Content uploaded by Graham A. Tyson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Graham A. Tyson on Jan 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
An empirical test of the astrological theory of personality
Abstract
The present study investigated the accuracy of genethliacal horoscopes by asking each of the 15 Ss and a member of her family or a close friend—the nominee—to try to identify which one of 5 cast horoscopes pertained to the S, i.e. was based on her birth data. In addition, each S was rated on 5 personality dimensions by the astrologer who cast the horoscopes, the S herself and her nominee. Finally, the S completed the South African Personality Questionnaire which measured the dimensions psychometrically. Neither the Ss nor the nominees were able correctly to identify the S's horoscope. Regarding the 5 personality dimensions, it was found that the astrologer's ratings did not correlate with the psychometrically-obtained scores, the S's self-ratings or the ratings of the S by the nominee. There was, however, a reasonably high degree of consensus between the psychometrically-obtained scores, the self-ratings and the ratings of the nominees.
... Many twentieth and twenty-first century scientists have shown an interest in astrology (see Chico & Lorenzo-Seva, 2006;Dean & Kelly, 2003;Dean, Nias & French, 1997;Ertel & Dean, 1996;Eysenck & Nias, 1982;Hamilton, 2001;Hartmann, Reuter & Nyborg, 2006;Kelly, 1997Kelly, , 1998Mayo, White & Eysenck, 1978;Perry, 1995;Tyson, 1984;Van Rooij, 1994, 1999. This specific study takes into account those researchers who were interested in and focused on personality differences between individuals born under different star signs (see Hartmann, Reuter & Nyborg, 2006;Eysenck & Nias, 1982;Mayo, White & Eysenck, 1978;Van Rooij, 1994, 1999. ...
... (1982), they debate the matter in further detail, with some results confirming Gauquelin's findings, whilst others seem to negate these findings. This ambivalence, as well as the research stated earlier (see Chico & Lorenzo-Seva, 2006;Dean & Kelly, 2003;Dean, Nias & French, 1997;Ertel & Dean, 1996;Eysenck & Nias, 1982;Hamilton, 2001;Hartmann, Reuter & Nyborg, 2006;Kelly, 1997Kelly, , 1998Mayo, White & Eysenck, 1978;Perry, 1995;Tyson, 1984;Van Rooij, 1994, 1999, surprisingly suggests that psychology-as a discipline that forms part of the scientific community-has not yet reached consensus in its stance towards astrology. ...
... This simplistic link between zodiac signs and personality has been disproved through scientific endeavour. Several empirical studies have been undertaken to link personality with zodiac signs (see Moyo, White & Eysenck, 1978;Tyson, 1984;andVan Rooij, 1994, 1999) and the results tend to concur that such a relationship does not exist. In a more recent study, Hartmann, Reuter and Nyborg (2006) used data from two separate groups of 4 462 and 11 448 individuals, testing the relationship between date of birth and individual differences in personality and general intelligence. ...
Astrological information often appears in newspapers and magazines. This suggests
that there are readers who may believe that their birthdates relate to astrology and that this
phenomenon influences their everyday lives. Many scientists, particularly psychologists, have
attempted to link astrological signs with personality traits on an empirical level. The results
have often been ambivalent and sometimes even controversial. Scientific evidence generally indicates
that zodiac star positions do not influence different personalities. The study of planetary
alignment, however, seems more complex. Results in this field often involve smaller research
groups, are more difficult to interpret, and can therefore be considered as ambivalent. In this
specific study a large group of 65 268 job seekers was assessed by means of a personality
questionnaire, the so-called Basic Traits Inventory. The personality traits of four groups of individuals
(N = 49, N = 48, N = 39, N = 36) were compared. The groups differed from each
other in that all the members of a specific group shared the same planetary alignment and zodiac
sign. Chronological age, as a mediator, was not taken into account as the individuals were
all born in the same year (1983). No significant differences in personality traits between the
groups were found. The results of this study confirm that neither zodiac star signs, nor planetary
alignments, influence personality. This affirms, through scientific investigation, that astrology
should be seen for what it is; namely an outmoded, archaic belief system based on mythological
assumptions.
... In the social media, it is quite common to find sections dedicated to zodiac-related statements and predictions. Some scepticism exists, however, among researchers about the scientific credibility of astrological writings (see Chico & Lorenzo-Seva, 2006; Dean & Kelly, 2003; Dean, Nias & French, 1997; Ertel & Dean, 1996; Hamilton, 2001; Hartmann, Reuter, & Nyborg, 2006; Eysenck & Nias, 1982; Kelly, 1997,1998; Mayo, White, & Eysenck, 1978; Perry, 1995; Tyson, 1984; Van Rooij, 1994, 1999). Empirical research generally shows liftle support for astrology claims. ...
This study examined the reiationship between astroiogicai signs and personaiity traits in 65 268 South African jobseekers (mean age = 24.8 years, females = 59%, Blacks = 98%). Participants compieted the Basic Traits inventory (Tayior and de Bruin, 2006). Contrastive analysis of personaiity traits by astroiogicai signs yieided no significant differences. Until the twentieth century astrologers considered that the stars played a main role in defining human behaviour, but con-temporary psychological astrologers also emphasise the role of Jungian archetypes and psychological structures underlying dif-ferent personalities (Kelly, 1997). Astrology claims to explain typical characteristics of people born at certain times of' the year, and how people who are born at difterent times difter from each other or could complement each other (see MacGregor, 2011; Stirling, 2010; Riske, 2011). In the social media, it is quite common to find sections dedi-cated to zodiac-related statements and predictions. Some scepticism exists, however, among researchers about the sci-entific credibility of astrological writings (see Chico & Lorenzo-. Empirical research generally shows liftle support for astrology claims. Eysenck and Nias (1982), for example, state that behaviour can usually be explained befter by non-as-trological predictors. Nonetheless, many people still read astro-logical descriptions and predictions in the social media, and may also make decisions based thereupon.
