From what the candidate described, the interview protocol had been sanitized of pertinent or productive questionning. For example, the candidate was posed the following question: "Have you ever felt guilty about a way you treated an associate at work?" When the candidate replied "yes", he was read (or so it sounded) this follow-up: "Provide me with examples of instances in which you made an associate feel guilty within the past week." (Actually, the interviewer, who may have jumbled the words from her over-rehearsed statement, probably intended: "Provide me with examples of instances over the past week in which you felt guilty about a way you treated an associate."

The candidate reported having felt compelled to answer "yes" to the first question, because he quickly learned that by answering "no," he would be shlepped to the next question on the assembly line. But when the follow-up question limited the scope of the candidate's response to "the past week," he was again challenged. He felt that had he provided an answer to the follow-up, he would be implying frequency by recency, thereby raising doubts about his conduct in the work place. If he did not answer the question, how many, if any, opportunities would he receive in the interview to express himself. The candidate was also posed this question: "Do you enjoy receiving quantitative feedback about your performance?" When the candidate answered "yes," the interviewer followed-up with "Provide me with examples of all the instances in which you received quantitative feedback about your performance over the past week." In actuality, upon fielding this question, the candidate must have wondered: "how daft is the interviewer?" The candidate reported he had not received quantitative feedback on job performance in 6 years of private sector employment let alone on multiple occasions the prior week. In other words, the candidate was desperate to work in extraneous details into his response so that in the very least he could demonstrate an ability to convey a complete thought in grammatically correct units. No doubt the interviewer at this point mumbled something to the effect of, "so that would be a 'no'" as she checked the appropriate box on her form.

Perhaps the most destructive aspect of this interview was that the candidate felt as if the only thing he did over "the past week" was prepare for the interview. Oh, how we would have loved to field a question like: "Provide me with all the reasons you came up with, in preparing for this interview over the past week, for our needing to hire you." Then you'd have something vaguely resembling an interview! But sadly, no, the candidate was alotted no such opportunity, nor was he permitted following the series of questions to present in open-ended fashion his case for employment for which he meticulously prepared over the course of the previous week. He really had the sense that he was talking to someone who was seated behind a one-way-mirror. Damned if he would know how any of the questions related to job performance. Gallup designed a system of mirrors that allowed them to assess his qualifications without having to face him directly, without him attempting to sell himself. And here I thought it was an interview for a sales job (har har)!

"Even the Los Angeles Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, which presented a similar style interview, gave me that chance," remarked the candidate. The interview conducted by the military contained relevant questions that allowed the candidate to make his case for competitive job compatibility and also appeared to bend but not break under the weight of extraneous details. Moreover, following the standardized portion of the interview, the Army Corps of Engineers interview explicitly asked the candidate whether he had any questions for the committee and whether the candidate had anything pertinent to add.

Exploitation of the Unemployed American Worker

The candidate used the following adjectives in describing the Gallup interview as a "waste of his time": "unproductive," "perfunctory," "hand-cuffing," and "dehumanizing." To summarize the gist of his complaint, the candidate felt he was treated like one of the livestock, herded into 20-30 minute blocks for mindless processing by a company whose products and services are predicated on respecting, developing, and harnessing the strengths of individuals. I suspect we are all left to wonder whether the "strength" and "individuality" of this candidate made him an "imperfect" fit for Gallup.

I also have to speculate about some of the other perks associated with Gallup's interview process. Think about it. Gallup posts a position announcement to Hotjobs.com and, in fulfillment of the requirements for the application process, hundreds of individuals complete their online StrengthsFinder questionnaire. With negligible effort on its part, Gallup in perhaps a single day collects enough data to re-assess the psychometric properties of their tool. Could it be that the Gallup Organization is using employee recruitment and screening as a cover for mass testing of its questionnaire (oh, I'm sorry, "psychometric tool/instrument")? I certaintly sympathize with the temptation. I mean, the second most time-efficient way to collect data would require Gallup officials to solicit the cooperation of university faculty in the hopes students in large survey courses (e.g., Psych 101) would agree to complete the questionnaire in exchange for course credit (or for extra credit). With the bare minimum of effort, Gallup is able to take full advantage of its relationship with the faculty of Monster.com, which reaches a fairly sizeable classroom of its own. And no IRB boards!

