A Study of Astrology Personality Descriptions:
Accurate or Random?



For each zodiac sign there is a specific personality. Gemini, for example, are supposed to be youthful, energetic, and easily bored. Taurus, on the other hand, are typically strong-willed and reliable, seeking little more than peace and security in life. With this study, I set out to determine the accuracy of these personality descriptions, and finally find out whether astrology is based on truth and introspection, or is instead mere hocus-pocus to entertain the masses.

Method of Study
For each of the zodiac signs, I boiled down the description. I then presented these in PowerPoint format to fifteen test subjects. For each description, the subjects were instructed to score how similar the personality described is to their own. They responded with numbers ranging from 1 to 10, scoring the description as 1 if completely unfitting, and 10 if perfectly fitting. They did this for 12 descriptions. Upon the end of the presentation, they provided their birth date, and whether knowledge of astrology affected their responses in any way.

Data Analysis
In order to determine the accuracy of this branch of astrology, I do some comparing. First, I compare all of the scores that one subject provides. I add their scores, then divide by 12, in order to obtain an average score. I compare this to the number with which they score their sign's description. This way, I am able to tell whether his or her specific sign's description is relatively more accurate than the other descriptions. If astrology is true, the score that they provide for their sign's description should be significantly higher than their average score. If it is not, then astrology is most likely random. But this cannot be determined from only one test subject, so finally, I average all of the subjects' average scores, and average their signs' scores. By comparing these numbers, I can tell astrology's accuracy.

Data
Here follow the average score of the subjects’ responses, and below the score they gave their specific sign:
(The names of those for whom the sign's score scored above the average are bolded, and those that scored their sign with the same number as their average are italicized)

Bryan
Average score given 70.5/12 = 5.875
Average score given for sign = 5

Jeff Sweedler
Average 59/12 = 4.917
Sign = 4

Hannah
Average = 5. 167
Sign = 6

Claire
Average = 4. 167
Sign = 6

Rachel
Average = 3. 5
Sign = 8

Cody
Average = 3.75
Sign = 4

Ethan
Average = 4. 667
Sign = 3

Zita
Average = 5. 167
Sign = 4

Lauren
Average = 5. 5
Sign = 6

Leonard
Average = 5
Sign = 5

Laura Hapke
Average = 5
Sign = 8

Anna Shea
Average = 4.917
Sign = 3

Mary Danner
Average = 6. 583
Sign = 7

Fabian
Average = 3. 708
Sign = 1

Alexander
Average = 5. 083
Sign = 5


Several of the subjects' signs scored below average, and several others above. Thus, as mentioned earlier, in order to determine the accuracy of astrology, I average the averages, and average the scores given for the subjects' signs. If the average score given for the sign is significantly higher than that of the average score given, then the personality descriptions must be accurate, and if they are not, they must be random.

Average score given
73.001/15 = 4.867
Average score given for sign
75/15 = 5

Conclusion
As the data illustrates, the average score given for the sign is higher than the average score given, but not by a statistically significant amount. Therefore, the personality traits that astrology relates to specific zodiac signs are random, and astrology? Hocus-pocus.