Barnum Eect in this form using Forers original personality description has been
shown to be highly replicable (Dies, 1972; Fichten & Sunerton, 1983; Manning, 1968; also see
Dickson & Kelly, 1985; Dutton, 1988; for reviews of the topic). It is less clear why it works
but there is agreement that two factors are important. One is the content of the descriptions that
participants are oered, especially the relative proportion of positive to negative traits that the pen
sketch contains (Dana & Fouke, 1979; Halperin, Snyder, Shenkel, & Houston, 1976; Weisberg,
1970). Another is the perceived source of the description. Thus, Snyder and Shenkel (1975,
1976) found that subjects were more inclined to accept Barnum descriptions when they believed
that these had been obtained uniquely for themselves.
The main purpose of the study reported here was to address another issue: that of individual
dierences in susceptibility to the Barnum Eect. Our focus of interest was schizotypy, some aspects of which seem accurately to capture characteristics that should relate to the phenomenon.
We refer here to the so-called positive, mostly cognitive, features of schizotypy, such as dierences in cognitive style and the tendency to report unusual experiences and beliefs. Thus, in its
questionnaire measurement, schizotypy is partly dened by items relating to magical ideation, reports of anomalous cognitive and emotional experiences, and crucially belief in such things as
the paranormal, horoscopes, and so on. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly shown that these
behaviours and beliefs, independently assessed, are indeed more frequent among individuals high
in psychotic traits (Goulding, 2004; Lawrence & Peters, 2004; Schoeld & Claridge, 2007; Thalbourne, 1994). Finally, there is some evidence that the Barnum eect is greater in believers in at
least one aspect of the paranormal, viz spiritualism (Tabacyk, Milford, Springer, & Tobacyk,
1988).
Experimental studies of schizotypy provide a further rationale for choosing to look at schizotypy. Positive schizotypy has been examined with many dierent laboratory paradigms, but
one or one type is particularly relevant here. This refers to the tendency for high schizotypes
to misperceive, distort, or show a bias to see non-existing events in their environment. One such

438

G. Claridge et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 436444

example was recently published by Tsakanikos (2006) who showed that individuals high in positive schizotypy were more likely to report seeing words on non-word trials where both types of
stimuli were randomly presented. In a similar vein, it has been found that high psychoticism or
schizotypy scorers tend to construct meaning from otherwise random events or patterns of stimulation, such as rapidly changing arrays of dots (Brugger et al., 1993; Farias, Claridge, & Lalljee,
2005; Jakes & Hemsley, 1986).
The aim of the present study was therefore to examine the relationship between the strength of
the Barnum Eect and measures taken from a psychotic traits questionnaire; with the expectation
that an association would be found specically with cognitive scales generally used to dene positive schizotypy.

2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were recruited from two populations of University undergraduate and graduate
students, supplemented by hospital secretarial sta; they were tested in three locations by the present authors. For some individuals a slightly dierent methodology was adopted (see below), but in
order to optimize the sample size available for analysis, participants were combined into the single
group reported on here. This consisted of 133 participants (59 males and 74 females), with a mean
age of 26.13 years (SD 9.30).
2.2. Assessment of Barnum Eect
This was done using Brain Works, a public domain self-assessment procedure which is
advertised as a test for creative potential. We downloaded it from the website of Synergistic
Learning Incorporated [details from the present authors]. The task, presented by computer, consists of 20 items in which participants are asked to select an answer from a number of alternatives that corresponds best to a target question. Some examples are given in Appendix A to
this paper.
At the end of the task the participant is automatically presented with a thumbnail sketch of
their personality as generated by the test program. It is worth noting that each time the program
is run a dierent combination of items is presented, usually resulting, in our experience, in a different personality description, even for the same individual. A sample personality evaluation from
Brain Works is given in Appendix B.
2.3. Schizotypy measurement
The questionnaire used for this purpose was the Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and
Experiences (O-LIFE) (Mason, Claridge, & Jackson, 1995). This yields scores on four scales:
Unusual Experiences (UnEx), Cognitive Disorganisation (CogDis), Introvertive Anhedonia
(IntAn), and Impulsive Nonconformity (ImpNon). With some (83) of the participants we used
the full version of the O-LIFE (Mason & Claridge, 2006). This consists of a total of 104 items

