JudgmentandDecisionMaking,Vol.10,No.6,November2015,pp.

549563
Onthereceptionanddetectionofpseudoprofoundbullshit
GordonPennycook*JamesAllanCheyne#NathanielBarr$DerekJ.
Koehler$JonathanA.Fugelsang$
Althoughbullshitiscommonineverydaylifeandhasattractedattentionfrom
philosophers,itsreception(criticaloringenuous)hasnot,toourknowledge,been
subjecttoempiricalinvestigation.Herewefocusonpseudoprofoundbullshit,which
consistsofseeminglyimpressiveassertionsthatarepresentedastrueandmeaningful
butareactuallyvacuous.Wepresentedparticipantswithbullshitstatementsconsisting
ofbuzzwordsrandomlyorganizedintostatementswithsyntacticstructurebutno
discerniblemeaning(e.g.,Wholenessquietsinfinitephenomena).Acrossmultiple
studies,thepropensitytojudgebullshitstatementsasprofoundwasassociatedwitha
varietyofconceptuallyrelevantvariables(e.g.,intuitivecognitivestyle,supernatural
belief).Parallelassociationswerelessevidentamongprofundityjudgmentsformore
conventionallyprofound(e.g.,Awetpersondoesnotfeartherain)ormundane(e.g.,
Newbornbabiesrequireconstantattention)statements.Theseresultssupportthe
ideathatsomepeoplearemorereceptivetothistypeofbullshitandthatdetectingitis
notmerelyamatterofindiscriminateskepticismbutratheradiscernmentofdeceptive
vaguenessinotherwiseimpressivesoundingclaims.Ourresultsalsosuggestthatabias
towardacceptingstatementsastruemaybeanimportantcomponentofpseudo
profoundbullshitreceptivity.
Keywords:bullshit,bullshitdetection,dualprocesstheories,analyticthinking,
supernaturalbeliefs,religiosity,conspiratorialideation,complementaryandalternative
medicine.
1Introduction
Itisimpossibleforsomeonetolieunlesshethinksheknowsthetruth.Producing
bullshitrequiresnosuchconviction.HarryFrankfurt
InOnBullshit,thephilosopherFrankfurt(2005)definesbullshitassomethingthatis
designedtoimpressbutthatwasconstructedabsentdirectconcernforthetruth.This
distinguishesbullshitfromlying,whichentailsadeliberatemanipulationand
subversionoftruth(asunderstoodbytheliar).Thereislittlequestionthatbullshitisa
realandconsequentialphenomenon.Indeed,giventheriseofcommunication
technologyandtheassociatedincreaseintheavailabilityofinformationfromavariety
ofsources,bothexpertandotherwise,bullshitmaybemorepervasivethaneverbefore.
Despitetheseseeminglycommonplaceobservations,weknowofnopsychological
researchonbullshit.Arepeopleabletodetectblatantbullshit?Whoismostlikelyto
fallpreytobullshitandwhy?
2Pseudoprofoundbullshit
TheOxfordEnglishDictionarydefinesbullshitas,simply,rubbishandnonsense,
whichunfortunatelydoesnotgettothecoreofbullshit.Considerthefollowing
statement:

Hiddenmeaningtransformsunparalleledabstractbeauty.
Althoughthisstatementmayseemtoconveysomesortofpotentiallyprofound
meaning,itismerelyacollectionofbuzzwordsputtogetherrandomlyinasentence
thatretainssyntacticstructure.Thebullshitstatementisnotmerelynonsense,aswould
alsobetrueofthefollowing,whichisnotbullshit:
Unparalleledtransformsmeaningbeautyhiddenabstract.
Thesyntacticstructureofa),unlikeb),impliesthatitwasconstructedtocommunicate
something.Thus,bullshit,incontrasttomerenonsense,issomethingthatimpliesbut
doesnotcontainadequatemeaningortruth.Thissortofphenomenonissimilartowhat
BuekensandBoudry(2015)referredtoasobscurantism(p.1):[when]thespeaker...
[sets]upagameofverbalsmokeandmirrorstosuggestdepthandinsightwherenone
exists.Ourfocus,however,issomewhatdifferentfromwhatisfoundinthe
philosophyofbullshitandrelatedphenomena(e.g.,Black,1983Buekens&Boudry,
2015Frankfurt2005).Whereasphilosophershavebeenprimarilyconcernedwiththe
goalsandintentionsofthebullshitter,weareinterestedinthefactorsthatpredispose
onetobecomeortoresistbecomingabullshittee.Moreover,thissortofbullshit
whichwerefertohereaspseudoprofoundbullshitmaybeoneofmanydifferent
types.Wefocusonpseudoprofoundbullshitbecauseitrepresentsaratherextreme
pointonwhatcouldbeconsideredaspectrumofbullshit.Wecansayquiteconfidently
thattheaboveexample(a)isbullshit,butonemightalsolabelanexaggeratedstory
toldoverdrinkstobebullshit.Infuturestudiesonbullshit,itwillbeimportantto
definethetypeofbullshitunderinvestigation(seeDiscussionforfurthercommenton
thisissue).
Importantly,pseudoprofoundbullshitisnottrivial.Forarealworldexampleof
pseudoprofoundbullshitandanapplicationofourlogic,considerthefollowing:
Attentionandintentionarethemechanicsofmanifestation.
Thisstatementbearsastrikingresemblanceto(a),butis(presumably)notarandom
collectionofwords.Rather,itisanactualtweetsentbyDeepakChopra,M.D.,who
hasauthorednumerousbookswithtitlessuchasQuantumHealing(Chopra,1989)and
TheSoulofLeadership(Chopra,2008)andwhohasbeenaccusedoffurtheringwoo
woononsense(i.e.,pseudoprofoundbullshite.g.,Shermer,2010).Theconnection
between(a)and(c)isnotincidental,as(a)wasderivedusingtheverybuzzwordsfrom
ChoprasTwitterfeed.1Thevaguenessof(c)indicatesthatitmayhavebeen
constructedtoimpressuponthereadersomesenseofprofundityattheexpenseofa
clearexpositionofmeaningortruth.
DespitethelackofdirectconcernfortruthnotedbyFrankfurt(2005),pseudo
profoundbullshitbetraysaconcernforverisimilitudeortruthiness.Wearguethatan
importantadjutantofpseudoprofoundbullshitisvaguenesswhich,combinedwitha
generallycharitableattitudetowardambiguity,maybeexacerbatedbythenatureof
recentmedia.Asaprimeexample,thenecessarysuccinctnessandrapidityofTwitter
(140charactersperTweet)maybeparticularlyconducivetothepromulgationof
bullshit.Importantly,vaguenessandmeaningare,bydefinition,atcrosspurposes,as
theinclusionofvaguenessobscuresthemeaningofthestatementandthereforemust
undermineormaskdeepmeaning(i.e.,profundity)thatthestatementpurportsto
convey.Theconcernforprofundityrevealsanimportantdefiningcharacteristicof
bullshit(ingeneral):thatitattemptstoimpressratherthantoinformtobeengaging
ratherthaninstructive.
3Bullshitreceptivity

Whatmightcausesomeonetoerroneouslyratepseudoprofoundbullshitasprofound?
Inourview,therearetwocandidatemechanismsthatmightexplainageneral
receptivitytobullshit.Thefirstmechanismrelatestothepossibilitythatsomepeople
mayhaveastrongerbiastowardacceptingthingsastrueormeaningfulfromthe
outset.AccordingtoGilbert(1991,followingSpinoza),humansmustfirstbelieve
somethingtocomprehendit.Inkeepingwiththishypothesis,Gilbert,Tafarodiand
Malone(1993)foundthatdepletingcognitiveresourcescausedparticipantsto
erroneouslybelieveinformationthatwastaggedasfalse.Thisindicatesthatpeople
havearesponsebiastowardacceptingsomethingastrue.Thisasymmetrybetween
beliefandunbeliefmaypartiallyexplaintheprevalenceofbullshitwearebiased
towardacceptingbullshitastrueanditthereforerequiresadditionalprocessingto
overcomethisbias.Nonetheless,itshouldbenotedthatpreviousworkonbeliefand
doubtfocusedonmeaningfulpropositionssuchasTheheartproducesallmental
activity.Thestartlingpossibilitywithrespecttopseudoprofoundbullshitisthat
peoplewillfirstacceptthebullshitastrue(ormeaningful)and,dependingon
downstreamcognitivemechanismssuchasconflictdetection(discussedbelow),either
retainadefaultsenseofmeaningfulnessorinvokedeliberativereasoningtoassessthe
truth(ormeaningfulness)oftheproposition.Intermsofindividualdifferences,then,it
ispossiblethatsomeindividualsapproachpseudoprofoundbullshitwithastronger
initialexpectationformeaningfulness.However,sincethisaspectofbullshit
receptivityrelatestoonesmindsetwhenapproaching(orbeingapproachedwith)
bullshit,itisthereforenotspecifictobullshit.Nonetheless,itmaybeanimportant
componentofbullshitreceptivity.Putdifferently,someindividualsmayhavean
excessivelyopenmindthatbiasesthemtomakeinflatedjudgmentsofprofundity,
regardlessofthecontent.
Thesecondmechanismrelatestoapotentialinabilitytodetectbullshit,whichmay
causeonetoconfusevaguenessforprofundity.InthewordsofSperber(2010):All
toooften,whatreadersdoisjudgeprofoundwhattheyhavefailedtograsp(p.583).
Here,thebullshitteeissimplyunawarethattherelevantstimulusrequiresspecial
consideration.Thismechanismislinkedtowhathasbeenlabelledasconflict
monitoringfailures(e.g.,DeNeys,2014Pennycook,Fugelsang&Koehler,2015).In
thecontextofreasoningresearch,forexample,conflictmonitoringisnecessarywhen
twosourcesofinformationinaproblemcueconflictingresponses(e.g.,logical
validityandconclusionbelievabilityinasyllogism).Recentresearchindicatesthat
peoplearecapableofdetectingthesesortsofconflicts(seeDeNeys,2012fora
review),butthatconflictmonitoringfailuresarenonethelessanimportantsourceof
biasinreasoninganddecisionmaking(Pennycook,Fugelsang&Koehler,2015).
Moreover,conflictdetectionisviewedasanimportantlowlevelcognitivefactorthat
causesatleastsomepeopletoengagedeliberative,analyticreasoningprocesses
(Pennycook,Fugelsang&Koehler,2015).Withrespecttobullshit,therearelikely
manyfactorsthatmayleadanindividualtosuccessfullydetecttheneedforskepticism
thatwilldependonthetypeofbullshitencounteredandthebullshitcontext.For
example,thesource(perhapsaknownbullshitter)maybeparticularlyuntrustworthy.
Or,perhaps,thebullshitmayconflictwithcommonknowledgeorspecificknowledge
orexpertiseoftherecipient.Forthepresentinvestigation,wefocusonpseudo
profoundbullshitthatismissinganyobviousexternalcuethatskepticismisrequired.
Thegoalistoinvestigatewhetherthereareconsistentandmeaningfulindividual
differencesintheabilitytospontaneouslydiscernordetectpseudoprofoundbullshit.
Unlikeresponsebias,thismechanisminvolvesdistinguishingbullshitfromnon
bullshit.
4Thecurrentinvestigation
Herewereportfourstudiesinwhichweaskparticipantstoratepseudoprofound

bullshitandotherstatementsonaprofundityscale.Ourprimarygoalistoestablishthis
asalegitimatemeasureofbullshitreceptivity.Forthis,bullshitprofundityratingsare
correlatedwithacollectionofindividualdifferencefactorsthatareconceptually
relatedtopseudoprofoundbullshitinavarietyofways.
4.1Analyticthinking
Dualprocesstheoriesofreasoninganddecisionmakingdistinguishbetweenintuitive
(Type1)processesthatareautonomouslycuedandreflective(Type2)processes
thatareeffortful,typicallydeliberative,andrequireworkingmemory(Evans&
Stanovich,2013).Acrucialfindingthathasemergedfromthedualprocessliteratureis
thattheabilitytoreasoninvolvesadiscretionaryaspect(Stanovich,2011Stanovich&
West,2000)adistinctionthathaslonghistoricalprecedent(Baron,1985).Namely,to
beagoodreasoner,onemusthaveboththecapacitytodowhatevercomputationis
necessary(i.e.,cognitiveability,intelligence)andthewillingnesstoengage
deliberativereasoningprocesses(i.e.,analyticcognitivestylethinkingdisposition).
Moreover,individualdifferencesinanalyticcognitivestylearepositivelycorrelated
withconflictdetectioneffectsinreasoningresearch(Pennycook,Cheyne,Barr,
Koehler&Fugelsang,2014Pennycook,etal.,2015),indicatingthatmoreanalytic
individualsareeitherbetterabletodetectconflictduringreasoningoraremore
responsivetosuchconflict.ConsistentwithSagans(1996)argumentthatcritical
thinkingfacilitatesbaloneydetection,wepositthatreflectivethinkingshouldbe
linkedtobullshitreceptivity,suchthatpeoplewhoarebetteratsolvingreasoning
problemsshouldbemorelikelytoconsiderthespecificmeaningofthepresented
statements(orlackthereof)andjudgefailuretodiscernmeaningasapossibledefectof
thestatementratherthanofthemselves.Inotherwords,moreanalyticindividuals
shouldbemorelikelytodetecttheneedforadditionalscrutinywhenexposedto
pseudoprofoundbullshit.Moreintuitiveindividuals,incontrast,shouldrespondbased
onasortoffirstimpression,whichwillbeinflatedduetothevaguenessofthepseudo
profoundbullshit.Analyticthinkingisthustheprimaryfocusofourinvestigation,asit
ismostdirectlyrelatedtotheproposedabilitytodetectblatantbullshit.
4.2Ontologicalconfusions
Bothchildrenandadultstendtoconfuseaspectsofreality(i.e.,coreknowledge)in
systematicways(Lindeman,SvedholmHakkinen&Lipsanen,2015).Anycategory
mistakeinvolvingpropertydifferencesbetweenanimateandinanimateormentaland
physical,asexamples,constitutesanontologicalconfusion.Considerthebeliefthat
prayershavethecapacitytoheal(i.e.,spiritualhealing).Suchbeliefsaretakentoresult
fromconflationofmentalphenomenon,whicharesubjectiveandimmaterial,and
physicalphenomenon,whichareobjectiveandmaterial(Lindeman,Svedholm
Hakkinen&Lipsanen,2015).Onadualprocessview,ontologicalconfusions
constituteafailuretoreflectonandinhibitsuchintuitiveontologicalconfusions
(Svedholm&Lindeman,2013).Ontologicalconfusionsmayalsobesupportedbya
biastowardbelievingtheliteraltruthofstatements.Thus,ontologicalconfusionsare
conceptuallyrelatedtobothdetectionandresponsebiasasmechanismsthatmay
underliebullshitreceptivity.Assuch,thepropensitytoendorseontologicalconfusions
shouldbelinkedtohigherlevelsofbullshitreceptivity.
4.3Epistemicallysuspectbeliefs
Beliefsthatconflictwithcommonnaturalisticconceptionsoftheworldhavebeen
labelledepistemicallysuspect(e.g.,Lobatoetal.,2014Pennycook,Fugelsang&
Koehler,inpress).Forexample,thebeliefinangels(andthecorrespondingbeliefthat
theycanmovethroughwalls)conflictswiththecommonfolkmechanicalbeliefthat

thingscannotpassthroughsolidobjects(Pennycooketal.,2014).Epistemically
suspectbeliefs,onceformed,areoftenaccompaniedbyanunwillingnesstocritically
reflectonsuchbeliefs.Indeed,reflectivethinkersarelesslikelytobereligiousand
paranormalbelievers(e.g.,Gervais&Norenzayan,2012Pennycooketal.,2012
Shenhav,Rand&Greene,2012),andarelesslikelytoengageinconspiratorial
ideation(Swamietal.,2014)orbelieveintheefficacyofalternativemedicine
(Browneetal.,2015Lindeman,2011).Ontologicalconfusionsarealsomorecommon
amongbelieversinthesupernatural(e.g.,Lindeman,SvedholmHakkinen&Lipsanen,
2015Svedholm&Lindeman,2013).Althoughepistemicallysuspectclaimsmayor
maynotthemselvesqualifyasbullshit,thelackofskepticismthatunderliesthe
acceptanceofepistemicallysuspectclaimsshouldalsopromotepositivebullshit
receptivity.
5Study1
Wepresentedparticipantswithtenstatementsthathavesyntacticstructurebutthat
consistofaseriesofrandomlyselectedvaguebuzzwords.Participantswereaskedto
indicatetherelativeprofundityofeachstatementonascalefrom1(notatall
profound)to5(veryprofound).Wearguethathighratingsindicatereceptivitytoward
bullshit.Participantsalsocompletedaseriesofrelevantcognitiveanddemographic
questions.
6Method
Inallstudies,wereporthowwedeterminedoursamplesize,alldataexclusions,and
allmeasures.
6.1Participants
UniversityofWaterlooundergraduates(N=280,58male,222female,Mage=20.9,
SDage=4.8)volunteeredtotakepartinthestudyinreturnforcoursecredit.Only
participantswhoreportedthatEnglishistheirfirstlanguage(onaseparateprescreen
questionnaire)wereallowedtoparticipate.Thesamplesizewasthemaximumamount
allowedforonlinestudiesintheUniversityofWaterlooparticipantpool.Thisstudy
wasrunovertwosemesters.
Oneoftheparticipantswasremovedduetoalargenumberofskippedquestions.
Participantswerealsogivenanattentioncheck.Forthis,participantswereshownalist
ofactivities(e.g.,biking,reading)directlybelowthefollowinginstructions:Belowis
alistofleisureactivities.Ifyouarereadingthis,pleasechoosetheotherboxbelow
andtypeinIreadtheinstructions.Thisattentioncheckprovedratherdifficultwith
35.4%ofthesamplefailing(N=99).However,theresultsweresimilarifthese
participantswereexcluded.Wethereforeretainedthefulldataset.
6.2Materials
Tennovelmeaninglessstatementswerederivedfromtwowebsitesandusedtocreatea
BullshitReceptivity(BSR)scale.Thefirst,http://wisdomofchopra.com,constructs
meaninglessstatementswithappropriatesyntacticstructurebyrandomlymashing
togetheralistofwordsusedinDeepakChoprastweets(e.g.,Imaginationisinside
exponentialspacetimeevents).Thesecond,TheNewAgeBullshitGenerator
(http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/),worksonthesameprinciplebutusesalistof
profoundsoundingwordscompiledbyitsauthor,SebPearce(e.g.,Weareinthe
midstofaselfawareblossomingofbeingthatwillalignuswiththenexusitself).A

fulllistofitemsfortheBSRscalecanbefoundinTableS1inthesupplement.The
followinginstructionswereusedforthescale:
Weareinterestedinhowpeopleexperiencetheprofound.Belowareaseriesof
statementstakenfromrelevantwebsites.Pleasereadeachstatementandtakea
momenttothinkaboutwhatitmightmean.Thenpleaseratehowprofoundyouthink
itis.Profoundmeansofdeepmeaningofgreatandbroadlyinclusivesignificance.
Participantsratedprofoundnessonthefollowing5pointscale:1=Notatallprofound,
2=somewhatprofound,3=fairlyprofound,4=definitelyprofound,5=very
profound.Abullshitreceptivityscorewasthemeanoftheprofoundnessratingsforall
bullshititems.
Table1:Pearsonproductmomentcorrelations(Study1N=279).BSR=
BullshitReceptivityscaleCRT=CognitiveReflectionTest.Cronbachsalphas
arereportedinbrackets.***p<.001,**p<.01,*p<.05.

