Volume 60, Issue 4 p. 1484-1505
Original article

‘You can’t bullshit a bullshitter’ (or can you?): Bullshitting frequency predicts receptivity to various types of misleading information

Shane Littrell

Corresponding Author

Shane Littrell

Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

*Correspondence should be addressed to Shane Littrell, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada (email: [email protected]).

Search for more papers by this author
Evan F. Risko

Evan F. Risko

Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
Jonathan A. Fugelsang

Jonathan A. Fugelsang

Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 04 February 2021
Citations: 5

Abstract

Research into both receptivity to falling for bullshit and the propensity to produce it have recently emerged as active, independent areas of inquiry into the spread of misleading information. However, it remains unclear whether those who frequently produce bullshit are inoculated from its influence. For example, both bullshit receptivity and bullshitting frequency are negatively related to cognitive ability and aspects of analytic thinking style, suggesting that those who frequently engage in bullshitting may be more likely to fall for bullshit. However, separate research suggests that individuals who frequently engage in deception are better at detecting it, thus leading to the possibility that frequent bullshitters may be less likely to fall for bullshit. Here, we present three studies (N = 826) attempting to distinguish between these competing hypotheses, finding that frequency of persuasive bullshitting (i.e., bullshitting intended to impress or persuade others) positively predicts susceptibility to various types of misleading information and that this association is robust to individual differences in cognitive ability and analytic cognitive style.

Conflicts of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available on the Center for Open Science: Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/chpvm/