Personality assessment by handanalysts II

Author: M.C. van Mensvoort.

Summary

In many cases handanalysts have been to discriminate high scorers on FEAR from low scorers: the average SUCCESS-SCORE is 62.4 % (p< 0.0005), however the SUCCESS-SCORE of the individual handanalysts varies a lot: from 40 % to 80 %. Handanalysts were inclined to judge subjects as a high scorer on FEAR. At some cases the consensus among the handanalysts was high, however at more than half of the cases the consensus among the handanalysts was low or almost zero.  
Handanalysts were hardly able to couple the right hands with the right Big Five personality profiles. Subjects have hardly recognized themselves in the personality profiles which were compiled by the handanalysts for the concerning subject.

Introduction

In 2000 a pilot study was executed with several Dutch + English handanalysts (v. Mensvoort, 2000). The researcher selected 10 subjects, all of them scoring very high or very low on the Big Five dimension Extraversion. The handanalysts were invited to make an assessment of the hands of each of the 10 selected subjects and to answer the question: ‘is this subject a high scorer on Extraversion, or a low scorer?’. Then the hands of 10 selected very high or very low scorers on Neuroticism were presented to the handanalysts with the question: ‘is this subject a high scorer on Neuroticism, or a low scorer?’. The average SUCCESS-SCORE in the pilot-study was 58.2 % (in terms of statistics: a ‘significant’ result). The pilot-study has also indicated that one can not presume that handanalysts will make the same judgement: the consensus among the handanalysts was not high: 71%. However, afterwards the researcher has noticed that the rather complex definitions of the Big Five dimensions Extraversion and Neuroticism (both are defined by means of six subdimensions) might play an important part in the lack of consensus among the handanalysts.

The design of the present study is zealous: in three different parts several aspects of handanalysis are examined. Part A appears to be a repetition of the pilot-study, however the attention is now focussed on the personality feature FEAR (a subdimension of Neuroticism), which is far less complex defined in the NEO PI-R questionnaire compared to the Big Five dimensions Extraversion and Neuroticism. In part B the handanalysts are asked to make couples between the hands of a limited number of subjects, and the accessory Big Five profiles. And finally, part C is focussed on the capability of handanalysts to compile a personality profile, which is recognized by the concerning subject among other profiles. The results of this part of the program can be used to speculate about the following issue: “fundamental limitations of the selection instrument (the NEO PI-R questionnaire, used in part A and part B) might provide an explanation for the results of the handanalysts at part A and part B”. A positive result on part C will indicate that this is indeed a relevant issue, however a negative result on part C will indicate that is not a relevant issue.

Method

During a masterthesis program and a follow-up program inkprints + Big Five personality profiles of 220 subjects were collected (by means of the Dutch version of the NEO PI-R questionnaire). 14 handanalysts (11 Dutch handanalysts, 2 handanalysts from the USA, and 1 handanalyst from the U.K.) were invited to participate in this program. The research design consists of three different parts:

Part A:

15 female subjects were selected, all scoring very high or very low on de personality feature FEAR (= a subdimensions of the Big Five dimension Neuroticism). De hands (inkprint + photoscan) of these 15 subjects were presented to 14 handanalysts, which were asked to analyze both hands of each subject and to answer the question: “is this subject a very high scorer on FEAR, or is this subject a very low scorer?”. It goes without saying that the handanalysts were well informed about the definition of the subdimension FEAR.

De analysis of the results of part A is focussed on answering the question: “how far are the handanalysts able to discriminate the high scorers on FEAR from the low scorers?”.

Part B:

The 15 female subjects involved in part A, were also involved in part B. The subjects were divided among five groups of three subjects. The Big Five profiles of the subjects in each group were presented to the handanalysts in an arbitrary order. Then the handanalysts were asked to make couples between each pair of hands and the right Big Five profile. It goes without saying that the handanalysts were well informed about the definition of the Big Five dimensions.

De analysis of the results of part B is focussed on answering the question: “how far are handanalysts able to couple a pair of hands with the accessory Big Five profile?”.

Part C:

At part C five new female subjects were selected on several criteria: age (between: 24 en 30), Big Five profile (sufficient variation among the Big Five profiles of the subjects) and the hands (clear differences on several aspects of the hands among the subjects). Then 6 handanalysts (several very experienced handanalysts + several handanalysts who scored very well on part A) were invited to compile a personality profile for every subject exclusively based on the accessory hands (inkprint + photoscan). The form + content of the resulting profiles was completely determined by the handanalysts (though the handanalysts were not allowed to name any features of the hand in the profiles). Afterwards the profiles were presented to the five subjects and they were asked to identify the profile in which they had recognized themselves most.

De analysis of the results of part C is focussed on answering the question: “how far is a subjects able to recognize themselves in the profile (among other profiles) which was compiled by the handanalyst for the concerning subject?”.

