This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]

On: 07 December 2013, At: 08:04

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

The Journal of Psychology:

Interdisciplinary and Applied
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Studies of Astrology
a
Bernie I. Silverman
a
Department of Psychology , Michigan State
University , USA
Published online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Bernie I. Silverman (1971) Studies of Astrology, The Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 77:2, 141-149

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1971.9916861

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
 expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:04 07 December 2013
 Publirhed an a r p u a t a and in Th8 Journal of Plpchology, 1971, m,141-149.
S T U D I E S OF ASTROLOGY*
Department of Psychology, Michigan State Univerrify

BERNIEI. SILVERMAN

A. INTRODUCTION
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:04 07 December 2013

Astrology, perhaps the most popular of personality theories, has generated

the least empirical research, no doubt because it lacks sanction as scientific in-
quiry. Ironically, the scientific community’s neglect of astrology has allowed it
to prosper by effectively rendering it immune to falsification. Consequently,
skeptics, as well as believers, must resort to their own preconceptions and those
of like-minded “authorities” when attempting to ascertain the validity of as-
trology.
T h e principal tenet of astrology is that the individual’s personality is greatly
influenced at the moment of birth by the position of the sun, moon, and planets
within the zodiac, an area of the sky 16” wide that extends around the earth
roughly parallel to the equator. Astrologers have divided the zodiac into 12
equal portions, each corresponding to a particular sign. T h e position of the sun
alone, at the instant of birth, determines the individual’s sign. For example, all
persons born while the sun is traversing that area of the zodiac labeled Sagit-
tarius are Sagittarians. As the sun is considered the most important force in-
fluencing personality (3, p. 73), the individual’s sun sign is considered the best
single predictor of personality, as well as various behaviors that are theoreti-
cally personality contingent.
T h e few studies that have focused on astrology’s validity generally fail to
support the contentions of astrologers. Gauquelin (2) found, contrary to the
predictions of astrology, that ( a ) those born under the sign Aries are no more
likely to become soldiers than others, and (6) those born under the sign of Li-
bra occur no more frequently than would be expected by chance among the
ranks of artists and musicians.
Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusettr, on November 10,
1970, and published immediately 8t 35 New Street, Worcester, Masaachusettr. Copy-
right by T h e Journal Press.
1 Thankr are first due Mr. Arthur Taylor of the Michigan Public Health Depart-
ment who graciously provided access to the marriage and divorce records of Michigan.
Samplea used in the recond investigation were drawn by Diane Young, Sue Dinerstein,
Michele Naifeh, Cathi Smith, Steve Atkinson, Tom Sams, and John Adams. Dan Gut-
kin iupplied much appreciated help with the data analysis, while Ron Michelini and
George Bishop aided in formulating the third study. Finally, I am grateful to N a n v
Hammond, Raymond Cochrane, and Frank Holly for their suggertionr concerning pre-
viour verrionr of thin manurcript
141
 142 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

T h e first two studies reported herein set out to determine whether astrology
is valid. If the answer should be negative, a second equally interesting ques-
tion arises: namely, why do so many persons seem to believe that astrology ren-
ders accurate personality descriptions? T h e third study attempts a partial an-
swer of this intriguing paradox.
B. STUDY I
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:04 07 December 2013

1. Hypotheses
This investigation employed the Rokeach Value Survey (7), a direct reflec-
tion of personality, to determine whether personalities differ according to the
12 signs of the zodiac as astrologers predict. An analysis of several astrology
books yielded the hypotheses tested: ( a ) those born under the signs Libra and
Aquarius rank the value E Q U A L I T Y higher than the combination of those
born under the remaining 10 signs; ( b ) those born under Sagittarius rank the
value H O N E S T higher than the combination of those born under the remain-
ing signs; ( c ) those born under the signs Pisces and Aquarius rank the value
H E L P F U L higher than the combination of those born under the remaining
signs; (d) natives of Taurus and Cancer rank the value F A M I L Y SECU-
R I T Y higher than the combination of those born under the other signs; ( c )
the combination of those born under the signs Virgo, Gemini, and Capricorn
rank the value I N T E L L E C T U A L higher than the combination of those born
under the remaining signs.
2. Method
A systematic sample of 1600 psychology graduate students was drawn from
a sampling frame of 8000 such students, with the use of a 1/5 sampling frac-
tion. T h e sampling frame was constructed from mailing lists supplied by 97
universities. Questionnaires, which in part consisted of the Rokeach Value
Survey, were sent to each student, and subsequently 954 were returned, yield-
ing a response rate of 597%. T h e value survey required the subject to rank two
sets of 18 values each in order of their importance as guiding principles in the
subject’s life. Subjects’ zodiac signs were determined from the day and month
of birth as written on the questionnaires.
T o determine those values that ought to be important to natives of particu-
lar signs four astrology books (3, 5, 6, 9) that supplied detailed personality
descriptions corresponding to each sign were content analyzed for values. A
value or its synonyms, as interpreted in the value survey, had to be explicitly
mentioned in the personality sketch of a sign in order for it to be recorded as
typical of that sign. Further, important values for individuals born under par-
 BBRNIB I. SILVERMAN 143

