Astrology isn’t a science—but the newest social-science research is getting much better at explaining why it remains compelling to millions. This piece synthesizes the freshest, most credible findings (2018–2025) into a clear picture of who believes, what they believe, and the psychological and cultural forces that keep astrology sticky in a hyper-scientific age.
Executive summary (for busy readers)
- Scientific validity: Controlled tests—old and new—continue to find no predictive power for astrology beyond chance. Recent large-scale studies and replications reinforce this conclusion. bbcearth.comClearer Thinking
- Prevalence in the U.S. (2024–2025): About 27% of U.S. adults say they believe in astrology; 30% consult astrology/tarot/fortune tellers at least yearly (mostly “for fun”). Younger women and LGBTQ+ adults report higher engagement. Pew Research Center
- The best current explanation: A 2025 peer-reviewed analysis of 8,553 Americans (GSS) finds that cognitive ability (Wordsum) and education are the strongest predictors of disbelief in astrology; religiosity/spirituality and political orientation show little to no independent effect—contrary to several older theories. Gwern
- Personality link (2022): In a smaller, independent study, narcissism and (to a lesser extent) agreeableness correlate with higher astrological belief; intelligence correlates negatively. Treat these as suggestive (non-representative sample). ia600802.us.archive.org
- Measurement matters: Older European surveys overstated “belief in astrology” due, in part, to linguistic confusion with astronomy; results drop sharply when “horoscope” is used instead of “astrology.” WIRED
- Identity, coping, and meaning: Ethnographic/qualitative work shows astrology can support self-interpretation and coping during uncertainty—functions separate from scientific truth. research.gold.ac.ukecontent.hogrefe.com
- AI era twist (emerging): A 2024 preprint suggests belief in AI predictions co-varies with belief in astrology/personality predictions—pointing to a broader psychology of credulity toward predictive systems. Treat as preliminary. arXiv
1) The scientific status of astrology: still no signal
Across a century of tests, astrology has not yielded reliable predictive accuracy under controlled conditions. A clear, accessible synthesis by BBC Earth (2024) traces two well-designed tests: the classic Nature study by Carlson (1985), and a 2024 replication in which 152 astrologers attempted to match real natal charts to people’s life/personality data. The group performed no better than chance, with no individual outliers beating rigorous thresholds. bbcearth.comClearer Thinking
Evidence maturity: Established. Multiple independent tests converge on the same verdict: astrology’s descriptive narratives can feel meaningful, but when you demand predictive accuracy, performance collapses to statistical noise. bbcearth.com
Practical implication: For science communication, the key is to separate meaning-making value (identity, reflection, social bonding) from claims of causal prediction. The former may be real and important to users’ lives; the latter repeatedly fails empirical tests. bbcearth.com
2) How common is belief—and among whom?
The Pew Research Center (May 2025) surveyed 9,593 U.S. adults:
- 27% say they believe in astrology (“the position of the stars and planets can affect people’s lives”), similar to 2017.
- 30% consult astrology/horoscopes/tarot/fortune-tellers at least yearly—but most do so “just for fun,” and very few rely heavily on them for major life decisions (1% “a lot”).
- Demographic patterning: Women—especially women 18–49—and LGBT adults report higher engagement; political conservatives and college graduates are less likely to believe. Pew Research Center
A separate YouGov (2022) poll found 27% of Americans believe in astrology, with higher rates among under-30s, which is broadly consistent with Pew’s current estimates. YouGov
Evidence maturity: Established for the U.S.; consistent across reputable surveys using similar wording. (Cross-national estimates vary widely with question wording—see §5.) Pew Research Center
3) Competing explanations: what the newest large dataset says
Historically, three broad hypotheses have framed debates about astrological belief:
- Superficial knowledge (or “scientific literacy”) hypothesis: astrology appeals more when education and cognitive ability are lower.
- Metaphysical unrest/uncertainty hypothesis: people turn to astrology for spiritual satisfaction or to cope with existential insecurity.
- Authoritarian personality/politics hypothesis: belief reflects authoritarian tendencies or specific ideologies.
A 2025 analysis of 8,553 U.S. adults (General Social Survey) provides the strongest, most recent test. Using Wordsum (a validated proxy for general cognitive ability), years of education, measures of religiosity/spirituality, trust in science, and political orientation, the study found:
- Cognitive ability and education were the dominant predictors of disbelief (i.e., higher scores → more likely to say astrology is not scientific).