Results

Part A:

“How far are the handanalysts able to discriminate the high scorers on FEAR from the low scorers?”.

The judgements of the handanalysts are presented in appendix 1a. Appendix 1a shows that the average SUCCESS-SCORE of all participating handanalysts is 62.4 % (p<0.0005), however the SUCCESS-SCORE among individual handanalysts varies a lot: between 40 % and 80 %. Regarding the SUCCESS-SCORES of the individual handanalysts, a score of 73.3 % (or higher) can be labeled as ‘significant’ (which means: p<0.05) in terms of statistics. And therefore the result of handanalyst B, handanalyst H, handanalyst I and handanalysts J is ‘significant’.

Another interesting aspect concerns the question whether the handanalysts have recognized the fact that most of the subjects are low scorers on FEAR. Looking at the judgements depicted in appendix 1a, one can say that only one single handanalyst (handanalyst I) has recognized this fact clearly. The other handanalysts appear to be inclined to judge a case very frequently as a high scorer on FEAR (notice: this inclination was also observed in the pilot-study). Because of this inclination the SUCCESS-SCORE related to the very high scorers is much higher (75.0 %, p<0.0005) compared to the SUCCESS-SCORE related to the very low scorers (57.8 %, p<0.05): see the last two rows of appendix 1a.

At part A the handanalysts were also provided the opportunity to express possible doubts about their judgements. Only the judgements of the handanalysts which were labeled with ‘confidence’ (= no guessing, no doubts) are depicted in appendix 1b. The average ‘confidence’ SUCCESS-SCORE in appendix 1b is 71.4 % (p<<0.0001), which is much higher than the overall SUCCESS-SCORE in appendix 1a, and this effect is visible regarding both the very high scorers (81.6 %, p<0.0005) and the very low scorers (67.9 %, p<0.005).

Another relevant aspect concerns the consensus among the handanalysts. The result of a calculation is that consensus is observed on 66.6 % of the judgements of the handanalysts, which resembles an ‘interobserver-reliability-score’ of 0.33 (which must be seen in the perspective of a scale varying from 0 (= no consensus at all) to 1.00 (= perfect consensus)). This means that on average 2 arbitrary handanalysts will agree on about 10 out of 15 cases, however on 5 cases they will not agree! A high disunity (= consensus does not exceed 70 %, or: the ‘interobserver-reliability-score’ < 0.40) is especially observed on the judgements regarding the following cases:  case 2, case 3, case 8, case 10, case 12, case 13, case 14 and case 15.
Interestingly, the calculation of the ‘consensus-interobserver-reliability-score’ leads to a result of 0.56, which is much higher compared to the overall ‘interobserver-reliability-score’ (= 0.33). Looking at the judgements in appendix 1b, in this perspective a high disunity is observed on the judgements regarding the following cases: case 2, case 3, case 12, case 13, case 14 and case 15.

Finally, we can also use the consensus among the handanalysts to define the judgement of the handanalysts as a group. When we ignore the eight cases with a high disunity, the ‘consensus-judgement’ among the other seven cases appears to result in a correct diagnosis! And therefore we might say that the ‘consensus-SUCCESS-SCORE’ is 100 % (significant at p< 0.01). However, also on these seven cases the consensus of the handanalysts is far from perfect, since the judgements of only three individual handanalysts resemble with all ‘consensus judgements’ of the group.     

Part B:

“How far are handanalysts able to couple a pair of hands with the accessory Big Five profile?”.

Appendix 2a shows the couples made by the handanalysts between the hands of the subject and the Big Five profiles. The above mentioned question can be answered by means of an analysis of the number of series in which all hands are coupled with the right Big Five profiles. From a statistical point of view we can expect that each handanalysts has been able to judge a least one series correct completely, and when a single handanalyst has been able to judge three series completely correct this can be labeled as a ‘significant’ result. The second last row in appendix 2a illustrates that only three handanalysts have been able to judge two series completely correct, which indicates that none of the handanalysts have has been able to perform a ‘significant’ result.

The number of correct couples (between the 15 subjects and the 15 Big Five profiles) can be used as a second approach to answer the above mentioned question. From a statistical point of view we can expect that every single handanalyst will be able to make at least five correct couples (= 33.3 %), and when a single handanalyst has been able to perform a result of nine correct couples (= 66.6 %) this can be labeled as a ‘significant’ result from a statistical point of view. The last row of appendix 2a show that the best performing handanalysts (handanalyst N) has been able to perform a result of eight right couples: none of the handanalysts has been able to perform a ‘significant’ result.  

From a statistical point of view we can expect that the handanalysts as a group will be able to judge at least 11 out of 65 series (= 13 handanalysts x 5 series) correct. However by fact the handanalysts as a group have been able to perform only 14 series out of 65 series correct: this result is far from ‘significant’. 
The SUCCESS-SCORE pro couple (judgement) made by the handanalysts, is only 38.9 % (where 33.3 % is expected from a statistical point of view).

