Astrology is either an ancient and valuable system of understanding the
natural world and our place in it with roots in early Mesopotamia,
China, Egypt and Greece, or complete rubbish, depending on whom you ask.
But newspaper and magazine horoscopes? The ones advising you to not
“fight against changes” today, or to “go with the flow”, whatever that
means, or to “keep things light and breezy with that new hottie today”?
They get even less respect, from both skeptics and true believers. So
it’s a bit surprising, then, that they remain so popular with everyone
in between.
The first real newspaper horoscope column is widely credited to R.H.
Naylor, a prominent British astrologer of the first half of the 20th
century. Naylor was an assistant to high-society neo-shaman, Cheiro
(born William Warner, a decidedly less shamanistic name), who’d read the
palms of Mark Twain, Grover Cleveland, and Winston Churchill, and who
was routinely tapped to do celebrity star charts. Cheiro, however,
wasn’t available in August 1930 to do the horoscope for the recently
born Princess Margaret, so Britain’s Sunday Express newspaper asked Naylor.
Like most astrologers of the day, Naylor used what’s called a natal star
chart. Astrology posits that the natural world and we human beings in
it are affected by the movements of the sun, moon and stars through the
heavens, and that who we are is shaped by the exact position of these
celestial bodies at the time of our birth. A natal star chart,
therefore, presents the sky on the date and exact time of birth, from
which the astrologer extrapolates character traits and predictions.
On August 24, 1930, three days after the Princess’s birth, Naylor’s
published report predicted that her life would be “eventful”, an
accurate if not entirely inspired forecast given that she was, after
all, a princess (he didn’t, it appears, foresee the Princess’s later
star-crossed romances and lifelong love affair with alcohol and
cigarettes). He also noted that “events of tremendous importance to the
Royal Family and the nation will come about near her seventh year”, a
prediction that was somewhat more precise – and seemed to ring true
right around the time that her uncle, King Edward VIII, abdicated the
throne to her father.
Celebrity natal star charts weren’t a particularly novel idea; American
and British newspapers routinely trotted astrologers out to find out
what the stars had in store for society pagers like Helen Gould and
“Baby Astor’s Half Brother”. Even the venerable New York Times
wasn’t above consulting the stars: In 1908, a headline declared that
President Theodore Roosevelt, a Sagittarius, “might have been different
with another birthday”, according to “expert astrologer” Mme. Humphrey.
But though it wasn’t the first of its kind, Naylor’s article was a
tipping point for the popular consumption of horoscopes. Following the
interest the public showed in the Princess Margaret horoscope, the paper
decided to run several more forecasts from Naylor. One of his next
articles included a prediction that “a British aircraft will be in
danger” between October 8 and 15. When British airship R101 crashed
outside Paris on October 5, killing 48 of the 54 people on board, the
tragedy was taken as eerie evidence of Naylor’s predictive skill.
Suddenly, a lot more people were paying attention to the star column.
The then-editor of the paper offered Naylor a weekly column – on the
caveat that he make it a bit less dry and bit more the kind of thing
that lots of people would want to read – and “What the Stars Foretell”,
the first real newspaper horoscope column, was born.
The column offered advice to people whose birthdays fell that the week,
but within a few years, Naylor (or a clever editor) determined that he
needed to come up with something that could apply to larger volumes of
readers. By 1937, he’d hit upon the idea using “star signs”, also known
as “sun signs”, the familiar zodiac signs that we see today. “Sun sign”
refers to the period of the year when the sun is passing through one of
12 30-degree celestial zones as visible from earth and named after
nearby constellations; for example, if you’re born in the period when
the sun is passing through the constellation Capricornus (the “horned
goat”, often represented as a half-fish, half-goat), roughly December 22
to January 19, then that makes your sun sign Capricorn.
“The only phenomenon in astrology allowing you make a wild
generalizations about everybody born in this period to that period every
year without fail is the sun sign,” explained Jonathan Cainer,
prominent astrologer who writes one of Britain’s most-read horoscope
columns for The Daily Mail.
“[The column] was embraced by an enthusiastic public with open arms and
it spawned a thousand imitations. Before we knew it tabloid astrology
was born… this vast over-simplification of a noble, ancient art,” Cainer
says. Cainer pointed out that even as newspaper and magazine horoscope
writing became more and more popular – which it did and quickly, on both
sides of the Atlantic – the practice was largely disregarded by the
“proper” astrological community. The accusation, he says, was bolstered
by the fact that historically, a lot of horoscope columns weren’t
written by actual astrologers, but by writers told to read a book on
astrology and get cracking.
Astrologers’ consternation notwithstanding, the popularity of newspaper
and magazine horoscope has never really died down; they became, along
with standards like the crossword, newspaper “furniture”, as Cainer put
it (and people hate it when the furniture is moved, Cainer says). Cainer
also noted that there are few places in newspapers and, to some extent
magazines, that address the reader directly: “It’s an unusual form of
language and form of relationship and as such, it lends itself well to a
kind of attachment.”
Tiffanie Darke, editor of The Sunday Times Style section, which
runs astrologer Shelley von Strunckel’s column, confirmed that via
email, saying, “There is a significant readership who buy the paper
particularly for Shelley's column, and there is a very considerable
readership who you will see on Sundays in the pub, round the kitchen
table, across a table at a cafe, reading out her forecasts to each
other.”
This fits with what newspapers really are and have virtually always been
– not just vehicles for hard news and so-called important stories, but
also distributors of entertainment gossip and sports scores, advice on
love matters and how to get gravy stains out of clothing, practical
information about stock prices and TV schedules, recipes and knitting
patterns, comics and humor, even games and puzzles. Whether those
features are the spoonful of sugar to help the hard news medicine go
down or whether people just pick up the paper for the horoscope makes
little difference to the bottom line.
So as to why newspapers run horoscopes, the answer is simple: Readers like them.
But the figures on how many readers actually like horoscopes aren’t
entirely clear. A National Science Foundation survey from 1999 found
that just 12 percent of Americans read their horoscope every day or
often, while 32 percent read them occasionally. More recently, the
American Federation of Astrologers put the number of Americans who read
their horoscope every day as high as 70 million, about 23 percent of the
population. Anecdotally, enough people read horoscopes to be angry when
they’re not in their usual place in the paper – Cainer says that he has
a clause in his contract allowing him to take holidays, making him a
rarity in the business: “The reading public is gloriously unsympathetic
to an astrologer’s need for time off.”
Other evidence indicates that significant numbers of people do read
their horoscopes if not daily, then regularly: When in 2011, astronomers
claimed that the Earth’s naturally occurring orbital “wobble” could
change star signs, many people promptly freaked out. (Astrologers,
meanwhile, were far more sanguine – your sign is still your sign, they
counseled; some, Cainer included, sighed that the wobble story was just
another salvo in the fiercely pitched battle between astronomers and
astrologers.)
At the same time, a significant portion of the population believe in the
underpinnings of newspapers horoscopes. According to a 2009 Harris
poll, 26 percent of Americans believe in astrology; that’s more people
than believe in witches (23 percent), but less than believe in UFOs (32
percent), Creationism (40 percent) and ghosts (42 percent). Respect for
astrology itself may be on the rise: A more recent survey from the
National Science Foundation, published in 2014, found that fewer
Americans rejected astrology as “not scientific” in 2012 than they did
in 2010 – 55 percent as compared to 62 percent. The figure hasn’t been
that low since 1983.
People who read their horoscopes also pay attention to what they say. In
2009, an iVillage poll – to mark the launch of the women-focused
entertainment site’s dedicated astrology site, Astrology.com – found
that of female horoscope readers, 33 percent check their horoscopes
before job interviews; 35 percent before starting a new relationship;
and 34 percent before buying a lottery ticket. More recent research,
published in the October 2013 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research,
found that people who read a negative horoscope were more likely to
indulge in impulsive or self-indulgent behavior soon after.
So what’s going on? Why are people willing to re-order their love lives,
buy a lottery ticket, or a take a new job based on the advice of
someone who knows nothing more about them than their birthdate?
One reason we can rule out is scientific validity. Of all the empirical
tests that have been done on astrology, in all fields, says Dr. Chris
French, a professor of psychology at London’s Goldsmith College who
studies belief in the paranormal, “They are pretty uniformly bad news
for astrologers.”
There’s very little scientific proof that astrology is an accurate
predictor of personality traits, future destinies, love lives, or
anything else that mass-market astrology claims to know. For example, in
a 1985 study published in the journal Nature, Dr. Shawn Carlson
of University of California, Berkeley’s Physics department found that
seasoned astrologers were unable to match individual’s star chart with
the results of a personality test any better than random chance; in a
second test, individuals were unable to choose their own star charts,
detailing their astrologically divined personality and character traits,
any better than chance.
A smaller 1990 study conducted by John McGrew and Richard McFall of
Indiana University’s Psychology department and designed with a group of
astrologers, found that astrologers were no better at matching star
charts to the corresponding comprehensive case file of a volunteer than a
non-astrologer control subject or random chance, and moreover, didn’t
even agree with each other. A study out in 2003, conducted by former
astrologer Dr. Geoffrey Dean and psychologist Dr. Ivan Kelly, tracked
the lives of 2,000 subjects who were all born within minutes of one
another over several decades. The theory was that if astrological claims
about star position and birthdates were true, then the individuals
would have shared similar traits; they did not.
