Recently I heard a radio announcer mock an educationist for suggesting that handwriting analysis be used to understand children a little better.  From the announcer’s comments, it was quite clear she was ignorant about what handwriting analysis involves.  An academic who was questioned over the air was emphatic that there is no empirical evidence for handwriting analysis as a credible field of study.  This is simply not true.  It is offered as part of psychology degrees at universities across the world. Academics the world over have spend their entire careers research handwriting and its connection with personality.

Among these are  G. Meyer and  E Axel whose work was the precursor to the theory of expressive behaviour. Other academics include Ludwig Klages who studied the relationship between contraction and release in handwriting and rhythm in writing; Robert Saudek who spent a significant part of his career on researching speed in handwriting.  He used motion picture equipment to measure handwriting.  He also studied the link between handwriting and mental abilities of twins (Seiffer 2009).  Max Pulver has been credited for showing the link between handwriting and psychodynamic theory.  He also introduced the concepts of the zonal theory in handwriting analysis.   Felix Klein developed the theory of Gestalt where handwriting features in particular configurations will modify each other. The list goes on. Klara Roman, Ulrich Sonneman, Nadia Olyanova, G, Moretti, Erika Karohs, A. Mendel, F. Victor, I Marcuse, H. Teltscher and many other academics.

It is ironic that handwriting as a measure of personality is regarded with cynicism by some academics, yet other projective techniques used in the world of psychology are still questioned.  Handwriting Analysis as with many other fields of Human Science, is not an exact science and can never be as it deals with the unconscious.