Gallup Failed to Provide Debriefing

The candidate also expressed concern that he had not received the results of the demanding 180-item StrengthsFinder questionnaire. "Wouldn't you think that having invested the time and effort to complete the questionnaire and that the assessment tool is an integral part of the job in which I am interested, that I might want to know my strengths?" remarked the candidate. It seems improper for Gallup officials to withhold from their respondent the talents to which they refer as the "building blocks of a strong and productive life." Or is the significance of this information confined to the sales floor?

I leave you with the following from Gallup's web site:

"At Gallup, we are just as committed to our employees. We select our associates for their talents, position them for success, and then provide them with opportunities to use their talents every day. Surrounded by caring, passionate, driven associates, you will immerse yourself in a fulfilling career, and your contributions will have a direct impact on Gallup's mission and business outcomes."

As a Personality Instrument, Gallup's StrengthsFinder Raises Suspicions

As a personality psychologist trained in psychometric assessment, I am familiar with the psychometric approach to personality and other taxonomic systems like the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The methodology employed by Gallup, while perfectly suited to the measurement of its strengths, is not a substantive approach to the exploration of the personality by any stretch of the imagination. I wish now to call your attention to a key distinction between Individual Differences Psychology and Personality Psychology. Individual differences psychologists boast administering large questionnaires to large numbers of people, not unlike Gallup's claim of having administered a 180-item StrengthsFinder to 2 million people. Which makes me wonder at what number Gallup will begin using McDonald's "billions and billions served." The raw data in research like that performed by Gallup is the ratings or selections of people completing the questionnaire (e.g., a "6" on a 7-point scale, or an "Agree" on a scale ranging from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree"). The responses are then plugged into a multivariate statistical formula (perhaps a principal component factors analysis), which places into groups questions which elicited similar patterns of responses among the respondents as a group. Another way to articulate this is to say that statistical techniques are used to identify ways in which a group of individuals typically cluster the questions. In particular, the technique seeks to discover if the observed behavior (responses to the 180 questions) can be explained largely or entirely in terms of a much smaller number of as-yet unknown variables (the factors). The 34 strengths may be interesting, even useful, but if you do not happen to find them interesting or useful, do not be seduced by the cosmetic air of science provided by the statistics. Desirable psychometric properties like large factors, high validity, and high reliability, can be stilted. For example, let's say I wanted support for my personality classification scheme, which consists of Skepticism and Sociality. I then design a questionnaire with 200 questions, 100 of which solicit opinions about beliefs in paranormal phenomena ranging from UFOs to ESP to ghosts, and another 100 of which solicit information about how outgoing a person is. What we have here is two clearly distinct sets of questions, and within each set, there may be many questions worded so similarly in pursuit of such similar information, that the factor analysis will return 2 distinct and internally consistent factors with all the data necessary for the scientist to proclaim, "my personality taxonomy is wildly reliable and valid! See? The world is made up of people who are either skeptical or open-minded, and who are either social or shy!" When you read the publication, which in the interests of space limitations, not only withholds the raw data and list of questionnaire items from the public (final draft), but such data is seldom requested or reviewed by the committee ruling on the merits of the research (har har). Like you, the much-maligned "man-in-the-street" (the scientifically-challenged citizen), the peer review committee is dazzled by claims to coefficients (numbers) that exceed professional standards for valid questionnaires. And that's all they see. By my illustration above, I do not mean to imply that the potential misuse or abuse of factor analysis is rampant, only that about a million different pictures of reality can be painted through the use of numbers.

