- Email: [email protected]
An empirical test of the astrological theory of personality
f’erson.
indiurd.
Printed
nn Great
o,,y.
vol
Britain.
5, No. All
2. PP.
rights
247-250.
1984
reserved
An empirical
Copyright
test of the astrological
C
0191-8869/84S3.00 + 0.00 1984 Pergamon Press Ltd
theory of personality*
G. A. TYSON School of Psychology,
University
of rhe Wirwatersrand, 2001 South Africa (Received
I Jan Smurs Avenue, Johannesburg,
6 June 1983)
Summary-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 Ss’ 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.
Over the last few years, interest in astrology has grown steadily as is manifest in the increasing number of popular books on astrology which are available in bookshops. This interest has not been restricted to the general public however, and numerous studies have been carried out. Reviews of these studies (Dean and Mather, 1977; Eysenck and Nias, 1982; Kelly, 1979), all indicate that there is little empirical support for traditional astrological theory. Nevertheless, people who have had their horoscopes cast or have read the cast horoscope of relatives or friends invariably comment on their high degree of accuracy. This experiential validation of astrology concurs with West and Toonder’s (1973) contention that individuals often become convinced of the truth of astrology as a result of casting other people’s horoscopes or having their own horoscope cast. This discrepancy between the results of objective studies and personal experience may be indicative of the fact that the personality tests and other measures used to evaluate astrology were invalid. On the other hand, that people claim to have found genethliacal horoscopes accurate does not, in itself, constitute a validation of astrology, for the judge is interpreting, albeit unconsciously, the contents of the horoscope in terms of his knowledge of the person and hence the horoscope appears accurate. In addition, there are many other factors operating which could cause an individual to perceive the horoscope as being accurate (Tyson, 1982). Thus, a more valid test of accuracy would be to present a person with a number of horoscopes and ask him to identify the horoscope of a specific individual, either himself or someone well known to him. If genethliacal horoscopes are accurate descriptions of personality, the person should be able to identify the horoscope of the specified individual. The first part of the present study was designed to test this hypothesis. The second part of the study examined the relationship between astrological and psychometrically-derived personality descriptions. If psychological tests are valid and if astrologers can describe an individual accurately, then an astrologer should be able to predict, to some extent, the psychometrically-measured scores and the self-ratings of individuals on clearly-defined personality traits. More specifically, one would expect the correlation between an astrologer’s ratings and psychometric scores to be similar to the correlations between the psychometric scores and either self-ratings or the ratings made by a close family member. Likewise, one would expect the correlation between an astrologer’s ratings and self-ratings to be similar to that between a family member’s ratings and self-ratings. The second part of the study was thus designed to test whether or not an astrologer could, using a birthchart, predict psychometrically-obtained scores and/or self-ratings on a number of personality traits. METHOD
Subjects Fifteen female students of the University of the Witwatersrand served as Ss. Their mean age was 18.16 yr with a range from 17.41 to 19.92 yr. All the Ss knew their time of birth, and their birth dates were spread fairly evenly across the signs of the zodiac. Materials The South African Personality Questionnaire (SAPQ; Steyn, 1974). used in this study, is a test on normal functioning rather than psychopathology. It measures 5 bipolar personality dimensions: vs Social Responsiveness, Tranquility vs Anxiety. Amity vs Hostility, Flexibility vs Rigidity Dominance. The SAPQ was selected for this study not only because it is standardized for South also because the 5 scales which it measures are clearly defined and easily understood by lay people transformable into rating scales.