1.BSR

(.82)

2.CRT

.33*** (.74)

3.Heuristics/biases

.28*** .50*** (.59)

4.Verbalintelligence

.37*** .41*** .31*** (.65)

5.Numeracy

.13*

.38*** .27*** .30*** (.47)

6.Ontologicalconfusions .31*** .33*** .38*** .26*** .16** (.74)

7.Religiousbelief

.27*** .21*** .20**

.15*

.17** .29*** (.94)

Atthebeginningofthestudy(followingdemographicquestions),participants
completedfivecognitivetasksintendedtoassessindividualdifferencesinanalytic
cognitivestyleandcomponentsofcognitiveability.TheCognitiveReflectionTest
(CRTFrederick,2005)consistsof3mathematicalwordproblemsthatcuean
incorrectintuitiveresponse.TheCRThasbeenshowntoreflectthetendencytoavoid
miserlycognitiveprocessing(Campitelli&Gerrans,2013Toplak,West&Stanovich,
2011),presumablybecausethosewithananalyticcognitivestylearemorelikelyto
questionoravoidtheintuitiveresponse.Wealsoincludedarecent4itemadditionto
theCRT(Toplak,West&Stanovich,2014).The7itemCRTmeasurehadacceptable
internalconsistency(Cronbachs=.74).
Asanadditionalmeasureofreflectivethinking,weincludedaheuristicsandbiases
battery(Toplaketal.,2011).Theheuristicsandbiasesbatteryinvolvesaseriesof
questionsderivedfromKahnemanandTversky,suchasthegamblersfallacyandthe
conjunctionfallacy(Kahneman,2011).MuchliketheCRT,eachitemcuesan
incorrectintuitiveresponsebasedonacommonheuristicorbias.However,the
heuristicsandbiasestaskwasnotasreliable(=.59).Thislikelyreflectsthefactthat
theheuristicsandbiasesitemsaremorediversethanaretheCRTproblems.
Wealsoincludedtwocognitiveabilitymeasures.Weassessedverbalintelligence
usinga12itemversionoftheWordsumtest.Forthis,participantswerepresentedwith
wordsandaskedtoselectfromalistthewordthatmostcloselymatchesitsmeaning
(e.g.,CLOISTEREDwaspresentedwithminiature,bunched,arched,malady,
secluded).TheWordsumhasbeenusedinmanystudies(seeMalhotra,Krosnick&

Haertel,2007forareview),includingtheGeneralSocialSurvey(startingin1974).
TheWordsummeasurehadacceptablereliability(=.65).Wealsoassessednumeracy
usinga3itemmeasure(Schwartz,Woloshin,Black&Welch,1997).Thefrequently
used3itemnumeracyscaleisstronglyrelatedtoanexpandedandmoredifficult7
itemnumeracyscale,suggestingthatbothscalesloadedonasingleconstruct(labelled
globalnumeracybyLipkus,Samsa,andRimer,2001).However,weemployedthe
shorter3itemversionforexpediency,butitdidnotachieveacceptablereliability(=
.47).
Weuseda14itemontologicalconfusionsscale(Lindeman&Aarnio,2007
Lindeman,etal.,2008Svedholm&Lindeman,2013),translatedintoEnglishfrom
Finnish.Participantsweregiventhefollowinginstructions:Doyouthinkthe
followingstatementscanbeliterallytrue,thewayasentencesuchasWayneGretzky
wasahockeyplayeristrue?Oraretheytrueonlyinametaphoricalsense,likethe
expressionFriendsarethesaltoflife?.TheywerethenpresenteditemssuchasA
rocklivesforalongtimeandaskedtoratehowmetaphorical/literalthestatementis
onthefollowingscale:1=fullymetaphorical,2=moremetaphoricalthanliteral,3=
inbetween,4=moreliteralthanmetaphorical,5=fullyliteral.Thosewhoratethe
statementsasmoreliteralareconsideredmoreontologicallyconfused.Participants
werealsogiven3metaphors(e.g.,Ananxiouspersonisaprisonertotheiranxiety)
and3literalstatements(e.g.,Flowingwaterisaliquid)asfilleritemsthatdidnot
factorintothemeanontologicalconfusionscore.Theontologicalconfusionsscalehad
acceptableinternalconsistency(=.74).
Finally,participantscompletedan8itemreligiousbeliefquestionnaire(Pennycooket
al.,2014).Participantswereaskedtoratetheirlevelofagreement/disagreement(1
stronglydisagreeto5stronglyagree)with8commonlyheldreligiousbeliefs
(afterlife,heaven,hell,miracles,angels,demons,soul,Satan).Thescalehadexcellent
internalconsistency(=.94).
6.3Procedure
Followingashortdemographicquestionnaire,participantscompletedthetasksinthe
followingorder:heuristicsandbiasesbattery,Wordsum,numeracy,CRT2,CRT1,
ontologicalconfusionscale,bullshitreceptivity,andreligiousbeliefquestionnaire.
7Results
TheBullshitReceptivity(BSR)scalehadgoodinternalconsistency(=.82).A
summaryofdescriptivestatisticsforeachitemandthefullBSRscaleisreportedin
TableS1.Themeanprofoundnessratingwas2.6,whichisinbetweensomewhat
profoundandfairlyprofoundonthe5pointscale.Indeed,themeanprofoundness
ratingforeachitemwassignificantlygreaterthan2(somewhatprofound),allts>
5.7,allps<.001,indicatingthatouritemssuccessfullyelicitedasenseof
profoundnessontheaggregate.Moreover,only18.3%(N=51)ofthesamplehada
meanratinglessthan2.Aslightmajorityofthesamplesmeanratingsfellonorin
between2and3(54.5%,N=152)andoveraquarterofthesample(27.2%,N=76)
gavemeanratingshigherthan3(fairlyprofound).Theseresultsindicatethatour
participantslargelyfailedtodetectthatthestatementsarebullshit.
Nextweinvestigatethepossibleassociationbetweenreflectivethinkingandbullshit
receptivity.PearsonproductmomentcorrelationscanbefoundinTable1.BSRwas
stronglynegativelycorrelatedwitheachcognitivemeasureexceptfornumeracy
(whichwasnonethelesssignificant).Furthermore,bothontologicalconfusionsand
religiousbeliefwerepositivelycorrelatedwithbullshitreceptivity.

8Study2
InStudy1,atleastsomeparticipantsappearedtofindmeaninginaseriesofstatements
thatcontainedarandomcollectionofvaguebuzzwordsorganizedinasentencewith
syntacticstructure.Thistendencywassignificantlyrelatedtocognitivevariablesof
conceptualinterestinexpectedways.InStudy2wesetouttoreplicatethispatternof
resultsusingrealworldexamplesofbullshit.Forthis,wecreatedanadditionalscale
usingparticularlyvaguetweetsfromDeepakChoprasTwitteraccount(seeTable
S2).Wealsoexpandedourmeasuresofanalyticcognitivestylebyincludingself
reportmeasuresofanalyticandintuitivethinkingdisposition.Finally,weexpanded
ourcognitiveabilitymeasuresbyincreasingthenumberofitemsonthenumeracytest
andincludingacommonmeasureoffluidintelligence.
9Method
9.1Participants
Atotalof198participants(98male,100female,Mage=36,SDage=11.4)were
recruitedfromAmazonsMechanicalTurkinreturnforpay.OnlyAmericanresidents
werepermittedtosignupforthestudy.Allparticipantsreportedspeakingfluent
English.Giventhenoveltyofthephenomenon,wechose200participantsasan
arbitrarytargetsamplesize,aswedeterminedthiswouldprovideadequatepowerand
stabilityofthecorrelations.Thesedatawerenotanalyzeduntilthefullsamplewas
completed.
Elevenparticipantswereremovedbecausetheyrespondedaffirmativelywhenaskedif
theyrespondedrandomlyatanytimeduringthestudy.Inaddition,23participants
failedatleastoneofthreeattentioncheckquestions.Theinstructioncheckquestions
includedtheoneusedinStudy1aswellasthefollowingquestioninsertedinto
questionnairesatthemiddleandendofthesurvey:Ihavebeentoeverycountryinthe
world(allparticipantswhoselectedanyoptionbutstronglydisagreewere
removed).However,asinStudy1,theresultsweresimilarwhentheseparticipants
wereexcludedandwethereforeretainedthefullsample.
Table2:Pearsonproductmomentcorrelations(Study2).BSR=Bullshit
ReceptivityscaleH&B=HeuristicsandBiasesNFC=NeedforCognitionFI
=FaithinIntuitionNum.=NumeracyVI=VerbalIntelligenceAPM=
AdvancedProgressiveMatricesOC=OntologicalConfusionsRB=Religious
BeliefPB=ParanormalBelief.Bottomdiagonal=fullsample(N=187).Top
diagonal=ParticipantswithknowledgeofDeepakChopraexcluded(N=102).
Cronbachsalphasforthefullsamplearereportedinbrackets.***p<.001,**
p<.01,*p<.05.

