Self-attribution, sun-sign traits, and the alleged role of favourableness as a moderator variable: long-term effect or artefact? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Do Astrological Beliefs Reflects Systematic Bias in Personality Measurement?
Alphanumeric Journal, 2021
Personality is a complex concept specified by many factors and separated from character concept in many ways. Astrology is an ancient study that involves classifications based upon the zodiac and regarded now as a pseudo-science. In this study, aim was to investigate the effect of the astrological personality on the personality characteristics, which were measured by the Five Factor Personality Model. The research studies finding that the pre-scientific beliefs had an effect on personality measurements, motivates to accept the astrological groupings as a factor on explaining the personality and trait. The significant effects indicates either a direct reasoning or a systematic bias without questioning the belief of respondent.
Belief in Astrology: a social-psychological analysis
Culture and Cosmos, 1997
Social scientists have suggested several different hypotheses to account for the prevalence of belief in astrology among certain sections of the public in modern times. It has been proposed: (1) that as an elaborate and systematic belief system, astrology is attractive to people with intermediate levels of scientific knowledge [the superficial knowledge hypothesis]; (2) that belief in astrology reflects a kind of 'metaphysical unrest' that is to be found amongst those with a religious orientation but little or no integration into the structures of organized religion, perhaps as a result of 'social disintegration' consequent upon the collapse of community or upon social mobility [the metaphysical unrest hypothesis]; and (3) that belief in astrology is prevalent amongst those with an 'authoritarian character' [authoritarian personality hypothesis]. The paper tests these hypotheses against the results of British survey data from 1988. The evidence appears to sup...
A scientific inquiry into the validity of astrology
Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1990
Six expert astrologers independently attempted to match 23 astrological birth charts to the corresponding case files of 4 male and 19 female volunteers. Case files contained information on the volunteers' life histories, full-face and profile photographs, and test profiles from the Strong-Campbell Vocational Interest Blank and the Cattell 16-P.F. Personality Inventory. Astrologers did no better than chance or than a nonastrologer control subject at matching the birth charts to the personal data; this result was independent of astrologers' confidence ratings for their predicted matches. Astrologers also failed to agree with one another's predictions.
2015
This study investigated the effect of priming on puzzle performance in 49 students. Subjects were given fictitious Chinese Zodiac personality descriptions and asked to complete a Sudoku puzzle. Descriptions were manipulated based on nature (positive or negative) and perceived validity (valid or not valid) of description. Subjects read fictitious research statistics that either supported or refuted the validity Chinese Zodiac Animal Signs in order to manipulate perceived validity. It was hypothesized that participants who received the positive/valid horoscope and negative/invalid horoscope predictions would perform best. Findings supported previous literature that priming subjects to think a certain way can affect behavior (Gramzow, Johnson, & Willard, 2014). Subjects primed to think positively about themselves performed better than those primed to think negatively about themselves. Additionally, perceived validity of horoscope predictions had no effect on performance. This study als...
Astrology and Psychological Types
Archai, 2020
This article presents an overview of Carl Jung's psychological type model, focusing on what is known as the "cognitive processes," combinations of the extroversion-introversion dichotomy and the functions of thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting. The paper then draws out comparisons to the astrological archetypes of the planets, suggesting some correspondence between these diverge models of the psyche.
The good science of astrology: Separating effects from artifacts
International Astrologer, 2011
The astrological premise regarding effects differs from classical scientific concepts, yet is scientific in principle and scope. Symmetrical processes take precedence over causal processes, and influences should be viewed as interactions between individuals. Astrological effects have been demonstrated to be amplified by ranks of eminence, and longstanding studies of this remain unrefuted. The basis for the belief that science has repeatedly falsified astrology is critically examined. Forer effect arguments, the most commonly cited evidence, are found to be based on tests of selectively assembled non-astrological artifacts, which normal science would eliminate as bias. The acclaimed 1985 Carlson study, which dealt a devastating blow to astrological research, is found to be equally biased. It ignores its own test design, which when actually followed provides significant support for astrology.