Take for example the Big 5 Personality Taxonomy. This is by far the boldest effort to establish a taxonomy of personality, and it originated within Psychology's academic community (i.e. in colleges & universities). With its self-moniker (i.e. "Gallup University") Gallup seeks to bask in the perceived legitimacy of statistical techniques widely employed by university scientists (and no doubt Gallup employs many such PhDs), but this remains a profit-driven corporation operating on a business model. There are a spectrum of businesses that now utilize the university nomenclature, ranging from the formerly named DeVry Institute at one end to the Fairfax City's "Buffalo Wing University". (I recommend the chicken wings). But the Big 5, this was a pure grassroots and expeditionary effort, the "PBS" of research projects compared to Gallup's equivalent of the Discovery Channel. Big 5 researchers, at this point not knowing their factors would number five, began by identifying every trait-related word in the natural language dictionary (and there were thousands of them). They removed some redundant words and organized the words into antonym-synonym pairs, which became the endpoints of bipolar rating scales along which hundreds of respondents rated themselves or others (depending on the study). In study after study, statistical analysis of the questionnaire data produced the same set of five factors. The questionnaire items making up each of these five groupings were then reviewed and, based on their similarity, judgments were made as to what to name the factors. Even the names of the factors (as well as their size rankings) were fairly consistent across studies!: (1) Introversion-Extraversion, (2) Agreeableness, (3) Conscientiousness, (4) Neuroticism, and (5) Culture or Openness to Experience. These five factors became the axes of a generic model of human personality, although, as far as I know, there are no commercial versions of the questionnaire for sale. And just as Gallup performed research correlating strength profiles with employment outcomes, so a number of academic studies correlated Big 5 profiles with all sorts of outcomes.

As impressed as I am with the spectacle of the Big 5 personality taxonomy, especially considering the fact, notwithstanding an indentured graduate student here and there, Big 5 researchers did not have an army of paid employees at its beck and call, I couldn't be more underwhelmed by the 'so-what' results. Yes, they can dazzle me with reliability and validity coefficients. But what is the point of cataloguing people by plotting them in five-dimensional space. How does that help us understand anyone? And while I have my complaints about the The Myers-Briggs Type Inventory, its explanatory power and aesthetic architecture remains in a class by itself, largely because it was constructed from Jung's living, full-blooded theory of personality. Reading Jung's theory of the psyche fills me with the same feeling as watching a fetal ultrasound. There's a "wow" quality to his description of a psyche as dynamic as the daily stock market and as macro-developing as pediatric texts on childhood growth. This is not just a list of characteristics (like the Gallup strengths), nor is it just a skeletal structure (a blueprinted basement) like the Big 5. Bound to one another like balls of shape-shifting lava in Sergey Brin's dorm room lamp, his "functions" are intrinsically related to one another and relevant to just about everything you do in life, from the way you take a dump in the morning to the manner in which you slip into bed at night (and then to the very way you dream!). And Jung's functions did not roll off a factory line. During years of clinical practice and historical, religious, literary, and anthropological studies, Jung became intimately acquainted with whole persons and, only after drawing conclusions within whole individuals (preserving the integrity and diversity of the individual) did he extract and abstract commonalities among individuals. The so-called Strengths and the Big 5, they poured out the other end a statistical sausage grinder designed to produce 'rules' for which the vast majority of individuals are exceptions. And they either used standardized methods and materials and/or cherry-picked samples of behaviors, but in no way was any individual ever represented in the data. I have heard the expression "Garbage In, Garbage Out." Similarly, you can't expect to distill knowledge about individuals that can be reasonably applied to individuals based on information that does not come from individuals. This is the problem with much of the Trait (Individual Differences) and Type Psychology of the modern era, which unfortunately makes up the vast majority of Psychology's incredibly shrinking Personality branch. Given the dialectical nature of the relationships among Jung's "functions" (we are all human and so every one of these functions finds a way to express itself through our personality), Jung would have found simplistic the practice of affixing any one function to a person like some kind of label. And I suspect he would found its use in applicant screening downright deplorable.

Fielding Concerns about Report on I/O Psychology Listserv

Since breaking the story, I fielded mixed reactions on a listserv for industrial-organizational psychologists sponsored by the American Psychological Association. Psychologists are usually adept at presenting a unified front, quashing doubts, minimizing tension, and managing consensus. However, my Gallup story, not unlike my "APPIC Discrimination" and "Opposites Do Not Attract" stories, appears to have driven a wedge through this manicured community.

