How popular are horoscopes in the western world?

[DeiRenDopa]

No, this is not about the scientific basis for astrology (or lack of it).

Rather, this is a question about people (in 'the western world', in this case), their interests (horoscopes, in this case), and research into this topic (i.e. the nature and distribution of (positive) perceptions is the object of the research).

I fully appreciate, and recognise, that the question is broad and ambiguous; it is the first part of my digging into this.

So there are ancillary questions such as 'how to measure popularity?', 'what, exactly, is within scope wrt 'horoscopes'?', and 'what's 'the western world'?'.

Inputs, suggestions, and comments (as well as answers! :D) most welcome.

[Lonewulf]

Every newspaper, or almost every newspaper, includes the horoscope, based on the 12 astrological signs (Pisces, Ares, Capricorn, etc.)

I'm not sure about Europe, but that's the way it is in the U.S. There's also several apologists for astrology, and several people that believe in it to the point where "What's your sign?" is a pick-up line. Some even decide relationships based on it.

[arthwollipot]

Pick up any magazine of a service station rack and odds on it'll have a horoscope in it. And it will purport to take that horoscope seriously. I don't know how many readers take it seriously, though.

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks.

Yes, the pervasive availability of horoscopes in print media is pretty obvious. And, presumably, the commercial logic applies - the columns are there because the newspapers' (etc) managers have done their research and found it either helps (paid) circulation, or absence would hurt it.

But they are certainly not universal; I guess (based on limited sampling) that a great many high-circulation magazines (etc) do not have such a column, especially those targetted at better educated/more serious/whatever readerships (think The Economist, for example).

And what about other media? Are horoscopes as widespread on TV channels as they are in daily newspapers? What about radio?

And on the internet, is there any (hard, or at least semi-hard) data on the popularity of horoscopes?

Another question: what is the attitude of the various formal religious organisations to horoscopes? For example, is there some Vatican edit condemning them? Or are they (or some subset) actually regarded as a key part of some (major) religion?

And to repeat, for avoidance of doubt, I'm interested in understanding the nature of the popularity (or otherwise), social attitudes, etc, and any (scientific) research that has been done into this (social) phenomenon.

[Kotatsu]

Metro in Sweden (at least) has both the zoodiacal and the Chinese horoscopes. They are suitably placed on the same page as the comics and the crossword puzzle.

[Denver]

My experience is that interest in astrology has declined since the 70s. Back then, I can remember Jean Dixon often being in the news, friends or acquaintances discussing their horoscope, and a plethora of those little horoscope dispenser machines in various stores and shops.

Now, I can go a year or more without even hearing the word 'horoscope', and many months seeing no mention of astrology (except around here... :) )

It's an interesting decline, in that the "psychic celebrity" crowd (Geller, etc) also seemed more popular and more pervasive back then, and have also now declined in visibility. So while I would be tempted to attribute the drop in astrology's stock to a drop in woo in general, the advent of the ghosthunter fad in the past few years does not seem to support that connection.

One bit of research you might try: identify a few major newspapers, and go into their archives. Look into their astrology section over the years. Has it changed? Has it moved from the front page to the entertainment section? Stuff like that might be telling.

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks.

I guess a distinction between amusement and belief is important, though that's more likely a cline than something clearly bimodal. As a bit of fun, horoscopes are, it seems, quite popular; but as something which one uses to make key decisions about one's life, not so popular (and becoming less so).

So too with organised religion ... for example, the Vatican apparently took astrology very seriously several centuries ago, and devoted much time and effort to trying to stamp it out; today, it's like 'who cares?'.

[Cuddles]

I guess a distinction between amusement and belief is important, though that's more likely a cline than something clearly bimodal. As a bit of fun, horoscopes are, it seems, quite popular; but as something which one uses to make key decisions about one's life, not so popular (and becoming less so).

Pretty much. As already noted, there are a huge number of magzines and such that carry regular horoscopes, but I don't think I've ever met anyone who took them seriously. Even people who actually believe in astrology don't take newspaper astrology seriously, since they're clearly doing it wrong.

I'm also not sure the argument from comercialism works. It's easy to say that they keep horoscopes because they help them make money, but has any newspaper or magazine actually tried taking them out? People read them because they're there, but would they actually stop buying their magazines if the horoscopes were taken out? Personally, I rather doubt it. However, I have no idea if anyone's actually done any research on the matter.

