Do not pay for fortune-telling, tarot, or astrology to make important decisions
In a classic classroom experiment, students received supposedly personalized personality descriptions that were actually identical, yet generally considered them accurate. That helps explain why readings can feel so convincing. Losses can also go far beyond a small entertainment fee: a fortune-telling fraud ring in Xixian, Henan, charged for incense offerings and “support packages” costing up to RMB 3,888, and its ringleader received an eleven-year prison sentence.
What it takes
Stopping costs nothing. The difficult part is giving up an apparent shortcut and making your own decisions.
What you may gain
In Forer’s experiment, everyone received the same “personal analysis” after a personality test and still tended to accept it as accurate. Acceptance by the subject or interpreter does not establish that an interpretation is correct. This is the personal-validation or Barnum effect. Astrology has also undergone a double-blind test: two tests examined whether natal charts could accurately describe participants’ personalities, with results published in Nature. In the Chinese criminal case reported by the Xixian procuratorate, free online palm readings drew people in before demands for incense money and support packages of up to RMB 3,888. There were more than 50 victims, over RMB 2 million was recovered, and the ringleader was sentenced to eleven years in prison and a RMB 100,000 fine.
Context & considerations
Each paper reports an individual study. The source author had access only to their abstracts; the average rating in Forer’s experiment and the astrologers’ exact success rate in Carlson’s test remain unverified. The APA and Nature pages required payment, and those details were not available on the accessible pages. This entry concerns predictive accuracy, not a judgment on anyone’s faith. Spending a few dozen RMB on entertainment is a separate matter. Using a reading to decide whether to quit a job, marry, or invest creates much larger stakes.
Research & references
Forer BR (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059240; Carlson S (1985). A double-blind test of astrology. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/318419a0; Supreme People’s Procuratorate (2026). Xixian, Henan: three years of sustained investigation into online fortune-telling fraud rings. https://www.spp.gov.cn/zdgz/202607/t20260728_732935.shtml.