Written by: Edward Snow    

​Psychology professor finds ingenious way to test controversial astrological assumptions

When in the last century French statistician Michael Gauquelin published the results of his ground-breaking statistical studies examining some basic tenets of astrology response from the academic community was anything but kind.

Gauquelin’s work extended over a period of 23 years between 1949 and 1973. In a series of studies he statistically tested how the planets influenced everything from character traits to heredity, athletic prowess and the career paths taken by professionals who are eminent in their fields. Mostly, it was the studies dealing with eminent professionals and elite athletes that created such a ruckus in the scientific community.

Initially, in a study involving 508 births, Gauquelin impressively demonstrated a correlation of Mars and Saturn with physicians at a chance level in the millions to one range. Simply, in the birth charts of prominent physicians, Saturn or Mars were either rising or culminating in so-called Gauquelin “plus zones” with a significantly greater frequency than expected by chance.
One of the Gauquelin plus zones straddles what astrologers call the ascendant or rising sign on the birth chart’s eastern horizon. Another hugs what astronomers call the meridian plane and astrologers refer to as the midheaven. Traditionally, planets posited near these “angles” in a birth chart are believed to express their influence more powerfully in the individual’s life. Gauquelin had similar success correlating other professions with the planets traditionally identified with them. For example, Mars turned up in the plus zones for elite athletes, Saturn was there for scientists, the Moon for writers and Jupiter for actors and politicians. The significance level for some of these correlations was also in the millions to one chance level. However, this result applied only to eminent professionals and elite athletes and was not present in the birth charts of ordinary athletes or professionals who were not eminent in their fields, which gave critics some contentious talking points.

Canines to the Rescue

Michael Gauquelin is not the only researcher to demonstrate that planets rising on the Eastern horizon or culminating near the midheaven are more influential. A novel study by another French scientist, the late Prof. Suzel Fuzeau-Braesch of Paris University, sought to determine whether the behavior of 500 pedigreed puppies from 100 different litters would measurably correlate to rising or culminating planets in their birth charts. She was advised in this unique project by Michael’s wife, Francoise Gauquelin, a statistician who also was closely involved with her husband in his work.
The whelping of a litter of puppies can extend over a period of several hours with as little as 15 minutes – or as much as two hours – between births. So birth charts lay out differently for every pup in a litter. The pups were closely monitored through the first eight weeks of life, but the hypothesized results were apparent almost immediately. Prof. Fuzeau-Braesch discovered that the dominant pups – the more aggressive, assertive, tail-wagging leaders of every group – had either the Sun or Jupiter rising or culminating in their birth charts with a frequency that far exceeded the threshold of significance established for the test.
Depending upon whatever else is going on in the heavens at the time, astrologers might describe humans with these same prominent planetary placements as charismatic, dominant, strong, sociable or influential. And psychologists might use the term extrovert when labeling these same essentially positive, outgoing personality traits. At Johnson State College in Vermont, Psychology and Counseling Professor David Fink studied the Gauquelin results and came up with an ingenious way to test whether planets in the plus zones could predict introversion-extraversion behavioral traits as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) questionnaire.
Prof. Fink directs Johnson State College’s master’s program in counseling.  He first encountered Gauquelin’s research in the 1980s and describes his interest in the statistician’s work in this way:
“My field is the training of counselors and psychotherapists. We are vitally interested in any tool that helps us understand people and the challenging issues that bring them to seek help in therapy. The Gauquelin research stimulated my interest in examining whether the astrological birth chart might prove useful as an empirically defensible tool for assessing personality dimensions.”

