The sun's position at birth is unrelated to subjective well‐being: Debunking astrological claims

Abstract

AbstractBeliefs linking zodiac signs to personality traits, life outcomes, and well‐being remain widespread across various cultures. This study examined the relationship between Western zodiac signs and subjective well‐being in a nationally representative American sample from the General Social Survey (N = 12,791). Well‐being was measured across eight components: general unhappiness, depressive symptoms, psychological distress, work dissatisfaction, financial dissatisfaction, perceived dullness of one's life, self‐rated health, and unhappiness with marriage. Parametric and nonparametric analyses consistently revealed no robust associations between zodiac signs and any of the well‐being variables, regardless of whether demographic factors were controlled for. The effect sizes were negligible, accounting for 0.3% or less of the variance in well‐being, demonstrating that zodiac signs lack predictive power for well‐being outcomes. An additional analysis revealed that astrological signs were no more predictive of than random numbers. Thus, a randomly generated number between 1 and 12 is statistically as predictive of one's well‐being as one's zodiac sign. These findings challenge popular astrological claims about the influence of zodiac signs on well‐being and quality of life.