One future I/O psychologist opined that it is in keeping with the "best practice" of employers to prevent applicants from using self-promotional tactics to obscure their real competencies:

"If they had listened to [applicant's] pre-planned 'pitch', then the job would go to the person who is the best self-marketer, not the person with the combination of competencies needed for the particular job."

One of the more empathetic of the future I/O psychologists remarked that the unpleasantness of structured interview formats is a price he's willing to pay for validity:

"The unfortunate truth is that many of these unsatisfying tools are the ones that are most easy to justify ethically, legally, and scientifically. So there is much pressure to use them."

Some listserv participants expressed brute support for Gallup, with one supporter proclaiming that "the bottom line in fair assessment is validity. Less structured interviews are correlated at close to zero with actual performance in the job."

I was pleased to receive responses from those participants with firsthand experience dealing with the Gallup organization. A University of Michigan graduate student writes:

"How relevant! I just finished Gallup's online personality assessment yesterday and received an email today to schedule a phone interview with them."

Another participant writes:

"I did the online interview with Gallup last year and I feel much the same, the process is very long, and you recieve no feedback regarding your results. I did speak with Gallup people at the SIOP in Orlando, and they said they would look into providing me with some information/feedback, I am still waiting for this information."

Perhaps most surprising was a note of support from a participant who reported having been employed with The Gallup Organization's Omaha office for over a year prior to pursuing graduate work:

"I too have had an interview like the aforementioned one, consisting of yes and no questions which where followed by examples. That I didn't have a problem with. I was more upset by the fact that for their lower level positions (like telephone interviewer) you were simply hired if your 'strengths' match the 'strengths' they are looking for. I was always wondering why they never asked about previous work history, since I saw so many new employees with less than steller work experience quit the position after less than a month. So I too have always wondered about the validity of their strengthsfinder approach, but for different reasons."

A former telecommunications industry executive offered a more thoughtful outlook on the report and urged me not to demand too much from our organizations:

"Not to defend Gallup's hiring process, but this could very well be a case of an uninspired lower-level HR staffer attempting to sift through a large number of applicants, for a small number of open positions, while meeting a looming deadline. Or, perhaps the interviewer was not adequately trained and indoctrinated on the use and intent of the screening tool. It's possible HR selected an employee interviewing tool that was not consistent with the external (i.e. sales) message. Unfortunate, but not unusual. In the real world, it's sadly not at all uncommon to see corporations saying one thing externally, while practicing something altogether different internally. It doesn't make it right...I was more often than not disappointed with the quality of 'screened' applicants I would end up interviewing. HR had a tendency to screen out the very people I might have wanted to hire. Clearly a major disconnect here. The larger question, in my mind, is why this happens."

Having sampled voices from within that corner of the psychological community trained in organizational recruiting and culture, I find I am able to frame my opposition to Gallup with more clarity and impact. I am inclined to agree with the telecommunications industry executive in suspecting that an uninspired low-level HR employee followed a script handed down from higher-ups. However, it does beg the question: How much confidence does Gallup have in the strengths of its own employees if it requires them to use a standardized protocol? Or is it perhaps that Gallup does not have much confidence in the tool used to hire its employees?

Admit it? By now you're also wondering, as I am, what themes Gallup seeks from its employees. Perhaps Gallup staffs its low-level positions with individuals scoring high on the themes coined "Harmony," ("People strong in the Harmony theme look for consensus. They don't enjoy conflict; rather, they seek areas of agreement"); "Consistency" ("People strong in the Fairness theme are keenly aware of the need to treat people the same. They try to treat everyone in the world fairly by setting up clear rules and adhering to them"); and "Discipline" ("Discipline People strong in the Discipline theme enjoy routine and structure. Their world is best described by the order they create"). I could certainly provide a list of the Gallup themes I see lacking in its own approach to interviewing clients:

I would not want this StrengthsFinder in the hands of organizations, because it deprives individual applicants of opportunities to manage their impression for a job. As a disturbing example of science's triumph over free will and understanding, StrengthsFinder joins the ranks of such other anti-libertarian marvels as cloning, frankenfood, and bunker-busters. It deprives individuals of the capacity to function as individuals in a social interaction, denying them their basic human ability to understand, monitor, and control how they will be perceived. And it unfairly disqualifies qualified employees. It has to. For the process not to be wildly unfair, every link in the following causal chain would have to be just (and I don't mean justifiable, which is closer than "just" to what I/O psychologists mean by "valid"):

• Gallup administers its StrengthsFinder. Let's say its validity coefficient for strengths C and D are .40. I am being generous here, as most validity coefficients in psychological science are extraordarily weak, not that .40 explains very much variance. (Actually a predictor with this valitity explains only (.4 x .4) 16% of the variance in what is being predicted [criterion]).
  