Likewise part A, the handanalysts were provided the opportunity to express possible doubts about their judgements. Only the judgements of the handanalysts which were labeled with ‘confidence’ (= no guessing, no doubts) are shown in appendix 2b. Rather remarkable: the SUCCESS-SCORE of the ‘confidence-judgements’ (appendix 2b) performed by most of the individual handanalysts, is actually LOWER than to the ‘overall-SUCCESS-SCORE’ (appendix 2a) of  the individual handanalysts.

At part B the consensus among handanalysts can be studied in terms of the number of handanalysts which has chosen the most frequently chosen couple (between a single profile and the three possible subjects within a series). For example: regarding profile 1 (= series 1) three handanalysts have chosen case 1, four handanalysts have chosen case 2, and six handanalysts have chosen case 3: see appendix 2a en appendix 2c. This means the consensus is 46.2 % (six out of 13 handanalysts) that case 3 belongs to profiles 1 (which is correct!).
An analysis has shown that the consensus among the handanalysts on the most chosen couples is about 56.4 %, which resembles a ‘consensus-interobserver-reliability-score’ of 0.35 (which must be seen in the perspective of a scale varying from 0 (= no consensus at all) to 1.00 (= perfect consensus)). 

Finally the ‘consensus-judgement’ of the handanalysts can also be used see what couples were made by the handanalysts as a group. Appendix 2c presents a survey of the ‘consensus-judgements’. The last column of appendix 2c shows that the handanalysts as a group have been able to make 9 correct couples (between the subjects and the Big Five profiles) which is a ‘significant’ result in terms of statistics!!! Notice: the ‘consensus-judgements’ appear to be completely correct at series 1 and series 5, however none of the individual handanalysts has been able to exceed the ‘consensus-result’. 

Part C:

“How far is a subjects able to recognize themselves in the profile (among other profiles) which was compiled by the handanalyst for the concerning subject?”.

From a statistical point of view one can expect that every ‘female-subject’ will recognize the right profile in at least one series of the six series, and when one of these subjects is able to recognize the right profile in at least four series this will be labeled as a ‘significant’ result. The content of appendix 3a illustrates that every subject has indeed recognized the right profile in one of the series, however only two subjects have been able to recognize the right profile in two series (which means that the results are far from ‘significant’). Rather remarkable is that in series 3 and series 6 none of the subjects has recognized the right profile.

After making a first choice, the subjects were asked to make a second choice which represents a ‘runner-up’-profile. These ‘runner-up’-profiles are presented in appendix 3b. From a statistical point of view one might expect that every subject will be able to choose the right profile by means of a first + second choice, in at least two out of the six series, and when one of these subjects is able to recognize the right profile by means of a first + second choice in at least five series this will be labeled as a ‘significant’ result.
The content of appendix 3a and appendix 3b shows that in this perspective ‘subject 1’ has not been able to recognize more than one correct profile in the six series. The best result is performed by ‘subject 5’: in two series she has recognized the right profile by means of her first choice, and in two series she has recognized the right profile by means of her second ‘runner-up’ choice. The results at part C are far from ‘significant’.

However, the content of appendix 3a and appendix 3b does indicate that some consensus is observed in the profiles which were compiled by the handanalysts. For example: looking at the first and second choices of ‘subject 1’, it is obvious that she was quite frequently attracted to the profiles which were compiled on the basis of the hands of ‘subject 3’ and ‘subject 5’. ‘Subject 2’ was quite frequently attracted to the profiles which were compiled for subject 1. ‘Subject 3’ was quite frequently attracted to the profiles which were compiled for ‘subject 2’ and ‘subject 4’. ‘Subject 4’ was quite frequently attracted to the profiles which were compiled for her, however she was also attracted to the profiles which were compiled for ‘subject 2’ and ‘subject 3’. Only ‘subject 5’ had a clear preference for the profiles which were compiled on the basis of her hands.

Another rather remarkable fact is that the profiles which were correctly recognized by the subjects within a single series, were without exception also chosen by at least one other subject! The most illustrative example is observed on series 3: only one of the five subjects did NOT choose profile 3 as the first choice! And a similar result is observed on series 6: three subjects reported a first preference to profile 3, and the other two subjects reported a first preference to profile 2.

The five ‘female-subjects’ were also asked to report the two profiles in which they had not recognized oneself at all (or the least). From a statistical point of view the chance is quite high that a single subject will not report (in an arbitrary series) the profile which was compiled on the basis of her hands. And therefore only when a subject has not reported ‘her’ profile in all six series, the result will be labeled as ‘significant’.
However, the results in appendix 3c indicate that every subject has reported in at least one op the series, ‘her’ profiles as ‘not recognized at all (or the least)’. Notice: ‘subject 1’ and ‘subject 4’ have definitely not recognized ‘their’ profile on three out of the six series! Another confirmation that the results on part C are by far not ‘significant’.     