*This study forms part of the work performed in fulfillment the University of Witwatersrand. South Africa.
of the requirements
247
for the Doctor
which focuses primarily Social Unresponsiveness and Submissiveness vs African conditions, but and therefore were easily
of Philosophy
degree
at
248
NOTES
AND
SHORTER
COMMUNICATIONS
Procedure In the initial stage each S completed the SAPQ at a time convenient to her. She also rated herself on 5 7-point scales which corresponded to the personality dimensions measured by the SAPQ. In order to overcome the possibility that the Ss had little insight and therefore could not recognize themselves, they were asked to nominate a person who knew them well-preferably a family member-and who would participate in the study. Nine Ss nominated their mothers, 4 a sister, 1 her father and I her boyfriend. The nominees were then contacted by letter and requested to rate the Ss on the 5 rating scales. In the meantime the sex, date, time and place of birth of each of the Ss had been given to a professional astrologer who had agreed to erect the horoscopes and to rate the S on the rating scales. Each horoscope averaged 8 typed pages (approx. 2000 words), consisted of a separate interpretation for each astrological factor (signs, houses and aspects with an average of 20 factors per chart), and the style was representative of that found in serious astrology books. An idea of the content of the horoscopes can be obtained from the following extracts from one of the horoscopes. “You have an expansive, philosophical outlook and are interested in religion, philosophy, higher education and the prevailing social order. You are fond of travel and have a strong interest in foreign countries and their cultures, history and religions. You continually set new goals for yourself to aspire to in the future. Because of your optimism you do not admit failure or become disheartened by difficulties, so you run the risk of overreaching yourself, neglecting important details, or making commitments that are impossible to fulfill.” “
is a combination which shows you to be very active in physical and mental pursuits, and that you must be careful always to speak and act with due thought and preparation, for you are somewhat too hasty for your own good and liable at times to go to extremes in all you undertake. You have fine constructive power and some artistic ability, also a keen conventional sense of right and wrong. You will be industrious in whatever you may engage in, very neat and orderly, with a strong love for home, family and friends, etc.” A sample of 3 of the horoscopes, chosen randomly, were subsequently checked by another astrologer and the calculations were found to be accurate. All astrological terminology was removed from the horoscopes, lest it provide clues to the identity of the native. The horoscope of each S was then combined with 4 other horoscopes to form a set of 5. The 4 accompanying horoscopes were chosen randomly and the order in which the horoscopes were arranged was also random. Thus, for each S there was a set of 5 horoscopes, one of which belonged to her. These sets of horoscopes were given to the Ss and they were requested first to read each horoscope carefully and then rate, on a 7-point scale, how desirable a description of a person they thought it was. They were then requested to indicate which of the 5 horoscopes they believed to be their own. For this task they were allowed to read the horoscopes as often as they liked. Finally, they were asked to indicate on 7-point scales how difficult they found the task and how certain they were of their choice. The same sets of horoscopes were given to the nominees together with the instructions outlined above. Both the Ss and the nominees were asked to do the task independently and not to discuss it with anybody until they had completed it. The favourability of each of the 15 horoscopes was also rated, on a ‘I-point scale, by 7 independent judges who were psychology students. They were each given the horoscopes in a random order to avoid any context effect. These additional ratings of favourability were necessary as the ratings of the Ss and the nominees could not be used to obtain an overall rating for each horoscope because each of them had rated the favourability of only 5 of the 15 horoscopes and thus, if those ratings had been used, a design in which the scores were neither completely random nor completely repeated would have resulted. RESULTS All I5 Ss and 14 of the nominees completed the task. Of the 15 Ss only 2 correctly identified their horoscopes, while only 3 of the nominees made a correct identification. Using a probability of 0.20 (there was a one-in-five chance of them guessing correctly) the binomial expansion showed that the probabilities of obtaining such results are 0.231 and 0.250, respectively, indicating that neither the Ss nor the nominees were able to correctly identify the S’s horoscope at a better than chance level. There was a tendency for the Ss and nominees to choose horoscopes which they rated as being favourable. A total of 8 Ss and 10 nominees chose a horoscope to which they had assigned the highest favourability rating. The statistical significance of this cannot be calculated as the probability of the horoscope with the highest rating being chosen was not identical on each trial since more than one horoscope was sometimes assigned the highest rating. Nevertheless, it seems highly unlikely that these results were due to chance, especially in the light of previous findings that people more readily accept favourable personality descriptions (Snyder and Shenkel, 1976). This favourability effect was almost entirely dependent on perceived favourability