In a nutshell, there are a great number of applicants who, for whatever reason, possess strength C and D but who do not test as such. One reason might be that you are an unconventional person and the so-called "laws" generated from factory-direct correlational research, the "laws" by which consumers of the research make their hiring decisions, do NOT apply to you, then chances are, you are going to get screwed. By that I mean, employers will find a convenient means of putting your folder in the piles marked 'at-risk' or 'low percentage' or 'imperfect fit,' when in actuality, you might have done a great job for them either because you actually possess the qualities they are looking for or because you just would have done a great job without those qualities. In any event, you may have to live your life as the 'false negative.' While institutions, including corporations, gov't agencies, and universities are prepared to acknowledge 'false negatives,' they feel such false negatives are pose no threat to their business as long as they can count on a large applicant pool to provide them with a critical number of true positives. Interesting proposition though, isn't it? That there are castoffs against whom the psychometric sound (and fury) machine discriminates? That would be an interesting minority group. Anyway, let's continue our high-level overview of the Gallup method.

• Gallup persuades company A that its job position B requires strengths C and D. Is Gallup really familiar with this company and its position? Or is it treating these entities categorically? Position B may benefit from strengths E and F as well as C and D.
  

• Strength E and F in one package (applicant A) may behave very differently than strengths E and F in another package (applicant B). A superficial, fractured, and gross correlational approach with an insufficient understanding of personality (to which our field is nowhere near) will be effective in some cases, ineffective in others. Statements made on the basis of validity studies are like rules for which the vast majority of real-life instances are exceptions. We've created a statistical fiction, but that's okay, because in the end not much changes from Gallup's point of view. People will be hired. And people will be turned down. Life goes on, just more easily for Gallup, its paying customers, and those on whom the test results smile.
  

For those of you arguing that it is perfectably acceptable to sacrifice our freedom and sensorium so that employees can scientifically justify the expedient hiring algorithms and heuristics that deindividuate and disqualify able-bodied candidates, I say this:

Correlations are as imperfect as they are scientific. The GRE Verbal, for example, is the best predictor we have of performance in graduate school and it accounts for what -- 16% -- of the variance in graduate school performance. And yet we continue to use this (and the other scales) as "predictive" (probably because they offer an expedient quick-and-dirty method, with a cosmetic semblance of science, of sorting applicants into piles). And we all admit that the GRE is not a stand-alone solution. This is why graduate admission committees reserve an adjutant role for the GRE. There is still the matter of the essay, individual achievement in the form of reading and research, compatibility of interests, GPA, and an interview that is "relevant." The Gallup method has the advantage of being able to process a great number of applicants. That is the up side. The down side, which spells death to "real" validity, is the fact it is grossly and brutally categorical. No pattern of psychometrically studied standard question-dichotomous answers can convey information about the intrinsic relationship between the candidate personality and the job. You cannot correlate whole persons, just highly circumscribed and generic personological variables of varying relevance to any given person. In our field, we deal in this para-individual ectoplasm, a primordial soup of partitioned variance that represents a sort of etic tradition that places "characteristics" and "issues" at the center of a field at which the "individual" should be central. Our unabashedly nomothetic methodology does not preserve the integrity of the individual, grinding selected matter cherry-picked from their persons through a statistical formula that produces a rule for which the vast majority of individuals are exceptions. This is by no means comparable to the practice of treating a manageable sample of whole persons as a series of n = 1 experiments, for which we can suspend cross-person generalizations until we have drawn conclusions within individuals. This abstraction of commonalities is not the same process as the extraction performed through nomothetic data mining. There is an invalidness about the way we validate relationships in this field.