1.BSR (.96)

.36*** .08

.32**

.12

.30**

.26**

10

.46*** .25*

.31**

2.H&B .34*** (.75)

.08

.28**

.42*** .43*** .40*** .41*** .31** .46***

3.NFC .13

(.93)

.32**

.17

.24*

.17

.34*** .05

4.FI

.30*** .37*** .28*** (.94)

5.Num. .25**
6.VI

.20**

.46*** .22**

.27*** (.63)

.19

.18

.15

.24*

.34*** .37***

.34*** .45*** .20*

.30*** .40*** .27*** .31*** .31*** (.63)

.27**

.07

.38*** .16

.10
.21*
.30**

7.APM .27*** .45*** .24**

.14

.46*** .36*** (.69)

.33**

.07

.12

8.OC

.45*** .41*** .29*** .34*** .26**

.33*** .34*** (.75)

.12

.34**

9.RB

.27*** .34*** .20**

.35*** .17*

.24**

(.96)

.34**

10.PB

.35*** .45*** .10

.44*** .33*** .26**

.14

.22**

.18*

.38*** .44*** (.96)

9.2Materials
Inadditiontothe10meaninglessstatementsusedinStudy1,weobtained10novel
itemsfromhttp://wisdomofchopra.comandhttp://sebpearce.com/bullshit/.As
noted,wealsoobtained10itemsfromDeepakChoprasTwitterfeed
(http://twitter.com/deepakchoprae.g.Natureisaselfregulatingecosystemof
awareness).TheseitemscanbefoundinTableS2.Weexcludedhashtagsand
expandedanyshortenedwordsandabbreviations,butthetweetswerenototherwise
altered.Weemphasizethatwedeliberatelyselectedtweetsthatseemedvagueand,
therefore,theselectedstatementsshouldnotbetakenasrepresentativeofChopras
tweethistoryorbodyofwork.Also,toreiterate,wefocusonChopraheremerely
becauseothershaveclaimedthatsomeofthethingsthathehaswrittenseemlike
woowoononsense(e.g.,Shermer,2010)andbecauseoftheconnectionbetween
theseclaimsandthebullshitgeneratorwebsitesthatweused.Noneofthisisintended
toimplythateverystatementinChoprastweethistoryisbullshit.Participantswere
giventhesameinstructionsasStudy1and,therefore,wedidnotindicatetheauthorof
thestatements.
Participantscompletedonecognitivetaskandoneselfreportquestionnaireintendedto
assessindividualdifferencesinanalyticcognitivestyle.Participantsweregiventhe
heuristicsandbiasesbattery(asinStudy1=.75)alongwithPaciniandEpsteins
(1999)RationalExperientialInventory.Thelatterincludesthe20itemNeedfor
Cognition(NFC)scaleandthe20itemFaithinIntuitionscale(FI).Bothscaleshad
excellentreliability:=.93(NFC)and.94(FI).Participantsweregivenquestionssuch
asreasoningthingsoutcarefullyisnotoneofmystrongpoints(NFC,reverse
scored)andIliketorelyonmyintuitiveimpressions(FI).Theywereaskedto
respondbasedona5pointscalefrom1Definitelynottrueofmyselfto5Definitely
trueofmyself.
Toassesscognitiveability,weretainedtheWordsum(=.63),andthenumeracytest
fromStudy1.However,giventhelowreliabilityforthe3itemnumeracytestinStudy
1,weusedanadditional6items(Lipkusetal.,2001),whichleadtobetterreliability
forthefull9itemscale(=.63).WealsoaddedashortformofRavensAdvanced
ProgressiveMatrices(APM)thatconsistsof12problems.TheAPMareawidelyused
measureoffluidintelligenceandtheshortformhasbeenvalidatedinmultiplestudies
(Arthur&Day,1994Chiesi,Ciancaleoni,Galli,Morsanyi&Primi,2012).Ithad
acceptableinternalconsistencyinoursample(=.69).
Weusedthesameontologicalconfusion(=.75)andreligiousbeliefmeasure(=
.96)asinStudy1.Finally,weadministeredtheParanormalBeliefScale(Tobacyk,
2004Pennycooketal.,2012)withthereligiousbeliefitemsexcluded.Thescale
consistedof22itemssampledfrom6categoriesofsupernaturalbelief(exampleitems
inparentheses):Psi(Mindreadingispossible),Witchcraft(Witchesdoexist),
Omensofluck(Blackcatscanbringbadluck),Spiritualism(Itispossibleto
communicatewiththedead),Extraordinarylifeforms(TheLochNessmonsterof
Scotlandexists)andPrecognition(Astrologyisawaytoaccuratelypredictthe
future).Thefullscalehadexcellentinternalconsistency(=.96).

Participantsalsocompletedwealthdistributionandpoliticalideologymeasures.These
measureswereincludedaspartofseparateinvestigationsandwillnotbeanalyzedor
discussedfurther.
9.3Procedure
IncontrasttoStudy1,participantsevaluatedthemeaninglessstatementsbefore
completingthecognitivetasks.Moreover,theChopraTwitteritemsfolloweddirectly
afterthemeaninglessstatements.WeaskedparticipantsiftheyknewwhoDeepak
Choprais(yes/maybe/no)and,ifso,whethertheyfollowhimonTwitterorhave
readanyofhisbooks.Thecognitivetaskswerethencompletedinthefollowingorder:
heuristicsandbiasesbattery,Wordsum,numeracy,andAPM.Participantsthen
completedtheontologicalconfusionsscale,followedbythereligiousandparanormal
beliefscales(inthatorder).TheNFCandFIquestionnairescameattheveryendofthe
study.
10Results
Ofthe187participants,85(45.5%)indicatedthattheyknowwhoDeepakChoprais
(uncertain:N=26,13.9%no:N=76,40.6%).Thisknowledgewasassociated
withlowerprofoundnessratingsforthepseudoprofoundbullshititems(no/maybe
M=2.6yesM=2.3),t(185)=2.84,SE=.11,p=.005,andChopraTwitteritems
(no/maybeM=2.9yesM=2.6),t(185)=2.32,SE=.12,p=.022.Belowwe
reportkeyanalyseswiththefullandrestricted(i.e.,thosewithknowledgeofChopra
beingexcluded)samples.
Focusingonthefullsample,the20itemBSRscalehadexcellentinternalconsistency
(=.93)andthe10itemChopraTwitterscalewasalsoreliable(=.89).Asummary
ofdescriptivestatisticsforeachitemisreportedinTableS2.Participantsratedthe
ChopraTwitteritems(M=2.77,SD=.84)asmoreprofoundthanthebullshit
statements(M=2.46,SD=.76),participantlevel:t(187)=10.6,SE=.03,p<.001,
itemlevel:t(28)=3.98,SE=.08,p<.001.However,meanratingsforthetwoscales
wereverystronglycorrelated(r=.88).Moreover,thepatternofcorrelationsforthe
scaleswasidentical(seesupplementarymaterials,TableS3).Wethereforecombined
alloftheitemsforbothscalesintoasingleBullshitReceptivity(BSR)scale,which
hadexcellentinternalconsistency(=.96).
TheBSRscalesignificantlycorrelatedwitheachvariableapartfromNeedfor
Cognition(Table2,bottomdiagonal),which(curiously)wasonlymodestlycorrelated
withheuristicsandbiasesperformance.Specifically,BSRwasnegativelycorrelated
withperformanceontheheuristicsandbiasesbatteryandpositivelycorrelatedwith
FaithinIntuition.Thecognitiveabilitymeasures,includingnumeracy,werealso
negativelycorrelatedwithBSR.Finally,BSRwaspositivelycorrelatedwith
ontologicalconfusions,andbothreligiousandparanormalbelief.Thepatternofresults
wasverysimilarwhenthecorrelationsarerestrictedonlytoparticipantswhodidnot
reporthavinganyknowledgeofDeepakChopra(Table2,topdiagonal).
11Study3
InStudies1and2,weestablishedastatisticallyreliablemeasureofbullshitreceptivity
thatcorrelatedwithavarietyofconceptuallyrelatedvariables.Itremainsunclear,
however,whethertheseassociationsaredrivenbyabiastowardacceptingpseudo
profoundbullshitasmeaningfulorafailuretodetecttheneedforskepticism(orboth)
whenskepticismiswarranted(i.e.,sensitivity,asdistinctfrombias,inthesenseof
signaldetectiontheory).Itmaybethatincreasedprofundityratingsareassociatedwith

lowerreflectivethinking(forexample),regardlessofthepresentedcontent.
ThegoalofStudy3wastotestthepossibilitythatsomepeoplemaybeparticularly
insensitivetopseudoprofoundbullshit,presumablybecausetheyarelesscapableof
detectingconflictduringreasoning.Forthis,wecreatedascaleusingtenmotivational
quotationsthatareconventionallyconsideredtobeprofound(e.g.,Arivercuts
througharock,notbecauseofitspowerbutitspersistence)inthattheyarewrittenin
plainlanguageanddonotcontainthevaguebuzzwordsthatarecharacteristicofthe
statementsusedinStudies1and2.Thedifferencebetweenprofundityratingsbetween
legitimatelymeaningfulquotationsandpseudoprofoundbullshitwillserveasour
measuresofbullshitsensitivity.Secondarily,wealsoincludedmundanestatements
thatcontainedclearmeaningbutthatwouldnotbeconsideredconventionallyprofound
(e.g.,Mostpeopleenjoysomesortofmusic).Iftheassociationbetweenanalytic
thinkingandprofundityratingsforpseudoprofoundbullshitisduetobullshit
detectioninparticular,analyticthinkingshouldnotbeassociatedwithprofundity
ratingsformundanestatements.
12Method
12.1Participants
Atotalof125participants(52male,73female,Mage=36.4,SDage=13.3)were
recruitedfromAmazonsMechanicalTurkinreturnforpay.OnlyAmericanresidents
werepermittedtosignupforthestudy.Allparticipantsreportedspeakingfluent
English.Giventhestrength(andaccumulatingcost)ofthepreviousfindings,125
participantswasdeemedasufficientsample.Thesedatawerenotanalyzeduntilthe
fullsamplewascompleted.
Elevenparticipantswereremovedbecausetheyrespondedaffirmativelywhenaskedif
theyrespondedrandomlyatanytimeduringthestudy.Fourteenparticipantsfailedan
attentioncheckquestionbutwereretained,asinStudies1and2.
12.2Materials
Wecreatedfour10itemscales.FortheBSR,weusedtheoriginal10itemsfromStudy
1andthe10ChopraTwitteritemsfromStudy2.Wecreatedascalewith10
statementsthatconveymeaning,butthataremundane(e.g.,Newbornbabiesrequire
constantattentionseeTableS4forfulllist).Finally,tenmotivationalquotationswere
foundthroughaninternetsearchandusedtoformasecondscale(e.g.,Awetperson
doesnotfeartherainseeTableS5forfulllist).Participantscompletedtheheuristics
andbiasesmeasurefromStudies1and2(=.61).
12.3Procedure
Thefourtypesofstatementswereintermixedinauniquerandomorderforeach
participant.Thestatementswerepresentedatthebeginningofthestudy.Participants
thencompletedtheheuristicsandbiasesbattery.
13Results
Table3:Pearsonproductmomentcorrelations(Study3).BSR=Bullshit
Receptivityscalea=fullscale,b=outliers(N=22)removed.Bottomdiagonal
=fullsample(N=114).Topdiagonal=ParticipantswithknowledgeofDeepak

Chopraexcluded(N=67).Cronbachsalphasforthefullsamplearereportedin
brackets.***p<.001,**p<.01,*p<.05.