By the way, the described results resemble the experiences of the ‘female-subjects’ during the reading of the profiles. The subjects were asked to report on the first choice profiles in how many descriptions they had recognized themselves. The reports of the subjects indicate that they have experienced many difficulties during the process of making a first choice. However, the feedback provided to the researcher indicates that all five subject have been using a systematic approach during the process of making choices. Most subjects have observed in the profiles of each series, several personality features which they recognize within themselves. However the trouble is that these ‘recognized’ features were observed in at least several profiles (and sometimes in most of the profiles). During the process of making choices the subjects have also considered the relevance of features which they have not recognized within themselves at all.
Looking at the feedback of the subjects + the knowledge about the private life of the subjects, the researcher has the impression that all five subjects have paid quite a lot of attention to observing the content of the profiles of each series, and the researcher has reasons to think that the choices made by the subjects are quite ‘realistic’. Therefore the researcher does not have the impression that the choices of any of these subjects are distorted by a possible ‘lack of self-knowledge’.       

Discussion

Part A:

The significant results at part A indicate that several of the participating handanalysts have been able to discriminate a relatively high number of low scorers on FEAR from a number of high scorers. This is confirmed by the fact that most of the participating handanalysts have a relative high SUCCESS-SCORE on the cases which were labeled with ‘confidence’.
An important factor is identified which explains some part of the fact that the SUCCESS-SCORE of the handanalysts is not perfect: after the pilot-study has indicated that handanalysts are inclined (this might be a prejudgment) to score subjects as a high scorer on Neuroticism, the presented study has shown the same inclination regarding FEAR (one of the subdimensions of Neuroticism).
A second factor is related to the fact that the consensus among the handanalysts was very low on more than half of the cases. Interestingly, regarding the seven cases where the consensus among the handanalysts was high (> 70 %), the ‘consensus-judgement’ of the handanalysts was always correct, resulting in a ‘consensus-SUCCESS-SCORE’ of 100%.
Another interesting observation is that the consensus among the handanalysts appears to be related positively to the amount of confidence which was labeled by the handanalysts to the judgements.
 
Part B:

At part B most of the results are not ‘significant’: the results indicate that individual handanalysts are not able to make reliable couples between the hands of subjects and the Big Five profiles. This is confirmed by the fact that at part B the ‘confidence-SUCCESS-SCORE’ of most of the participating handanalysts was actually lower than the overall SUCCESS-SCORE of the individual handanalysts. Again the consensus among the handanalysts appears to be a crucial factor. It is rather remarkable that the ‘consensus-judgements’ were quite frequently correct, and in fact the ‘consensus-SUCCESS-SCORE’ (9 out of 15 ‘consensus-couples’ were correct) is the only relevant ‘significant’ result among the results of part B. However, consensus among the handanalysts did not appear to be a guarantee for a successful judgement, while the highest consensus among the handanalysts was observed at series 2 and series 3 however in both series only one out of three ‘consensus-couples’ appeared to be correct.

Part C:

The results at part C indicate that the participating ‘female-subjects’ experienced quite a lot of difficulties in recognizing the right personality profile which was compiled on the basis of their hands. It is true that the results indicate that there is at least some consensus in the content of the profiles which were compiled by the handanalysts, however the impression is that the consensus is not very high. The researchers has the impression that the subjects have been able to make careful examination of the profiles, and the researcher has reasons to think that the choices made by the subjects are quite ‘realistic’. Therefore the researcher does not have the impression that the choices of any of these subjects are distorted by a possible ‘lack of self-knowledge’.       
The results at part C indicate that (possible) fundamental limitations of the NEO PI-R questionnaire were NOT decisive to the results (referring to the SUCCESS-SCORES of the handanalysts) in part A and part B. For the results at part C were not ‘significant’ in terms of statistics.

Explaining the results

The relative low consensus at part A and part B indicates that the complexity of the research design might be an important factor which is decisive to the success of the handanalysts. Part B is much more complex than part A, for at part B much more information is presented to the handanalysts and in some series the differences between the Big Five profiles are not very high (though none of the participating handanalysts have claimed that this ‘complex’ factor plays an unacceptable important part in any of the series).

Next to the above mentioned ‘analytic hypotheses’ which provide explanations to the fact that the handanalysts were by far not able to perform a perfect SUCCESS-SCORE, one can speculate about the question whether the involved subjects have been able to present a realistic result on the NEO PI-R questionnaire. Both the self-knowledge of the subjects and possible fundamental limitations of the questionnaire might play an important part in this issue. However, from a practical point of view one can say that it is almost impossible to test such ‘speculations’ by means of ‘analytic facts’. Therefore it makes more sense if handanalysts will take the initiative in their own hands by continuing the search for methods which will lead to a higher consensus among handanalysts in the near future. High consensus is probably the most important condition before handanalysis will be recognized as a ‘full-grown’ competitor of the well accepted forms of personality assessment.