for, although there were differences (ranging from 3.6 to 5.0 on a ‘I-point scale) between the mean favourability ratings of the horoscopes obtained from the 7 judges, a one-way analysis of variance with repeated measures showed that these differences were not significant, F( 14,84) = 1.92, P < 0.05. Overall, the task was perceived to be moderately difficult by both the Ss and the nominees (8 = 4.07, SD = 2.05 and x = 3.85, SD = 1.72, respectively) although, as the standard deviations indicate, there was considerable variation. In general, both Ss and nominees were reasonably certain that their choice was correct (R = 4.25, SD = 1.63 and ,? = 4.17, SD = 1.40, respectively) although again there were large individual variations. The intercorrelations between test scores, self-ratings, rating by nominees and ratings by the astrologer on each of the 5 scales are shown in Table 1. On 4 of the 5 scales, the Ss’ self-rating correlated significantly with the test scores; a result which is consistent with previous findings (Stones, 1977). On the fifth scale, Anxiety, the correlation was in the correct
NOTES
Table
I. Intercorrelations astrologer’s
AND
SHORTER
between test scores. self-ratings, nominees’ ratings on the 5 personality rating scales Test
Rating
249
COMMUNICATIONS
Self
ratings
Nominee
Astrologer
0.58”
0.12 0.57.’
-0.26 -0.50 -0.52
0.39
0.19 0.51*
0.14 0.00 0.00
0.56.’
0.42* 0.30
-0.23 0.25 -0.26
0.46*
0.59” 0.60”
-0.49 -0.59 -0.46
0.79”
0.45* 0.44*
-0.15 -0.30 0.11
and
Social Responsiveness Test Self Nominee Anxiety Test Self Nominee Amity Test Self Nominee Flexibility Test Self Nominee Dominance Test Self Nominee *P co.05
for a one-tailed
test; **P < 0.01 for a one-tailed
test.
direction and was significant at the 0.10 level. The average correlation between self-ratings and test scores was 0.56. In the case of the nominees, their ratings correlated significantly with the test scores on three of the scales, although the correlations tended to be lower (1 = 0.35) than those between self-ratings and the test. Self-ratings and the nominees’ ratings correlated significantly on 4 of the 5 personality dimensions (x = 0.48) which concurs with the finding of Silverman and Witmer (1974) that friends’ ratings correlate with self-ratings, although in the present study the relationships were larger. A completely different picture emerges when one looks at the relationship between the astrologer’s ratings and any one of the other three measures. Not one of the correlations was significant and none even approached significance. In fact, most of the relationships were in the wrong direction. This is reflected in the fact that the mean correlation of the astrologer’s ratings with test scores was -0.20.
DISCUSSION The results indicate clearly that the astrologer was unable to provide any valid information regarding the personalities of the Ss. The fact that both the Ss and the nominees were unable to identify the S’s horoscope suggests that the horoscopes were neither accurate nor specific to the individuals. This in turn, suggests that as individuals cannot identify their own horoscope, the avowed accuracy of horoscopes by those who have consulted astrologers must be largely a result of self-deception, some of the processes of which have been described by Tyson (1982). This conclusion is supported by the fact that some of the Ss and nominees commented on the fact that the horoscopes were virtually all the same. Similar comments were made by the 7 judges who rated the favourability of the horoscopes. However, this perceived similarity was to some extent an illusion as the horoscopes were different even to the extent that the interpretation of the same factor in different charts was worded differently. For instance, in one horoscope Saturn trine Pluto is described as being associated with “tremendous willpower and a relentlessness in working toward a goal” whereas in another the description is a tendency towards “deliberation, ambition, tenacity, perseverance and self-discipline”. The perception of similarity was thus probably a result of the Barnum effect which would have been accentuated by the length and lack of synthesis of the horoscopes. This perceived similarity between the horoscopes was probably the main reason for the difficulty which some of the Ss and nominees experienced with the identification task. However, despite this difficulty, it Seems that once the choice was made, most of the Ss and nominees felt fairly confident that they had made the correct decision. The inability of the astrologer to predict either the test scores, the Ss’ self-ratings or the ratings of the S by the nominee, again suggests that the astrologer was unable to make any accurate statements regarding personality. This impression is further enhanced by the fact that frequently the astrologer’s predictions were not even in the right direction. This inability cannot be blamed on the criteria used, for the results show that both the Ss’ and nominees’ ratings correlated in most cases with the test scores, and there was a significant relationship on 4 of the 5 personality dimensions between the Ss’ self ratings and the nominees’ ratings of the S. There was thus a reasonably high degree of consensus between the test scores, self-ratings and nominees’ ratings, which indicates that the personality dimensions were clearly defined and understood concepts, and hence the astrological predictions must simply have been incorrect. These results appear to indicate that there is little validity in astrology. However, care must be taken in reaching such a conclusion, for it is possible that despite the good reputation of the astrologer used in the study, other astrologers may have performed better.
