Psychology is another of my secret passions. A few months ago, I researched why horoscopes are such a hit with so many people around the world. I wrote an essay about it for my college Psych class, and I thought I would share to with you. Leave me your thoughts!
Horoscopes are a basic form of pseudo psychology that most people participate in daily. Those who read their daily or weekly horoscope believe that the statements being made are specifically directed at them. This however, is not the case. The way people believe in horoscopes can be explained by the Barnum effect. Many studies have been conducted on horoscopes and how people associate the statements to themselves. With a humanistic approach, the phenomenon of horoscopes can be easily explained.
The Barnum effect, as Vohs (2016) describes, is when generic personality descriptions are given and individuals believe it is exclusively directed to them. She says the term comes from a circus performer by the name of P. T Barnum, who believed, “a sucker is born every minute.” This effect is primarily used in psychological tests to obtain reaction from its participants. Computers which gave accurate personality results similarly used the Barnum effect. Although, many participants believed the computer outcomes were too vague. The Barnum effect has the most confident and accepted results with positive statements.
A British astrologer by the name of R.H. Naylor was the writer of the first official newspaper horoscope column, as stated by McRobbie (2016). She outlined that Naylor caught the attention of the world by predicting a plane crash in his weekly articles. She adds, he began writing horoscopes for a weekly basis, then branched out in 1937 to create “star signs” to attract a larger audience. His article, “What the Stars Foretell” was the beginning of the horoscope trend.
96 Introductory Psychology undergraduates from the University of California, Davis participated in an experiment to prove that, “individuals may rate Barnum style descriptions, which focus largely on internal states, needs, and aspirations, as less typical of acquaintances than of themselves” (Johnson and all, 1985). They took 13 personality traits from a list Forer created. They then randomly dispersed the participants into two different categories. They asked category one, the control group, to judge personality traits to themselves with the following criteria:
“How common are certain personality traits in the general population? Listed below are a number of different personality traits. How many of these traits characteristics of you?
First consider how accurately each of the traits describes you. Then indicate how accurate the description is by circling the appropriate number on the scale immediately below it. Please mark all scales. Even if you believe you do not have enough information to make a choice, use your best guess” (Johnson and all, 1985).
They included the “best guess” instructions to inform the participants that a shortage of information does not mean the description is untrue. They had category two, the experimental group, evaluate the personality traits to an acquaintance using a similar criteria. A number scale was used by the participants to evaluate the traits on themselves or an acquaintance. 1 indicating it is not accurate and 9 being it is extremely accurate. They used a number scale to abolish any chance of the participants completely rejecting or accepting a specific personality trait. They also did T tests to differentiate any self-other accuracy score. They brought in an unconnected group of 23 undergraduate to determine if a trait was positive or negative, to eliminate any bias. They found that the results their experiment showed that participants were more likely to associate positive personality traits to both themselves and others. However, they found that subjects applied both positive and negative statements to themselves. For example, they found the personality trait, “need to be liked”, which was rated positive, was ranked 5.94 to the self-condition and 4.98 to the other condition. They also found that “unrealistic aspirations”, which was voted negative, was rated 4.63 to the self and 3.70 to others. People are more likely to associate bad personality traits to themselves than they are to others. This shows that individuals are more likely to associate traits to themselves than others, as the Barnum effect shows.
A humanistic approach to pseudo psychology could explain the behaviours of those to participate in it. Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs could explain the reason individuals participate and believe in horoscopes. As said by Slack (2017), Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has five levels, one of which includes psychological needs such as esteem and belongingness. When applying this to horoscopes, one can see both the esteem and belongingness needs. Maslow’s theory can show that individuals associate generic personality statements to themselves to boost their esteem and to feel a sense of belongingness. Horoscopes often make generic statements about each star sign and claim certain things will happen to them within the day or week. This causes individuals to be cautious or in some cases more confident in the day or week to come. These statements cause people’s esteem to be boosted significantly. This causes individuals to continuously indulge in horoscopes, since it makes them feel good. Furthermore, with these statements being assigned to specific star signs, which can consist of millions of others, it creates a sense of belongingness with those associated to that sign. Those who read the statements made under their star sign know that everyone else under that sign will be experiencing similar situations. This creates a strong belongingness with those who share star signs. This belongingness causes individuals to continue to participate in horoscopes. The humanistic approach shows that horoscopes boost esteem and create a sense of belongingness, which causes those to believe in them.
Even though it has been proven that horoscopes are generic statements, individuals will continue to believe they are specific to themselves. Horoscopes will always be relevant in the daily lives of many people around the world.
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
McRobbie, L. R. (2016, January 05). How Are Horoscopes Still a Thing? Retrieved October 03, 2017, from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-are-horoscopes-still-thing-180957701/
Slack, L. (2017, September 19). Schools of Thought in Psychology. Lecture presented at Introductory Psychology in St. Lawrence College, Kingston.
Vohs, K. D. (2016, August 01). Barnum Effect. Retrieved October 02, 2017, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Barnum-Effect
All In My Head 