However, at least five other issues are involved in the results of the present study :

1-The quality of the research material?

The quality of the inkprints at part A and part B varies quite a lot. In most cases several aspects of the skin ridges in the palm and on the fingers are visible, however the pattern on the fingertips was emphasized by the researcher in order to avoid misunderstandings. Some of the handanalysts have confirmed that the quality of the material was not at all cases very well, however none of the handanalysts has asked for more feedback on the pattern of the skin ridges of specific cases. And therefore the researcher has concluded that the inkprint quality of each case was sufficient to make a ‘reliable’ diagnosis.  

The quality of the inkprints at part C was much more sufficient: at all five cases the pattern of the skin ridges is visible in most areas of the palm and on the fingers (though the fingerprints were again emphasized by the researcher to avoid misunderstandings). This is confirmed by the fact that one of the handanalysts has presented personality profiles which are exclusively based on the dermatoglyphics in the palm and on the fingers. 

2-The completeness of the research material?

One can say that the research material is not completely representative for the situation in which handanalysts usually operate: face to face with a client. A relevant missing factor in the research design is that the handanalysts were not able to study for example the color and the softness + flexibility of the palm and fingers. 

Though the relevance of this missing factor is discussible, a recent research study has indicated that this specific missing factor is probably not a decisive factor. In 1998 a research study was executed by a Dutch student at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam (Annema, 1998). Eight handanalysts were invited to perform a LIVE study of the hands of 40 testsubjects. However this was not a ‘face to face’ meeting between the handanalysts and the testsubjects since the testsubjects were positioned behind a curtain and both groups were not allowed to communicate. The meeting was primarily focussed on providing the handanalysts the opportunity to make notes about the relevant features of the hands of the subjects. After the meeting the handanalysts were asked to make an assessment of certain personality features of the testsubjects by means of the notes + a photocopy of the hand. The personality features of the testsubjects were determined by means of three personality questionnaires. However, despite the LIVE study of the hands the handanalysts were not able to perform any ‘significant’ result.

3-The experience of the handanalyst?

The following handanalysts reported that they have more then ten years of experience in the practice of handanalysis: handanalyst A, handanalyst B (+ series 2), handanalyst D, handanalyst J (series 6) and handanalyst K (series 5).
A simple analysis of the result at part A, part B and part C indicates that these very experienced handanalysts on average were not able to make a better performance than the less experienced handanalysts on any of these .

4-The background of the handanalyst?

The handanalysts were also asked to provide some information on their theoretical background in handanalysis. Several of the participating handanalysts claim to have studied a significant part of the literature on handanalysis.

The following eight handanalysts have a common background in handanalysis: handanalyst E, handanalyst F, handanalyst G, handanalyst H (series 4), handanalyst I (series 1), handanalyst K (series 5), handanalyst L and handanalyst M. 

A simple analysis of the results indicate that the average performance of this group of eight handanalyst was no better or worse than the average performance of the other handanalysts. However, at part A the consensus among this specific group of handanalysts (= 71.7 %) is much higher compared to the consensus among the other six handanalysts (= 59.8 %), however at part B the consensus among both groups is about to be equal. 
Three of the handanalysts with a common background in handanalysis have also participated in part C, and two of them were responsible for the best reported results at part C. Another relevant fact is that the consensus among the judgements of the five ‘female-subjects’ was about two times higher on the profiles made by handanalyst H, handanalyst I and handanalyst K, compared to the profiles which were compiled by the other three handanalysts (who do not share a common background in handanalysis). 

5-The content of the personality profiles compiled by the handanalysts?

During the preparation of part C the handanalysts were asked to create five different profiles, because otherwise the subjects might experience difficulties in discriminating the profiles from each other. The handanalysts were also asked to use a simple vocabulary, because a complex or abstract vocabulary might also create a situation in which the subject will experience difficulties in recognizing the ‘right’ profile.
However the feedback of the five ‘female-subjects’ indicates that:
-	some of the profiles resemble each other on several points, and some of the subjects felt that sometimes the same info was presented in different words. 
-	the use of language in some of the series was sometimes described as: ‘… so many words to make a simple point’.
-	some of the subjects had the feeling that the content of the profiles in some of the series was too much focussed on describing the restrictions or the weakness of the subject.     
-	another remarkable point is the fact that on some series most of the subjects have chosen the same profile. And all profiles which were identified correct at first choice, were also chosen by at least another subject.

