The Bullshitting Frequency Scale: Development and psychometric properties - PubMed (original) (raw)

. 2021 Jan;60(1):248-270.

doi: 10.1111/bjso.12379. Epub 2020 Apr 18.

Affiliations

The Bullshitting Frequency Scale: Development and psychometric properties

Shane Littrell et al. Br J Soc Psychol. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

Recent psychological research has identified important individual differences associated with receptivity to bullshit, which has greatly enhanced our understanding of the processes behind susceptibility to pseudo-profound or otherwise misleading information. However, the bulk of this research attention has focused on cognitive and dispositional factors related to bullshit (the product), while largely overlooking the influences behind bullshitting (the act). Here, we present results from four studies focusing on the construction and validation of a new, reliable scale measuring the frequency with which individuals engage in two types of bullshitting (persuasive and evasive) in everyday situations. Overall, bullshitting frequency was negatively associated with sincerity, honesty, cognitive ability, open-minded cognition, and self-regard. Additionally, the Bullshitting Frequency Scale was found to reliably measure constructs that are (1) distinct from lying and (2) significantly related to performance on overclaiming and social decision tasks. These results represent an important step forward by demonstrating the utility of the Bullshitting Frequency Scale as well as highlighting certain individual differences that may play important roles in the extent to which individuals engage in everyday bullshitting.

Keywords: Bullshitting; analytic thinking; bullshit; lying; overclaiming; persuasion.

© 2020 British Psychological Society.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Carson, T. (2016). Frankfurt and Cohen on bullshit, bullshitting, deception, lying, and concern with the truth of what one says. Pragmatics & Cognition, 23(1), 54-68. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.1.03car
    1. Cassam, Q. (2018). Epistemic insouciance. Journal of Philosophical Research, 43, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.5840/jpr2018828131
    1. Čavojová, V., Secară, E., Jurkovič, M., & Šrol, J. (2019). 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3486
    1. Cheung, H., Siu, T. C., & Chen, L. (2015). The roles of liar intention, lie content, and theory of mind in children’s evaluation of lies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 132, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.12.002
    1. Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2019). An MTurk Crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources