Social Cognition
Description Fit Task
Also called: Barnum effect task, Forer effect task, personal validation task, personality feedback acceptance task
Measure acceptance of a general personality description presented as personal feedback. Everyone sees the same text and learns this at the end.
3-5 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 37
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures acceptance of general personality feedback. After six preference questions, participants rate how well a fixed description fits them. Everyone receives the same description, presented as based on their answers; the last screen explains this. Scores report acceptance, not personality.
Constructs
- Personal validation
- Acceptance of general feedback
- Self-relevant judgment
Research uses
- Belief and feedback research
- Personal validation research
- Within-study comparisons
How the paradigm works
The Description Fit Task measures acceptance of a general personality description presented as personal feedback. After six questions about everyday preferences, participants read a six-sentence description introduced as based on their answers. Everyone receives the same text. They first rate the fit of the whole description from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well), then rate its six sentences individually. The overall fit rating is the primary measure. It is collected first so the sentence ratings cannot change it.
More about the paradigm
The preference questions and description are original. The description covers broad, ordinary experiences and is never chosen or changed by an answer. The session seed shuffles the questions and the later individual-sentence ratings; the full description always keeps the same order. One instructed practice rating checks the buttons and gives feedback. A setting can leave out the six sentence ratings, keeping the overall rating and final explanation. All eight language forms include the questions, fixed text and explanation.
Forer’s 1949 personal-validation demonstration gave the same general personality sketch to students after a questionnaire. Participants rated the whole sketch and individual statements. This task uses new short questions, new sentences and a five-point response scale rather than the published items or inventory. The last screen explains that the description was fixed and was not based on the answers. Each person takes it once; a repeat or an unacknowledged explanation is flagged. Studies include this explanation in their debrief.
Scores
- Overall description fitpoints
- Whole-description fit rating from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well), given before individual ratings.
- Higher means greater acceptance of the fixed description
- Mean sentence fitpoints
- Mean of the optional individual-sentence fit ratings, from 1 to 5.
- Context for overall acceptance
- Sentences rated high%
- Share of rated sentences given 4 or 5.
- Context for acceptance
- Ratings givencount
- Usable overall and sentence ratings in the selected run.
- Compare with the planned count
- Ratings plannedcount
- One overall rating and, by default, six sentence ratings.
- 1 or 7
- Preference answerscount
- Usable preference answers from the same run.
- Six expected; no personality score
- Final explanation acknowledged%
- 1 if the end screen was acknowledged, 0 otherwise.
- A missing acknowledgement is flagged
- Scale points usedcount
- Number of different fit ratings used.
- Uniform ratings are flagged for review
- Median fit rating timems
- Median fit rating time excluding responses under 100 ms.
- Descriptive timing
- Ratings under 100 mscount
- Fit ratings under 100 ms, retained in means.
- Context for response speed
- Practice rating correct%
- 1 if the instructed rating was selected, 0 otherwise.
- A wrong practice answer is flagged
- Earlier sessionscount
- Earlier sessions for this person, when known.
- An earlier session is flagged
Use and evidence
37 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 236% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 401 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 11 |
| 2024 | 6 |
| 2023 | 8 |
| 2022 | 7 |
| 2021 | 5 |
| 2020 | 1 |
| 2019 | 0 |
| 2018 | 6 |
| 2017 | 0 |
| 2016 | 4 |
| 2015 | 1 |
| 2014 | 4 |
| 2013 | 3 |
| 2012 | 0 |
| 2011 | 3 |
| 2010 | 2 |
| 2009 | 3 |
| 2008 | 2 |
| 2007 | 7 |
| 2006 | 1 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 2 |
| 2003 | 2 |
| 2002 | 2 |
| 2001 | 1 |
| 2000 | 2 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 1
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 34
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: many papers discuss astrology and run no task.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- First questions
- Six original everyday preference questions, in a session-seeded order, rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). One instructed practice rating with feedback comes first.
- Description
- The same six original sentences for everyone, in the same order, introduced as based on their answers. Answers never alter the description.
- Fit ratings
- One overall rating from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well), followed by six individual-sentence ratings in a seeded order. Sentence ratings can be turned off. All ratings are untimed, with a 300 ms gap; a 500 ms blank starts each part.
- Scores
- Overall fit is primary. Mean sentence fit and the share of sentences rated 4 or 5 provide context. The preference questions have no personality score.
- Last screen
- Explains that everyone received the same general description and that it was not made from their answers. This explanation is always shown, including when item ratings are off.
- Repeat sessions
- Each person takes the task once. An earlier session or a missing acknowledgement of the final explanation is flagged.
This is an acceptance experiment with a fixed description and an end-of-session explanation. Its original questions and description are not a personality inventory. Studies should include the explanation in their debrief and compare raw ratings within their own sample.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: description_fit_rating from one run, the overall fit rating followed by six optional item ratings, all from 1 to 5. Ratings are untimed judgments with no correct option. Fewer than 90% of the planned ratings invalidate. The same rating on every item (at least four), a wrong practice answer and an earlier session are flagged for review. Ratings under 200 ms on at least half of four or more items invalidate. A hidden tab is flagged. A missing overall rating invalidates. Fewer than six preference answers or an unacknowledged final explanation is flagged for review.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Uniform ratings can be sincere and are flagged, never treated as wrong. The 90% completion threshold is a ConductScience choice. Practice checks use of the scale, not the content of a judgment. An earlier debrief can change how a later session is answered. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast. The overall fit rating is the primary outcome and is never imputed from item ratings. The six questions establish the feedback context. The final explanation discloses that feedback was fixed.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Rate each sentence after the whole description | On | On or off |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Description Fit Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Forer, 1949), with the standard settings (rate each sentence after the whole description: On). The main score was overall description fit (whole-description fit rating from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well), given before individual ratings).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: a classroom demonstration of gullibility. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(1), 118-123. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059240Identical general descriptions after a questionnaire, rated as a whole and by statement. The abstract informed this original short form.
Source papers
- Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: a classroom demonstration of gullibility. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(1), 118-123.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Description Fit Task take?
About 3 to 5 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Overall description fit, Mean sentence fit, Sentences rated high, Ratings given, Ratings planned, Preference answers, Final explanation acknowledged, Scale points used, Median fit rating time, Ratings under 100 ms, Practice rating correct and Earlier sessions. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Description Fit Task used in research?
37 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 236% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 401 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Description Fit Task have?
In the published research, 1 paper reports its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Rate each sentence after the whole description (On or off). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.