USING PHENOTYPOLOGY HYPOTHESES AS A PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL: THE TENTATIVE VALIDATION STUDY

Address for correspondence, e-mail: editpsychas@gmail.com Copyright: © Vitalii Shymko This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license. BSTRACT

Currently, the topic is mostly studied and discussed in terms of health disorders (Cassidy, Morris, 2002, Couzens, 2014, Flint, 1998, Lloyd, Valles, 2010, O'Brien, Yule,1995, Riva, Bellugi & Denckla,2005, Skuse, 2000. Nevertheless, there is the lack of modern scientific data and theoretical models that would claim a personality assessment and behavior prediction based on the phenotype. The exception is a recently appeared, but promising approach called Phenotypology. "Phenotypology is a science about the interconnection of psychological and psychophysical characteristics in person's behavior genetics on the basis of individual features of his phenotype. Phenotype is an aggregate of the biological individual's (in particular human's) features in every specific moment of its life. Phenotype is formed with the assistance of genotype under the influence of the environment, and is manifestation of genotype in particular conditions. It is possible to uncover the genetic program of any person's development merely using the scientifically ascertained well-founded and strictly classified data. Phenotype technology combines multidimensional scaling, cluster and factor analysis" (L-contact, 2018).
Phenotypology claims to be a scientific basis for business management systems, offers recommendations on the specifics of recruitment, features of working with clients, etc. (Kaftanova, 2014, Lucin, 2018. The theory is popularized (mainly in the Eastern Europe) as a new way to quickly understand personal psychology and endeavors to be introduced into specific spheres of social life as guide to action. Most diagnostic criteria are associated with different characteristics of facial features (eyes, nose, lips, ears, chin, etc.) and neck length. Moreover, the authors clearly distinguish Phenotypology from Physiognomy and insist the uniqueness of the former.
"Phenotypology doesn't have any analogues in the whole world to date and is the most efficient technology of person's character features' recognition and people's behavior prediction. Possessing the knowledge of Phenotypology you possess a powerful "weapon", latest technologies in the sphere of interpersonal relationships, family, children up-bringing, selling, employing, working with clients, business etc." (L-contact, 2018).
Highlighting previously unresolved parts of the overall problem the article is devoted to. Unfortunately, up to the time of this publication, we were unable to find any scientific reports containing the empirical results of Phenotypology verification. Some of the theoretical positions are set forth on the predominantly promotional Internet-sources (L-contact, 2018;Vivapersona, 2018). Yet more or less detailed disclosure of the methodology, theoretical basis and practical application of the approach have been presented in a series of television programs on one of the popular TV channels (Life Code, 2012).
Nevertheless, the lack of published research data does not necessarily mean that the theory is untrue. The accessibility of diagnostic criteria -such as facial features and neck length -potentially makes Phenotypology's hypotheses a promising basis for developing a profiling tool.
For over twenty years, we have been developing and improving such a tool (Shymko, 2017) based on understanding of the behavioral patterns through the lens of character manifestation as a hierarchic set of psychological defense mechanisms (Reich, 1990). Therefore, the goal of our research was to test the validity of some Phenotypology hypotheses for making a character diagnosis. And accordingly to the stated research goal, the purpose of the article is presentation of the carried out validation results. as an average neck. If that distance was smaller than palm -short neck. If it was bigger -long neck.
To assess the ears protrudiness, we used the oto- Multiple regression analysis was applied to the data obtained, since we were interested in the question whether it is possible to use the facial and neck features to predict the psychological characteristics of the subjects.
The cases were considered when regression was statistically significant.

Impetuosity
As we can see in the Table 1, the significance of regression is conditional here (F=2.791, p=0,027). Adjusted  The only one significant predictor of impetuosity was found -chin shape (β =0.184, p=0.01). Other predictors were not significant as we can see from Table 2.

Aggressiveness
The significance of regression here is much better in comparison with the previous parameter, i.e. it is F=6.729, p<0.001 (Table 3). Adjusted R 2 = 0,090, that is, about 9% of the variance in DV is explained by IVs.
In accordance with the data in Table 4, when levels of aggressiveness were predicted, it was found that chin shape was the only significant predictor (β =0.283, p<0.001).

Passivity
High significance of regression for this parameter (F=5.447, p<0.001; Table 5 is still accompanied by a weak performance of adjusted R 2 = 0.071. And again, chin shape was the only significant predictor that has been turned out in our analysis (β = -0.221, p=0.002). Results on other predictors you can find in the Table 6.   As we can see, the results of multiple regression analysis prove that the prediction of the psychological characteristics cannot be realized through such bodily parameters as: neck length, protrusion of the ears and the shape of the nose tip. At the same time identified statistical regularities for the chin shape, in our opinion, too, are not reliable enough that the parameter could be used as a practical tool for profiling. Our skepticism on this issue is based on low rates of R 2 <0,10 and insufficiently high rates of the predictor`s strength β<0.300.
Conclusions. Based on the above findings, we believe that the practical application of Phenotypology statements is doubtful at the very least for the purposes of character diagnosis and personality assessment. Thus, we consider the use of the Phenotypology approach for practical performing of differential psychological examination has not been sufficiently substantiated yet.