.40** .26*

.21

.38** .71***

1.BSR

(.96)

2.Motivationalquotations

.38*** (.82)

.15

.14

.10

.36**

3.Mundanestatementsa

.26**

.17

(.93)

.28*

.15

4.Mundanestatementsb

.19

.14

(.35) .13

5.Heuristics/biases

.33*** .12

.24** .08 (.61)

6.BSsensitivity(Var2Var1) .71*** .38*** .13

.08 .23*

.10
.31*
.

Ofthe114participants,47(41.2%)indicatedthattheyknowwhoDeepakChoprais
(uncertain:N=7,6.1%no:N=60,52.6%).Thisknowledgewasnotassociated
withlowerprofoundnessratingsforbullshitorChopraTwitteritems,ts<1.4,ps>
.17.Nonetheless,wereportourcorrelationalanalyseswiththefullandrestricted
sample.
Focusingonthefullsample,profoundnessratingsfortheBSRitems(=.91)andfor
DeepakChoprasactualtweets(=.93)wereveryhighlycorrelated(r=.89).We
combinedthetwosetsofitemsintoasingleBSRscale,whichhadexcellentinternal
consistency(=.96).Themotivationalquotationscalehadacceptableinternal
consistency(=.82)andthemundanestatementscalewasalsoreliable(=.93).
However,thedistributionofprofoundnessratingsforeachofthemundanestatements
washighlyskewed(seeTableS4).Furtherinspectionrevealedthatthevastmajorityof
ratings(80.1%)formundanestatementswere1(notatallprofound)andmany
participants(N=52,46%)respondedwith1foreverystatement.Threestandard
deviationsabovethemeanforthemundanestatementscalewasnotlargerthan5,
indicatingthattherewereoutliers.Therewerenooutliersfortheotherscales.A
recursiveoutlieranalysisrevealed22participantswhohadprofoundnessratingsfor
mundanestatementsthatwerestatisticaloutliers.Evidently,theseparticipantsfound
theostensiblymundanestatementsatleastsomewhatprofound.Thismayreflecta
responsebiastowardexcessprofundityamongsomeparticipants.Indeed,relativeto
theremainderofthesample,the22outlyingparticipantshadhigherprofundityratings
forthepseudoprofoundbullshit,t(112)=2.50,SE=.21,p=.014,and(marginally)
themotivationalquotations,t(112)=1.83,SE=.16,p=.071.Moreover,theoutlying
participantsalsoscoredlowerontheheuristicsandbiasestask,t(112)=3.23,SE=.13,
p=.002.Keyanalysesbelowarereportedwithoutliersbothretainedandremovedfor
themundanestatementscale.Themundanestatementscalehadlowreliability(=
.35)whentheoutlyingparticipantswereremoved,aswouldbeexpectedgiventhelow
variabilityinratings.
ThemeanprofoundnessratingwaslowerfortheBSRitems(M=2.72,SD=.90)than
forthemotivationalquotations(M=3.05,SD=.69),participantlevel:t(113)=3.90,
SE=.08,p<.001,itemlevel:t(28)=3.44,SE=.10,p=.002.Moreover,themundane
statements(outliersretained,M=1.44,SD=.78)werejudgedtobelessprofoundthan
theBSRitems,participantlevel:t(113)=13.24,SE=.10,p<.001,itemlevel:t(28)=
14.60,SE=.09,p<.001,andthemotivationalquotations,participantlevel:t(113)=
18.13,SE=.09,p<.001,itemlevel:t(18)=19.56,SE=.08,p<.001.
Focusingonthefullsample(Table3,bottomdiagonal),BSRwasnegatively
associatedwithheuristicsandbiasesperformance.ThisreplicatesStudies1and2.
However,therewasnosuchassociationbetweenprofoundnessratingsformotivational

quotationsandheuristicsandbiasesperformance(p=.192).Tofurtherexplorethe
specificassociationbetweenheuristicsandbiasesperformanceandprofundityratings
forpseudoprofoundbullshit,wecreatedabullshitsensitivityscorebysubtracting
theBSRfrommotivationalquotationmeans(Table3).Heuristicsandbiaseswas
positivelycorrelatedwiththismeasure(r=.23,p=.013),indicatinganassociation
betweenanalyticthinkingandtheabilitytospontaneouslydetectpseudoprofound
bullshit.Theseresultsweresimilarwhenthesamplewasrestrictedtothosewithno
knowledgeofDeepakChopra(Table3,topdiagonal).Indeed,theassociationbetween
bullshitsensitivityandheuristicsandbiasesperformancewasnominallylargerinthe
restrictedsample(r=.31,p=.012).
TheBSRwascorrelatedwithprofoundnessratingsformotivationalquotationsand
mundanestatements(Table3,bottomdiagonalalthoughonlymarginallywhen
outliersareremovedinthelattercase,p=.072).Profoundnessratingsformotivational
quotationsandmundanestatementswerealsomarginallycorrelated(p=.067p=.170
whenoutliersareremoved),indicatingapotentialdispositiontowardhigher
profoundnessratingsamongsomeparticipants(i.e.,responsebias).Therewasalsoan
associationbetweenheuristicsandbiasesperformanceandprofoundnessratingsfor
mundanestatements(p=.009),butitdidnotremainsignificantoncetheoutlierswere
removed(p=.476).Thispatternofresultsisidenticalintherestrictedsample.These
resultsindicatethat,atleastforsomeparticipants,responsebiasplaysaroleinbullshit
receptivityandexplainssomeofitsassociationwithanalyticthinking.
14Study4
TheresultsofStudy3indicatethattheassociationbetweenprofoundnessratingsand
reflectivethinkingislargelyspecifictobullshititems.Thelackofcorrelationbetween
heuristicsandbiasesperformanceandprofoundnessratingsformotivational
quotations,inparticular,indicatesthatmorereflectiveparticipantsarenotmerelymore
skepticaltowardallmannerofprofoundsoundingstatements.However,therewasan
unequalnumberofbullshit(N=20)andmotivational(N=10)itemsinStudy3.
Moreover,itisunclearwhethertheinclusionofmundanestatementsinteractedin
somewaywithparticipantsevaluationofthebullshitandmotivationalstatements.
Thus,inStudy4,weaskedparticipantstoratetherelativeprofoundnessof20
randomlyintermixedstatements(10bullshitand10motivational).
InStudy3,wedidnotincludeanymeasuresofepistemicallysuspectbeliefs.Thus,in
Study4,participantscompletedtheheuristicsandbiasesbattery,alongwithmeasures
ofparanormalbelief,conspiracistideation,andendorsementofcomplementaryand
alternativemedicine.
15Method
15.1Participants
Werecruited242participants(146male,107female,Mage=33.9,SDage=10.6)
fromAmazonsMechanicalTurkinreturnforpay.OnlyAmericanresidentswere
permittedtosignupforthestudy.AllparticipantsreportedspeakingfluentEnglish.
Wechosealargertargetof250participantsgivensomeofthemarginalresultsin
Study3.Thesedatawerenotanalyzeduntilthefullsamplewascompleted.
Twentythreeparticipantswereremovedbecausetheyrespondedaffirmativelywhen
askediftheyrespondedrandomlyatanytimeduringthestudy.Twelveparticipants
failedanattentioncheckquestionbutwereretainedasremovingthemhadnoeffecton
thepatternofresults.

Table4:Pearsonproductmomentcorrelations(Study4).BSR=Bullshit
ReceptivityscaleCAM=Complementaryandalternativemedicine.Bottom
diagonal=fullsample(N=232).Topdiagonal=Participantswithknowledge
ofDeepakChopraexcluded(N=134).Cronbachsalphasforthefullsample
arereportedinbrackets.***p<.001,**p<.01,*p<.05.

1.BSR

(.89)

2.Motivationalquotations

.43*** (.80)

.38*** .68*** .30*** .23**

.42*** .14

6
.15

.17

.01

.01

.13

.16

.06

3.BSSensitivity(Var2Var1) .66*** .40*** .