In fact, quite a lot of the content of the profiles was perceived ‘neutral’ by several subject. Quite frequently the subjects had the feeling that it is quite hard to say ‘this is true’ or ‘this is not true’. The fact that most of the subjects have experienced difficulties during the process of making choices in all six series, indicates that in most of the series at least several of the above mentioned points have played a part.

However, the results illustrate that during reading the profiles most of the subjects had the feeling that the handanalysts have not been able to describe the ‘nucleus’ of the person.
 
A recommendation!

During making a personality profile in the perspective of a research program like the one presented in part C, handanalysts must really try to make it very easy for the subjects to say on each point: ‘yes, this is me’ or ‘no, this is not me’. In order to make this happen, handanalysts should put a well-recognized structure in the profiles, and the attention must focus on:
-	describing a balance between the positive personal qualities and restrictions/weakness of the person in daily life
-	the list of personality features should be written like a ‘personal story’ which reflects the identity of a person

Possibly the handanalysts have acted with too much caution. However the involved handanalysts are not to blame, since they have participated in the exploration of an aspect of handanalysis which was completely ignored in the long history of handanalysis. To be continued …!

References:

Mensvoort, M.C. (2000). Personality assessment by handanalysts: identifying high and low scorers on the personality dimensions Neuroticism and Extraversion.

Annema, E.J. (1998). Chiro-psychodiagnostiek? Een onderzoek naar de validiteit van handlijnkundige uitspraken. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: Faculteit der Psychologie & Pedagogische Wetenschappen, vakgroep Klinische Psychologie.

Appendix 1a: survey of the judgements made by the handanalysts at part A.

              Key:	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	Total	
1	H(igh)	L	H	H	H	H	L	L	H	L	H	H	H	H	H	71.4 %	
2	L(ow)	H	L	L	H	H	H	H	H	L	L	H	L	H	L	42.9 %	
3	L(ow)	L	H	L	L	H	H	L	H	L	H	H	H	H	H	35.7 %	
4	L(ow)	L	L	L	H	H	L	L	L	L	L	H	L	H	L	71.4 %	
5	L(ow)	H	L	H	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	H	H	L	L	71.4 %	
6	H(igh)	H	H	L	H	H	H	H	H	H	H	H	H	L	H	85.7 %	
7	L(ow)	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	H	L	92.9 %	
8	L(ow)	L	H	H	H	L	H	L	L	L	H	H	L	H	H	42.9 %	
9	H(igh)	H	H	H	L	H	L	H	H	H	H	H	H	H	L	78.6 %	
10	L(ow)	H	L	L	H	L	L	H	L	L	L	H	L	H	H	57.1 %	
11	L(ow)	L	L	L	L	H	L	H	L	L	L	H	L	H	L	71.4 %	
12	L(ow)	H	H	L	L	L	L	H	H	L	L	L	H	H	H	50.0 %	
13	L(ow)	H	L	H	H	L	H	H	L	L	H	L	L	L	H	50.0 %	
14	H(igh)	L	L	L	H	H	H	H	H	L	H	H	L	H	H	64.3 %	
15	L(ow)	L	L	L	H	H	H	H	L	H	L	H	H	L	L	50.0 %	
	53.3%	73.3%	66.6%	53.3%	66.6%	53.3%	53.3%	80.0%	80.0%	80.0%	46.6%	66.6%	40.0%	66.6%	62.4 %	
SUCCESS-SCORES regarding the:	
Low scorers	54.5%	72.7%	72.7%	45.5%	54.5%	54.5%	45.5%	72.7%	90.9%	72.7%	27.3%	63.6%	27.3%	54.5%	57.8 %	
High scorers	50%	75%	50%	75%	100%	50%	75%	100%	50%	100%	100%	75%	75%	75%	75.0 %	

Explanation: handanalyst A made 8 correct judgements out of 15 cases (= 53.3%). The average SUCCESS-SCORE of the handanalysts is 62.4 %.

Appendix 1b: Survey of the judgements of the handanalysts at part A which were labeled with ‘confidence’: these judgements are not the result of a ‘gamble’, and neither high doubts have played a part.
  