ticular signs were considered to be those mentioned in at least three of the four
books.
3. Results
First the median rank of each value for the total sample was determined.
Subjects were then categorized as being at or above or below the median on
each value. T h e x2 statistic was then used to discover if there was a significant
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:04 07 December 2013

relationship between subjects’ sun signs and their value rankings. Cell f re-
quencies were inspected to find out if the direction of the obtained relationships
was as hypothesized.
Of those subjects born under the signs Libra and Aquarius, 70 ranked
EQUALITY at or above the median, while 64 ranked it below. Correspond-
ing figures for subjects born under the remaining 10 signs were 414 and 371.
These frequencies yield a x2 value of .04indicating those born under the signs
Libra and Aquarius consider EQUALITY no more important as a guiding
principle in their lives than others.
Among Sagittarians, 46 ranked H O N E S T at or above the median, while
40 ranked it below. Among subjects born under the other signs the comparable
figures were 463 and 363. A x2 of .20 resulted, indicating that those born un-
der the sign Sagittarius see H O N E S T no more central to their personality
than others.
Of those subjects born under the signs Pisces and Aquarius, 71 ranked
H E L P F U L at or above the median, while 56 ranked it below. Corresponding
figures for subjects born under the remaining signs were 417 and 369. These
frequencies yield a 2 value of .35, indicating those born under the signs Pisces
and Aquarius do not differ from others in the importance they attribute to be-
ing HELPFUL.
Of those born under the signs Taurus and Cancer, 81 ranked F A M I L Y
SECURITY at or above the median, while 72 ranked it below. For subjects
born under the remaining signs the corresponding figures were 409 and 358.
These frequencies yield a x2 value of .03 indicating those born under the signs
Taurus and Cancer do not consider F A M I L Y S E C U R I T Y any more impor-
tant than subjects born under other signs.
Among subjects born under the signs Virgo, Gemini, and Capricorn, 130
ranked I N T E L L E C T U A L at or above the median, while 126 ranked it be-
low. Among subjects born under the other signs the comparable figures were
358 and 298. A x2 of 1.06 resulted, indicating that those born under Virgo,
Gemini, and Capricorn view the value I N T E L L E C T U A L as no more cen-
tral to their personality than natives of other signs.
 144 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

C. STUDYI1
1. H y p o t h e s e s
Marriage and divorce are behaviors contingent to some extent upon the per-
sonalities of the partners. For this reason many astrologers deem particular
pairs of signs compatible and suggest that those born under them should be es-
pecially attracted to one another and hence marry more frequently and divorce
less frequently than would be expected by chance. Similarly, astrologers desig-
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:04 07 December 2013

nate other pairs of signs incompatible and imply that natives of these signs
should marry less frequently and divorce more frequently than would be ex-
pected by chance. Therefore, the hypotheses tested were ( u ) those born under
compatible signs marry more frequently and ( 6 ) divorce less frequently than
would be expected by chance, while ( c ) those born under incompatible signs
marry less frequently and ( d ) divorce more frequently than would be expected
by chance.
2. Method
T w o systematic samples of 1586 and 1392 marriages were drawn, with the
use of a 1/50 sampling fraction, from sampling frames consisting of marriages
in Michigan during 1967 and 1968 respectively. T h u s two independent tests
of the marriage hypotheses could be made. A nonprobability sample of 478 di-
vorces granted in 1968 was acquired for a single Michigan county. Statistical
independence having been assumed, it was possible to calculate the expected
proportion of every possible combination of signs for each sample. T h e obtained
proportion of each combination of signs was directly calculated from the sam-
ples.
Explicit predictions made by two astrologers (4, 9 ) were used to designate
combinations as compatible o r incompatible.2 Both judged 12 pairs of signs as
especially compatible, but one listed 18 incompatible combinations, while the
other gave 12. As there was not complete agreement between astrologers, the
predictions of each were tested separately.
2 Lyndoe’s compatible pairs were Aries-Leo, Aries-Sagittarius, Taurus-Virgo, Tau-
rus-Capricorn, Gemini-Libra, Gemini-Aquarius, Cancer-Scorpio, Cancer-Pisces,
Leo-Sagittarius, Virgo-Capricorn, Libra-Aquarius, and Scorpio-Pisces. Compatible
or attracted pairs according to Wagner were Aries-Gemini, Aries-Aquarius, Taurus-
Cancer, Taurus-Pisces, Gemini-Leo, Cancer-Virgo, Leo-Libra, Virgo-Scorpio, Libra-
Sagittarius, Scorpio-Capricorn, Sagittarius-Aquarius, and Capricorn-Pisces.
Lyndoe’s incompatible or unattracted pairs were Aries-Cancer, Aries-Libra, Aries-
Capricorn, Taurus-Leo, Taurus-Scorpio, Taurus-Aquarius, Libra-Capricorn,
Gemini-Virgo, Gemini-Sagittarius, Gemini-Pisces, Cancer-Libra, Cancer-Capricorn,
Leo-Scorpio, Leo-Aquarius, Virgo-Sagittarius, Virgo-Pisces, Scorpio-Aquarius, Sagit-
tarius-Pisces. For Wagner unattached pairs were Aries-Cancer, Aries-Capricorn,
Taurus-Leo, Taurus-Aquarius, Gemini-Virgo, Gemini-Pisces, Cancer-Libra, Leo-
Scorpio, Virgo-Sagittarius, Libra-Capricorn, Scorpio-Aquarius, Sagittarius-Piscen.
 BERNIE I. SILVERMAN 145