.19*

.23**

4.Heuristics/Biases

.21**

.10

(.67)

.40*** .11

5.ParanormalBelief

.30*** .11

.21**

.33*** (.96)

6.ConspiracistIdeation

.17**

.17**

.03

.10

7.CAM

.24*** .19**

.08

.29*** .58*** .22**

.14*

.37***

.47*** .54***

.49*** (.95)

.26**
(.94)

15.2Materials
WeusedtheBSR(10items)fromStudy1.Weusedthesamemotivationalquotation
scalefromStudy3(seeTableS6forfulllist).Participantsalsocompletedthe
heuristicsandbiasesbattery(=.67)fromStudies13andtheparanormalbeliefscale
(includingreligiousbeliefitems=.96)fromStudy2.Wemeasuredconspiracy
ideationusinga15itemgeneralconspiracybeliefsscale(Brotherton,French&
Pickering,2013).ThescaleincludeditemssuchasAsmall,secretgroupofpeopleis
responsibleformakingallmajorworlddecisions,suchasgoingtowar(=.95).
Responsesweremadeonthefollowing5pointscale:1)Definitelynottrue,2)
Probablynottrue,3)Notsure/cannotdecide,4)Probablytrue,5)Definitelytrue.For
thecomplementaryandalternativemedicinescale,weaskedparticipantstoratethe
degreetowhichtheybelieveintheefficacyof10commontypesofalternative
medicines(CAMComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine,e.g.,homeopathy)onthe
following5pointscale(Lindeman,2011):0)Dontknow/cannotsay[removedfrom
analysis],1)Donotbelieveatall,2)Slightlybelieve,3)Moderatelybelieve,4)
Believefully.AnoverallCAMscorewascreatedbysummingtheresponses(=.94).
Participantsalsocompletedatenitempersonalityscale(Gosling,Rentfrow&Swann,
2003)thatindexesindividualdifferencesintheBigFivepersonalitytraits
(extraversion,agreeableness,conscientiousness,emotionalstability,andopenness).
Thesedatawillnotbeconsideredfurther.
15.3Procedure
Thebullshitandmotivationalstatementswerepresentedfirstinauniquerandomorder
foreachparticipant.Participantsthencompletedtheremainderofthetasksinthe
followingorder:Heuristicsandbiasesbattery,personalityscale,paranormalbelief
scale,conspiracyideationscale,andCAMscale.
16Results
Ofthe217participants,98(42.2%)indicatedthattheyknowwhoDeepakChoprais
(uncertain:N=33,14.2%no:N=101,43.5%).Thisknowledgewasnot

associatedwithlowerprofundityratingsforbullshitstatements(yesM=2.2
no/maybeM=2.35),t(230)=1.34,SE=.10,p=.182.Nonetheless,inkeepingwith
Studies2and3,wereportourcorrelationalanalyseswiththefullandrestricted
sample.
Focusingonthefullsample,the10itemBSRscalehadgoodinternalconsistency(=
.89)andthe10itemmotivationalquotationscalewasalsoreliable(=.80).Themean
profoundnessratingwashigherforthemotivationalquotations(M=3.13,SD=.67)
thantheBSRitems(M=2.29,SD=.82),participantlevel:t(231)=15.93,SE=.05,p
<.001,itemlevel:t(18)=9.45,SE=.09,p<.001,althoughthemotivational
quotationswerefarfromceiling.
BSRwasnegativelycorrelatedwithheuristicsandbiasesperformanceandpositively
correlatedwithparanormalbelief,conspiracistideation,andbeliefintheefficacyof
complementaryandalternativemedicine.However,themeanprofoundnessratingsfor
theBSRandmotivationalquotationswasstronglycorrelated(r=.43)and,incontrast
toStudy3,themotivationalquotationscalewascorrelatedwithheuristicsandbiases
performance(p=.035).Themeanprofoundnessratingformotivationalquotationswas
alsopositivelycorrelatedwithconspiracistideation,complementaryandalternative
medicine,and(marginally)paranormalbelief(p=.088).Thus,asinStudy3,we
computedabullshitsensitivityvariablebysubtractingthemeanprofundityratings
forthemotivationalquotationsfromthebullshititems.UnlikeinStudy3,however,
heuristicsandbiasesperformancewasnotsignificantlycorrelatedwithbullshit
sensitivityinthefullsample(r=.10,p=.121).Therewasalsonocorrelationbetween
bullshitsensitivityandconspiracistideation(r=.03,p=.652)orcomplementaryand
alternativemedicine(r=.08,p=.218).Incontrast,paranormalbeliefremained
negativelycorrelatedwithbullshitsensitivity(r=.21,p=.002).
UnlikeinStudies2and3,thepatternofresultswasdifferentwhentheanalysiswas
restrictedtothosewithnoknowledgeofDeepakChopra.Namely,whentheanalysis
wasrestricted,bullshitsensitivitywassignificantlypositivelycorrelatedwithheuristics
andbiasesperformance(r=.19,p=.032).Moreover,conspiracistideationwas
marginallynegativelyassociatedwithbullshitsensitivity(r=.16,p=.070).
Paranormalbeliefremainednegativelycorrelated(r=.23,p=.009)and
complementaryandalternativeremaineduncorrelated(r=.06,p=.497)withbullshit
sensitivity.Theseresultssupporttheideathatthedifferencebetweenprofundityratings
forgenuinemotivationalquotationsandpseudoprofoundbullshitcanbeusedasa
measureofbullshitsensitivity.However,theyalsoindicatethatcautionisrequiredat
leastwhenthe10itemscalesareusedasfamiliaritywithDeepakChopramaylimit
theusefulnessofthescale.Choprahasadistinctstyleanditispossiblethatprior
knowledgemayhaveconfoundedourbullshitmeasure.Forexample,itmayhave
helpedsomepeopledetectthebullshit.Conversely,amongthosewhohaveafavorable
opinionofChopra,thismayhaveartificiallyinflatedprofoundnessratingsforthe
bullshit.
17Generaldiscussion
Thepresentstudyrepresentsaninitialinvestigationoftheindividualdifferencesin
receptivitytopseudoprofoundbullshit.Wegavepeoplesyntacticallycoherent
sentencesthatconsistedofrandomvaguebuzzwordsand,acrossfourstudies,these
statementswerejudgedtobeatleastsomewhatprofound.Thistendencywasalso
evidentwhenwepresentedparticipantswithsimilarrealworldexamplesofpseudo
profoundbullshit.Mostimportantly,wehaveprovidedevidencethatindividualsvary
inconceptuallyinterpretablewaysintheirpropensitytoascribeprofunditytobullshit
statementsatendencywerefertoasbullshitreceptivity.Thosemorereceptiveto

bullshitarelessreflective,lowerincognitiveability(i.e.,verbalandfluidintelligence,
numeracy),aremorepronetoontologicalconfusionsandconspiratorialideation,are
morelikelytoholdreligiousandparanormalbeliefs,andaremorelikelytoendorse
complementaryandalternativemedicine.Finally,weintroducedameasureofpseudo
profoundbullshitsensitivitybycomputingadifferencescorebetweenprofundity
ratingsforpseudoprofoundbullshitandlegitimatelymeaningfulmotivational
quotations.Thismeasurewasrelatedtoanalyticcognitivestyleandparanormal
skepticism.However,therewasnoassociationbetweenbullshitsensitivityandeither
conspiratorialideationoracceptanceofcomplementaryandalternativemedicine
(CAM).Nonetheless,ourfindingsareconsistentwiththeideathatthetendencytorate
vague,meaninglessstatementsasprofound(i.e.,pseudoprofoundbullshitreceptivity)
isalegitimatepsychologicalphenomenonthatisconsistentlyrelatedtoatleastsome
variablesoftheoreticalinterest.
17.1Responsebiasandsensitivity
Weproposedtwomechanismsthatexplainwhypeoplemightratebullshitasprofound.
Thefirstisatypeofresponsebiaswhereinsomeindividualsaresimplymoreproneto
relativelyhighprofundityratings.Althoughthismechanismisnotspecifictobullshit,
itmayatleastpartlyexplainwhyourpseudoprofoundbullshitmeasurewasso
consistentlypositivelycorrelatedwithepistemicallysuspectbeliefs.Somepeoplemay
haveanuncriticallyopenmind.Astheidiomgoes:Itpaystokeepanopenmind,but
notsoopenyourbrainsfallout.InStudy3,somepeopleevenratedentirelymundane
statements(e.g.,Mostpeopleenjoyatleastsomesortofmusic)asatleastsomewhat
profound.Ourresultssuggestthatthistendencywhichresemblesageneralgullibility
factorisacomponentofpseudoprofoundbullshitreceptivity.Thereis,ofcourse,a
greatdealofresearchonthissortofmechanism.Asaprominentexample,considerthe
Barnumeffect.Inhisclassicdemonstrationofgullibility,Forer(1949)had
introductorypsychologystudentscompleteapersonalitymeasure(theDiagnostic
InterestBlank,DIB).Oneweeklater,hegaveeachofthestudentsanostensibly
personalizedpersonalitysketchthatconsistedof13statementsandaskedthemtorate
boththeaccuracyofthestatementsandtheoverallefficacyoftheDIB.Unbeknownst
tothestudents,Forerhadactuallygiveneverystudentthesamepersonalitysketchthat
consistedentirelyofvague,generalizedstatementstakenfromanewsstandastrology
book(e.g.,Youhaveagreatneedforotherpeopletolikeandadmireyou.).
Althoughsomepeopleweremoreskepticalthanothers,thelowestnumberofspecific
statementsacceptedwas8(outof13).Moreover,thestudentswerequiteconvincedof
thepersonalitytestsefficacyAllofthestudentsacceptedtheDIBasagoodor
perfectinstrumentforpersonalitymeasurement(Forer,1949,p.121).Meehl(1956)
firstreferredtothisastheBarnumeffect,afterthenotorioushoaxer(bullshitter)P.T.
Barnum.2
Asasecondarypoint,itisworthwhiletodistinguishuncriticalorreflexiveopen
mindednessfromthoughtfulorreflectiveopenmindedness.Whereasreflexiveopen
mindednessresultsfromanintuitivemindsetthatisveryacceptingofinformation
withoutverymuchprocessing,reflectiveopenmindedness(oractiveopen
mindednesse.g.,Baron,Scott,Fincher&Metz,2014)resultsfromamindsetthat
searchesforinformationasameanstofacilitatecriticalanalysisandreflection.Thus,
theformershouldcauseonetobemorereceptiveofbullshitwhereasthelatter,much
likeanalyticcognitivestyle,shouldguardagainstit.
Theforegoinghighlightswhatappearstobeastronggeneralsusceptibilitytobullshit,
butwhatcognitivemechanismsinoculateagainstbullshit?Drawingonrecentdual
processtheoriesthatpositakeyroleforconflictdetectioninreasoning(DeNeys,
2012Pennycooketal.,2015),weproposedthatpeoplemayvaryintheirabilityto

