Horoscopes and the study of astrology dates back thousands of years, with the earliest forms being dated to the 2nd millennium BC. The word horoscope derives from the Greek words ōra (“time”) and scopos (“observer”), meaning a forecast of a person’s future that can be produced based on the relative positions of the stars and planets at the time of their birth. The 20th century saw a resurgence in the popularity of horoscopes, as mass media products, such as newspaper horoscopes, provided people with short predictions of their character and future circumstances based on their astrological sign. However, there are no scientific studies that have shown support for the accuracy of horoscopes (Zarka, 2011). Given this, why have horoscopes remained so popular and why do their predictions appear to ring so true for some people?
Well, in 1948 B.R Forer devised an experiment which may explain this phenomenon. In a now classic experiment, Forer gave 39 of his psychology students a psychology test (what he dubbed a “Diagnostic Interest Blank”). Each student was told that they would receive a unique descriptor of their personality based on the results of their test. One week after completing Forer’s test, the participants received their personality vignette and were asked to rate its accuracy on a scale of 0 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). On average, the participants rated its accuracy as 4.30, indicating that the majority of students felt that the descriptor was very accurate.
However, as you may have guessed, each personality vignette was in fact not tailored to each student but was comprised of extremely general and vague statements that could be applied to most people. What’s more, Forer pulled these predictions from an astrology book he bought at a newsstand. This phenomenon was initially named the Forer effect, though it is arguably better known as the Barnum effect (named after the American showman’s famous line, ‘We’ve got something for everyone’).
 |
| Each participant was unknowingly given these same 13 descriptors of their personality by Forer (1949). |
There are a few other things to know about this interesting effect. Firstly, it appears to be partially dependent on the positive or negative valence of each statement (that is to say that individuals more readily accept positive words of feedback than negative words of feedback). Secondly, the authority of the evaluator plays an important role: the effect is more robust when the subject believes in the authority of the evaluator providing the predictions (in the case of Forer, his authority as a renowned psychologist likely helped his students/participants ‘buy in’ to both his test and subsequent predictions). Thirdly, replications of Forer’s classic experiment have demonstrated similar results, even across cultures (Rogers & Soule, 2009), and come to the same conclusions with regards to the need for an overall positive ratio of trait assessments, and the importance of the participants’ trust in the evaluator.
So, there you have it. This is why horoscopes, despite having no scientific basis, have remained popular (and, incidentally, the same principle can be applied to psychics, fortune tellers and even criminal profilers). All this being said, there doesn’t appear to necessarily be any harmful consequences from reading a daily horoscope. In fact, some research indicates that reading a daily horoscope may actually enhance cognitive and creative abilities. Join us for our next article (coming 16/10/2020) where we’ll be exploring the potential benefits of horoscopes and the underlying “expectancy effect”.
References
Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal
validation: a classroom demonstration of gullibility. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(1), 118.
Rogers, P., & Soule, J. (2009).
Cross-cultural differences in the acceptance of Barnum profiles supposedly derived
from Western versus Chinese astrology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
40(3), 381-399.
Zarka, P. (2009). Astronomy and astrology. Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union, 5(S260), 420-425.