- Religiosity and spirituality showed no significant effects once other variables were included.
- Political orientation showed little to no independent relationship.
- Trust in science had at most a trivial relationship to astrological belief. Gwern
Interpretation: The 2025 paper substantially elevates the evidential weight behind the superficial knowledge hypothesis—while de-emphasizing spiritual and political explanations, at least in contemporary U.S. data using “Is astrology scientific?” as the criterion. Gwern
Evidence maturity: High for the direction (education/cognition matter), with the usual caveats: “astrology is scientific?” measures belief in scientific status, not every form of use (see §5 and §6). Gwern
4) Personality and individual differences: the narcissism signal (and its limits)
A separate line of work examines personality traits. A 2022 paper in Personality and Individual Differences (N=264, convenience sample) reported that narcissism was the strongest predictor of belief in astrology, with intelligence negatively correlated and some additional associations (e.g., agreeableness). Because the sample is non-representative and modest in size, its effect sizes should be viewed as suggestive, not definitive. ia600802.us.archive.org
Nonetheless, the 2025 GSS analysis explicitly notes that its findings on intelligence/education align with the broader literature on “pseudo-profound” statements, where lower analytic reasoning and lower cognitive ability track higher endorsement of vague-but-profound-sounding claims. That literature (e.g., Pennycook et al., 2015) offers a mechanistic clue: people who are more prone to accept “profound-sounding nonsense” also tend to endorse paranormal/pseudoscientific content. Cambridge University Press & AssessmentGwern
Evidence maturity: Moderate. The personality signal—especially narcissism—has replications and media summaries, but we still lack multiple large, nationally representative replications using standardized astrology belief scales. Treat as credible but not conclusive. ia600802.us.archive.orgPsyPost – Psychology News
5) Measurement matters: small words, big differences
A recurring pitfall: what, exactly, is being measured? The U.S. General Social Survey contains two relevant items—one tapping whether people read horoscopes, and another asking whether “astrology is scientific.” Older European surveys sometimes used the word “astrology” where respondents may have heard “astronomy.” When researchers swap “astrology” for “horoscopes,” belief in “science-ness” plummets (from >50% to ~6% in one notable comparison). gss.norc.orgWIRED
This matters because the 2025 GSS-based paper primarily models responses to “Is astrology scientific?” Respondents can use or enjoy astrology without classifying it as “scientific,” and some might believe astrology has personal meaning while also acknowledging it fails scientific criteria. When interpreting any single number about “belief in astrology,” always check the item wording. gss.norc.org
Evidence maturity: Established. Survey methodology research consistently shows wording effects and domain confusion can distort estimates. WIRED
6) What people do with astrology: identity, coping, and community
Even if astrology cannot predict, it can function. Qualitative and theoretical work highlights astrology’s roles in identity construction (“who am I, really?”), narrative framing, and coping with uncertainty or stress. Classic experiments and ethnographies found links between personal crises and increased interest in astrology, and that affirming horoscopes can temporarily boost mood or performance—consistent with expectancy/placebo effects. econtent.hogrefe.comresearch.gold.ac.ukbbcearth.com
Recent sociology (2025, mixed methods) underscores how Americans talk about and use astrology today, suggesting that for many it’s less a truth claim and more a tool for reflection, social connection, and navigating life transitions—especially among younger cohorts for whom structured religious affiliation may be less salient. Caveat: this new work is emerging and nuanced; always read beyond headlines. SAGE Journals+1
Evidence maturity: Moderate for coping/identity uses (supported by earlier peer-reviewed work), emerging for current U.S. patterns from new mixed-methods sociology. econtent.hogrefe.comresearch.gold.ac.uk
7) The digital-prediction ecosystem: why AI and astrology sometimes rhyme (preliminary)
We live amid algorithmic prognostication—scores, risk models, recommendation engines, and chatbots that feel authoritative. A 2024 arXiv preprint (MIT Media Lab & collaborators; N=238) experimentally compared belief in AI predictions with belief in astrology and personality-based predictions. Findings: belief in AI forecasts positively correlates with belief in astrology/personality forecasts, and paranormal beliefs plus positive attitudes toward AI increase perceived validity/reliability of AI predictions. The authors frame this as a “rational superstition” effect: people often over-credit predictions from systems that appear systematic—even when their actual validity is opaque or untested. Important: this is a preprint, not yet peer-reviewed. arXiv
Related literatures strengthen plausibility: individuals who score higher on bullshit receptivity are more prone to endorse fake news and epistemically suspect claims; social video ecosystems can amplify paranormal content and normalize credulity. None of these prove that “astrology users = AI over-trusters,” but they map a shared cognitive terrain—credence in confident predictions with weak accountability. PubMedTaylor & Francis Online