detectbullshit.Ourresultsmodestlysupportthisclaim.Namely,wecreatedabullshit
sensitivitymeasurebysubtractingprofundityratingsforpseudoprofoundbullshit
fromratingsforlegitimatemotivationalquotations.Increasedbullshitsensitivitywas
associatedwithbetterperformanceonmeasuresofanalyticthinking.Thisisconsistent
withSagans(1996)famousclaimthatcriticalthinkingfacilitatesbaloneydetection.
Further,bullshitsensitivitywasassociatedwithlowerparanormalbelief,butnot
conspiratorialideationoracceptanceofcomplementaryandalternativemedicine.This
wasnotpredictedasallthreeformsofbeliefareconsideredepistemicallysuspect
(e.g.,Pennycook,etal.,inpress).Onepossibleexplanationforthisdivergenceisthat
supernaturalbeliefsareauniquesubclassbecausetheyentailaconflictbetweensome
immaterialclaimand(presumablyuniversal)intuitivefolkconcepts(Atran&
Norenzayan,2004).Forexample,thebeliefinghostsconflictswithfolkmechanics
thatisintuitivebeliefthatobjectscannotpassthroughsolidobjects(Boyer,1994).
Pennycooketal.(2014)foundthatdegreeofbeliefinsupernaturalreligiousclaims
(e.g.,angels,demons)isnegativelycorrelatedwithconflictdetectioneffectsina
reasoningparadigm.Thisresultsuggeststhattheparticularlyrobustassociation
betweenpseudoprofoundbullshitreceptivityandsupernaturalbeliefsmaybebecause
bothresponsebiasandconflictdetection(sensitivity)supportbothfactors.Further
researchisneededtotestthisclaim.
17.2Futuredirections
Thefocusofthisworkwasoninvestigatingindividualdifferencesinthetendencyto
acceptbullshitstatements,andourinitialevidenceindicatesthatreflectivenessmaybe
akeyindividualdifferencevariable.Ataverybasiclevel,thewillingnesstostopand
thinkanalyticallyabouttheactualmeaningsofthepresentedwordsandtheir
associationswouldseemanaprioridefenseagainstacceptingbullshitatfacevalue
(i.e.,toavoidanexcessivelyopenmindedresponsebias).Moreover,increased
detectionofbullshitmayreinforceacriticalattitudeandpotentiallyengenderamore
restrainedattitudetoprofundityjudgments.Thepresentfindingsalsoprovideevidence
thatanincreasedknowledgeofwordmeaning(viaverbalintelligence)mayassistin
criticalanalysis.Anunderstandingofmorepreciselynuancedmeaningsofwordsmay
revealinconsistencies,incongruities,andconflictsamongtermsinbullshitstatements.
Conflictdetectionisakeyaspectofdualprocesstheories(e.g.,DeNeys,2012
Pennycook,etal.,2015),thoughinthiscaseitremainsunclearpreciselywhatfeatures
ofbullshitstatementsmightcuereflectivethinking.Whatisitaboutastatementlike
goodhealthimpartsrealitytosubtlecreativitythatmightcausesomeonetostopand
considerthemeaningofthesentencemoredeeply?
Althoughareflectivethinkingstyleappearstomilitateagainstbullshitacceptance,
othercognitiveprocessesthatunderliethepropensitytofindmeaninginmeaningless
statementsremaintobeelucidated.Itmaybethatpeoplenaturallyassumethat
statementspresentedinapsychologystudy(vagueorotherwise)areconstructedwith
thegoalofconveyingsomemeaning.Indeed,thevaguenessofthestatementsmay
implythattheintendedmeaningissoimportantorprofoundthatitcannotbestated
plainly(Sperber,2010).Inthecurrentwork,wepresentedtheparticipantswith
meaninglessstatementswithoutcueingthemtothepossibilitythattheyarecomplete
bullshit.Althoughthisislikelyhowbullshitisoftenencounteredineverydaylife,it
maybethatsomeskepticismaboutthesourceofthestatementisthekeyforcethat
mayguardagainstbullshitacceptance.Forexample,poemsattributedtoprestigious
sourcesareevaluatedmorepositively(BarHillel,Maharshak,Moshinsky&Nofech,
2012).Interpretationisdifficultandhumanssurelyrelyonsimpleheuristics(e.g.,do
Itrustthesource?)tohelpwiththetask.

Inthisvein,psychologicalresearchshouldaimtoelucidatecontextualfactorsthat
interactwithindividualdifferencesinthereceptionanddetectionofbullshit.Asnoted
byphilosophersstudyingthetopic,thebullshitterofthastheintentionofimplying
greatermeaningthanisliterallycontainedinthemessage,thoughthenatureofthe
intentcanvary.Forexample,theliterarycriticEmpson(1947)describestheuseof
ambiguityinliterature,includingatypeofintentionalambiguityusedbypoetsin
whichapassagesaysnothing,bytautology,bycontradiction,orbyirrelevant
statementssothatthereaderisforcedtoinventstatementsofhisown(p.176).
Theemploymentandreceptionofsuchliterarydevicesinthecontextofabroader
meaningfulworkseemsrelatedtobutdissociablefromisolatedstatementssuchas
thoseusedhere.Byexaminingpseudoprofoundbullshitinanempiricalfashion,we
setthestageforfurtherrefinementofthisimportantconceptualvariableasit
convergeswithanddivergesfromotherrelatedusesofvagueness.Weanticipatethat
therearemanyvariationsofvague,ambiguous,orotherwiseunclearstatementsthat
haveuniquepsychologicalcorrelatesinvariedcontextsthatareamenabletostudy.
18Limitationsandcaveats
Bullshitcomesinmanyformsandwehavefocusedononlyonetype.Frankfurt(2005)
discussesthesocalledbullsessionwhereinpeopletryoutvariousthoughtsand
attitudesinordertoseehowitfeelstohearthemselvessayingsuchthingsandinorder
todiscoverhowothersrespond,withoutitbeingassumedthattheyarecommittedto
whattheysay:Itisunderstoodbyeveryoneinabullsessionthatthestatementspeople
makedonotnecessarilyrevealwhattheyreallybelieveorhowtheyreallyfeel(p.9).
ThisqualifiesasbullshitunderFrankfurtsbroaddefinitionbecausethecontentis
beingcommunicatedabsentaconcernforthetruth.Nonetheless,thecharacterof
conversationalbullshitislikelyquitedifferentfrompseudoprofoundbullshit,andby
extensionthereceptionanddetectionofitmaybedeterminedbydifferent
psychologicalfactors.Itisimportantforresearchersinterestedinthepsychologyof
bullshittobeclearaboutthetypeofbullshitthattheyareinvestigating.
Ourbullshitreceptivityscalewasquitesuccessfuloverall,butfutureworkisneededto
refineandimproveit.Inparticular,thebullshitsensitivitymeasurewouldbeimproved
iftherewasamoredirectmappingbetweenthepseudoprofoundbullshitandthe
genuinelymeaningfulcontrolitems.Naturally,moreitemswouldimprovebothscales.
Finally,knowledgeofDeepakChopramaysubtlyconfoundexperimentsusingour
bullshitsensitivityscale(or,atleast,slightlyrestricttheeffectsize).
Finally,wehavefocusedonanindividualdifferencesapproachgiventhatourprimary
goalwastodemonstratethatbullshitreceptivityisaconsequentialthingthatcanbe
reliablymeasured.Thispreliminaryworkisrequiredforexperimentstobemeaningful.
Futureworkshouldfocusonthedualgoalsoffurtherrefiningourmeasureofbullshit
receptivityandexperimentallymodulatingprofundityratingsforpseudoprofound
bullshit.
19Conclusion
Bullshitisaconsequentialaspectofthehumancondition.Indeed,withtheriseof
communicationtechnology,peoplearelikelyencounteringmorebullshitintheir
everydaylivesthaneverbefore.Profundityratingsforstatementscontainingarandom
collectionofbuzzwordswereverystronglycorrelatedwithaselectivecollectionof
actualTweetsfromDeepakChoprasTwitterfeed(rs=.8889).Atthetimeof
thiswriting,Choprahasover2.5millionfollowersonTwitterandhaswrittenmore
thantwentyNewYorkTimesbestsellers.Bullshitisnotonlycommonitispopular.3
Choprais,ofcourse,justoneexampleamongmany.Usingvaguenessorambiguityto

maskalackofmeaningfulnessissurelycommoninpoliticalrhetoric,marketing,and
evenacademia(Sokal,2008).Indeed,asintimatedbyFrankfurt(2005),bullshittingis
somethingthatwelikelyallengageintosomedegree(p.1):Oneofthemostsalient
featuresofourcultureisthatthereissomuchbullshit.Everyoneknowsthis.Eachof
uscontributeshisshare.Onebenefitofgainingabetterunderstandingofhowwe
rejectothersbullshitisthatitmayteachustobemorecognizantofourownbullshit.
Theconstructionofareliableindexofbullshitreceptivityisanimportantfirststep
towardgainingabetterunderstandingoftheunderlyingcognitiveandsocial
mechanismsthatdetermineifandwhenbullshitisdetected.Ourbullshitreceptivity
scalewasassociatedwitharelativelywiderangeofimportantpsychologicalfactors.
Thisisavaluablefirststeptowardgainingabetterunderstandingofthepsychologyof
bullshit.Thedevelopmentofinterventionsandstrategiesthathelpindividualsguard
againstbullshitisanimportantadditionalgoalthatrequiresconsiderableattention
fromcognitiveandsocialpsychologists.Thatpeoplevaryintheirreceptivitytoward
bullshitisperhapslesssurprisingthanthefactthatpsychologicalscientistshave
heretoforeneglectedthisissue.Accordingly,althoughthismanuscriptmaynotbetruly
profound,itisindeedmeaningful.
20References
Arthur,W.,&Day,D.(1994).DevelopmentofashortformfortheRavenAdvanced
ProgressiveMatricestest.EducationalandPsychologicalMeasurement,54,395403.
Atran,S.,&Norenzayan,A.(2004).Religionsevolutionarylandscape:
Counterintuition,commitment,compassion,communion.BehaviouralandBrain
Sciences,27,713770.
Baron,J.(1985).Rationalityandintelligence.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Baron,J.,Scott,S.,Fincher,K.S.,&Metz,E.(2014).WhydoestheCognitive
ReflectionTest(sometimes)predictutilitarianmoraljudgment(andotherthings)?
JournalofAppliedResearchinMemoryandCognition,4,265284.
BarHillel,M.,Maharshak,A.,Moshinsky,A.,&Nofech,R.(2012).Arosebyany
othername:Asocialcognitiveperspectiveonpoetsandpoetry.Judgmentand
DecisionMaking,7,149164.
Black,M.(1983).TheprevalenceofHumbugandotheressays.Ithaca/London:
CornellUniversityPress.
Boyer,P.(1994).Thenaturalnessofreligiousideas:Acognitivetheoryofreligion.
Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Brotherton,R.,French,C.C.,&Pickering,A.D.(2013).Measuringbeliefin
conspiracytheories:Thegenericconspiracistbeliefsscale.FrontiersinPersonality
ScienceandIndividualDifferences,4,279.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279.
Browne,M.,Thomson,P.,Rockloff,M.J.,&Pennycook,G.(2015).Goingagainstthe
herd:Psychologicalandculturalfactorsunderlyingthevaccinationconfidencegap.
PLoSONE10(9),e0132562.http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132562.
Buekens,F.&Boudry,M.(2015).Thedarksideofthelong:Explainingthe
temptationsofobscurantism.Theoria,81,126142.