              Key:	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	Total	
1	H(igh)		H		H			L	H	L	H	H	H	H	H	80.0 %	
2	L(ow)		L		H			H	H				L	H		33.3 %	
3	L(ow)	L		L	L			L		L	H	H	H		H	55.5 %	
4	L(ow)	L	L	L	H			L		L	L			H		75.0 %	
5	L(ow)		L		L	L		L	L	L	L	H	H	L	L	81.8 %	
6	H(igh)	H	H	L	H	H		H	H	H	H	H	H	L	H	84.6 %	
7	L(ow)	L	L	L	L			L		L	L		L		L	100 %	
8	L(ow)		H	H	H			L		L		H		H	H	25.0 %	
9	H(igh)	H			L	H			H	H	H	H	H	H		88.9 %	
10	L(ow)		L	L	H				L	L	L	H				71.4 %	
11	L(ow)	L	L	L	L				L	L	L					100 %	
12	L(ow)	H	H							L	L				H	40.0 %	
13	L(ow)		L		H				L	L	H					60.0 %	
14	H(igh)	L						H		L	H	H			H	66.6 %	
15	L(ow)	L	L	L		H							H		L	66.6 %	
	77.7%	83.3%	75.0%	50.0%	75.0%	-	77.7%	87.5%	84.6%	83.3%	50.0%	62.5%	42.9%	66.6%	71.4 %	
SUCCESS-SCORE regarding:	
Low scorers	83.3%	80.0%	75.0%	44.4%	50.0%	-	83.3%	80.0%	90.0%	75.0%	  0%	66.6%	25.0%	66.6%	67.9%	
High scorers	66.6%	100%	  0 %	66.6%	100%	-	50.0%	100%	50.0%	100%	100%	75.0%	66.6%	100%	81.6%	

Appendix 2a: Survey of the judgements made by the handanalysts at part B.

	Key	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	
Series 1:	
Profile 1	3	-	2	1	1	3	2	3	1	3	2	3	2	3	3	
Profile 2	2	-	3	2	3	2	3	1	2	2	3	2	1	1	2	
Profile 3	1	-	1	3	2	1	1	2	3	1	1	1	3	2	1	
Series 2:	
Profile 4	5	-	4	6	4	4	4	6	4	6	4	6	4	6	4	
Profile 5	4	-	5	5	5	5	5	4	6	4	5	5	5	5	6	
Profile 6	6	-	6	4	6	6	6	5	5	5	6	4	6	4	5	
Series 3:	
Profile 7	8	-	8	8	7	9	8	8	8	9	8	9	9	8	8	
Profile 8	9	-	7	7	9	8	7	7	9	7	7	7	7	7	7	
Profile 9	7	-	9	9	8	7	9	9	7	8	9	8	8	9	9	
Series 4:	
Profile 10	11	-	10	12	11	10	11	10	11	10	10	11	11	12	10	
Profile 11	10	-	12	11	12	11	12	11	10	12	11	10	10	11	11	
Profile 12	12	-	11	10	10	12	10	12	12	11	12	12	12	10	12	
Series 5:	
Profile 13	14	-	14	14	14	14	13	13	13	14	14	14	13	15	14	
Profile 14	13	-	13	13	13	15	15	14	15	13	13	15	14	14	13	
Profile 15	15	-	15	15	15	13	14	15	14	15	15	13	15	13	15	
	
Number of correct series	-	1	1	1	1	0	0	2	2	1	2	1	0	2	
Percentage correcte ass. 	-	40.0%	33.3%	40.0%	46.6%	26.7%	33.3%	46.6%	46.6%	46.6%	46.6%	33.3%	13.3%	53.3%	

Explanation: handanalyst A did not participate in part B. Handanalyst B made a couple between case 2 aan profile 1; six out of the 15 couples made by handanalyst B were correct (= 40.0 %).

Appendix 2b: Survey of the judgements at part B which were labeled by the handanalysts with ‘confidence’: these judgements are not the result of a ‘gamble’, and neither high doubts have played a part.

                   Key:	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	
Profile 1	3	-	2					3	1	3	2	3	2	3		
Profile 2	2	-		2				1	2	2	3		1	1		
Profile 3	1	-						2	3	1	1	1	3	2		
Profile 4	5	-	4					6	4	6	4		4	6	4	
Profile 5	4	-	5	5					6	4		5		5		
Profile 6	6	-	6	4				5	5	5		4		4	5	
Profile 7	8	-		8				8	8	9			9	8	8	
Profile 8	9	-	7						9	7	7	7	7	7		
Profile 9	7	-							7	8	9		8	9		
Profile 10	11	-	10	12				10	11	10	10		11	12		
Profile 11	10	-	12	11				11	10	12	11			11	11	
Profile 12	12	-	11	10				12	12	11	12			10		
Profile 13	14	-							13	14	14		13			
Profile 14	13	-						14	15	13	13		14			
Profile 15	15	-							14	15	15	13	15		15	
		-	16.7%	28.6%	-	-	-	27.3%	46.6%	46.6%	41.6%	33.3%	18.2%	16.6%	40.0%	

Explanation: handanalyst A did not participate in part B. Handanalyst D, handanalyst E and handanalyst F did not report any judgements which were labeled with ‘confidence’.

Appendix 2c: Survey op the consensus judgements of the handanalysts at part B.