Evidence maturity: Emerging. Treat as a promising research frontier, not settled fact. arXiv
8) Pulling the threads together: a systems view
What we know with confidence (2025):
- Astrology’s predictive claims fail when put to robust tests (double-blind, pre-registered designs, adversarial collaboration). This remains true for both sun-sign and full natal chart readings. bbcearth.comClearer Thinking
- Belief and use are stable at minority but non-trivial levels in the U.S. (≈27% belief; ≈30% consult at least yearly, mostly for fun). Engagement is demographically patterned (younger, women, LGBTQ+ more involved). Pew Research Center
- The best predictor of skepticism is cognitive ability/education, not spirituality or partisanship, in recent U.S. data. This elevates science-reasoning skills over identity variables as the main barrier to astrological credence—at least as measured by “Is astrology scientific?” items. Gwern
- Survey wording and domain confusion can inflate or depress apparent “belief.” Interpret any single statistic with care. WIRED
- Psychological functions (meaning-making, self-verification, coping, community) help explain why astrology persists regardless of truth value. econtent.hogrefe.comresearch.gold.ac.uk
What is plausible but less settled:
- Narcissism may robustly predict stronger astrological belief; agreeableness sometimes co-varies; more replications with representative samples are needed. ia600802.us.archive.org
- AI era parallels: initial evidence suggests over-belief in AI predictions can ride the same cognitive rails as belief in astrology. Early but intriguing. arXiv
9) Practical implications—for education, media, and policy
a) Teach the difference between meaning and mechanism
In public communication, acknowledge astrology’s meaning-making role while separating it from mechanistic claims (“the planets cause personality”). Framing astrology as narrative (not causal prediction) diffuses defensiveness and opens space for critical thinking around evidence. bbcearth.com
b) Prioritize reasoning skills over “fact dumps”
The 2025 GSS analysis suggests that cognitive ability and education—not ideology—most strongly predict skepticism. Target reasoning skills: causal inference basics, base rates, placebo effects, p-values/false positives, and out-of-sample prediction. Interventions that build calibration and discernment (not just facts) have the best chance to generalize from “astrology” to other domains. Gwern
Linked literatures show that reducing susceptibility to bullshit and fake news requires training analytic reflection and source evaluation, not just content knowledge. Cambridge University Press & AssessmentPubMed
c) Show the test
The 2024 full-chart challenge is a model of transparent testing: public protocol, data sharing, and clear success thresholds. Educators can walk students through why the design was fair—and why near-chance outcomes matter. This builds intuition for statistical power, confidence intervals, and base rates. Clearer Thinking
d) Design nudges for the algorithmic era
If a subset of users over-credits any confident-sounding prediction (AI or astrology), platform designers and policymakers can require salient uncertainty displays, validation reports, and post-hoc auditability for predictive systems touching health, finance, or safety. Dialogue-based, personalised corrections—sometimes delivered by AI—have shown promise in reducing entrenched false beliefs in other domains (e.g., conspiracies). Carefully adapted, such approaches could help right-size trust in consumer prediction tools. Caveat: transfer from conspiracy contexts to astrology has not been empirically tested. Science
e) Respect user goals; offer science-aligned substitutes
Where astrology meets psychological needs (reflection, community, coping), offer adjacent, evidence-compatible practices: journaling programs with feedback, values-clarification exercises, peer support circles, and strengths/values assessments with validated measures. This meets human needs without pretending cosmic causation. research.gold.ac.uk
10) What to watch next (research agenda)
- Representative, multi-trait replications: Extend the narcissism finding using probability samples and validated belief scales (e.g., Belief in Astrology Inventory), alongside Wordsum/CRT and education. This can disentangle which traits matter independently. ia600802.us.archive.orgGwern
- Longitudinal designs: Do life stressors causally increase astrological engagement? Older work hints at this; modern cohorts and social media could change the dynamics. econtent.hogrefe.com
- Item-wording and construct clarity: Continue to compare “astrology” vs “horoscopes” vs “zodiac” phrasing; validate multi-item scales that separate use, identity value, and scientific status. WIRED
- Interdisciplinary tests of predictive claims: Encourage pre-registered, adversarial-collaboration designs for any mechanistic claims (e.g., birth-chart factors vs. blind personality outcomes). Leverage open data and Bayesian sequential designs to avoid over- or under-powered trials. Clearer Thinking
- AI-credulity convergence: Replicate (and peer-review) the AI vs astrology credulity link; test interventions (uncertainty prompts, calibration training) to reduce over-belief in any opaque predictive system. arXiv
11) Frequently asked questions
Q1: If 27% believe in astrology, does that mean a third of people make big decisions that way?