G. Claridge et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 436444

439

(UnEx 30; CogDis 24; IntAn 27; ImpNon 23). With the remaining 50 participants we used the
short version (Mason, Linney, & Claridge, 2005). The latter contains 43 items (UnEx 12; CogDis
11; IntAn 10; ImpNon 10). Typical items (common in this case to both short and long versions)
are as follows:
UnEx: Have you ever felt you have special, almost magical powers?
CogDis: When in a crowded room, do you often have diculty in following a conversation?
IntAn: Are there few things that you have enjoyed doing?
ImpNon: Do you sometimes have the urge to do something harmful or shocking?
The reliability of the four scales from both the long and the short versions of the O-LIFE used
can be judged satisfactory, and not greatly dierent from one another; this is shown in their
respective alpha coecients (short version in brackets): UnEx 0.89 (0.80); CogDis 0.87 (0.77);
IntAn 0.82 (0.63); ImpNon 0.77 (0.63). As a questionnaire of the psychotic traits it purports to
measure the O-LIFE has been well-validated in extensive experimental and clinical studies
(see Mason & Claridge, 2006).

3. Procedure
The Brain Works test was always administered rst. By way of explanation participants were
told that after completing the questions in the test a personality description would be displayed on
the computer screen. When this appeared they were asked to read it carefully and rate how accurately they thought it described themselves. Accuracy was rated on a scale of either 110 (85 participants) or 15 (48 participants). In each case the lower rating was presented as signifying This
description is nothing like how I am and the higher rating as This description is exactly how I
am. The participant was then asked to complete the O-LIFE.

4. Results
In order to accommodate the two dierent methodologies used in the study, we rst adjusted
the scores for the two versions of the O-LIFE and self-accuracy scales. For the former we converted all data to z-scores. In the case of self-accuracy the data were rescaled by reducing the
10-point scale used for some participants to the 5-point scale used for others.
4.1. Barnum Eect
The distribution of accuracy scores found in the sample as a whole is presented in Fig. 1 as a
histogram; this can be seen to have a marked skew. Assessed with a KolmogorovSmirnov test the
distribution showed a highly signicant (p < 0.001) shift from normality (towards a higher mean),
indicating a strong overall Barnum Eect.
The data were then examined for age and gender eects, but none was found. Self-accuracy rating correlated only +0.13 with age, while the dierence between males and females was also nonsignicant (t = 1.14, df 131).

440

G. Claridge et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 436444

Fig. 1. Distribution of self-accuracy (selfaccm) rating scores.

4.2. Schizotypy correlations

Correlations between the four O-LIFE scales are rst shown, in Table 1. The pattern observed
was very similar to that found in previous use of both versions of the questionnaire; this includes
the very high correlation between UnEx and CogDis and the low correlation between IntAn and
the other scales. The results also conform to age and gender corrected norms reported for the long
version by Mason and Claridge (2006), suggesting that the present sample was representative of
the population from which it was drawn.
Table 1
Correlations between measures of the four O-LIFE dimensions (N = 133)
UnEx
CogDis
IntAn

UnEx

CogDis

IntAn

ImpNon

+ 0.54
p < 0.001

+ 0.10
NS

+ 0.27
p < 0.001

+ 0.22
p < 0.Ol

+ 0.25
p < 0.003

0.05
NS

G. Claridge et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 436444

441

Table 2
Correlations of self-accuracy rating with O-LIFE scales (N = 133)
Unusual experiences

