Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


astrology

(PHOTO: NOMAD_SOUL/SHUTTERSTOCK)

I Kind of, Sort of Might, But Not Really, Believe in Astrology

• September 19, 2013 • 8:00 AM

(PHOTO: NOMAD_SOUL/SHUTTERSTOCK)

With little to no scientific evidence backing them, why do so many people still look at their horoscopes?

Earlier this month I requested the input of an astrologer via Twitter. I had moved to New York City a week earlier and, in that span of time, had suffered a series of small but aggravating mishaps, including but not limited to: carrying my suitcase six flights up the apartment building next to mine; subsequently trying, for 20 minutes, to enter the wrong apartment; purchasing the wrong kitchen cart at IKEA and having to get in the return aisle immediately afterward; taking an under-prepared cab driver on an unnecessary loop around my Lower East Side neighborhood in an attempt to direct him to Brooklyn; breaking two of my new roommate’s ceramic dishes and one of her Champagne flutes; losing my favorite bracelet; and riding the subway in the wrong direction for eight stops.

This is likely more or less what anyone (and especially anyone with below-average grace) moving into a tiny apartment in a big, unfamiliar city should expect, but it seemed like a lot to go wrong in a week even still, even for me. I felt notably, cosmically unlucky, and I wanted to know when exactly I could expect it to stop. So I did the modern equivalent of visiting a soothsayer, and I tweeted at Miller of Astrology Zone in hopes she would tweet back to tell me I could expect the rest of the month to be blessed and error-free.

Although she’s known for responding fairly frequently to astrological inquiries via Twitter, she didn’t respond to mine. She may well have been too busy that day, but I suspect she knew my string of screw-ups was far from over and didn’t have the heart to tell me.

I felt notably, cosmically unlucky, and I wanted to know when exactly I could expect it to stop.

As with most other supernatural/paranormal/pseudoscientific phenomena, astrology captures my interest for reasons I can’t really explain. If pressed to state my level of belief in it, the strongest support I could give it would be to say, “I don’t know … not really?” But here I am anyway, reading my horoscope every morning before work. Two of them, actually, from apps I’ve downloaded onto my iPhone—the aforementioned Astrology Zone, which provides an incredibly detailed and frequently (if inadvertently) funny monthly outlook, and another called The Daily Horoscope. I keep my “lucky” days and “most romantic” days in mind, vaguely, and though I don’t think they have ever been accurate, I will always give the next month’s a chance.

When a stranger who follows me on Twitter emailed me to ask why so many “seemingly otherwise smart” people believed in astrology, that’s probably the kind of cognitive dissonance he was talking about. Despite near-total scientific dismissal and a penchant for getting even the haziest predictions wrong much of the time, astrologers are still compelling to many of us. Various polls typically put the figure for true belief among Americans, Canadians, and the British at roughly 25 percent—a figure that would likely be much higher if only it incorporated those who kind of, sort of believe, as well as those who claim not to believe at all, but still read their horoscopes sometimes anyway, just to check, as a joke.

THAT SUCH A SUBSTANTIAL number of us could believe in something with so little to support it has plagued various scientists and thinkers since the 17th century, when developments in astronomy and physics undermined most (if not all) of astrology’s legitimacy. It’s been, at various times, illegal; fortune telling was outlawed in New York City in 1967. The law, which is still on the books, is little enforced, but it speaks to the particular disdain reserved for people who take that kind of thing seriously. (It’s also, no doubt, meant to protect people from spending their money on something stupid, but still, the government only steps in on some of those stupid things.)

The belief in astrology has also been the subject of academic study. A 1997 article entitled “Belief in Astrology: A Social-Psychological Analysis” by researchers Martin Bauer and John Durant used 1988 British survey data to test a number of hypotheses that might explain why certain people are more likely to check their star charts than others. Among the likeliest contenders: first, the level of structure and detail implicit in astrology appeals to people with “intermediate” levels of scientific knowledge (because they like the theory and the process, if not the rigor required to disprove it); second, a belief in astrology reflects “metaphysical unrest” most present in those with religious backgrounds who have since moved away from organized religion; and third, astrological belief is more prevalent among those with an, ah, “authoritarian character.” I can’t speak for everyone, but on a personal level: OK, fair enough.

Bauer and Durant found strong support for hypotheses one and two—belief in astrology coincides with scientific interest and education up to a point, but then drops off among those inclined to true scientific rigor, and it does indeed occur more frequently among those, as the authors put it, “alive to religion” but not currently involved in a religious community—but, somewhat surprisingly according to previous literature, none for three. Some believers in astrology might happen to be authoritarian, but there are a number of other traits that predict belief more significantly. Frequent horoscope readers are more likely to be women, for one, and single, and in search of a greater sense of control (none of which are factors that have ever lent much credibility to any practice whose enthusiasts are defined by them).

What may be even more notable in Bauer and Durant’s findings, though, lies in their breakdown of the survey data. Among those who answered affirmatively to having ever read an astrology report (73 percent of all respondents), 44 percent responded that they do so often or fairly often. But only six percent of those who admitted to having ever read an astrology report said they took what they read seriously or even fairly seriously. Sixty-seven percent said they took what they read “not very seriously,” and 22 percent said they didn’t take it seriously at all. Whether these figures are strictly accurate or at least partly the result of respondents’ self-consciousness, it’s hard to say. Perhaps, like me, that 67 percent and 22 percent are mostly speaking of last month’s horoscope. Next month’s could be totally spot on.