Acknowledgemenrs-The author wishes to thank Dr Geoffrey Dean for his constructive article. This study was financed by the Human Sciences Research Council.
comments
on the draft
of this
REFERENCES
Dean G. and Mather Mass.
A. (1977) Recenr Advances in Natal Astrology:
A Critical Review, 1900-1976. Para Research,
Rockport,
250
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. Silverman B. I. and Witmer M. (1974) Astrological indicators of personality. J. Psychol. 87, 89-95. Snyder C. R. and Shenkel R. J. (1976) Effect of ‘favorability’, modality, and relevance on acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback. J. consulf. din. psycho/. 44, 34-41. Steyn D. W. (1974) Test Administrator’s Manual for the South African Personality Questionnaire (Provisional version). National Institute of Personnel Research, Johannesburg, South Africa. Stones M. J. (1977) Self-ratings and the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI). J. din. Psychol. 33, 713-717. Tyson G. A. (1982) Why people perceive horoscopes as being true: a review. Bull. Br. psychol. Sot. 35, 186188. West J. A. and Toonder J. G. (1973) The Casefor Astrology. Penguin, Baltimore, Md.
indiurd.
Printed
nn Great
o,,y.
vol
Britain.
5, No. All
2. PP.
rights
247-250.
1984
reserved
An empirical
Copyright
test of the astrological
C
0191-8869/84S3.00 + 0.00 1984 Pergamon Press Ltd
theory of personality*
G. A. TYSON School of Psychology,
University
of rhe Wirwatersrand, 2001 South Africa (Received
I Jan Smurs Avenue, Johannesburg,
6 June 1983)
Summary-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 Ss’ 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.
Over the last few years, interest in astrology has grown steadily as is manifest in the increasing number of popular books on astrology which are available in bookshops. This interest has not been restricted to the general public however, and numerous studies have been carried out. Reviews of these studies (Dean and Mather, 1977; Eysenck and Nias, 1982; Kelly, 1979), all indicate that there is little empirical support for traditional astrological theory. Nevertheless, people who have had their horoscopes cast or have read the cast horoscope of relatives or friends invariably comment on their high degree of accuracy. This experiential validation of astrology concurs with West and Toonder’s (1973) contention that individuals often become convinced of the truth of astrology as a result of casting other people’s horoscopes or having their own horoscope cast. This discrepancy between the results of objective studies and personal experience may be indicative of the fact that the personality tests and other measures used to evaluate astrology were invalid. On the other hand, that people claim to have found genethliacal horoscopes accurate does not, in itself, constitute a validation of astrology, for the judge is interpreting, albeit unconsciously, the contents of the horoscope in terms of his knowledge of the person and hence the horoscope appears accurate. In addition, there are many other factors operating which could cause an individual to perceive the horoscope as being accurate (Tyson, 1982). Thus, a more valid test of accuracy would be to present a person with a number of horoscopes and ask him to identify the horoscope of a specific individual, either himself or someone well known to him. If genethliacal horoscopes are accurate descriptions of personality, the person should be able to identify the horoscope of the specified individual. The first part of the present study was designed to test this hypothesis. The second part of the study examined the relationship between astrological and psychometrically-derived personality descriptions. If psychological tests are valid and if astrologers can describe an individual accurately, then an astrologer should be able to predict, to some extent, the psychometrically-measured scores and the self-ratings of individuals on clearly-defined personality traits. More specifically, one would expect the correlation between an astrologer’s ratings and psychometric scores to be similar to the correlations between the psychometric scores and either self-ratings or the ratings made by a close family member. Likewise, one would expect the correlation between an astrologer’s ratings and self-ratings to be similar to that between a family member’s ratings and self-ratings. The second part of the study was thus designed to test whether or not an astrologer could, using a birthchart, predict psychometrically-obtained scores and/or self-ratings on a number of personality traits. METHOD