                 Key:	                          Survey:	Consensus 	
Series 1	
Profile 1	3	3 x case 1 	4 x case 2	6 x case 3	Case 3	
Profile 2	2	3 x case 1 	6 x case 2	4 x case 3	Case 2	
Profile 3	1	7 x case 1 	3 x case 2	3 x case 3	Case 1	
Series 2	
Profile 1	5	8 x case 4 	0 x case 5	5 x case 6	Case 4	
Profile 2	4	2 x case 4 	9 x case 5	2 x case 6	Case 5	
Profile 3	6	3 x case 4 	4 x case 5	6 x case 6	Case 6	
Series 3	
Profile 1	8	1 x case 7 	8 x case 8	4 x case 9	Case 8	
Profile 2	9	10 x case 7 	1 x case 8	2 x case 9	Case 7	
Profile 3	7	2 x case 7 	4 x case 8	7 x case 9	Case 9	
Series 4	
Profile 1	11	6 x case 10 	5 x case 11	2 x case 12	Case 10	
Profile 2	10	3 x case 10	6 x case 11	4 x case 12	Case 11	
Profile 3	12	4 x case 10 	2 x case 11	7 x case 12	Case 12	
Series 5	
Profile 1	14	4 x case 13	8 x case 14	1 x case 15	Case 14	
Profile 2	13	6 x case 13	3 x case 14	4 x case 15	Case 13	
Profile 3	15	3 x case 13	2 x case 14	8 x case 15	Case 15	

Appendix 3a: survey of the profiles which were chosen by the subjects as the first choice.

	Series 1	Series 2	Series 3	Series 4	Series 5	Series 6	
T.S. 1	Profile T.S.5  	Profile T.S. 5 	Profile T.S. 3 	Profile T.S. 5 	Profile T.S. 1	Profile T.S. 2 	
T.S. 2	Profile T.S. 1 	Profile T.S. 2 	Profile T.S. 4 	Profile T.S. 1 	Profile T.S. 3 	Profile T.S. 3 	
T.S. 3	Profile T.S. 2 	Profile T.S. 2 	Profile T.S. 3	Profile T.S. 4	Profile T.S.1	Profile T.S. 2	
T.S. 4	Profile T.S. 3 	Profile T.S. 5 	Profile T.S. 3 	Profile T.S. 4 	Profile T.S. 4 	Profile T.S. 2 	
T.S. 5	Profile T.S. 5 	Profile T.S. 1 	Profile T.S. 3 	Profile T.S. 5 	Profile T.S. 4 	Profile T.S. 3 	

Explanation: for example at series 1 testsubject 1 (T.S. 1) has chosen the profile which was compiled on the basis of the hands of testsubject 5 (Profile T.S. 5).

Appendix 3b: survey of the ‘second-choice-profiles’ of the testsubjects. 

	Series 1	Series 2	Series 3	Series 4	Series 5	Series 6	
T.S. 1	Profile T.S.3  	Profile T.S. 3 	Profile T.S. 5 	Profile T.S. 3 	Profile T.S. 3	Profile T.S. 4 	
T.S. 2	Profile T.S. 2 	Profile T.S. 1 	Profile T.S. 2 	Profile T.S. 3 	Profile T.S. 1 	Profile T.S. 1 	
T.S. 3	Profile T.S. 1 	Profile T.S. 4 	Profile T.S.1	Profile T.S. 1	Profile T.S. 4	Profile T.S.5	
T.S. 4	Profile T.S. 2 	Profile T.S. 1 	Profile T.S. 2 	Profile T.S. 3 	Profile T.S. 5 	Profile T.S. 4 	
T.S. 5	Profile T.S. 2 	Profile T.S. 5 	Profile T.S. 5 	Profile T.S. 1 	Profile T.S. 1 	Profile T.S. 2 	

Explanation: for example at series 1 the second choice of testsubject 1 (T.S. 1) was the profile which is compiled on the basis of the hands of testsubject 3 (Profile T.S. 3).

Appendix 3c: survey of the profiles which were labeled by the testsubjects as: ‘this is not me!’.

	Series 1	Series 2	Series 3	Series 4	Series 5	Series 6	
T.S. 1	Profile 2 and 4 	Profile 2 and 4	Profile 1 and 4	Profile 1 and 4	Profile 2 and 4	Profile 1 and 5	
T.S. 2	Profile 4 and 5 	Profile 3 and 5	Profile 3 and 5 	Profile 4 and 5 	Profile 2 and 4 	Profile 4 and 5 	
T.S. 3	Profile ?	Profile ?	Profile 2 and 4	Profile 2 and 5	Profile 2 and 5	Profile 1 and 3	
T.S. 4	Profile 1 and 4	Profile 2 and 4	Profile 1 and 4	Profile 1 and 2	Profile 1 and 2	Profile 1 and 3	
T.S. 5	Profile 3 and 4	Profile 3 and 4	Profile 4 	Profile 2 	Profile 2 and 5	Profile 1 and 5	

Explanation: for example at series 1 the label ‘this is not me!’ was putten by testsubject 1 (T.S. 1) at profile 2 and profile 4.