Campitelli,G.&Gerrans,P.(2014).Doesthecognitivereflectiontestmeasure
cognitivereflection?Amathematicalmodelingapproach.Memory&Cognition,42,
434447.
Chiesi,F.,Ciancaleoni,M.,Galli,S.,Morsanyi,K.,&Primi,C.(2012).Itemresponse
theoryanalysisanddifferentialitemfunctioningacrossage,gender,andcountryofa
shortformoftheAdvancedProgressiveMatrices.LearningandIndividual
Differences,22,390396.
Chopra,D.(1989).QuantumHealing.NewYork:BantamBooks.
Chopra,D.(2008).TheSoulofLeadership.NewYork:HarmonyBooks.
DeNeys,W.(2012).Biasandconflict:Acaseforlogicalintuitions.Perspectiveson
PsychologicalScience,7,2838.
DeNeys,W.(2014).Conflictdetection,dualprocesses,andlogicalintuitions:Some
clarifications.Thinking&Reasoning,20,167187.
Empson,W.(1947).SevenTypesofAmbiguity.Chatto&Windus,London
Evans,J.St.B.T.,&Stanovich,K.E.(2013).Dualprocesstheoriesofhigher
cognition:Advancingthedebate.PerspectivesinPsychologicalScience,8,223241.
Forer,B.R.,(1949).Thefallacyofpersonalvalidation:Aclassroomdemonstrationof
gullibility.JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,44,118123.
Frederick,S.(2005).Cognitivereflectionanddecisionmaking.TheJournalof
EconomicPerspectives,19,2542.
Frankfurt,H.G.(2005)OnBullshit.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Furnham,A.,&Schofield,S.(1987).Acceptingpersonalitytestfeedback:Areviewof
theBarnumeffect.CurrentPsychologicalResearchandReviews,6,162178.
Gervais,W.M.,&Norenzayan,A.(2012).Analyticthinkingpromotesreligious
disbelief.Science,336,493496.
Gilbert,D.T.(1991).Howmentalsystemsbelieve.AmericanPsychologist,46,107
119.
Gilbert,D.T.,Tafarodi,R.W.,&Malone,P.S.(1993).Youcantnotbelieve
everythingyouread.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,65,221233.
Gosling,S.D.,Rentfrow,P.J.,&Swann,W.B.(2003).Averybriefmeasureofthe
BigFivepersonalitydomains.JournalofResearchinPersonality,37,504528.
Kahneman,D.(2011).Thinking,fastandslow.NewYork:Farrar,Strauss,&Giroux.
Lindeman,M.(2011).Biasesinintuitivereasoningandbeliefincomplementaryand
alternativemedicine.Psychology&Health,26,37182.
Lindeman,M.,&Aarnio,K.(2007).Superstitious,magical,andparanormalbeliefs:
Anintegrativemodel.JournalofResearchinPersonality,41,731744.
Lindeman,M.,Cederstrm,S.,Simola,P.,Simula,A.,Ollikainen,S.,&Riekki,T.
(2008).Sentenceswithcoreknowledgeviolationsincreasethesizeofn400among

paranormalbelievers.Cortex,44,13071315.
Lindeman,M.,SvedholmHakkinen,A.M.,&Lipsanen,J.(2015).Ontological
confusionsbutnotmentalizingabilitiespredictreligiousbelief,paranormalbeliefs,and
beliefinsupernaturalpurpose.Cognition,134,6376.
Lipkus,I.M.,Samsa,G.,&Rimer,B.K.(2001).Generalperformanceonanumeracy
scaleamonghighlyeducatedsamples.MedicalDecisionMaking,21,3744.
Lobato,E.,Mendoza,J.,Sims,V.,&Chin,M.(2014).Examiningtherelationship
betweenconspiracytheories,paranormalbeliefs,andpseudoscienceacceptanceamong
auniversitypopulation.AppliedCognitivePsychology,28,617625.
Malhorta,N.,Krosnick,J.A.,&Haertel,E.(2007).Thepsychometricpropertiesofthe
GSSWordsumvocabularytest,GSSMethodologyReportNo.111.Chicago:NORC.
Meehl,P.E.(1956).Wantedagoodcookbook.AmericanPsychologist,11,262272.
Pacini,R.,&Epstein,S.(1999).Therelationofrationalandexperientialinformation
processingstylestopersonality,basicbeliefs,andtheratiobiasphenomenon.Journal
ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,76,972987.
Pennycook,G.,Cheyne,J.A.,Barr,N.,Koehler,D.J.&Fugelsang,J.A.(2014).
Cognitivestyleandreligiosity:Theroleofconflictdetection.Memory&Cognition,
42,110.
Pennycook,G.,Cheyne,J.A.,Seli,P.,Koehler,D.J.&Fugelsang,J.A.(2012).
Analyticcognitivestylepredictsreligiousandparanormalbelief.Cognition,123,335
346.
Pennycook,G.,Fugelsang,J.A.,&Koehler,D.J.(2015).Whatmakesusthink?A
threestagedualprocessmodelofanalyticengagement.CognitivePsychology,80,34
72.
Pennycook,G.,Fugelsang,J.A.,&Koehler,D.J.(inpress).Everydayconsequences
ofanalyticthinking.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience.
Perry,T.(1997).SoRich,SoRestless.LosAngelesTimes.7September.
Sagan,C.(1996).Thefineartofbaloneydetection.TheDemonHauntedWorld:
ScienceasaCandleintheDark.NewYork:RandomHouse,201218.
Schwartz,L.M.,Woloshin,S.,Black,W.C.,&Welch,H.G.(1997).Theroleof
numeracyinunderstandingthebenefitofscreeningmammography.AnnalsofInternal
Medicine,127,966972.
Shenhav,A.,Rand,D.G.,&Greene,J.D.(2012).Divineintuition:Cognitivestyle
influencesbeliefingod.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,141,423428.
Shermer,M.(2010).Deepakese:TheWooWooMasterDeepakChopraSpeaks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michaelshermer/deepakesethewoowoo
mas\_b\_405114.html.

Sokal,A.(2008).BeyondtheHoax:Science,PhilosophyandCulture.NewYork:
Oxford.
Sperber,D.(2010).Thegurueffect.ReviewofPhilosophicalPsychology,1,583592.

Stanovich,K.E.(2011).Rationalityandthereflectivemind.NewYork,NY:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Stanovich,K.E.,&West,R.F.(2000).Individualdifferencesinreasoning:
Implicationsfortherationalitydebate?BehavioralandBrainSciences,23,645726.
Svedholm,A.M.,&Lindeman,M.(2013).Theseparaterolesofthereflectivemind
andinvoluntaryinhibitorycontrolingatekeepingparanormalbeliefsandthe
underlyingintuitiveconfusions.BritishJournalofPsychology,3,303319.
Swami,V.,Voracek,M.,Stieger,S.,Tran,U.S.,&Furnham,A.(2014).Analytic
thinkingreducesbeliefinconspiracytheories.Cognition,133,572585.
Tobacyk,J.(2004).Arevisedparanormalbeliefscale.InternationalJournalof
TranspersonalStudies,23,9498.
Toplak,M.V.,West,R.F.,&Stanovich,K.E.(2011).TheCognitiveReflectionTest
asapredictorofperformanceonheuristicsandbiasestasks.Memory&Cognition,39,
12751289.
Toplak,M.V.,West,R.F.,&Stanovich,K.E.(2014).Assessingmiserlyinformation
processing:AnexpansionoftheCognitiveReflectionTest.Thinking&Reasoning,20,
147168.
*
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofWaterloo,200UniversityAvenueWest,
WaterlooON,Canada,N2L3G1.Email:gpennyco@uwaterloo.ca.
#
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofWaterloo.
$
TheSchoolofHumanitiesandCreativity,SheridanCollege.
FundingforthisstudywasprovidedbytheNaturalSciencesandEngineering
ResearchCouncilofCanada.
Copyright:2015.Theauthorslicensethisarticleunderthetermsofthe
CreativeCommonsAttribution3.0License.
1
Thisexamplecamefromhttp://wisdomofchopra.com.SeeMethodsectionof
Study1forfurtherdetails.
2
Inanamusingirony,P.T.Barnumisoftenerroneouslyattributedthephrase
Theresasuckerborneveryminute.Thisistrueeveninatleastonereviewof
researchontheBarnumeffect(Furnham&Shofield,1987).
3
Andprofitable.DeepakChopraisoneofthewealthiestholistichealthgurus
(Perry,1997).ThisisnottosaythateverythingDeepakChoprahaswrittenis
bullshit.Nonetheless,someofitseemstomeetourdefinitionofpseudoprofound
bullshit.OurgoalhereistosimplyraisethepossibilitythatChoprastendencyto
bullshit(asclaimedbyothers,Shermer,2010)mayhaveplayedanimportantrole
inhispopularity.
ThisdocumentwastranslatedfromLATEXbyHEVEA.