The validity of astrological predictions on marriage and divorce: a longitudinal analysis of Swedish register data

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Astrology remains popular and widely consumed in Western countries, as indicated by the persistence of horoscopes in popular media.

“the persistence of horoscopes in popular media confirms that the general public's consumption of astrology remains high.”

• cites Bogart (1989)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Bauer & Durant (1997) sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction says horoscopes are read by millions, and §2 reports that 73% of respondents to a 1988 British survey sometimes read a horoscope or personal astrology report. These passages support substantial public consumption, but the paper does not establish that horoscopes persist in popular media or use their presence there to confirm consumption. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites National Science Board (2000)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

After adjusting for asymmetries to achieve symmetry, the results are qualitatively identical to the main analysis.

“Table A3, Additional file 1, however, displays results after making adjustments in order to achieve symmetry, with qualitatively identical results.”

May combine two claims.

The study's results fail to provide consistent evidence that astrologically more compatible couples are either overrepresented among observed marital unions or have a lower risk of divorce.

“The results fail to provide any consistent evidence to support the notion that astrologically more compatible couples are either overrepresented among observed marital unions or associated with a lower risk of divorce.”

• Also stated in: § Introduction · plain

  “While recognizing our study's limitations, only examining Sweden and a small subset of the astrological predictions available, our results fail to provide any consistent support of the hypotheses tested.”

May combine two claims.

Restricting the analysis to couples where both partners were born at least 4 days before and after zodiac sign break dates yields results virtually identical to the main analysis, suggesting cusp births are not driving the lack of results.

“These results (Additional file 1, Table A4) are virtually identical to those of the main analysis, suggesting that the somewhat less precisely defined characteristics of the sample when including cusp births are not driving the lack of results supporting relationship predictions founded in astrology.”

May combine two claims.

For classification #2, point estimates are not statistically significantly different from each other, and magnitudes fail to consistently indicate that increased compatibility is associated with lower divorce risk.

“The point estimates are not statistically significantly different from each other, and the magnitudes also fail to consistently indicate that increased compatibility is associated with a lower divorce risk.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

In the adjusted classification #1, the most astrologically favorable couples have a 4.1% lower risk of divorce than a less compatible couple, statistically significant.

“It should be noted that the coefficient illustrating the experience of couples who according to the adjusted classification #1 are the most astrologically favorable now is associated with a risk of divorce that is 4.1% lower than a less compatible couple, as well as being statistically significant (see model 1).”

May combine two claims.

For classification #1, the mean actual number of unions for 'good' combinations is lower than chance predicts, contrary to the expectation that favorable combinations would be overrepresented.

“Thus, the mean actual number of unions is lower than what chance would predict based on the index population distribution, at odds with the expectation that comparably more favorable zodiac sign combinations would be overrepresented among married couples.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The zodiac-sign distribution of the marriage market resembles the population of index individuals.

May combine two claims.

For classification #1, the 'good' category is associated with a 2% reduction in divorce risk, not statistically significantly different from the reference category.

“suggests a rather small influence, only amounting to a 2% reduction in the risk of divorce.The point estimate is also not statistically significantly different from the reference category.”

May combine two claims.

For classification #6, all categories yield lower divorce probabilities than the reference, with the only statistically significant lower probability being a category judged as less compatible than the reference.

“Additionally, all categories yield lower divorce probabilities than the reference, with the only category showing a statistically significant lower probability being judged as less compatible than the reference category.”

May combine two claims.

For classification #5, the most compatible couples have a divorce risk almost five percent lower than the reference, statistically significant.

“The most compatible couples do experience a divorce risk that is almost five percent lower than the reference category, in addition to being statistically significant.”

May combine two claims.

For classification #6, the most compatible couple category is associated with a slightly lower probability of divorce compared to the reference, but not statistically significant.

“Again, while the most compatible couple category is associated with a slightly lower probability of divorce compared to the reference category, it is not statistically significant.”

May combine two claims.