Table 1 displays findings concerning interpersonal attraction as manifest in

marriage and divorce. T h e hypotheses were tested on obtained and expected
proportions based on observations (marriages or divorces) garnered from com-
binations of 12 or 18 pairs of compatible or incompatible signs. T h e table is
arranged so that if the findings support the astrologers’ predictions, obtained
proportions (Po) will exceed expected proportions (P,) in the first three rows,
while expected proportions will exceed obtained in the bottom three rows. T o
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:04 07 December 2013

test for differences between expected and obtained proportions, a t test between
proportions was used. Inspection of Table 1 reveals that obtained proportions
did not deviate significantly from expected proportions in any case, suggesting
that marriage and divorce are independent of couples’ sun signs. Consequently
the four hypotheses are rejected.
4. Conclusion
T h e first investigation suggests that the position of the sun in the zodiac at
birth doer not affect later personality, at least as measured in terms of values.
T h e results of the second study reinforce this contention if two assumptions
are valid: namely, ( a ) personality contributes to attraction and ( b ) attraction
or its absence may be validly operationalized as marriage and divorce.
Note that the large samples used in the second investigation insure that even
the slightest effect of the sun on interpersonal attraction would have been de-
tected as statistically significant were it in fact there. I n short the findings of
the first two studies compel one to conclude that astrology is invalid.
D. STUDY I11
1. Introduction
Given that personality descriptions provided by astrologers are false, why do
so many persons feel there is some truth to them? T h e descriptions are no
doubt easy to accept, as they are, for the most part, quite flattering. Yet all are
more or less equally favorable and therefore this factor alone cannot explain
peoples’ tendency to see the description corresponding to their own sign as rela-
tively self-descriptive.
Perhaps a clue to the way in which personality descriptions based on astrol-
ogy achieve apparent validity can be found in membership group theory. Siegal
and Siegal (8, p. 363) have shown “the imposition of a membership group does
have some effect on an individual’s attitudes, even when the imposed group is
not accepted by the individual as his reference group.” Charters and New-
comb (1) found that making a membership group salient resulted in subjects’
attitudes changing toward the membership group’s norms.
 Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:04 07 December 2013

e
e
c.

TABLE 1
OBTAINED
AND EXPECTED
FREQUENCIES AND DIVORCES
OF MARRIAGES
BETWEEN COUPLES BY ASTROLOGERS
AS COMPATIBLE
DEFINED
Edward Wagner Edward Lyndon 4
No. of No. of No. of No. of 0
C
pairs of obser- pairs of obser-
Variable signs vations Pe Po Sig. signs vations Pe Po sig. f
r
Compatible 0
marriages, 1967 12 260 ,163 .163 - 12 280 .163 .l76 - Irl
Compatible
marriages, 1968 12 265 .163 .189 - 12 252 ,163 .180 - 5
0
Incompatible T
divorces, 1968 12 87 .163 .182 - 18 128 .2w .267 -
Incompatible
s
marriages, 1967 12 267 .163 .168 - 18 412 .245 .259 -
Incompatible
marriages, 1968 12 232 .163 .166 - 18 347 .2w .249 -
Com pa tible
divorces, 1968 12 76 .163 .158 - 12 82 .163 .171 -
..
 BBRNIB I. SILVERMAN 147

It may be that self-perception or, in other words, attitudes about oneself,

like those about external objects, are influenced by membership group salience.
I n this context we can't posit that sun signs define membership groups. T h e
norms of these groups, regarding personality characteristics, are explicitly
spelled out by astrologers in their personality descriptions of those born under
the 12 signs. If personality descriptions based on astrology seem valid because
they are construed as defining the normative personality of a membership
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:04 07 December 2013

group, making astrological affiliation salient should increase the proportion of

persons who view their astrological personality description as a relatively accu-
rate description of themselves. This was the hypothesis tested.

