In the realm of astrology, many individuals firmly believe that their birth date holds the key to their destiny, with the position of the stars influencing their fate. They religiously consult horoscope predictions to navigate the intricacies of their lives, from love and happiness to health and finances. However, a new study by Mohsen Joshanloo from Keimyung University and the University of Melbourne's Centre for Wellbeing Science, published in the journal Kyklos, challenges this notion, aiming to prove that zodiac signs have no significant impact on an individual's well-being.
Joshanloo's study addresses the criticisms faced by previous research on astrology, which often had small sample sizes and methodological weaknesses. To ensure the robustness of his findings, the researcher utilized data from the General Social Survey, a periodic survey that collects information on a wide range of topics from US residents. The study analyzed data from nearly 13,000 participants across four recent GSS waves, spanning from 2016 to 2022, ensuring a diverse and representative sample with an average age of 50 years and a slight majority of women (55%).
The researcher determined the participants' zodiac signs and examined eight outcome variables tied to well-being: general happiness, depressive symptoms, psychological distress, work satisfaction, financial satisfaction, life excitement, general health, and marital happiness. Employing various statistical methods, Joshanloo found that zodiac signs had no statistically significant effect on seven out of the eight outcomes. The only exception was financial dissatisfaction, for which a significant effect was observed, but the scope of the effect was negligible.
To further validate his findings, Joshanloo created a random variable and compared its predictive power to that of the zodiac signs for well-being outcomes. The results were similar, with no observable differences between the variable and the astrological signs in predicting well-being events. As Joshanloo stated, "These results indicate that consulting astrological signs tells us just as little about a person's level of well-being as simply putting them into a category based on a coin flip or rolling dice."
The study's findings challenge the beliefs of millions of people across the globe, who subscribe to astrology and the influence of one's zodiac sign on their well-being. Joshanloo emphasizes the importance of public awareness regarding the lack of evidence supporting astrological beliefs. While individuals are free to engage with horoscopes and find enjoyment in reading predictions that may occasionally align with their personality and real-life events, it is crucial to recognize the absence of scientific backing for such claims.
Interestingly, the researcher's choice to highlight Capricorns in his discussion of the study's implications is not without reason. Astrological readings can be found to explain virtually anything, and a search for zodiac signs least likely to believe in astrology yielded Virgo, Capricorn, and Aquarius as potential candidates, according to Bustle. This further underscores the malleability and subjectivity of astrological interpretations.
In an era where scientific evidence and critical thinking are paramount, Joshanloo's study serves as a reminder to approach astrological beliefs with a discerning eye. While the allure of celestial influence on our lives may be enticing, the research suggests that our well-being is not predetermined by the stars. Instead, it is shaped by a complex interplay of personal choices, environmental factors, and individual circumstances. As we navigate the challenges and triumphs of life, it is essential to rely on evidence-based approaches and cultivate a sense of agency in shaping our own destinies, rather than placing undue emphasis on the whims of the zodiac.