A More Promising Approach

Rather than testing the birth data of eminent professionals, Prof. Fink found a more promising – and less controversial – way to test the Gauquelin plus zones. Over a period of 15 years he administered EPI tests to 932 college students at three universities: Johnson State, the University of Vermont and the University of Maine. He was especially interested in the EPI test’s “E” scale, which is a measure of introversion-extraversion. A high score on the “E” scale equates to extraversion and a low score to introversion.
Astrologers associate the planet Jupiter with expansive, outgoing personality traits and Saturn with caution and reserve. Prof. Fink hypothesized that individuals with Jupiter in one of the plus zones identified by Gauquelin should test higher on the “E” scale while those with Saturn in these locations should test lower.
To analyze the collected data he reached out to astrological researcher David Cochrane, who at the time was enrolled in graduate classes in research methodology and statistics at the University of Florida. Cochrane is a past president of the International Society for Astrological Research (ISAR) and is Chairman and founder of the Cosmic Patterns astrological software company. At Florida University he got approval from the head of the Research and Evaluation Methodology Department to do the analysis as partial fulfillment for a three-credit independent study course. A professor in the Sociology Department, Monika Ardelt, mentored the project, providing “important suggestions that improved analysis of the results,” he said.

A Statistically Significant Result

“Statistical significance is the gold standard for an experimental design that evaluates whether a hypothesis is true or not. A result is generally regarded as being statistically significant if the probability of obtaining it is less than 5 percent, or what researchers call a p value of .05. Researchers should collect enough data to potentially obtain this level of significance,” Cochrane explained.
He points out that the placement of Jupiter or Saturn in one of the plus zones is only one variable among a great many possible astrological variables that might affect the “E” score.  Also, non-astrological factors like genetics and the environment may factor into the outcome as well. With 982 cases, the researchers wanted to determine whether the effect of a single variable could be detected.  It was.
“The result for this data analysis, which is known in statistics as a 2-tailed t-test, was significant at the .05 p value level. In a more sophisticated test that included age as a predictor of the E score the result was even better with a 2 percent probability. Effectively, the hypothesis was clearly stated and was confirmed by the result. Because the students did not know how Prof. Fink would analyze the data at the time they were tested there was no way for their test scores to have been influenced by the hypothesis tested,” he added.
According to Prof. Fink, if results of the research eventually are replicated in future studies with a similar design the significance will be twofold.  For one thing, it will present to scientists in other fields suggestive evidence of the birth chart’s validity that will be difficult to dismiss out of hand without further serious investigation. Also, it will provide practicing astrologers with more precise guidelines for interpreting the strength of angular planets located in the Gauquelin plus zones.
Prof. Fink says his primary interest in the subject revolves around approaching astrology “as an alternative language system that can help clinicians assess and conceptualize their clients with different terminology, and also communicate with clients in vocabulary that is less stigmatizing to them than the psychopathologizing categories we traditionally employ in the mental health field.
“I speak to my students about the study after first describing to them the ground breaking work of the Gauquelins, and the reluctance of most empirical scientists to engage with the Gauquelin results. Students are generally fascinated with the work, but at the same time are somewhat daunted by the statistical and methodological issues that inevitably must be addressed,” he noted.

About the author, Edward Snow

Edward Snow is Managing Editor of the Astrology News Service (ANS). He is a former news reporter and publicist who has managed PR programs for national and regional clients. He has been a student of astrology for many years.

Written by: John Anthony West (As summarized by Maria Mateus from The Case For Astrology)    