Defense of emergent effects in astrology research: Rebuttal of Dean and Kelly
Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2023
The essay I wrote on the astrology research program (McRitchie, 2022) has drawn a critical review from G. Dean and I. Kelly (2023) that scarcely touches on my topics of effect-size findings in single-factor, multifactor, and automated whole-chart experimental results. They ignore the meta-analysis of current research and my discussion of emergent effects. Instead, they try to impugn all of astrology by arguments that date from the time of Cicero and Augustine.
How to think about the astrology research program: An essay considering emergent effects
Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2022
As it has been shaped by improvements in its tools and methods, and by its discourse with critics, I describe how the astrological research program has advanced through three stages of modelling and design limitations. Single-factor tests (for example, the many Sun-sign–only experiments that have been published) are typically underdeterministic. Multi-factor tests, unless they are very well designed, can easily become overdeterministic. Chart-matching tests have been vulnerable to confirmation bias errors until the development of a machine-based, whole-chart matching protocol that has objectively produced evidence of high effect-sizes. A meta-analysis of recent results shows the rapid advancement and how to further improve the results. The value of the program is not only to corroborate the taxonomic counterfactuals of astrological “cookbooks,” but to extend their explanatory reach by the comparison of astrological postulates and inferences with philosophies in other disciplines in terms of quantifiable processes and emergent effects.
Review: Astrology under Scrutiny: Close encounters with science.
Correlation Journal, 2014
Editor in chief: Wout Heukelom. Guest Editor and Principal Compiler: Geoffrey Dean Sub-editor: Bert Terpstra. Production Rudolf H. Smit Publisher: Wout Heukelom and Cygnea van der Hooning, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 364 pages. Hardback. Price: €25 plus €10 postage. Available via PayPal Contact: wout.heukelom@hetnet.nl Astrology under Scrutiny is probably the first coffee table book for astrology sceptics. It’s a high-quality hardback book of over 200,000 words, printed on glossy paper, and accompanied by detailed graphs, photographs and illustrations. Astrology under Scrutiny (AuS) is divided into four sections: (1) Summaries of the best 110 articles from Dutch astrological research journal Astrologie in Onderzoek (1977-2003), (2) Astrology My Disaster by Rudolf Smit, (3) the history of the lifework of the Gauquelins, and (4) the largest (containing over 60% of the content): The case for and against astrology. Most of this last section is so controversial that it deserves more than a general review in Correlation. So the focus of this article is The Case for and against Astrology, referred to herein as The Case. ____________________________________________________ Contents Proposers of the Case: Dean and his team Their case in a nutshell The core myth: “Hundreds of scientific tests have solved the puzzle.” Meta-Analysis of matching birth charts to owners Using White Swans to camouflage Black Swans Lunar ‘effects’ Red Hair & Mars Rising Omission of Inconvenient Data Divination Natural Astrology The Origins of Astrology: Observation or Invention? Quote mining and circular reasoning The 110 Best articles in Astrologie in Onderzoek Smit and the Placebo effect The Gauquelin Research and the Parental Tampering Conjecture Who will read Astrology under Scrutiny? Conclusion Acknowledgements References
Support for astrology from the Carlson double-blind experiment
International Astrologer, 2009
The Carlson study, published in 1985 in Nature, has been regarded as one of the most definitive indictments against astrology. Although this study might appear to be fair to uncritical readers, it contains serious flaws, which when they are known, cast a very different light on the experimental tests and conclusion. These flaws include: no disclosure of similar scientific studies, unfairly biased design, disregard for its own stated criteria of evaluation, irrelevant division of the data, rejection of unexpected results, and an illogical conclusion based on the null hypothesis. Yet, when the stated measurement criteria are applied and the data is evaluated according to normal social science, the two tests performed by the participating astrologers provide evidence that is consistent with astrology (p = .054 with ES = .15, and p = .037 with ES = .10). These results give further testimony to the power of data ranking and rating methods, which have been successfully used in previous astrological experiments. Similar studies by McGrew and McFall (1990), Nanninga (1996/97), and Wyman and Vyse (2008) are also criticized.