Quirkology (6 page)
Authors: Richard Wiseman
People living in the earth’s Southern and Northern Hemispheres experience almost the opposite relationship between temperature and month. In the Northern Hemisphere, it is hot in June and cold in December. In the Southern Hemisphere this pattern is reversed, and so June is a winter month and December is gloriously hot. Because of this, I decided to compare the temperature-related and astrological interpretations of the “born lucky” effect, by restaging the experiment on the other side of the world.
The city of Dunedin is situated on the southeastern coast of New Zealand’s South Island, and is home to a biennial science festival. In 2006, I received an e-mail from the organizers of the festival. They had heard about the need to repeat the Born Lucky experiment in the Southern Hemisphere, and they wondered whether I should like to carry out the study again at their festival. I was soon on a plane to New Zealand.
The national media in New Zealand and Australia reported the Born Lucky 2 experiment, and this publicity helped attract people to another specially designed Web site. Within a few days, more than 2,000 people had provided their birth months and rated their degrees of luck. The results supported a temperature-related explanation for the effect. Those born in the summer months of the Southern Hemisphere (September to February) considered themselves significantly luckier than those born in winter (March to August). Again, an undulating pattern emerged across the twelve months, but this time it peaked in December and was at its lowest in April.
Experiments such as the Born Lucky studies suggest that the month in which people are born exerts a small, but real, influence over the way in which they behave. But other research has investigated exactly the opposite effect, namely, how people’s behavior influences the alleged birth date of themselves and others.
The U.S. tax system is set up in such a way that a family whose child is born on December 31 receives tax benefits for the previous twelve months, whereas a child born on January 1 doesn’t. Because of this, there is considerable financial motivation for parents expecting a child around the end of the year to ensure that the baby is born before midnight on December 31. Although parents are unable to predict accurately the exact date of a natural birth, they are able to manipulate the child’s date of birth by asking for an induced labor or a Caesarian section.
Would parents really manipulate their child’s date of birth simply to obtain tax benefits? To find out, Stacy Dickert-Conlin, from Syracuse University, and Amitabh Chandra, from the University of Kentucky, analyzed U.S. birth records between 1979 and 1993.
31
Focusing on the final seven days of December and the first seven of January, they found a sudden and significant peak in the number of births at the end of December in all but one of the years.
31
Focusing on the final seven days of December and the first seven of January, they found a sudden and significant peak in the number of births at the end of December in all but one of the years.
The professors then dug deeper into the data to find out whether this unusual pattern really was caused by parents trying to increase their benefits. They carefully analyzed the individual family circumstances of nearly two hundred births that took place in either the week before, or the week after, January 1. For each birth they came up with two figures—the tax benefits associated with a December birth and the benefits associated with a January birth. The results revealed that the families of babies born in the last week of December had significantly more to gain financially from a December birth than the families of babies born in the first week of January. This was the clincher: compelling statistical evidence that parents were manipulating the birth dates of their offspring for financial gain.
There is, of course, a much easier way of manipulating your date of birth. A way that escapes the need for an induced labor, or a Caesarian section. Lie.
The actress Lucille Ball once famously said that the secret of staying young is to “live honestly, eat slowly, and lie about your age.” She should know. Ball’s actual date of birth was August 6, 1911, but through much of her career she claimed to have been born in 1914. Ball is far from being the only Hollywood legend to have lied about her age. Nancy Reagan made herself two years younger than she actually was, and she even published an incorrect date of birth in her autobiography. The Hollywood comedienne Gracie Allen was so secretive about her age that even her husband, her fellow performer George Burns, didn’t know her real date of birth. Various sources claim that Allen was born on July 26 in 1894, 1895, 1897, 1902, or 1906. Throughout her life, Allen claimed that her birth certificate was destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, even though the earthquake occurred a few months
before
her alleged birthday. When asked about the discrepancy, Allen allegedly remarked, “Well, it was an awfully big earthquake.”
before
her alleged birthday. When asked about the discrepancy, Allen allegedly remarked, “Well, it was an awfully big earthquake.”
It is not difficult to figure out the psychology behind such minor manipulations. In a society that places great value on the beauty of youth, it isn’t surprising that so many people wish to appear younger than they are. But would eminent, and allegedly upstanding, members of society be equally devious about even the
day
on which they were born?
day
on which they were born?
To find out, Albert Harrison, a professor from the University of California, Davis, and his colleagues carefully worked their way through more than 9,000 biographical entries in several volumes of
Who’s Who
and
Who Was Who,
counting the number of people born either directly on, or three days on either side of, the best-known dates in the American calendar: Independence Day (July 4), Christmas Day (December 25), and New Year’s Day (January 1).