Spouses' educational attainment, presence of children under 18, and previous divorce are consistently much more strongly associated with risk of divorce within the current union than the couple's degree of astrological compatibility.

“For example, the spouses' educational attainment, the presence of children under the age of 18 as well as previous experiences of divorce are all consistently much more strongly associated with the risk of divorce within the current union than the couple's degree of astrological compatibility.”

May combine two claims.

The results indicate rather trivial and statistically insignificant differences in risk of divorce depending on couples' varying degree of astrological compatibility, and fail to suggest any systematically lower risk of divorce among couples indicated as highly compatible.

“Second, our results not only indicate rather trivial and statistically insignificant differences in the risk of divorce depending on couples' varying degree of astrological compatibility, but they also fail to suggest any systematically lower risk of divorce among couples who are indicated as being highly compatible.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Two of the examined classifications are not symmetrical, so that e.g. Aries-Capricorn may be indicated as favorable whereas Capricorn-Aries is not.

“As noted earlier, two of the examined classifications are not symmetrical, as, e.g., the pairing Aries-Capricorn may have been indicated as favorable, whereas Capricorn-Aries was not, despite belonging to one and the same classification scheme.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Examining a context where belief in astrology is comparatively low ascertains that the influence of such sources of bias is minimized.

“The examination of a context where the belief in astrology is comparatively low thereby ascertains that the influence of such sources of bias is minimized.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Given the comparatively low degree of general belief in astrology in Sweden, the context should be close to ideal for examining a phenomenon of proposed universal validity such as astrology.

“Given the comparatively low degree of general belief in astrology in Sweden, the context should be close to ideal for the examination of a phenomenon of proposed universal validity such as astrology.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Nordic natives rank very low in cross-country comparisons of beliefs in the supernatural, including religion as well as astrology.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Individuals who believe in astrology are more likely to be aware of what it predicts and therefore allow it to influence their decisions.

“Individuals who do believe in them are, however, more likely to be aware of what they predict and therefore also allow them to influence their decisions.”

May combine two claims.

For classification #4, the absence of a pattern consistent with expectations and lack of statistical significance results in refusal of the astrological prediction.

“Consequently, the absence of a pattern between the categories that are consistent with the expectations, coupled with a lack of statistical significance, results in the refusal of yet another astrological prediction.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Restricting the divorce analysis to unions observed from the beginning of the marital union is necessary to accurately measure time at risk of dissolution.

“Our analysis also examines the determinants of legal divorce with an additional sample restriction being that all examined unions were observed from the beginning of the marital union, since this is necessary to accurately measure time at risk of dissolution.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The absence of information on whether sample individuals believe in astrology should not matter because astrological theory suggests individuals are influenced regardless of their knowledge of astrology.

“We do not have any information on whether sample individuals actually believe in astrology, something that we claim should not matter, as astrological theory would suggest that individuals are influenced regardless of whether they have any knowledge of astrology.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The theoretical foundation of astrological relationship compatibility is that the position of celestial bodies at the time of birth profoundly influences personality.

“The theoretical foundation upon which astrology predicts the relationship compatibility of two individuals is based on a belief that the position of celestial bodies at the time of birth has a profound influence on the personality (Orion, 2007).”

• cites Orion, 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The classifications used to identify relationship compatibility are based only on the individual's sun sign and not on a full astrological reading.

“The first caveat is linked to the classifications used to identify relationship compatibility, which is only based on the individual's sun sign and not on a full astrological reading.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The main results classify relationships according to the original source despite asymmetry, with a sensitivity analysis adjusting for asymmetry.

“Since our objective is to test the astrological predictions as they were provided, the main results classify relationships in accordance with the original source, with results adjusting for this asymmetry provided as a sensitivity analysis.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Astrologers widely claim that sun-sign horoscopes are highly informative about relationships and career, and such horoscopes are what are normally encountered in magazines and newspapers.

“Despite its comparatively greater simplicity, astrologers widely claim sun sign horoscopes to be highly informative regarding matters such as relationships and career, and these represent what is normally encountered in magazines and newspapers (Crowe, 1990).”