[Starthinker]

For those who didn't live through it the 70's seemed to be a time of transition. You had religions loosing ground to cults and hippies at the same time science was making great strides in fundamental understanding of things. Religions>People suggesting alternatives>science suggesting alternatives were true>people believing in the new alternative. The average lay person on the street was just beginning to understand that there are electromagnetic waves coming from everywhere, there is bio electricity in our brains, so why couldn't telepathy be real? We had people doing things like kirlian photography showing waves coming off of bodies, so why wouldn't chakras be real? We also had mass media for the first time showing guys bending spoons and starting watches and these demonstrations eminated faster than real science and people like Randi could expose them. It was a foot race and the psychics won.

Horoscopes included. With all the uncertainty people were looking for answers all over.

Also, this was before the internet and people would do wild things to get into the papers, and it was more work to print a retraction or explanation than it was worth. So some guy claiming to find proof of aliens visiting our planet in ancient times could print a book with wild theories fast and get it out and drown out other people who may only get a small article in a local paper denouncing it. Woo's had money to do things, so the woo's won. Woo's did things bigger and faster so the woo's won. There was no internet to look up opposing points of view. The average bookstore would have ten books of paranormal phenemenon to every book about mundane science, and guess which was more exciting to read? Someone could tell a story about Mary Jenkins in California seeing a ghost and rest easy that readers in Chicago and New York had no way to verify it. They just took it as it was. Now we have the internet and few lies can hold up for long.

I truly think this whole mindset is lost on people born in the 80's and 90's. They just can't envision a world where you couldn't verify things or link up with people who could.

[Denver]

For those who didn't live through it the 70's seemed to be a time of transition. ...The average lay person on the street was just beginning to understand that there are electromagnetic waves coming from everywhere, there is bio electricity in our brains, so why couldn't telepathy be real? ...

This stuff seems to go in generational cycles. Back around the 1920s, you can read a lot about people arguing for and against mediums and the existence of ghosts. Many of the arguments "against" would explain mediums actually doing their reading by simply reading the minds of the subject: mind reading seemed to be more commonly accepted than spirits, using similar rationalizations as your statements above.

[Ladewig]

Gallup Poll 2005 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/Three-Four-Americans-Believe-Paranormal.aspx)

The percentage of Americans who believe in "Astrology, or that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives: 25%."

[Tony Inchpractice]

Gallup Poll 2005 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/Three-Four-Americans-Believe-Paranormal.aspx)

The percentage of Americans who believe in "Astrology, or that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives: 25%."

I know these polls are hardly definitive but that's a lot lower than I expected. Maybe I'm just making a lazy assumption about how credulous people can be.

I'd be interested to see how it compares to other western countries that aren't so big on organised religion. I wonder if it would be higher in places where there is less emphasis on the traditional faiths.

It's hardly an original idea, but I'm guessing people would see (or be taught) that it's contrary to mainstream Christian faith, for example. So perhaps there is more acceptance of Astrology here in the UK where the traditional religions aren't discussed as much? I've tried Google but I'm drawing a blank so far.

Edit: OK, so I guess what I said is part of the thrust of the OP. I should probably try not to get distracted between reading the OP and getting to the end of the thread, where I think "I've got something 'clever' to say"

[Anna Kadabra]

This is just anecdotal evidence but seriously, SO popular (I live in Australia). Almost every person I work with reads them and takes them seriously to some degree (some more than others). Even people who I consider to be pretty intelligent. I just kind of sit there..holding my tongue, trying not to be an obnoxious b- about it. I don't mean to pay out my own gender but women are far worse offenders than men in my experience.

[arthwollipot]

I'm also not sure the argument from comercialism works. It's easy to say that they keep horoscopes because they help them make money, but has any newspaper or magazine actually tried taking them out? People read them because they're there, but would they actually stop buying their magazines if the horoscopes were taken out? Personally, I rather doubt it. However, I have no idea if anyone's actually done any research on the matter.Depending on the publication, I'd be pretty certain that if they took the horoscopes out they'd get at least one letter of complaint. Even if the publication in question is a reputable newspaper. There's always a loon at the bottom end of the bell curve.

[Wolrab]

Here's mine.
"Scorpio Oct 24 - Nov 21

The stars indicate professional success in the days to come, though it's quite difficult for them to keep a straight face during it."

From America's Finest New Source
http://www.theonion.com/content/horoscope/feb-03-2009