Studies that support the claims of astrology have been largely dismissed
by the wider scientific community for a “self-attribution” bias –
subjects had a prior knowledge of their sign’s supposed characteristics
and therefore could not be reliable – or because they could not be
replicated. Astrologers are, unsurprisingly, not impressed by scientific
efforts to prove or disprove astrology, claiming that scientists are
going about it all wrong – astrology is not empirical in the way that,
say, physics is: “Experiments are set up by people who don’t have any
context for this, even if they were attempting to do something
constructive,” says Shelley von Strunckel, American astrologer and
horoscope writer whose column appears in The Sunday Times, London Evening Standard, Chinese Vogue, Tatler
and other major publications. “It’s like, ‘I’m going to cook this great
French meal, I’ve got this great cook book in French – but I don’t
speak French.’”
But despite a preponderance of scientific evidence to suggest that the
stars do not influence our lives – and even personally demonstrable
evidence such as that financial windfall your horoscope told you to
expect on the eighth of the month failed to materialize – people
continue to believe. (It’s important to note, however, that some
astrologers balk at the notion of “belief” in astrology: “It’s not
something you believe in,” says Strunckel. “It’s kind of like believing
in dinner. The planets are there, the cycles of nature are there, the
full moons are there, nature relates to all of that, it’s not something
to believe in.”)
The “why” people continue to read and credence their horoscopes is most
often explained by psychologist Bertram Forer’s classic 1948
“self-validation” study. Forer gave his students a personality test,
followed by a description of their personality that was supposedly based
on the results of the test. In reality, there was only ever one
description, cobbled together from newspaper horoscopes, and everyone
received the same one. Forer then asked them to rate, on a scale of 0
(very poor) to 5 (excellent), the description’s accuracy; the average
score was 4.26 – pretty remarkable, unless all the students really were
exactly the same. Forer’s observation was quickly dubbed the Forer
effect and has often been replicated in other settings.
Part of what was happening was that the descriptions were positive enough, without being unbelievably positive:
You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned
to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are
generally able to compensate for them.
and, importantly, vague enough to be applicable to a wide audience:
At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing.
At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, reserved.
Even horoscope writers admit that some of their success rests in not
saying too much. Says Cainer, “The art of writing a successful horoscope
column probably confirms what all too many skeptics and cynics eagerly
clutch to their bosoms as charlatanry. Because it’s writing ability that
makes a horoscope column believable… ultimately a successful column
will avoid specifics wherever possible. You develop the art of being
vague.”
The other element of the Forer effect is that the individual readers did
most of the work, shaping the descriptions to fit themselves – not for
nothing is the Forer effect also called the Barnum effect, after the
famous showman’s claim that his shows “had something for everyone”.
French, the Goldsmith psychologist, notes that people who read
horoscopes are often invested in making their horoscope right for them.
“If you buy into the system and the belief, it’s you that’s kind of
making the reading appear to be more specific than it actually is,” he
explains. “Most days for most people is a mix of good things and bad
things, and depending on how you buy into the system… if you’re told to
expect something good that day, then anything good that happens that day
is read as confirmation.”
Astrologer Cainer has another, more practical explanation for why people
read horoscopes: “It’s because they’re there.” There’s very much a
“can’t hurt” and “might help” perception of horoscopes; at the same
time, newspaper horoscopes, he says, also allow casual horoscope readers
“a glorious sense of detachment: ‘I don’t believe in this rubbish but
I’ll have a look.’” This resonates with what Julian Baggini, a British
philosopher and writer for The Guardian, says about why people
read horoscopes: “No matter how much the evidence is staring someone in
the face there’s nothing in this, there’s that ‘Well, you never know.’”
(Even if you do know.)
But “you never know” and even the Forer effect doesn’t entirely explain
the longevity of a form that many critics complain has no business being
in a newspaper – so maybe there’s something else going on. When French
taught a course with a section on astrological beliefs, he’d sometimes
ask on exams: “Does astrology work?” “Basically, the good answers would
be the ones that took part the word ‘work,’” he says. On the one hand,
the straightforward answer is that, according to a host of scientific
studies, astrology does not work. “But you’ve then got the other
question… ‘Does astrology provide any psychological benefit, does it
have an psychology function?’” he said. “The answer to that is,
sometimes, yes.”
