Which one to trust? Exploratory analysis on astrology, science and religiosity among students in Bucharest

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published May 18, 2021
https://doi.org/10.33788/sr.19.1.6
Download
PDF
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Vol. 19 No. 1 (2021)

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Dragoș Obreja
Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, University of Bucharest
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6146-8721

Abstract

Confidence in astrology remains a visible phenomenon in contemporary society, and this is a constant topic of academic interest. A survey based on 512 valid questionnaires were obtained from a non-probability sample of university students from Bucharest, in order to observe possible statistical relations between confidence in astrology, confidence in sciences such as medicine and mathematics, but also fields such as astronomy and horoscope. On the other hand, several statements have been used to measure the level of religiosity. Notable is the moderate positive correlation obtained between astrology and astronomy, but also the strong correlation between astrology and horoscope (this last correlation was expected). Broadly speaking, it is observed that astrology correlates positively with the variables that constitute the ‘inward’ component of religiosity, while the ‘outward’ component shows a rather negative correlation, but which does not enjoy a similar statistical significance. Astronomy, like medicine, outlines negative relation with the level of religiosity. Instead, the correlations that involve trust in medicine have a negative and moderate value, in relation to religiosity. In conclusion, it is observed that the trust in “strong sciences” generates more prompt correlations compared to the trust in astrology, while further studies are needed to clarify the reasons for such uncertain correlations between astrology and religiosity.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author Biography

Dragoș Obreja, Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, University of Bucharest

Address: 9 Schitu Măgureanu Street, District 1, 010181, Bucharest, Romania.

Email: dragosm.obreja@gmail.com.

How to Cite
Obreja, D. (2021). Which one to trust? Exploratory analysis on astrology, science and religiosity among students in Bucharest. Sociologie Românească, 19(1), 117-133. https://doi.org/10.33788/sr.19.1.6

References

Adorno, T. (2002). The Stars Down to Earth. And other essays on the irrational in culture. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Allum, N. (2010). What Makes Some People Think Astrology is Scientific? Science Communication, 20(10), 1-26. doi: 10.1177/1075547010389819.
Baker, J., & Draper, S. (2010). Diverse Supernatural Portfolios: Certitude, Exclusivity, and the Curvilinear Relationship Between Religiosity and Paranormal Beliefs. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(3), 413-424. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01519.x.
Bakker, I. J. (2009). Peirce, Pragmaticism and public sociology: Translating an interpretation into praxis. Nature, Knowledge and Negation, 26, 229-257. doi: 10.1108/S0278-1204(2009)0000026012.
Beck, J., Forstmeier, W. (2007). Superstition and belief as inevitable by-products of an adaptive learning strategy. Human Nature, 18, 35-46. doi: 10.1007/BF02820845.
Bok, B. (1975). Objections to Astrology. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Čavojová, V., Secară, E.-C., Jurkovič, M., & Šrol, J. (2018). Reception and willingness to share pseudo-profound bullshit and their relation to other epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive ability in Slovakia and Romania. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 299-311. doi: 10.1002/acp.3486.
Eve, R., & Dunn, D. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology & creationism in the classroom. American Biology Teacher, 52(1), 10-21. doi: 10.2307/4449018.
Furnham, A. (1991). Hooked on horoscopes: We may not be able to persuade people that astrology and graphology are nonsense. But psychology, with the help of a showman, reveals why they are so popular. New Scientist, 33-36.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1994). Toward motivational theories of intrinsic religious commitment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33(4), 315-26.doi: 10.2307/1386491.
Kallery, M. (2001). Early-years Educators Attitudes to Science and Pseudo-science: the case of astronomy and astrology. European Journal of Teacher Education, 24(3), 329-342. doi: 10.1080/02619760220128888.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hood, R. W. (1990). Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religious Orientation: The Boon or Bane of Contemporary Psychology of Religion? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29(4), 442. doi: 10.2307/1387311.
Knapp, H., & Kirk, S. A. (2003). Using pencil and paper, Internet and touch-tone phones for self-administered surveys: does methodology matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 19(1), 117-134. doi: 10.1016/s0747-5632(02)00008-0.
Kreuter, F., Presser, S., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social Desirability Bias in CATI, IVR, and Web Surveys: The Effects of Mode and Question Sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 847-865. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn063.
Ladd, K., & Spilka, B. (2006). Inward, Outward, Upward Prayer: Scale Reliability and Validation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(2), 233-251. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2006.00303.x.
Laird, S., Snyder, C. R., Rapoff, M., & Green, S. (2004). Measuring Private Prayer: Development, Validation, and Clinical Application of the Multidimensional Prayer Inventory. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(4), 251-272. doi: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr1404_2.
Lindeman, M., & Aarnio, K. (2006). Paranormal Beliefs: Their Dimensionality and Correlates. European Journal of Personality, 20, 1-19. doi: 10.1002/per.608.
Lindeman, M., & Svedholm, A. (2012). What’s in a Term? Paranormal, Superstitious, Magical and Supernatural Beliefs by Any Other Name Would Mean the Same. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 241-255. doi: 10.1037/a0027158.
Ng, T., Chong, T., & Du, X. (2010). The value of superstitions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 293-309. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2009.12.002.
Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and Secular. Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Obreja, D. (2019). Homo Hodie. Conceptele care ne controlează de secole. Iași: Lumen.
Orenstein, A. (2002). Religion and Paranormal Belief. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 301-311. doi: 10.1111/1468-5906.00118.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality, 88(2), 185-200. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12476.
Phillipson, G. (2000). Astrology in the Year Zero. London: Flare Publications.
Sarkissian, A. (2009). Religious Reestablishment in Post-Communist Polities. Journal of Church and State, 51(3), 472-501. doi: 10.1093/jcs/csp096.
Tiryakian, E. (1972). Toward the Sociology of Esoteric Culture. American Journal of Sociology, 78(3), 491-512. doi: 10.1086/225361.
Turner, B. (2011). Religion and Modern Society: Citizenship, Secularization and the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, C. (2020). Secularization. Oxford: Routledge.
Vlăsceanu, L., Rughiniș, C., & Dușa, A. (2010). Publicul și Știința. Știință și societate. Interese și percepții ale publicului privind cercetarea științifică și rezultatele cercetării. București: STISOC. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329885093_Publicul_si_stiinta_Stiinta_si_societate_Interese_si_perceptii_ale_publicului_privind_cercetarea_stiintifica_si_rezultatele_cercetarii.
Voicu, M. (2008). Religiosity and religious revival during the transition period in Romani, în B. Voicu, & M. Voicu (Eds.), The Values of Romanians: 1993-2006. A Sociological Perspective, Iași: Institutul European.