• cites Crowe, 1990 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

For the divorce analysis, the outlined bias would bias results toward a lower risk of divorce for astrologically favorable relationship categories, thus reinforcing the validity of the results.

“For the analysis of divorce, the outlined process would bias the results toward a lower risk of divorce for the astrologically favorable relationship categories, thus, further reinforcing the validity of our results.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Only a small number of previous studies have examined the influence of astrology on outcomes relating to love and relationships.

“To our knowledge, only a small number of previous studies have examined the influence of astrology on outcomes relating to matters of love and relationships.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The analysis conducted should serve as a valid test of the benefits associated with recommendations provided by astrology to achieve happiness in relationships.

“The analysis conducted in this article should serve as a valid test of the benefits associated with recommendations provided by astrology in order to achieve happiness in relationships.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The main Cox models include only covariates that can credibly be argued not to be influenced by the individual's zodiac sign.

“While our main models, presented in Table 4, only include covariates that can credibly be argued not to be influenced by the individual's zodiac sign, corresponding models including a full set of sociodemographic characteristics are available in Table A2, Additional file 1.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

There is a relative dearth of empirical studies examining the potential validity of astrology.

“Despite the contemporary scientific community's enduring skepticism toward astrology, frequently labeling it a pseudo-science (Thagard, 1978), there is a relative dearth of empirical studies examining its potential validity.”

• cites Thagard, 1978 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

For classification #5, because the least compatible group also has lower hazard than the reference, most and least compatible categories are statistically indistinguishable, refuting this classification.

“However, as the hazard ratio for the least compatible group also is less than for the reference category, the most and least compatible categories become statistically indistinguishable from each other, thus refuting this classification as well.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Using only date of birth to determine zodiac signs does not represent an insurmountable disadvantage because the majority of horoscopes consumed by the general public are based solely on date of birth.

“The majority of horoscopes consumed by the general public in magazines, online, and in newspapers is, however, based solely on the date of birth.”

• Also stated in: § Data and methods · hedged

  “Consequently, it would follow that our ability to assess zodiac signs only based on the date of birth does not represent an insurmountable disadvantage, but rather reflects the way these signs are constructed in daily use.”

May combine two claims.

The study's findings are limited to Sweden and to a small subset of the astrological predictions available.

“While recognizing our study's limitations, only examining Sweden and a small subset of the astrological predictions available, our results fail to provide any consistent support of the hypotheses tested.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The bulk of previous research into the validity of astrological predictions is based on very small and sometimes strongly selected samples.

“Despite valuable contributions from previous research into the validity of astrological predictions, the bulk of it is based on very small and sometimes strongly selected samples.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Each sun sign is represented by a unique combination of characteristics, allowing astrologers to determine which sun signs are most compatible in romantic relationships.

“Taking the three dimensions together, each sun sign is represented by a unique combination of characteristics, allowing the astrologer to make predictions about essential features of the individual, in addition to determining which sun signs are the most compatible in romantic relationships (Orion, 2007).”

• cites Orion, 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The continuing popularity of astrology may at least partly be linked to an insufficient body of empirical research able to test astrological hypotheses, due to a lack of data beyond small study populations and to vague predictions.

“The continuing popularity of astrology may at least partly be linked to an insufficient body of empirical research that has been able to test hypotheses formulated by astrological theory, both due to a lack of data beyond very small study populations as well as astrological predictions frequently being vague and thereby difficult to test.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Astrological predictions are often vague, making testable hypotheses difficult to formulate.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The vast majority of empirical research on astrology has focused on whether personality traits are consistent with astrological predictions, with mixed results.

“The vast majority of the empirical research has focused on whether an individual's displayed personality traits are consistent with those predicted by astrology, producing rather mixed results.”

May combine two claims.

Given the statistical power of the data, the observed effect for classification #1 must be considered a null effect, and the predictions exert no real influence on divorce.

“Given the statistical power of the data used, the observed effect must be considered to be a null effect, and we must reject that these predictions exert any real influence on the outcome.”