Michel Gauquelin was a graduate in statistics and psychology from the Sorbonne who, together with his wife Francoise, conducted the most significant body of statistical research in astrology to date. While his work does not substantiate some canons of traditional astrology, it conclusively vindicates astrology’s fundamental premise: that there is a relationship between the planets’ positions at the moment of birth and the direction of individual lives.
The body of Gauquelin’s work extends over a period of 23 years (1949 –1973) and involved research into questions of professional studies, heredity studies and character trait studies. By far the studies receiving the most notoriety involved correlations between the [position of a planet in the natal chart and a person’s chosen profession. Because of its extremely significant positive results, the most famous of these studies is commonly known as “the Mars effect.”
Gauquelin’s preliminary profession findings involved two studies: the one comprised of a group of 576 birth charts revealed a correlation of Mars and Saturn with physicians at a chance level in the millions to one. The second study involving 508 births revealed the same results for other professions correlating them with their traditionally related planets: Mars with athletes, Saturn with scientists, the Moon with writers, and Jupiter with actors and politicians. Those findings only applied to eminent professionals and were not present in the charts of average professionals. The significance level for some of these correlations was also in the millions to one chance level. The research was published in 1955 in L‘influence des Astres, where Michel argued that what he was demonstrating was not evidence of astrology, but some other celestial influence. This work was ignored by his academic colleagues until Michel set about seeking professional peer review.
The Skeptics Respond
After much cajoling by Gauquelin for a peer review, the 1st critique came from Marcel Boll, a well-known French science writer and member of the Belgian Committee for the Investigation of Paranormal Phenomena (The Belgian Para Committee hereafter). His main objection was that the study used only birth data from France, which he claimed resulted in a national fluke. Had Gauquelin selected birth records from other countries, went Boll’s logic, the results would be no better than chance! Any statistician would know that this objection was statistically ridiculous.
Professor Dauvillier, a Professor of Cosmic Physics at the College of France, replied that the correlation was a result of insufficient sample size.
Gauquelin Answers
Michel answered both challenges (even though the first was an illogical criticism) by collecting a database of 25,000 birth records in Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. (England did not record birth times back then). The results of the replication study with European data were identical and just as significant, showing the same planets in key sectors of the chart correlating with eminence in specific professions. There were some national variations but the result repeated significantly in the same direction as the original studies. A control group of non-specialized professions did not show any affect. The European studies were published in 1960 in Les Hommes et les Artre at the Gauquelin’s own cost.
The Heredity Studies
During the 1960s, the Gauquelins conducted another massive study that examined astrological relationships between parents and their children. The 30,000 size sample of ordinary French citizens and their children revealed that when parents had certain planets in Sectors 1 and 4 of the charts, their children were also likely to have the same planets in the same sectors. The correlations between particular planets – such as the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn – were stronger in that order. The significance level was 1 million to 1. Induced or Caesarean births did not show this pattern.