32
By chance alone, there should be roughly the same percentage of eminent people born on an auspicious day as on any one of the three days on either side of that date. However, something strange was going on. Statistically more people were born on Independence Day, Christmas Day, or New Year’s Day than on one of the three days on either side of these dates. The likelihood of this distribution by chance is hundreds to one, suggesting that some eminent individuals were misreporting their birth dates to biographers in order to associate themselves with a day of national importance.
Who’s Who
and
Who Was Who,
counting the number of people born either directly on, or three days on either side of, the best-known dates in the American calendar: Independence Day (July 4), Christmas Day (December 25), and New Year’s Day (January 1).
32
By chance alone, there should be roughly the same percentage of eminent people born on an auspicious day as on any one of the three days on either side of that date. However, something strange was going on. Statistically more people were born on Independence Day, Christmas Day, or New Year’s Day than on one of the three days on either side of these dates. The likelihood of this distribution by chance is hundreds to one, suggesting that some eminent individuals were misreporting their birth dates to biographers in order to associate themselves with a day of national importance.
Harrison believes that the effect is caused by an unusual psychological phenomenon called “Basking in Reflected Glory” or, as many researchers refer to it, the “BIRG” effect. BIRG is a commonplace occurrence. We often hear people proudly announcing that they went to the same school as a well-known celebrity, or were one of the first to see an Oscar-winning film (“Guess who I had in the back of my cab yesterday?”). It even affects our everyday language. Psychologists secretly studying conversations on college campuses noticed big differences in a student’s comments when his or her football team either won or lost a match. People were keen to associate themselves with their team’s victory (“
We
won”), and just as eager to distance themselves from defeat (“
They
lost”). Harrison believes that the rich and famous were prepared to misreport their birthdays so that they could bask in the reflected glory of well-known days of the year. This interpretation of the data is supported by anecdotal evidence. The world-famous jazz musician Louis Armstrong claimed to have been born on July 4. However, the music historian Tad Jones examined Armstrong’s birth records and discovered that he was actually born on August 4. Harrison’s results suggest that this is not the only time a celebrity has blown his own trumpet.
We
won”), and just as eager to distance themselves from defeat (“
They
lost”). Harrison believes that the rich and famous were prepared to misreport their birthdays so that they could bask in the reflected glory of well-known days of the year. This interpretation of the data is supported by anecdotal evidence. The world-famous jazz musician Louis Armstrong claimed to have been born on July 4. However, the music historian Tad Jones examined Armstrong’s birth records and discovered that he was actually born on August 4. Harrison’s results suggest that this is not the only time a celebrity has blown his own trumpet.
To further investigate the BIRG effect within
Who’s Who
and
Who Was Who,
Harrison and his team focused their attention on the occupation that was most clearly associated with one of the dates—the clergy and Christmas. Working back through their data, they classified each member of the clergy into one of two groups. “Eminent clergy” were those who listed their rank as bishop or above; “noneminent clergy” consisted of everyone else. By chance alone, one would expect roughly the same percentage of both groups to be born on Christmas Day. In fact, significantly more eminent than noneminent clergy claimed to share a birthday with Christ, perhaps supporting the idea that the higher you go in the clergy, the more you feel the need to move closer to Jesus.
Who’s Who
and
Who Was Who,
Harrison and his team focused their attention on the occupation that was most clearly associated with one of the dates—the clergy and Christmas. Working back through their data, they classified each member of the clergy into one of two groups. “Eminent clergy” were those who listed their rank as bishop or above; “noneminent clergy” consisted of everyone else. By chance alone, one would expect roughly the same percentage of both groups to be born on Christmas Day. In fact, significantly more eminent than noneminent clergy claimed to share a birthday with Christ, perhaps supporting the idea that the higher you go in the clergy, the more you feel the need to move closer to Jesus.
Perhaps we are being a little harsh on the eminent folk involved in Harrison’s analysis. In much the same way as some parents change a child’s date of birth to save a few dollars, others may have been so eager to see their children excel in life that they deliberately misreported infants’ birth dates to make the events seem more auspicious. Modern-day hospital births make such misreporting problematic, but in days gone by, parents reported their children’s births verbally to local registry offices, making such deception much easier. The mother of the eminent mystery writer Georges Simenon confessed to this type of manipulation, reporting her son’s birthday as being a day earlier than Friday, February 13, 1903, because she considered the thirteenth to be “too hard a fate for her sweet newborn baby.” If this interpretation of the results is valid, then it would be wrong to conclude that high-ranking clergy are more likely to lie than low clergy. Instead, the evidence would suggest that it is the
parents
of high-ranking clergy who are especially deceptive. Perhaps this represents one of the few instances in which there is empirical evidence to support the biblical notion that the sins of the fathers are visited upon their sons.
parents
of high-ranking clergy who are especially deceptive. Perhaps this represents one of the few instances in which there is empirical evidence to support the biblical notion that the sins of the fathers are visited upon their sons.