-Despite the fact that virtually all scientists reject astrology as unfounded superstition, it continues to hold a powerful grip on the belief-systems of dons of people. With the advent of computer technology, rigorous statistical tests have been carried out to examine the validity of the oft-heard claim that astrology works. The results of these recent tests are uniformly negative. Application of the scientific method then leads us to reject the astrological hypothesis. With the recent commotion over former First Lady Nancy Reagan's apparent employment of a professional astrologer to help chart her husband's decision-making (Frazier, et al., 1988), it seems to be an appropriate time once again to provide a detailed appraisal of astrology (see also Kelly, 1979; Kelly, Dean, & Saklofske, 1990). As wd be discussed in this paper, there is currently no scientific or statistical evidence for the validity of astrology. Virtually all scientists reject astrology as unfounded superstition. In fact, 186 leading scientists (including many astronomers and astrophysicists, as well as 19 Nobel laureates) signed a manifesto denouncing any recognition of astrology as a science (Bok, Jerome, & Kurtz, 1975). In 1984 the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal wrote to every daily newspaper in the United States asking them to publish a disclaimer with their astrology columns. Accordmg to Kurtz and Fraknoi (1985), approximately 1,200 newspapers in North America carry such columns. By 1988, only 2% of these had included a disclaimer (Kelly, Dean, & Saklofske, 1990). The editors of many of these newspapers say that no one takes astrology columns seriously and that they are for entertainment value only. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. A June 1984 Gallup poll showed that 55% of American teenagers (aged 13 to 18 yr.) believe that astrology works (Kurtz & Fraknoi, 1985). Evidently, exposure to astrology is not balanced by reports in the media of scientific tests. In fact, many critical surveys have appeared over the last decade which have challenged the claims of serious astrologers. The results are uniformly negative-bad news for believers in astrology. However, these studies are usually published in scientific journals which are not generally read by the public. It is apparent that a
Empirical literature is reviewed that addresses the belief in a relationship between astrological tenets and human characteristics. Studies are examined relating sign of zodiac, moon sign, ascendent, and aspects of the planets to various psychological variables. The majority of studies conducted do not confirm astrological claims and the few studies that are positive need additional clarification.
Reviews of the research on astrology indicate that there is little empirical support for traditional astrological theory. Despite this, most people who have their horoscope cast perceive it to be an accurate description of their personality. The present study discusses why horoscopes are perceived to be accurate. The degree of acceptance of generalized personality descriptions is influenced by a number of factors, including generality, perceived specificity, favorability, personality variables, and beliefs in both the procedure and the skill of the source. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
An attempt was made to assess the relationships between self-ratings and psychometric (EPI) estimates on the dimensions of extraversion and neuroticism. Ninety-five individuals served as Ss. The correlations between self-ratings and EPI estimates achieved high significance on both dimensions. Contrary to earlier suggestions (Bem & Allen, 1974), ratings of behavioral variability on the respective dimensions failed to produce a significant moderating effect. However, a tentative trend was observed for cross-procedural comparability (between self-ratings and the EPI) to be higher near the midpoints of the respective distributions. A factor contributory to this was a central regressive tendency (noted at both poles on both dimensions and for both sources of estimation), whereby an extreme estimate from one source was associated with a less extreme estimate from the other.
Findings from a study with 80 undergraduates raise serious questions regarding the interpretation of earlier research that has generally indicated that "favorable" personality descriptions are accepted more highly than "unfavorable" personality descriptions. Although Ss more readily accepted a general personality interpretation when it was positively rather than negatively toned, the higher acceptance evidently resulted from the greater base-rate truthfulness existing in the favorable interpretation. Ss who received a favorable interpretation considered it to be significantly less true of people in general than for themselves. The unfavorable personality interpretation was not viewed by Ss as being more or less true for people in general than for themselves. Ss' faith in psychological tests increased significantly after receiving diagnostic feedback. Those Ss who received a favorable personality interpretation rated the diagnostician as more skilled after receiving the personality description. Whether the interpretation was delivered in oral or written form had no effect on acceptance. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Subjects indicated how aggressive, ambitious, creative, intuitive, and extroverted they thought they were on nine point rating scales and completed the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Each subject also designated a friend who described the subject on the same set of rating scales. As exact birth times were available for subjects, it was possible to determine their sun, moon, and ascending signs. The results showed that the astrological indicators of personality were not related to either self or friends' descriptions of the subjects' personalities.
Recenr Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review Astrology: Science or Superstition? Astrology and science: a critical examination
- G Dean
- A Mather
- Mass Rockport
- H J Notes And Shorter Communications Eysenck
Dean G. and Mather A. (1977) Recenr Advances in Natal Astrology: A Critical Review, 1900-1976. Para Research, Rockport, Mass. NOTES AND SHORTER COMMUNICATIONS Eysenck H. J. and Nias D. K. B. (1982) Astrology: Science or Superstition? Temple Smith, London. Kelly I. W. (1979) Astrology and science: a critical examination. Psychol. Rep. 44, 1231-1240.
Test Administrator's Manual for the South African Personality Questionnaire (Provisional version)
- D W Steyn
Steyn D. W. (1974) Test Administrator's Manual for the South African Personality Questionnaire (Provisional version).