No. The same 2025 Pew survey shows that while 30% consult astrology/tarot/fortune-tellers at least yearly, only 1% say they rely on them “a lot” for major life decisions; most say it’s “just for fun.” Pew Research Center
Q2: Isn’t astrology “scientific” if it helps me feel better?
Helping ≠ causal mechanism. Placebos can help, narratives can help, communities can help—without demonstrating predictive accuracy or causal forces from planets to personality. Both things can be true: astrology may comfort some people while failing scientific tests. bbcearth.com
Q3: Do religious people believe in astrology more?
In the 2025 Pew data, religiously affiliated and unaffiliated Americans reported similar rates of belief (≈27–28%). In the 2025 GSS analysis, religiosity and spirituality did not show significant independent effects once cognition and education were in the model. Pew Research CenterGwern
Q4: Are conservatives the main believers?
Not in recent U.S. data. The 2025 GSS analysis finds little to no independent effect of political orientation. Prior European work linking belief to right-wing authoritarianism appears non-generalizable across time/contexts. Gwern
Q5: But lots of people say astrology works for them. Isn’t that evidence?
Anecdote is not prediction. Many experiences are shaped by confirmation bias, the Barnum effect, and motivated interpretation. Controlled tests are designed to isolate real signal from these human tendencies—and they keep finding no signal for astrological prediction. bbcearth.com
12) Bottom line
By 2025, the scientific status of astrology remains unchanged: no predictive validity. Yet belief and use persist at non-trivial levels—especially among younger adults—because astrology does cultural and psychological work that many people find valuable. The freshest, largest-scale evidence points to cognitive ability and education as the strongest bulwarks against classifying astrology as “scientific,” with personality (notably narcissism) a plausible contributor for some believers. Measurement nuances and linguistic confusions explain part of the variance across polls, while qualitative research clarifies how astrology functions as identity talk, meaning-making, and coping—even among people who don’t call it “science.” GwernPew Research Centeria600802.us.archive.orgWIREDresearch.gold.ac.uk
Looking ahead, the algorithmic century raises a broader question: why are humans tempted by confident predictions, regardless of whether they come from stars or servers? Early evidence suggests shared psychology—credulity toward systematic-sounding forecasts—and points to interventions that strengthen reasoning, calibration, and healthy skepticism without dismissing people’s need for meaning. That dual commitment—to truth and to human needs—is how we keep the compass steady in an age crowded with oracles. arXivCambridge University Press & Assessment
Sources & further reading (selected)
- Astrology’s scientific status & tests: BBC Earth overview (2024); ClearerThinking full-chart study (2024). bbcearth.comClearer Thinking
- Prevalence & demographics: Pew Research Center report (May 21, 2025). Pew Research Center
- Predictors in U.S. GSS: Edwards et al., Journal of Individual Differences (2025) (Wordsum/education vs. spirituality/politics/trust). Gwern
- Personality correlates (suggestive): Andersson et al., PAID (2022) (narcissism; convenience sample). ia600802.us.archive.org
- Measurement caveats: Allum (2011) and the “astrology vs astronomy” confusion in European surveys. repository.essex.ac.ukWIRED
- Identity & coping: Lillqvist & Lindeman (1998); Clements (2022). econtent.hogrefe.comresearch.gold.ac.uk
- AI–astrology belief link (preprint): Lee et al. (2024). arXiv
Notes on maturity labels: “Established” = replicated findings in peer-reviewed literature with consistent results; “Moderate” = credible evidence but with limitations (e.g., sample, generalizability); “Emerging” = preprints or first-wave studies where caution is warranted.
Appendix: a short caution on cross-polls and “what counts as belief”
- “Do you believe astrology is scientific?” taps a science-status judgment.
- “Do you read horoscopes?” taps engagement/behavior.
- “Can the stars/planets affect people’s lives?” taps causal belief (often used by Pew/Gallup).
Different items can produce different percentages within the same population at the same time. Always check the item and the sample before comparing numbers. gss.norc.orgPew Research Center