2. Method
One hundred and eleven students enrolled in an introductory psychology
course were assigned to one of two groups. All subjects were given question-
naires consisting of 12 single paragraph personality descriptions (copied from
astrology books), one for each sign of the zodiac. Each description given to
those in the group in which astrological affiliation was salient (N = 51) was
headed by the appropriate sign, as well as the birthdays it included. Subjects
in this group were asked to write their own sign on the cover of the question-
naire before reading the descriptions within and indicating which four came
closest to describing them. Subjects in this group, then, were aware both of
their sun signs and the appropriate personality description according to astrol-
OgY.
For those in the group in which astrological affiliation was not made salient
(N= 60) the personality descriptions were titled simply Type I, Type I1 . ..
Type XII. These subjects were told that the personality descriptions came
from Morris' Twelve W a y s of Life and, like the first group, were asked to
choose the four that best described them. T h e sun signs of those in this group
were obtained on a questionnaire administered later in the experiment. Pre-
sumably subjects in this group were not thinking of themselves in terms of as-
trology while completing the questionnaire containing the personality descrip-
tions.
3. Results and Discussion
Twenty-six of the 51 subjects ($1 = 5 1 ) in the group in which astrologi-
cal affiliation was made salient saw the personality description corresponding
to their own sign as one of the four that best described them. Comparable fig-
ures for the group in which astrological affiliation was not emphasized were 18
 148 JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

out of 60 ( p s = .30). A test between sample proportions yielded a t = 2.33

(df = 109, p < .025) and suggests that emphasizing astrological affiliation is
positively related to subjects’ choosing as relatively self-descriptive the person-
ality description corresponding to their own sign. Interpreting these choices as
meaning subjects actually see themselves more like the descriptions they se-
lected than those they did not, leads to the conclusion that making salient as-
trological affiliation results in persons seeing themselves as relatively accurately
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:04 07 December 2013

described by astrology based personality descriptions. Thus the hypothesis was

supported.
T h e astrology salient condition corresponds to the way astrological predic-
tions and personality descriptions are commonly presented. T h a t more persons
than would be expected by chance in such circumstances choose as selfdescrip-
tive the personality description corresponding to their sign confirms what pre-
viously was inferred only from astrology’s great popularity. A surprisingly
large number of people see astrology as rendering at least partially accurate
personality descriptions.
But when astrology was not emphasized the proportion of persons who saw
themselves as relatively accurately described by astrology did not deviate from
chance. This finding, along with the results of the first two studies, suggests
that the accuracy of astrology based personality descriptions is more apparent
than real. Further the results of the third study imply that membership group
saliency may be one of the variables contributing to persons seeing themselves
as astrology predicts.
E. SUMMARY
Three investigations point to the same conclusion : namely, that the position
of the sun at birth is not a valid predictor of an individual’s personality. This
was inferred from ( a ) subjects’ failure to respond to the Rokeach Value Sur-
vey in a manner congruent with astrological predictions; (b) the failure of
subjects to be attracted to one another, as evidenced in the behaviors of mar-
riage and divorce, in accord with astrological predictions; ( c ) subjects not
choosing the personality description corresponding to their own sign as best
describing them when astrological affiliation was not made salient.
Subjects for whom astrological affiliation was made salient chose the per-
sonality description corresponding to their sign as a relatively accurate self-de-
scription more often than would be expected by chance. This finding was in-
terpreted as indicating the variable of membership group saliency underlies
astrology’s ability to render apparently accurate personality descriptions.
 BERNIE 1. SILVBRMAN 149

REFERXNCBS
1. CHMTKRS, W.W.,k NIIWCOHB, T. Some attitudinal effects of experimentally in-
creased salience of a membership qroup. In Maamby, E. E., Newcomb, T.,&
Hartley, E. (Eds.), Reudinpr in Sonul Prycholopy. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1958. Pp. 276-281.
2. GAUOUXLIN, M. The Scientific Baris of Astrology. New York: Stein & Day, 1969.
3. GOODAVACE, J. Write Your O w n Horoscope. New York: New American Library,
1968.
4. LYNDOI,E. Astrology Answerr Your Questions. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett, 1969.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 08:04 07 December 2013

5. MATHXRS, A. The Astrology Love Book. New York: New American Library, 1969.
6. RIG=& C. The Astrological Guide to Marriage and Family Relationr. New
York: Dell, 1970.
7. ROKBACII, M. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco, Calif. : Jorsey-Bass,
1969.
8. SIXCAL,A., & SIBGAL,S. Reference groups, membership groupr, and attitude change.
1. Rbn. & Sac. Psychol., 1957, 55, 360-364.
9. WACNSR,E. Your 1970 Solar Horoscope. New York: Dell, 1969.
Department of Psychology
OIds Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823