In this interview we are not talking about an instrument with surgical precision like a scalpel. We're talking about a blunt instrument like a cudgel or rapier. Other organizations use similar algorithms in hiring, but you would not know it because it is not the sole basis of hiring and, if it were, it need not be "unpleasant" or "unproductive." I have personally been turned down for jobs but have learned a great deal in the process of being a candidate. And I felt respected. I suppose this is comparable to a widespread practice in modern psychology departments whereby students take multiple choice exams based solely on textbooks (and lectures based solely on textbooks). While such a system is able to process classes of 300+ students (again, the "upside"), the students are short-changed. There is very little mind expansion that occurs in (a) studying for such a test, (b) taking such a test, and (c) receiving the results of such a test. Those who acknowledge that the system is tragically but necessarily flawed are honest and make the most of a bad situation. The person who celebrates this science by tauting its "systematic and psychometric properties," well, let's just diplomatically say "there goes the next director of Gallup's education division." It is also analogous to situations where pharmacologic management of symptoms is effective but unnecessary. Yes, the research shows how effective the pills are at alleviating the symptoms, but who is performing or discussing the research that shows that a psychological management of the symptoms results in personal growth, mind expansion, and skill development?

There are always individuals who would have performed brilliantly, if not superlatively, in a position for which they were not selected because they did not fit the mold designated by "predictive criteria." I suspect that what Gallup does, Gallup does for Gallup, not for its employees, not for its clients, and not for any ideal like individualized education. Liturgical observance of the "predictive criteria" produces a homogeneous community and this is just not consistent with Gallup's mantra of customization and individualization. I'm sorry, but however you slice and dice this, it is misleading. The individuals for whom the Gallup mantra holds the most appeal are those most likely to feel spurned by the interview protocol. Now, having said that, no individual should want to work for an organization for which such an interview is even remotely predictive. As I said, the individuality and strength exhibited by some applicants make them an imperfect fit for Gallup.

Open-ended interview questions, at least in an adjutant role (e.g., the US Army Corps of Engineers), would be ideal but only if there is an intelligent person at the other end who understands how to characterize strengths and match them with position responsibilities. But I need not even broach this rather fertile subject, because the closed-ended Gallup questions did not even address one's strengths. Gallup forgot that there are humans involved in this scientific hiring process. The person whose case I presented felt as though he had been interviewed by their political polling department. If I were hired by Gallup based on that interview, I would no longer want the job. From what I understand, that interview was simply scatter-brained and alienating. Moreover, Gallup would have undermined my trust in their "solution."

Gallup should concede that they are looking for clerks, not for special individuals. They are looking for warm bodies who fit a very structured job assignment.

fireflySun.com Report List

16 Points Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Authors, Scholars Unite to Support Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Dream Researcher Gail Bixler: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Our Fear of Exposure Therapy: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Interviews with Internal Correspondent: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Psychology Professors Suffer from Professional Analogue of Borderline Personality Disorder: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Student Defies Psychology Professor's Warning Not to Correspond with Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Chides Daniel Dennett for Evangelical Atheism in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Argues Psychology Graduate Education Not Worth the Money: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Professors Acknowledge Student Complaints about Curriculum: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Answers Critics, Campaign of Diversionary Tactics: Wyatt Ehrenfels

American Psychological Association Denies Listserv Members Access to Wyatt Ehrenfels OKTV Broadcast Report: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Talks about the Dissertation Experience: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses a Methodology for Dream Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dreaming from Psychologist Negative Thinking: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Urban E-Zine Entelechy Publishes Wyatt Ehrenfels Essay: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Defends Dream Research against Vaunted Psychology News Group Moderator: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Customizes Probe to Explore Dreaming-Waking Interface: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Kindred Critic Dennis Fox: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Elio Frattaroli: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Political Scientist John Freie: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Biologist John Hewitt: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Shows Support for Embattled Psychology Graduate Student: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels Students on True Callings: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Amuses with Proposal of Psychology Graduate Program Insurance: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Corrective Statistical Procedure Emblematic of Psychology's Flaws: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Brad Jesness Target of Malicious Psychologists on Usenet: Brad Jesness