Some researchers now believe that parental lying may help account for a mystery that has baffled scientists for decades: a mystery that has come to be known as the “Mars Effect.”
In addition to sending out horoscopes based around the birth date of a mass murderer to innocent members of the public, Michel Gauquelin tested many aspects of astrology. According to astrological lore, being born when certain planets are high in the sky is a good omen, suggesting that the individual concerned will be eminent in his or her chosen career. In the 1950s, Gauquelin tested this notion by plotting the star charts of 16,000 people listed in a leading nineteenth-century French biographical dictionary. To his amazement, he discovered that certain planets were more likely to be above the horizon at the time of his chosen subjects’ births. For more than fifty years this evidence, which has come to be known as the Mars Effect, puzzled even the most skeptical of thinkers. One researcher remarked that “it is probably not putting it too strongly to say that everything hangs on it,” and Hans Eysenck noted that if the “results are ever shown to be spurious then, relatively speaking, the positive evidence that remains for astrology is weak.”
33
Then, in 2002, Geoffrey Dean, the researcher who carried out the “time twins” experiment, undertook a remarkable piece of scientific detective work.
34
33
Then, in 2002, Geoffrey Dean, the researcher who carried out the “time twins” experiment, undertook a remarkable piece of scientific detective work.
34
During the nineteenth century, many in the French upper classes held a strong belief in astrology and had ready access to popular almanacs that showed the exact position of the planets throughout each day. In addition, parents reported the times and dates of their children’s births verbally to local registry offices; the information was not officially and accurately recorded by doctors and midwives. Dean uncovered evidence to suggest that some parents deliberately misreported the dates of their children’s births to make the events seem astrologically “auspicious.” Such parents could have then subsequently provided their children with the schooling, and other resources, required to turn these alleged “heavenly predictions” into self-fulfilling prophecies. In short, Dean’s work suggests that the Mars Effect may have little to do with astrology and much more to do with a quirky piece of social history.
So far, I have been exploring how, and why, people manipulate their own and their children’s birth dates. An even stranger aspect of chronopsychology, however, has examined a more morbid topic: the relationship between the date of birth and the time of death.
David Phillips, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego, is fascinated by death. Unlike many medical researchers, who are concerned with why people die, Phillips is more concerned with when. Specifically, he is interested in whether people are able to postpone death until after a moment of important emotional significance. He has devoted his career to the topic, starting in 1970, when he published a doctoral dissertation with the curious title “Dying as a Form of Social Behavior.”
Phillips is intrigued by the notion that people can exert enough control over their bodies to delay their demise for a small, but vital, period of time. Just long enough, it seems, to allow them to enjoy an important national or personal event. There is certainly some anecdotal evidence to support the notion. Charles Schulz, the multimillionaire cartoonist and creator of the “Peanuts” strip, died on the eve of the publication of his last comic strip. The final cartoon contained a farewell letter signed by Schulz. Also, no fewer than three American presidents, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe, all died on July 4, thus raising the intriguing possibility that they held on long enough to ensure an auspicious date of death.
In one piece of research, Phillips examined whether people are more likely to die directly after a national holiday. There seemed little point in looking at mortality rates immediately before and after Christmas because any significant rise in reported deaths could have been caused by the fact that the temperature tends to decrease throughout December. Rather than try to convince entire nations to celebrate Christmas in randomly determined months, Phillips searched for another national festival that took place at a different time each year. That is when he found the Chinese Harvest Moon Festival. In this highly traditional celebration, a festival that moves around the calendar from year to year, the senior woman of the household directs her daughters in the preparation of an elaborate meal. An examination of Chinese death records around the event showed that the death rate dipped by 35 percent in the week before the festival and peaked by the same amount in the week after.
35
35
Other books
The Taking by Kimberly Derting
Murder at the Library of Congress by Margaret Truman
Forbidden Pleasure by Freeman, Michelle
Million Dollar Mistake by Meg Lacey
The Truth Be Told (The Truth in Lies Saga #3) by Jeanne McDonald
Sweet Affliction by Anna Leventhal
Taken Love by KC Royale
El dios de las pequeñas cosas by Arundhati Roy
High Hurdles by Lauraine Snelling
Black Feathers by Robert J. Wiersema