Many people enjoy horoscopes, zodiac memes and quick personality takes. A study in the Journal of Individual Differences looked at a sharper question: who thinks astrology is actually scientific. The researchers found that cognitive ability and education level were the strongest predictors of skepticism.
The research team, led by Tobias Edwards, analyzed responses from a large, nationally representative US survey. In plain English, people with higher scores on a short vocabulary-based test and more years of schooling were less likely to rate astrology as scientific.
For readers, the topic matters because astrology shows up everywhere, from dating profiles to workplace small talk. Knowing what predicts belief can help explain why conversations about evidence and “what counts as science” feel easy with some people and tense with others.
Why Researchers Looked At Astrology Beliefs
Astrology has a cultural staying power that fascinates psychologists. It blends identity, relationships and storytelling in a way that feels personal. Even in a world filled with science and technology, many people still treat star signs as meaningful information.
At the same time, scientific tests of astrology’s predictions have repeatedly struggled to find strong support. That gap creates a useful research puzzle. Why do some people accept astrology as scientific while others see it as entertainment or tradition?
Earlier studies have offered several explanations. Some pointed to spirituality and religious engagement. Others suggested that trust in science, politics, or personality traits might matter. Many of those studies were smaller and their results did not always agree.
Edwards and colleagues wanted a clearer answer using a much larger sample. With enough participants, it becomes easier to see which factors truly stand out and which ones fade once many variables are considered at the same time.
How The Study Was Set Up
The researchers used data from the General Social Survey, a long-running US survey that has tracked social attitudes for decades. Because it aims to represent the country, it offers a stronger snapshot than a small convenience sample drawn from one campus or one social media platform.
In this analysis, the final dataset included 8,553 adults. Each person answered a key question: whether astrology is “not at all scientific,” “sort of scientific,” or “very scientific.” That single item became the main outcome the researchers tried to predict.
To capture cognitive differences, the team used Wordsum, a 10-item vocabulary test commonly included in survey research. Vocabulary tests like this are often used as a rough indicator of general cognitive ability, especially in large studies where long intelligence tests are unrealistic.
Education was measured as years of formal schooling completed. The researchers also included measures of confidence in the scientific community, self-rated religiosity, self-rated spirituality and political orientation. Demographics such as age and sex were added too and statistical weighting helped the sample match the broader US population.
Intelligence And Schooling Were The Strongest Predictors
The clearest pattern was simple. Higher cognitive scores and more schooling predicted lower odds of calling astrology scientific. In the researchers’ models, intelligence and education stood out more than the other proposed explanations.
One way to think about this result is that school and everyday reasoning practice may shape how people evaluate claims. People who have had more exposure to research methods, math and scientific argument may feel more comfortable separating “sounds right” from “holds up when tested.”
Another possibility involves basic information habits. Someone who reads more, studies more and practices comparing sources may become more skeptical of broad predictions that can fit almost anyone. Astrology can feel accurate because its statements are often general enough to match many lives, especially when people focus on the hits and forget the misses.
Callout: A key detail is what the study measured. The question asked whether astrology is scientific, which is a specific kind of belief. People can still enjoy astrology as a cultural practice without treating it as science.
The authors described their main finding as support for a “superficial knowledge” account. In everyday terms, the idea is that stronger knowledge and reasoning skills make it easier to spot weak evidence and to demand clearer proof before accepting a claim as scientific.
Science Trust, Religion And Spirituality Had Little Link
Many people assume astrology belief rises when people distrust science. The study found only a small relationship between confidence in the scientific community and astrology belief once other factors were considered. That suggests that astrology belief is not simply a mirror image of science confidence in this dataset.
Religiosity and spirituality also showed little association with seeing astrology as scientific. That matters because astrology is often placed in the same mental category as other spiritual practices. In this analysis, those self-ratings did not explain much of the variation in who endorsed astrology’s scientific status.
So what might be going on? One interpretation is that astrology belief can serve different roles for different people. For some, it might be social and playful. For others, it might feel meaningful and guiding. Those motives do not map neatly onto a single “religious versus nonreligious” divide.
There is also a measurement issue. “Religious” and “spiritual” are broad labels and people define them in many ways. A short survey item may miss the richer details, such as whether someone sees the universe as governed by fate, energy, or personal destiny.
What The Study Suggests About Political Orientation
Politics often shows up in conversations about science, especially in the United States. People sometimes expect beliefs about vaccines, climate change and evolution to line up cleanly with ideology. Astrology does not always fit that pattern.
In this study’s models, political orientation did not emerge as a strong, consistent driver of seeing astrology as scientific. The authors reported a pattern in which right-leaning respondents were less likely to endorse astrology as scientific, which goes against some earlier European findings that connected related beliefs to right-wing authoritarian attitudes.
Context may be part of the story. Political labels mean different things across countries and across time. Astrology’s public image also shifts, depending on social media trends, celebrity culture and which subgroups adopt it as a vibe, a hobby, or a worldview.
For everyday life, the takeaway is that astrology belief can show up across the political map. You might meet a highly politically engaged person who loves astrology and a highly politically engaged person who rolls their eyes at it. This study suggests that differences in education and cognitive scores did more of the explaining than political identity did.
Limitations To Keep In Mind
Every survey study has boundaries and this one is no exception. The biggest limitation is the wording of the main outcome. Participants were asked whether astrology is scientific, which focuses on perceived scientific status rather than how often people read horoscopes or use astrology in decisions.
That distinction matters. Someone might say astrology is unscientific and still enjoy it as a ritual, a conversation starter, or a creative language for personality. Another person might sincerely treat it as a source of factual information. The single-item measure cannot fully separate those groups.
The measures for key predictors also have limits. Wordsum is a short test and education measured as years does not capture school quality, course content, or whether someone studied science. Religiosity and spirituality were measured with broad ratings that can hide important differences.
Finally, the design is correlational. The results show links among variables, yet they do not establish cause and effect. Higher education could build skills that reduce belief. A third factor, such as childhood environment or reading habits, could influence both education and belief. It is also possible that people with certain cognitive styles pursue more education and also prefer stronger evidence.
Why These Findings Matter
Astrology sits at a crossroads of entertainment, identity and claims about reality. When people call astrology scientific, they are making a statement about evidence. They are also making a statement about what kinds of knowledge feel trustworthy.
This study suggests that scientific literacy may connect to broader skills. Those skills include interpreting probabilities, spotting vague statements and asking what kind of test could prove a claim wrong. These habits often grow with education and they are also tied to general cognitive ability.
For families, workplaces and friend groups, the findings offer a gentle social insight. When someone in your circle treats astrology like a science, the difference may reflect how they learned to judge evidence. Conversations may go better when they focus on curiosity and clear questions, such as what would count as strong proof, rather than personal attacks.
Callout: A practical way to use this research is to separate enjoyment from evidence. People can enjoy astrology as culture and still keep high standards for scientific claims.
On a bigger level, the results add to a growing body of work on pseudoscientific beliefs. These beliefs often persist even when scientists disagree with them. Understanding who is most likely to treat a claim as scientific can help educators and communicators design better explanations that meet people where they are.
The study also highlights a hopeful point. Skills linked to evaluating evidence can be practiced. School is one pathway. So are reading habits, media literacy and learning how to ask better questions. Even small changes in how people check claims can shape what they accept as science.