Cognitive disorganisation

Introvertive anhedonia

Impulsive nonconformity

+ 0.31
p < 0.001

+ 0.34
p < 0.001

0.02
NS

0.03
NS

The correlations between the self-accuracy ratings and the O-LIFE scores are shown in Table 2,
where it can be seen that the two cognitive scales of the O-LIFE UnEx and CogDis correlated
positively and signicantly with the self-accuracy rating, whereas the correlations with IntAn and
ImpNon were essentially zero.
The data were then explored further by standard multiple linear regression analysis, with selfaccuracy score as the dependent variable. As neither of the other two O-LIFE scales showed any
association with self-accuracy and there was no age or gender eect, the independent variables
here were conned to UnEx and CogDis. Not unexpectedly, the combined regression was highly
signicant (F = 8.033, df 2, p < 0.001). However, inspection of the individual beta coecients for
the two independent variables indicated that only CogDis made an acceptably signicant contribution to the prediction of self-accuracy (t = 2.154, p < 0.03). The contribution of UnEx was marginal (t = 1.640, p < 0.10).
5. Discussion
The results of the study reported here unambiguously support the conclusion that individual
dierences in susceptibility to the Barnum Eect are signicantly associated with psychotic personality traits. Of course testing this hypothesis did depend on there being an overall Barnum Effect in the data. This proved to be the case, to a highly signicant degree, but the eect was clearly
greater in high O-LIFE scorers. As predicted, the relationship was conned to positive components of schizotypy/psychoticism, as measured by the Unusual Experiences and Cognitive Disorganisation scales. The complete absence of association with Introvertive Anhedonia and
Impulsive Non-conformity indicated that the eects found had a specically cognitive basis
and were not due simply to the more mood-related inuences tapped by those other two scales.
A notable, and slightly unexpected, feature of the results exposed in the regression analysis
was the stronger relationship to the Barnum Eect of CogDis, as compared with UnEx. Although
the self-accuracy score was still best predicted by both scales in combination, when CogDis was
controlled for UnEx showed only a marginal eect. This nding could have bearing on understanding what, in positive schizotypy, might mediate the connection with Barnum susceptibility.
Although at the outset it seemed an obvious almost tautological reason for connecting Barnum bias to schizotypy, perhaps the common element is not, after all, the tendency to magical
ideation and paranormal belief. Or, at least, not entirely so. More important, perhaps, is something intrinsic to the traits tapped by the CogDis scale. In this regard the questions that make
up the scale deserve scrutiny. The items are largely negative in tone, referring to such things as
mental blocking and diculties in concentration and attention; the component of schizotypy
tapped by the scale is also quite highly correlated with Neuroticism (Claridge et al., 1996). It is
possible that high CogDis scorers who might have a negative view of themselves were disproportionately attracted to the attering personality proles oered in the Brain Works descriptions.

442

G. Claridge et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 436444

The eect was perhaps further exaggerated as the statistical ndings suggest by additional
UnEx tendencies. The suggestion is purely speculative but deserves investigation.
We should comment briey on the procedure used here for eliciting the Barnum Eect. This
was not the classic method, derived from Foreys original study, in that each of our subjects
was presented with a dierent personality description generated by his or her performance on
the experimental task. In this form the procedure strongly encouraged participants belief that
the descriptions were genuinely tailored to them, thus satisfying one of the criteria for getting a
strong Barnum Eect. It is a matter for further debate how far the pen sketches generated by
Brain Works are horoscope-like or are, as claimed, valid indicators of personality. The tests
apparently poor reliability suggests the former. The combination of this and its personalised
format would seem to make Brain Works an ideal procedure for exploring the Barnum Eect.
Two criticisms of the study should be noted. One is our failure to include in the schizotypy
assessment a Lie or other scale that could have detected false (social desirability) responding
on the O-LIFE. This would certainly be worthwhile in future research, though it is dicult to
determine how this might have aected the present results.
The second possible criticism of our study concerns the order in which we presented the
O-LIFE and Brain Works tests; viz always administering the latter rst. Certainly, adopting a
more balanced design would seem, on the face of it, to have been an experimentally sounder
way to proceed. On the other hand, there is a case to be made for the method we used. Thus, asking the participants to complete the O-LIFE rst could arguably have focused their minds unduly
on their own personality and hence biased their Brain Works self-assessment; to a great extent,
that is, than the reverse order of presentation. But this, too, is open to further test.
In conclusion, as far as we know, ours is the rst study to examine the association between the
Barnum Eect and schizotypy. Although we threw no real light on the mechanism of this relationship, the experiment opens the way for others to do so. As a research domain, schizotypy or
more generally psychoticism is rife with paradigms for examining perception, attention,
cognitive style, belief, and other psychological processes that, even on casual inspection, look
possible mediators of susceptibility to the Barnum Eect. Apart from the benets for schizotypy
research, such investigations might help to rescue this quaintly named phenomenon from the
fringes of psychology where it has mostly seemed to languish for more than half a century.

Appendix A. Examples of the kinds of item found in the brain works test
1. If I could change myself in any way I would become:
A More balanced.
B More organized.
C More open.
2. Presented with BlueGrey my reaction is to think of. . ...
A North-South.
B Red-Pink.
C Teal-Blue.

G. Claridge et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 436444

443

3 How do you react to these two pieces of art?

A Chaos vs Order.
B Interesting vs Boring.
C Unstructured vs Structured.