Subjects Fifteen female students of the University of the Witwatersrand served as Ss. Their mean age was 18.16 yr with a range from 17.41 to 19.92 yr. All the Ss knew their time of birth, and their birth dates were spread fairly evenly across the signs of the zodiac. Materials The South African Personality Questionnaire (SAPQ; Steyn, 1974). used in this study, is a test on normal functioning rather than psychopathology. It measures 5 bipolar personality dimensions: vs Social Responsiveness, Tranquility vs Anxiety. Amity vs Hostility, Flexibility vs Rigidity Dominance. The SAPQ was selected for this study not only because it is standardized for South also because the 5 scales which it measures are clearly defined and easily understood by lay people transformable into rating scales.
*This study forms part of the work performed in fulfillment the University of Witwatersrand. South Africa.
of the requirements
247
for the Doctor
which focuses primarily Social Unresponsiveness and Submissiveness vs African conditions, but and therefore were easily
of Philosophy
degree
at
248
NOTES
AND
SHORTER
COMMUNICATIONS
Procedure In the initial stage each S completed the SAPQ at a time convenient to her. She also rated herself on 5 7-point scales which corresponded to the personality dimensions measured by the SAPQ. In order to overcome the possibility that the Ss had little insight and therefore could not recognize themselves, they were asked to nominate a person who knew them well-preferably a family member-and who would participate in the study. Nine Ss nominated their mothers, 4 a sister, 1 her father and I her boyfriend. The nominees were then contacted by letter and requested to rate the Ss on the 5 rating scales. In the meantime the sex, date, time and place of birth of each of the Ss had been given to a professional astrologer who had agreed to erect the horoscopes and to rate the S on the rating scales. Each horoscope averaged 8 typed pages (approx. 2000 words), consisted of a separate interpretation for each astrological factor (signs, houses and aspects with an average of 20 factors per chart), and the style was representative of that found in serious astrology books. An idea of the content of the horoscopes can be obtained from the following extracts from one of the horoscopes. “You have an expansive, philosophical outlook and are interested in religion, philosophy, higher education and the prevailing social order. You are fond of travel and have a strong interest in foreign countries and their cultures, history and religions. You continually set new goals for yourself to aspire to in the future. Because of your optimism you do not admit failure or become disheartened by difficulties, so you run the risk of overreaching yourself, neglecting important details, or making commitments that are impossible to fulfill.” “
is a combination which shows you to be very active in physical and mental pursuits, and that you must be careful always to speak and act with due thought and preparation, for you are somewhat too hasty for your own good and liable at times to go to extremes in all you undertake. You have fine constructive power and some artistic ability, also a keen conventional sense of right and wrong. You will be industrious in whatever you may engage in, very neat and orderly, with a strong love for home, family and friends, etc.” A sample of 3 of the horoscopes, chosen randomly, were subsequently checked by another astrologer and the calculations were found to be accurate. All astrological terminology was removed from the horoscopes, lest it provide clues to the identity of the native. The horoscope of each S was then combined with 4 other horoscopes to form a set of 5. The 4 accompanying horoscopes were chosen randomly and the order in which the horoscopes were arranged was also random. Thus, for each S there was a set of 5 horoscopes, one of which belonged to her. These sets of horoscopes were given to the Ss and they were requested first to read each horoscope carefully and then rate, on a 7-point scale, how desirable a description of a person they thought it was. They were then requested to indicate which of the 5 horoscopes they believed to be their own. For this task they were allowed to read the horoscopes as often as they liked. Finally, they were asked to indicate on 7-point scales how difficult they found the task and how certain they were of their choice. The same sets of horoscopes were given to the nominees together with the instructions outlined above. Both the Ss and the nominees were asked to do the task independently and not to discuss it with anybody until