Intelligence and Individual Differences in Astrological Belief

Abstract

Astrology is a theory of individual differences. Owing substantially to the influence of Hans Eysenck, it has been taken seriously and tested scientifically by psychologists, but has nevertheless been found wanting of any predictive validity. Despite its appearance of being a pseudoscientific account of individual differences, astrology has millions of believers; who are they, and why do they believe it? In a sample of 8,553 Americans from the General Social Survey, we undertake a high-powered study of the correlates of astrological belief. Of our psychological measures we find intelligence, as measured with Wordsum, to have the largest effect size, negatively predicting belief in astrology. Education also predicts disbelief, supporting the superficial knowledge hypothesis. Measures of religiosity and spirituality had null effects, in contradiction of the metaphysical uncertainty hypothesis that a need for metaphysical beliefs causes one to believe in astrology. We find that right-wing individuals are less likely to believe in astrology, in contradiction to Theodore W. Adornos authoritarian of astrology. We also find no effect of scientific trust on astrological belief. Our research highlights how prior hypotheses poorly account for individualdifferences in astrological belief.