Appendix B. Sample personality evaluation generated in brain works

You exhibit an even balance between left- and right-hemisphere dominance and a slight preference for visual over auditory processing. With a score this balanced, it is likely that you would
have slightly dierent results each time you complete this self-assessment quiz.
You are a well-rounded person, distinctly individualistic and artistic, an active and multidimensional learner. At the same time, you are logical and disciplined, can operate well within an
organization, and are sensitive towards others without losing objectivity. You are organized
and goal-directed. Although a thinking individual, you take in entire situations readily
and can act on intuition.
You sometimes tend to vacillate in your learning styles. Learning might take you longer than
someone of equal intellect, but you will tend to be more thorough and retain the material longer
than those other individuals. You will alternate between logic and impulse. This vacillation will
not normally be intentional or deliberate, so you may experience anxiety in situations where
you are not certain which aspect of yourself will be called on.
With a slight preference for visual processing, you tend to be encompassing in your perceptions,
process along multidimensional paths and be active in your attacking of situations or learning.
Overall, you should feel content with your life and yourself. You are, perhaps, a little too critical of yourself and others while maintaining an openness which tempers that tendency.
Indecisiveness is a problem and creativity may not be in keeping with your potential. Being a
pragmatist, you downplay this aspect of yourself and focus on the more immediate, obvious
and the more functional.
References
Brugger, P., Regard, M., Landis, T., Cook, C., Krebs, D., & Niederberger, J. (1993). Meaningful patterns in visual
noise: Eects of lateral stimulation and the observers belief in ESP. Psychopathology, 26, 261265.
Claridge, G., McCreery, C., Mason, O., Bentall, R., Boyle, G., Slade, P., et al. (1996). The factor structure of
schizotypal traits: A large replication study. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 103115.
Dana, R. H., & Fouke, H. P. (1979). Barnum statements in reports of psychological assessment. Psychological Reports,
44, 12151221.

444

G. Claridge et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 44 (2008) 436444

Dickson, D. H., & Kelly, I. W. (1985). The Barnum Eect in personality assessment: A review of the literature.
Psychological Reports, 57, 367382.
Dies, R. R. (1972). Personal gullibility or pseudodiagnosis: A further test of the fallacy of personal validation. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 28, 4750.
Dutton, D. (1988). The cold reading technique. Experientia, 44, 326332.
Emery, C. L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2004). The validity of child sexual abuse checklists in the popular psychology
literature: A Barnum Eect? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 268274.
Farias, M., Claridge, G., & Lalljee, M. (2005). Personality and cognitive predictors of new age practices and beliefs.
Personality and Individual Dierences, 39, 979989.
Fichten, C. S., & Sunerton, B. (1983). Popular horoscopes and the Barnum Eect. Journal of Psychology, 114, 123134.
Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom study of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 44, 118123.
Goulding, A. (2004). Schizotypy models in relation to subjective health and paranormal beliefs and experiences.
Personality and Individual Dierences, 37, 157167.
Halperin, K., Snyder, C. R., Shenkel, R. J., & Houston, B. K. (1976). Eects of source status and message favourability
on acceptance of personality feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 8588.
Jakes, S., & Hemsley, D. (1986). Individual dierences in relation to brief exposure to unpatterned visual stimulation.
Personality and Individual Dierences, 7, 121123.
Lawrence, E., & Peters, E. (2004). Reasoning in believers in the paranormal. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
192, 727733.
Manning, E. J. (1968). Personal validation: Replication of Forers study. Psychological Reports, 23, 181182.
Mason, O., & Claridge, G. (2006). The OxfordLiverpool inventory of feelings and experiences (O-LIFE): Further
description and extended norms. Schizophrenia Research, 82, 203211.
Mason, O., Claridge, G., & Jackson, J. (1995). New scales for the assessment of schizotypy. Personality and Individual
Dierences, 18, 713.
Mason, O., Linney, Y., & Claridge, G. (2005). Short scales for measuring schizotypy. Schizophrenia Research, 78,
293296.
Meehl, P. E. (1956). Wanted A good cookbook. American Psychologist, 11, 262272.
Schoeld, K. L., & Claridge, G. (2007). Paranormal experiences and mental health: Schizotypy as an underlying factor.
Personality and Individual Dierences, 43, 19081916.
Snyder, C. R., & Shenkel, R. J. (1976). Eects of favourability, modality, relevance on acceptance of general personality
interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44,
3441.
Snyder, C. R., & Shenkel, R. J. (1975). The P.T. Barnum eect. Psychology Today, 8, 5254.
Thalbourne, M. A. (1994). Belief in the paranormal and its relationship to schizophrenia-relevant measures: A
conrmatory study. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 7880.
Tabacyk, J., Milford, G., Springer, T., & Tobacyk, Z. (1988). Paranormal beliefs and the Barnum Eect. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 52, 737739.
Tsakanikos, E. (2006). Perceptual biases and positive schizotypy: The role of perceptual load. Personality and Individual
Dierences, 41, 951958.
Weisberg, P. (1970). Student acceptance of bogus personality interpretations diering in level of social desirability.
Psychological Reports, 27, 743746.