Katie Heaney
Katie Heaney is a writer and an editor at BuzzFeed and author of Never Have I Ever. Follow her on Twitter @KTHeaney.

More From Katie Heaney

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

October 20 • 12:00 PM

Love and Hate in Israel and Palestine

Psychologists find that parties to a conflict think they’re motivated by love while their enemies are motivated by hate.


October 20 • 11:00 AM

My Dog Comes First: The Importance of Pets to Homeless Youth

Dogs and cats have both advantages and disadvantages for street-involved youth.


October 20 • 10:00 AM

Homophobia Is Not a Thing of the Past

Despite growing support for LGBT rights and recent decisions from the Supreme Court regarding the legality of same-sex marriage, the battle for acceptance has not yet been decided.


October 20 • 8:00 AM

Big Boobs Matter Most

Medical mnemonics are often scandalous and sexist, but they help the student to both remember important facts and cope with challenging new experiences.


October 20 • 6:00 AM

When Disease Becomes Political: The Likely Electoral Fallout From Ebola

Will voters blame President Obama—and punish Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections—for a climate of fear?


October 20 • 4:00 AM

Coming Soon: The Anatomy of Ignorance


October 17 • 4:00 PM

What All Military Families Need to Know About High-Cost Lenders

Lessons from over a year on the beat.


October 17 • 2:00 PM

The Majority of Languages Do Not Have Gendered Pronouns

A world without “he.” Or “she.”


October 17 • 11:01 AM

How to Water a Farm in Sandy Ground

Physicists investigate how to grow food more efficiently in fine-grained soil.


October 17 • 10:00 AM

Can Science Fiction Spur Science Innovation?

Without proper funding, the answer might not even matter.


October 17 • 8:00 AM

Seattle, the Incredible Shrinking City

Seattle is leading the way in the micro-housing movement as an affordable alternative to high-cost city living.


October 17 • 6:00 AM

‘Voodoo Death’ and How the Mind Harms the Body

Can an intense belief that you’re about to die actually kill you? Researchers are learning more about “voodoo death” and how it isn’t limited to superstitious, foreign cultures.


October 17 • 4:00 AM

That Arts Degree Is Paying Off

A survey of people who have earned degrees in the arts find they are doing relatively well, although their education didn’t provide much guidance on managing a career.


October 16 • 4:00 PM

How (Some) Economists Are Like Doomsday Cult Members

Cognitive dissonance and clinging to paradigms even in the face of accumulated anomalous facts.


October 16 • 2:00 PM

The Latest—and Most Mysterious—Player in the Nasty Battle Over Net Neutrality

As the FCC considers how to regulate Internet providers, the telecom industry’s stealth campaign for hearts and minds encompasses everything from art installations to LOLcats.


October 16 • 12:00 PM

How Many Ads Is Too Many Ads?

The conundrum of online video advertising.


October 16 • 11:00 AM

Unlocking Consciousness

A study of vegetative patients closes in on the nature of consciousness.


October 16 • 10:00 AM

The False Promises of Higher Education

Danielle Henderson spent six years and $60,000 on college and beyond. The effects of that education? Not as advertised.


October 16 • 8:00 AM

Faster Justice, Closer to Home: The Power of Community Courts

Community courts across the country are fighting judicial backlog and lowering re-arrest rates.


October 16 • 6:00 AM

Killing Your Husband to Save Yourself

Without proper legal instruments, women with abusive partners are often forced to make a difficult choice: kill or be killed.


October 16 • 4:00 AM

Personality Traits Linked to Specific Diseases

New research finds neurotic people are more likely to suffer a serious health problem.


October 16 • 2:00 AM

Comparing Apples to the Big Apple: Yes, Washington, D.C., Is More Expensive Than New York City

Why shouldn’t distant locales tied to jobs in the urban core count in a housing expenditure study?


October 15 • 4:00 PM

Why Asian American Parents Are the Least Likely to Spank Their Kids

Highly educated, middle-class parents are less likely to use corporal punishment to discipline their children than less-educated, working-class, and poor parents.


October 15 • 2:00 PM

The Federal Government’s New Doctor Payments Website Is Worthy of a Recall

Charles Ornstein takes a test drive using the federal government’s new website for drug and device payments and finds it virtually unusable.


October 15 • 12:00 PM

How Cosmetic Companies Get Away With Pseudoscience

Anti-aging creams make absurd claims that they repair DNA damage or use stem-cell treatments. When cosmetics companies and dermatologists partner to maximize profits, who is responsible for protecting the consumer?


Follow us


Love and Hate in Israel and Palestine

Psychologists find that parties to a conflict think they're motivated by love while their enemies are motivated by hate.

How to Water a Farm in Sandy Ground

Physicists investigate how to grow food more efficiently in fine-grained soil.

Unlocking Consciousness

A study of vegetative patients closes in on the nature of consciousness.

Advice for Emergency Alert Systems: Don’t Cry Wolf

A survey finds college students don't always take alerts seriously.

Brain’s Reward Center Does More Than Manage Rewards

Nucleus accumbens tracks many different connections in the world, a new rat study suggests.

The Big One

One company, Amazon, controls 67 percent of the e-book market in the United States—down from 90 percent five years ago. September/October 2014 new-big-one-5

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.