This is a paper I recently wrote for my personality psych class. Thought some readers may enjoy it. Mind candy, to say the least!
Summary of Science Versus the Stars: A Double-Blind Test of the Validity of the NEO Five-Factor
Inventory and Computer-Generated Astrological Natal Charts
Authors Wyman and Vyse consider their study to be a repetition of the Carlson 1985 study on astrology’s validity with significant updates. In the 1985 study, participants were asked to correctly identify their true astrological personality description and their true CPI (California Personality Inventory) descriptions from false descriptions. The study in this article updates the 1985 study by testing the subject (self)-rated accuracy of the Five Factor Model of trait theory versus the subject-rated accuracy of computer-generated astrological natal chart descriptions.
52 college students between the ages of 18-22 were given one real and one bogus description of both an astrological personality description and a NEO-FFI personality description and asked to rate them for accuracy on a 9-point scale. Several hypotheses were made as to the results of such a study, such as an expectation that participants would be able to identify their correct NEO-FFI personality description with a greater frequency than the false one, and that all descriptions, both true and false, astrological and psychological, would be rated “somewhat favorably” across the board due to the Barnum effect.
In addition to a brief questionnaire that gathered information such as the students’ beliefs about the accuracy of astrology and personality tests in general, whether they knew their accurate sun sign prior to participating in the study, a 60-question NEO-FFI questionnaire was administered to gather the psychological data. Birth data (exact date, time, and place) was also requested from the participants to compile the astrological data. The questionnaires and birth data were then evaluated to produce reports. After a 3-week period, participants came back and were handed a packet with an instruction sheet and four personality summaries: a false natal chart report, a correct natal chart report, a false psychological profile, and a correct psychological profile. Each pair of incorrect and correct descriptions was labeled either Astrological Report or Psychological Report. Participants read and rated the accuracy between the bogus and real natal chart reports and between the bogus and real psychological reports and identified which one of each pair they thought was their own. They were also asked to rate the accuracy of all four reports overall, and asked which of the four seemed the most accurate description of their personality.
Some results: Participants correctly identified their NEO-FFI profiles at “greater-than-chance” levels (78.8%). Participants correctly identified their astrological profiles at a “not significantly better than chance” level (46.2%). In selecting the most accurate description out of the four, 54.9% of participants chose their correct NEO-FFI description, 19.6% chose their correct astrological description, 15.7% chose the bogus astrological description, and 9.8% chose the bogus NEO-FFI description. Further examinations of the data were also made on topics such as Sun-Sign Bias (bias “partially” found), and Odd-Numbered Sign Bias (no bias found) and the Barnum Effect. Finally, the article compares the results and methods to that of the 1985 Carlson study.
Reaction
These results are not surprising as these experiments have been conducted multiple times with similar results. I am also not disappointed in these results as I am able to hold both a belief and a disbelief in astrology simultaneously (somehow!). It was pleasing to see the researchers acknowledge things like the tendency of some people to perpetually rate everything more positively as a whole, and that it can be argued with some validity that self-evaluation may not be the most reliable way to judge accuracy of personality statements.
A few procedures in this study are questionable, however. First, it is common for people to provide an astrologer with only an approximate time of birth, such as “around 4 pm,” and since a natal chart can change in as little as four minutes, an accurate time of birth is essential. Even if the researchers screened for this and required an exact hour and minute of birth from the participants, the researchers should have collected or at least verified the birth data themselves to prevent flaws in the data at the very beginning. The researchers did remind them not to violate the ‘honor code’ by providing false data, but it’s all too easy to do this unintentionally.
Another questionable procedure is the fact that the researchers labeled the reports “astrological” and “psychological.” They went to great effort to eradicate or account for participant biases, such as acknowledging the likelihood that people who were familiar with their sun signs prior to participating in the study will likely have better accuracy in guessing which is their true and false astrological description, and also when they removed all planetary and sign labels from the astrological reports. However, by designating which set of descriptions was which (astrological or psychological), they introduced the potential bias of the participant. If certain participants were more prejudiced against astrology, for example, they may already be inclined to rate the astrological descriptions lower in accuracy before they’ve even read them because they know which descriptions are determined astrologically.
Finally, unlike standardized personality tests, astrological descriptions are not standardized. They vary in at least two ways. First: every astrologer can come up with their own description of any astrological component and have it potentially be considered valid. That is not to say there aren’t typically accepted characteristics of each astrological component, but that there does not exist, for example, an authorized and official Taurus description out there somewhere. There is no official source, judge, or committee from which all astrological descriptions are handed down to astrologers and the public. The Meyers-Briggs, for example, is copyrighted and standardized, so that every written result for an ISTJ, for example, reads exactly the same.
The second way astrological descriptions can vary is due to chart interplay. While each sign, for example, has common characteristics that a majority of astrologers are likely to agree upon, the degree to which any given characteristic is likely to manifest in a personality is directly related to every other factor in the natal chart. An astrologer evaluating a natal chart may avoid describing a Taurus sun-sign person as “stubborn” (a typically accepted Taurus characteristic) if the person has other significant factors in their natal chart that reveal flexibility and open-mindedness (such as a natal chart with the planet Mars in Gemini) but may greatly emphasize stubbornness upon seeing the Taurus sun person with a natal chart that has other significant factors emphasizing rigidity or fastidiousness (such as the moon in Virgo). A computer-generated report has little-to-no ability to consider this chart interplay.
References:
Johnson, J. T., Cain, L. M., Falke, T. L., Hayman, J., & Perillo, E. (1985). The "Barnum effect" revisited: Cognitive and motivational factors in the acceptance of personality descriptions. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 49(5), 1378-1391. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1378
Fichten, C. S., & Sunerton, B. (1983). POPULAR HOROSCOPES AND THE 'BARNUM EFFECT.'. Journal Of Psychology, 114(1), 123.
Wyman, A., & Vyse, S. (2008). Science Versus the Stars: A Double-Blind Test of the Validity of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and Computer-Generated Astrological Natal Charts. Journal Of General Psychology, 135(3), 287-300.

Recent Comments