they had completed it. The favourability of each of the 15 horoscopes was also rated, on a ‘I-point scale, by 7 independent judges who were psychology students. They were each given the horoscopes in a random order to avoid any context effect. These additional ratings of favourability were necessary as the ratings of the Ss and the nominees could not be used to obtain an overall rating for each horoscope because each of them had rated the favourability of only 5 of the 15 horoscopes and thus, if those ratings had been used, a design in which the scores were neither completely random nor completely repeated would have resulted. RESULTS All I5 Ss and 14 of the nominees completed the task. Of the 15 Ss only 2 correctly identified their horoscopes, while only 3 of the nominees made a correct identification. Using a probability of 0.20 (there was a one-in-five chance of them guessing correctly) the binomial expansion showed that the probabilities of obtaining such results are 0.231 and 0.250, respectively, indicating that neither the Ss nor the nominees were able to correctly identify the S’s horoscope at a better than chance level. There was a tendency for the Ss and nominees to choose horoscopes which they rated as being favourable. A total of 8 Ss and 10 nominees chose a horoscope to which they had assigned the highest favourability rating. The statistical significance of this cannot be calculated as the probability of the horoscope with the highest rating being chosen was not identical on each trial since more than one horoscope was sometimes assigned the highest rating. Nevertheless, it seems highly unlikely that these results were due to chance, especially in the light of previous findings that people more readily accept favourable personality descriptions (Snyder and Shenkel, 1976). This favourability effect was almost entirely dependent on perceived favourability for, although there were differences (ranging from 3.6 to 5.0 on a ‘I-point scale) between the mean favourability ratings of the horoscopes obtained from the 7 judges, a one-way analysis of variance with repeated measures showed that these differences were not significant, F( 14,84) = 1.92, P < 0.05. Overall, the task was perceived to be moderately difficult by both the Ss and the nominees (8 = 4.07, SD = 2.05 and x = 3.85, SD = 1.72, respectively) although, as the standard deviations indicate, there was considerable variation. In general, both Ss and nominees were reasonably certain that their choice was correct (R = 4.25, SD = 1.63 and ,? = 4.17, SD = 1.40, respectively) although again there were large individual variations. The intercorrelations between test scores, self-ratings, rating by nominees and ratings by the astrologer on each of the 5 scales are shown in Table 1. On 4 of the 5 scales, the Ss’ self-rating correlated significantly with the test scores; a result which is consistent with previous findings (Stones, 1977). On the fifth scale, Anxiety, the correlation was in the correct
NOTES
Table
I. Intercorrelations astrologer’s
AND
SHORTER
between test scores. self-ratings, nominees’ ratings on the 5 personality rating scales Test
Rating
249
COMMUNICATIONS
Self
ratings
Nominee
Astrologer
0.58”
0.12 0.57.’
-0.26 -0.50 -0.52
0.39
0.19 0.51*
0.14 0.00 0.00
0.56.’
0.42* 0.30
-0.23 0.25 -0.26
0.46*
0.59” 0.60”
-0.49 -0.59 -0.46
0.79”
0.45* 0.44*
-0.15 -0.30 0.11
and
Social Responsiveness Test Self Nominee Anxiety Test Self Nominee Amity Test Self Nominee Flexibility Test Self Nominee Dominance Test Self Nominee *P co.05
for a one-tailed
test; **P < 0.01 for a one-tailed
test.
direction and was significant at the 0.10 level. The average correlation between self-ratings and test scores was 0.56. In the case of the nominees, their ratings correlated significantly with the test scores on three of the scales, although the correlations tended to be lower (1 = 0.35) than those between self-ratings and the test. Self-ratings and the nominees’ ratings correlated significantly on 4 of the 5 personality dimensions (x = 0.48) which concurs with the finding of Silverman and Witmer (1974) that friends’ ratings correlate with self-ratings, although in the present study the relationships were larger. A completely different picture emerges when one looks at the relationship between the astrologer’s ratings and any one of the other three measures. Not one of the correlations was significant and none even approached significance. In fact, most of the relationships were in the wrong direction. This is reflected in the fact that the mean correlation of the astrologer’s ratings with test scores was -0.20.
