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

Abstract

Beliefs 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.