Skeptics' and astrology believers acceptance of generalized personality descriptions of the self was explored. Descriptions were varied in two ways: (a) They were attributed to astrology or were said to be a set of statements that might or might not be self-descriptive, and (b) they were socially desirable or undesirable. Overall, believers were more likely than skeptics to accept descriptions as accurate. Favorable descriptions were generally seen as more accurate than unfavorable descriptions, with one exception -believers accepted a negative astrological description as much as a positive one. Skeptics as well as believers rated astrological descriptions as more accurate than identical non-astrological descriptions. Finally, skeptics who received favorable horoscopes, in contrast to all other groups, became significantly more positive in their opinions toward astrology. Implications for the popularity of belief in astrology are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adorno, T. W. , Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., Sanford, R. N., Aron, B., Levinson, M. H., & Morrow, W. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.
2.
Belter, R. W. , & Brinkman, E. H. (1981). Construct validity of the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale for Children. Psychological Reports, 48, 427-432.
3.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
4.
Collins, R. W. , Dmitruk, V. M., & Ranney, J. T. (1977). Personal validation: Some empirical and ethical considerations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 70-77.
5.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. New York: Harper & Row.
6.
Fichten, C. S. , & Sunerton, B. (1983). Popular horoscopes and the "Barnum effect."Journal of Psychology, 114, 123-134.
7.
Fiske, S. T. , & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
8.
Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118-123.
9.
Glick, P. , & Snyder, M. (1986, May/June). Self-fulfilling prophecy: The psychology of belief in astrology. Humanist, pp. 20-25, 50.
10.
Gollub, H. , & Dittes, J. (1965). Different effects of manipulated self-esteem on persuasability depending on the threat and complexity of the communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 195-201.
11.
Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603-618.
12.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: Wiley.
13.
Kirk, R. E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
14.
McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
15.
Meehl, P. E. (1956). Wanted -a good cookbook. American Psychologist, 11, 262-272.
16.
Mosher, D. L. (1965). Approval motive and the acceptance of "fake" personality test interpretations which differ in favorability. Psychological Reports, 17, 395-402.
17.
Myers, D. G. (1987). Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
18.
Nisbett, R. E. , & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19.
Objections to astrology: A statement by 186 leading scientists . (1975, September/October). Humanist, pp. 4-6.
20.
Plug, C. (1975). An investigation of superstitious belief and behaviour. Journal of Behavioural Science, 2, 169-178.
21.
Silverman, B. I. (1971). Studies of astrology. Journal of Psychology, 77, 141-149.
22.
Snyder, C. R. (1974). Why horoscopes are true: The effects of specificity on acceptance of astrological interpretations. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 577-580.
23.
Snyder, C. R. , Larsen, D., & Bloom, L. J. (1976). Acceptance of personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback supposedly based on psychological, graphological, and astrological assessment procedures. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 258-265.
24.
Snyder, C. R. , & Larson, G. R. (1972). A further look at student acceptance of general personality interpretations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 38, 384-388.
25.
Snyder, C. R. , & Shenkel, R. J. (1975, March). Astrologers, hand-writing analysts, and sometimes psychologists use the P. T. Barnum effect. Psychology Today, pp. 52-54.
26.
Snyder, M. , & Gangestad, S. (1981). Hypothesis-testing processes. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
Sosis, R. H. , Strickland, B. R., & Haley, W. E. (1980). Perceived locus of control and beliefs about astrology. Journal of Social Psychology110, 65-71.
28.
Steiner, I. D. (1954). Ethnocentrism and tolerance of trait "inconsistency."Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 349-354.
29.
Steiner, l. D. , & Johnson, H. (1963). Authoritarianism and tolerance of trait inconsistency. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 388-396.
30.
Truzzi, M. (1972). The occult revival as popular culture: Some random observations on the old and the nouveau witch. Sociological Quarterly, 13, 26-36.
31.
Weisberg, P. (1970). Student acceptance of bogus personality interpretations differing in levels of social desirability. Psychological Reports, 27, 743-746.