DISCUSSION The results indicate clearly that the astrologer was unable to provide any valid information regarding the personalities of the Ss. The fact that both the Ss and the nominees were unable to identify the S’s horoscope suggests that the horoscopes were neither accurate nor specific to the individuals. This in turn, suggests that as individuals cannot identify their own horoscope, the avowed accuracy of horoscopes by those who have consulted astrologers must be largely a result of self-deception, some of the processes of which have been described by Tyson (1982). This conclusion is supported by the fact that some of the Ss and nominees commented on the fact that the horoscopes were virtually all the same. Similar comments were made by the 7 judges who rated the favourability of the horoscopes. However, this perceived similarity was to some extent an illusion as the horoscopes were different even to the extent that the interpretation of the same factor in different charts was worded differently. For instance, in one horoscope Saturn trine Pluto is described as being associated with “tremendous willpower and a relentlessness in working toward a goal” whereas in another the description is a tendency towards “deliberation, ambition, tenacity, perseverance and self-discipline”. The perception of similarity was thus probably a result of the Barnum effect which would have been accentuated by the length and lack of synthesis of the horoscopes. This perceived similarity between the horoscopes was probably the main reason for the difficulty which some of the Ss and nominees experienced with the identification task. However, despite this difficulty, it Seems that once the choice was made, most of the Ss and nominees felt fairly confident that they had made the correct decision. The inability of the astrologer to predict either the test scores, the Ss’ self-ratings or the ratings of the S by the nominee, again suggests that the astrologer was unable to make any accurate statements regarding personality. This impression is further enhanced by the fact that frequently the astrologer’s predictions were not even in the right direction. This inability cannot be blamed on the criteria used, for the results show that both the Ss’ and nominees’ ratings correlated in most cases with the test scores, and there was a significant relationship on 4 of the 5 personality dimensions between the Ss’ self ratings and the nominees’ ratings of the S. There was thus a reasonably high degree of consensus between the test scores, self-ratings and nominees’ ratings, which indicates that the personality dimensions were clearly defined and understood concepts, and hence the astrological predictions must simply have been incorrect. These results appear to indicate that there is little validity in astrology. However, care must be taken in reaching such a conclusion, for it is possible that despite the good reputation of the astrologer used in the study, other astrologers may have performed better.
Acknowledgemenrs-The author wishes to thank Dr Geoffrey Dean for his constructive article. This study was financed by the Human Sciences Research Council.
comments
on the draft
of this
REFERENCES
Dean G. and Mather Mass.
A. (1977) Recenr Advances in Natal Astrology:
A Critical Review, 1900-1976. Para Research,
Rockport,
250
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. Silverman B. I. and Witmer M. (1974) Astrological indicators of personality. J. Psychol. 87, 89-95. Snyder C. R. and Shenkel R. J. (1976) Effect of ‘favorability’, modality, and relevance on acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback. J. consulf. din. psycho/. 44, 34-41. Steyn D. W. (1974) Test Administrator’s Manual for the South African Personality Questionnaire (Provisional version). National Institute of Personnel Research, Johannesburg, South Africa. Stones M. J. (1977) Self-ratings and the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI). J. din. Psychol. 33, 713-717. Tyson G. A. (1982) Why people perceive horoscopes as being true: a review. Bull. Br. psychol. Sot. 35, 186188. West J. A. and Toonder J. G. (1973) The Casefor Astrology. Penguin, Baltimore, Md.