Psychologists see people on a scale between those who have what’s called
an external locus of control, where they feel that they are being acted
upon by forces out of their influence, and people with an internal
locus of control, who believe that they are the actors. “Not so
surprisingly, people who believe in astrology tend to have an external
locus of control,” says French. That observation tallies with what other
psychologists say: Margaret Hamilton, a psychologist at the University
of Wisconsin who found that people are more likely to believe favorable
horoscopes, noted that people who are believers in astrology also tend
to be more anxious or neurotic.
Newspaper horoscopes, she said, offer a bit of comfort, a sort of seeing
through the veil on a casual level. French agrees: astrology and
newspaper horoscopes can give people “some kind of sense of control and
some kind of framework to help them understand what’s going on in their
lives.” It’s telling that in times of uncertainty, whether on a global,
national or personal level, he notes, astrologers, psychics, and others
who claim to be able to offer guidance do a pretty brisk business; that
belief in astrology is apparently on the rise in America, according to
the NSF survey published in 2014, may have something to do with recent
financial uncertainty. Cainer agreed that people take horoscopes more
seriously when they’re in distress: “If they’re going through a time of
disruption, they suddenly start to take what’s written about their sign
much more seriously…. If you’re worried and somebody tells you not to
worry, you take that to heart.” (On whether astrologers are taking
advantage of people, French is clear: “I am not saying that astrologers
are deliberate con artists, I’m pretty sure they’re not. They’ve
convinced themselves that this system works.”)
Philosophically, there is something about reading horoscopes that does
imply a placing of oneself. As Hamilton notes, “It allows you to see
yourself as part of the world: ‘Here’s where I fit in, oh, I’m Pisces.’”
Looking deeper, Baggini, the philosopher, explains, “Human beings are
pattern seekers. We have a very, very strong predisposition to notice
regularities in nature and the world, to the extent that we see more
than there are. There are good evolutionary reasons for this, in short a
false positive is less risky than failure to observe a truth.” But,
more to the point, “We also tend to think things happen for a reason and
we tend to leap upon whatever reasons available to us, even if they’re
not entirely credible.”
Horoscopes walk a fine line, and, for many people, an appealing one. “On
the one hand, people do want to feel they have some agency or control
over the future, but on the other, it’s rather frightening to think they
have too much,” explained Baggini. “So a rather attractive world view
is that there is some sense of unfolding benign purpose in the universe,
in which you weren’t fundamentally responsible for everything, but were
given some kind of control… and astrology gives us a bit of both, a
balance.”
Astrologers might agree. “I’m a great believer in freewill,” says
Cainer. “There’s a lovely old Latin phrase that astrologers like to
quote to each other: Astra inclinant non necessitant. The stars
suggest, but they don’t force… I like to think that astrology is about a
way of fighting planetary influences, it’s not entirely about accepting
them.”
But really, at the end of the day, are horoscopes doing more harm than
good, or more good than harm? It all depends on whom you ask (and, of
course, on the appropriateness of the advice being given). Strunckel and
Cainer, obviously, see what they do as helping people, although both
acknowledge that, as Strunckel says, “Astrology isn’t everybody’s cup of
tea.”
Richard Dawkins, the outspoken humanist and militant atheist, came out strongly against astrology and horoscopes in a 1995 Independent
article published on New Years’ Eve, declaring, “Astrology not only
demeans astronomy, shrivelling and cheapening the universe with its
pre-Copernican dabblings. It is also an insult to the science of
psychology and the richness of human personality.” Dawkins also took
newspapers to task for even entertaining such “dabblings”. More
recently, in 2011, British rockstar physicist Brian Cox came under fire
from astrologers for calling astrology a “load of rubbish” on his Wonders of the Solar System
program on BBC. After the BBC fielded a bunch of complaints, Cox
offered a statement, which the broadcaster probably wisely chose not to
release: “I apologize to the astrology community for not making myself
clear. I should have said that this new age drivel is undermining the
very fabric of our civilization.”
What Dawkins and Cox may not want to acknowledge is that humans don’t
tend to make decisions based on a logical, rational understanding of
facts (there’s a reason why “cognitive dissonance” is a thing) – and
horoscope reading might be just as good a system of action as any. “Most
people don’t base their views and opinions the best empirical
evidence,” French says. “There are all kinds of reasons for believing
what you believe, not least of which is believing stuff because it just
kind of feels good.”
At their heart, horoscopes are a way to offset the uncertainty of daily
life. “If the best prediction you’ve got is still completely rubbish or
baseless, it’s better than no prediction at all,” says Baggini. “If you
have no way of controlling the weather, you’ll continue to do
incantations and dances, because the alternative is doing nothing. And
people hate doing nothing.”