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Medal-Winning Author M.J. John: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Critical of Vaunted Cornell Research Claiming Opposites Do NOT Attract: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Criticizes Berkeley Psychology Professors for Left Wing Bias: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Links to Education and Appropriations Subcommittees: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Thunders Away at Psychology's Load-Bearing Premises: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Counsels High School Students on Choice of College Major: Wyatt Ehrenfels

APPIC Match Service Helps Veterans Hospital Psychologists Discriminate against Applicants w/ Disabilities: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Professional Development at Odds with Adult Maturation: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Republishes Work of College Curriculum Critic and FOX News Writer Wendy McElroy: Wendy McElroy

Wyatt Ehrenfels Likens Psychological Research to Premature Ejaculation: Wyatt Ehrenfels

According to Social Psychologist Wyatt Ehrenfels, Diversity Is Skin Deep, Black-and-White at University of Michigan: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Dismantles Psychology's Standard Defenses against Criticism: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Points to Hypocrisy in Terror Management Research: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Revitalized Pocket Memo: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Publishes Critique in Revolution Issue of New Therapist Magazine: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Is Psychology at Odds with Itself?: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Campaign Not Intend to Offend Psychology Majors: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Why Community Access Television Is Coming Around to Wyatt Ehrenfels: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels's Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Are Psychology Professors Prejudiced against Psyche: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology's Science of Dreams Fails Science and Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Psychology Graduate Schools Blasted for Culture of Student Character Assassination: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Ode to Psychology Students: Are You Making A Major out of a Molehill: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Multicultural Fetish of Psychology Professors Belie Suppression of Individual Freedom, Ideas in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Games without Frontiers: Ehrenfels Depicts Science of Psychology as ADHD: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Uses Evolutionary Theory, Natural Selection to Impugn D-Volving Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals American Psychological Association as Lobbying Tour de Force: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Shares Bizarre Tale of Application for University Position: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Dreams & Dreaming Frequently Asked Questions: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Discusses Predictive Power of Tornado Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Releases Preface to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

In a Drugged States, New Mexico Legislators Give Psychologists Prescriptive Authority: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun Press Release: Katheryn Moyer

Psychology Majors Respond to Wyatt Ehrenfels fireflySun.com: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Personality Taxonomy: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Blueprint for Blighted Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

From Position of Ignorance, APA Official Diverts Attention from/Urges Skepticism for, Wyatt Ehrenfels APPIC Discrimination Report: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comes to Terms with Roiled Psychology Graduate Student and News Group Moderator: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Responses to Wyatt Ehrenfels Campaign to Reform Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Independent Publisher Offers Glowing Review of Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Psychotherapist Robert Roerich: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Says Psychology Professors Play Games with Rules: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Physicist Jeff Schmidt: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Reveals Groupthink, Abuse in Psychology Faculty Evaluation of Graduate Students: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Begins Sequel to Fireflies in the Shadow of the Sun: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Exposes Counseling Center Hiring Preference for Gays, Lesbians: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Diagnoses the Diagnosticians with the Shadow DSM: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Prominent UC-Davis Dream Researcher Dodges Wyatt Ehrenfels Draft of Reformers: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Teams with Management Consulting Maven R. Mallory Starr: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Overview of Wyatt Ehrenfels Dream Research with Cancer Patients: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Short Falls of Teaching in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Popular Psychotherapy All about Controlling Chaos: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Washington National Cathedral Site of Synchronicity in Novel by Social Psychologist: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Comments on the Value of a Degree in Psychology: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Offers Strategy for Self-Science of Dreams: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Wyatt Ehrenfels Attacks Psychology on Two Fronts: Wyatt Ehrenfels

Connie Vaughn Teams with Wyatt Ehrenfels to Explain Why She Is Not a Psychology: Connie Vaughn

Benjamin Willard Elected President of Wyatt Ehrenfels Fan Club: Benjamin Willard

Wyatt Ehrenfels Identifies Flaws in U.S. News Report of Psychology Employment Prospects: Wyatt Ehrenfels