The Character Traits Studies
In the 1970s, Gauquelin then ran character trait analyses studies which grouped the 4 previously studied professions according to personality traits – collected from the biographical data – which comprised a profile for each profession. The results correlated the profiles with the same planets in the same sectors. The atypical profiles also correlated negatively with the significant sectors. In 1980, this study was replicated in America, yielding identically positive results.
Gauquelin vs. The Belgian Para Committee (1965)
Five years after having addressed the Belgian Committee’s ridiculous demographic objection to his original profession studies and subsequently being ignored by them, Gauquelin again proposed replications of his Mars effect on sports champions study by both he and the Committee. The procedural details were agreed upon and each side conducted their own tests, The results for both sides exactly matched the findings of Gauquelin’s original experiments. The Committee refrained from publishing their findings until Gauquelin decided to publish his own. Although they could not identify any problems with the methodology they had agreed to, the Committee nonetheless explained away the results as a product of a demographic error which they did not identify or show evidence for.
The Gauquelin controversy reached the U.S. in 1975 when a manifesto attacking astrology and signed by 186 eminent scientists appeared in The Humanist magazine. Gauquelin found his work ignorantly attacked and was forced to defend it through his own reply to the scientific publication. A professor of statistical science at Harvard and member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP hereafter) by the name of Marvin Zelen got involved in the debate and proposed his own study to test the “demographic error” argued by the Belgian Committee. The Zelen test, as it became known, examined the charts of average individuals born on the same day and general location as the Mars sports champions in the Gauquelin study. The idea was that if the effect was due to demographics and not the planets, the same effect would show up with ordinary citizens. The results not only vindicated Gauquelin, but also served to demolish the demographics argument once and for all. Not wanting to publish findings supportive of astrological effects, CSICOP changed the rules and re-spun the study of non-champions into a re-examination of the Mars effect on sports champions. Knowing that the group of 303 would show an effect, the test group was broken down into smaller sub-samples so as to water down the effect into meaninglessness. Even so, the KZA (Kurtz, Zelen, Abel*) report could not hide the smell of nonscientific conduct.
The American Replication (1979-80)
Knowing how badly the Zelen test made them look, the KZA report concluded that an American replication with someone other than Gauquelin collecting the data was needed, Gauquelin happily accepted and provided CSICOP the exact procedures he had followed in his Mars Effect studies. These stipulations required that the sample only include eminent sports champions since the effect was not present in non-eminent professionals. Paul Kurtz (Chairman of CSICOP) collected the data and astronomer Dennis Rawlins conducted the statistical analysis. As Kurtz sent Rawlins the data (and unsolicited cash) he asked Rawlins to give him confidential periodic advanced looks at the results. As the batches of names came in, the sample for percentages for Mars in the key sectors kept mysteriously declining. What was initially an expected effect of 22% for the first batch of names, incrementally dropped not only to the 16% expected by chance, but it ended at 13% (below what chance would indicate p=.02) with the submission of 82 late inclusions that Kurtz had “accidentally forgotten” to send. Naturally, the doctored findings published in the Skeptical Enquirer did not confirm Gauquelin’s work
Dennis Rawlins and STARBABY (1981)
We would have been none the wiser to the behind-the-scenes shenanigans exhibited by CSICOP and might have found the American findings of both the Zelen test and the Mars replication perfectly legitimate were it not for the excommunication of one of their involved members, Dennis Rawlins. The acrimony between Rawlins and CSICOP began with the Zelen test and continued through the replication study even while he himself was conducting the statistics. Rawlins’ own account of the events that transpired during the Gauquelin investigations provides testimonial evidence that KZA knew they were in trouble and not only deliberately butchered the Zelen test, but doctored the data in the replication study as well.
The Aftermath
Gauquelin challenged the study in a series of voluminous correspondence that was selectively published and edited in the Skeptical Inquirer. Rawlins was not permitted by the magazine to voice his dissent (hence, the sTARBABY publication in the 1981 issue of Fate magazine). Subsequent objective investigations by historian Patrick Curry concluded that the U.S. study was not a legitimate replication of the Gauquelin study, which prompted Gauquelin to propose a new European replication with written down rules and an airtight verification treaty. When he did not get a reply, Gauquelin carried out the study himself with the usual expected results he and others had obtained countless times before. Suddenly CSCOP came alive only to attack the methodology after the fact. In “A Reappraisal” published in the Skeptical Inquirer, KZA admits to varying degrees of carelessness in handling of the U.S. studies and in neglecting to mention that the Zelen test actually confirmed the chance level calculations in the non-professional samples, but evade Rawlings’ published charges of academic dishonesty and fraud.
The Ertel Report
While CSICOP was still insisting that there was some as yet undetected bias in Gauquelin’s selection criteria for the Mars samples, they did nothing to try to detect it. Instead, an unaffiliated psychology professor from Gottingen University by the name of Suitbert Ertel set about establishing a more rigorous and consistent way of defining eminence, hoping in the process that this might be the flaw that accounted for the extraordinary correlations. Thus, when the athletes were separated out into groups with varying degrees of eminence, Ertel found that the results precisely indicated what Gauquelin himself had found – that the more eminent the athlete the stronger the effect.
Furthermore, when Ertel corrected for Gauquelin’s inconsistencies in methodology from one study to the next, the Mars effect was enhanced, not diminished. Ertel’s study not only put to rest the notion that there was a selection bias – either unconscious or deliberate – in Gauquelin’s methodology, it also vindicated his findings. The Skeptical Inquirer refused to publish Ertel’s report claiming that the language was too technical, despite the fact that it boasts among its readership some of the most brilliant scientists and academics. The work was published instead in The Journal for Scientific Exploration.
Notes
* George Abel was a Professor of Astronomy at UCLA and an early warrior in CSICOP’s war on astrology.

​About the author  John Anthony West (As summarized by Maria Mateus from The Case For Astrology)
With Jan Gerhard Toonder, historian John Anthony West authored The Case for Astrology, a definitive history of astrology from ancient times to the modern era. He also has written books and documentaries on ancient Egypt, including the Serpent in the Sky and The Travelers’ Key to Ancient Egypt.