Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Pseudo-Profound Bullshit / Journal articles

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Pseudo-Profound Bullshit.

Journal articles on the topic 'Pseudo-Profound Bullshit'

Author: Grafiati

Published: 4 June 2025

Last updated: 1 August 2025

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 21 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Pseudo-Profound Bullshit.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Pennycook, Gordon, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek J. Koehler, and Jonathan A. Fugelsang. "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit." Judgment and Decision Making 10, no. 6 (2015): 549–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500006999.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractAlthough bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies,

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Evans, Anthony, Willem Sleegers, and Žan Mlakar. "Individual differences in receptivity to scientific bullshit." Judgment and Decision Making 15, no. 3 (2020): 401–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500007191.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractPseudo-profound bullshit receptivity is the tendency to perceive meaning in important-sounding, nonsense statements. To understand how bullshit receptivity differs across domains, we develop a scale to measure scientific bullshit receptivity — the tendency to perceive truthfulness in nonsensical scientific statements. Across three studies (total N = 1,948), scientific bullshit receptivity was positively correlated with pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity. Both types of bullshit receptivity were positively correlated with belief in science, conservative political beliefs, and faith in

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Turpin, Martin Harry, Alexander C. Walker, Mane Kara-Yakoubian, Nina N. Gabert, Jonathan A. Fugelsang, and Jennifer A. Stolz. "Bullshit makes the art grow profounder." Judgment and Decision Making 14, no. 6 (2019): 658–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500005386.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractAcross four studies participants (N = 818) rated the profoundness of abstract art images accompanied with varying categories of titles, including: pseudo-profound bullshit titles (e.g., The Deaf Echo), mundane titles (e.g., Canvas 8), and no titles. Randomly generated pseudo-profound bullshit titles increased the perceived profoundness of computer-generated abstract art, compared to when no titles were present (Study 1). Mundane titles did not enhance the perception of profoundness, indicating that pseudo-profound bullshit titles specifically (as opposed to titles in general) enhance t

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Gligorić, Vukašin, Allard Feddes, and Bertjan Doosje. "Political bullshit receptivity and its correlates: A cross-country validation of the concept." Journal of Social and Political Psychology 10, no. 2 (2022): 411–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6565.

Full text

Abstract:

Philosophers conceptualized bullshit as persuasive communication that has no regard for truth, knowledge, or evidence. In psychology, research mostly investigated pseudo-profound bullshit, but no study has examined bullshit in the political context. In the present research, we operationalized political bullshit receptivity as endorsing vague political statements, slogans, and political bullshit programs. We investigated the relationship of these three measures with pseudo-profound bullshit, ideology (political ideology, support for neoliberalism), populism, and voting behavior. Three pre-regis

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Walker, Alexander C., Martin Harry Turpin, Jennifer A. Stolz, Jonathan A. Fugelsang, and Derek J. Koehler. "Finding meaning in the clouds: Illusory pattern perception predicts receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit." Judgment and Decision Making 14, no. 2 (2019): 109–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s193029750000334x.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractPrevious research has demonstrated a link between illusory pattern perception and various irrational beliefs. On this basis, we hypothesized that participants who displayed greater degrees of illusory pattern perception would also be more likely to rate pseudo-profound bullshit statements as profound. We find support for this prediction across three experiments (N = 627) and four distinct measures of pattern perception. We further demonstrate that this observed relation is restricted to illusory pattern perception, with participants displaying greater endorsement of non-illusory patter

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Nilsson, Artur, Arvid Erlandsson, and Daniel Västfjäll. "The Complex Relation Between Receptivity to Pseudo-Profound Bullshit and Political Ideology." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 45, no. 10 (2019): 1440–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167219830415.

Full text

Abstract:

This research systematically mapped the relationship between political ideology and receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit—that is, obscure sentences constructed to impress others rather than convey truth. Among Swedish adults ( N = 985), bullshit receptivity was (a) robustly positively associated with socially conservative (vs. liberal) self-placement, resistance to change, and particularly binding moral intuitions (loyalty, authority, purity); (b) associated with centrism on preference for equality and even leftism (when controlling for other aspects of ideology) on economic ideology self-p

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Wood, Stacey, Sagrika Jawadi, and David Hengerer. "ABSTRACT THOUGHT LEADS TO UNPARALLELED BEAUTY: A STUDY ON BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY AND SCAM SUSCEPTIBILITY." Innovation in Aging 8, Supplement_1 (2024): 114. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igae098.0366.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract In the age of disinformation, the ability to discern the credibility of information is more vital than ever. To assess an individual’s susceptibility to pseudo-profound statements, or “bullshit”, the Bullshit Receptivity (BSR) Scale, a list of meaningless, mundane, and profound statements, was devised in 2015. In Study 1, a lifespan sample of 213 individuals (age range 24-78, M = 46.05, SD = 17.21) participated in the study via MTurk and were asked to rate the profundity of various bullshit and mundane statements, complete a vocabulary test, and complete a subset of the CART (rational

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Priedols, Martins, and Girts Dimdins. "Political Trust and Analytical Thinking in Evaluating Pseudo-Profound Bullshit and Profound Statements." International Journal of Interdisciplinary Civic and Political Studies 20, no. 1 (2024): 43–71. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0071/cgp/v20i01/43-71.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Bainbridge, Timothy F., Joshua A. Quinlan, Raymond A. Mar, and Luke D. Smillie. "Openness/Intellect and Susceptibility to Pseudo–Profound Bullshit: A Replication and Extension." European Journal of Personality 33, no. 1 (2019): 72–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.2176.

Full text

Abstract:

‘Pseudo–profound bullshit’ (PPBS) is a class of meaningless statements designed to appear profound. Profundity ratings for PPBS have been found to be negatively related to analytical thinking and positively related to epistemically suspect beliefs (e.g. belief in the paranormal). Conceptually similar traits within the Openness/Intellect (O/I) domain form a simplex, whereby traits are arranged along a single dimension from intelligence to apophenia (i.e. observing patterns or causal connections were none exist). Across two studies (total N = 297), we attempted to replicate the O/I simplex and d

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Dalton, Craig. "Bullshit for you; transcendence for me. A commentary on “On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit”." Judgment and Decision Making 11, no. 1 (2016): 121–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500007646.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractI raise a methodological concern regarding the study performed by Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler & Fugelsang (2015), in which they used randomly generated, but syntactically correct, statements that were rated for profundity by subjects unaware of the source of the statements. The assessment of each statement’s profundity was not based on its impact on the subject but was already predetermined to be “bullshit” based on its random generation by a computer. The statements could nonetheless have been subjectively profound and could have provided glimpses of insight and wisdom to the

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Ståhl, Tomas, Sinem Yilmaz, Nathan Digby, and Philip Stasko. "Valuing epistemic rationality bolsters the effect of analytic thinking on skepticism toward pseudo-profound bullshit." Personality and Individual Differences 217 (February 2024): 112452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112452.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Gligorić, Vukašin, and Ana Vilotijević. "“Who said it?” How contextual information influences perceived profundity of meaningful quotes and pseudo‐profound bullshit." Applied Cognitive Psychology 34, no. 2 (2020): 535–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3626.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Čavojová, Vladimíra, Eugen-Călin Secară, Marek Jurkovič, and Jakub Šrol. "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, no. 2 (2018): 299–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3486.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Pennycook, Gordon, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek J. Koehler, and Jonathan A. Fugelsang. "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit." December 1, 2015. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1067051.

Full text

Abstract:

Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena"). Across multiple studies, the pro

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Hupbach, Almut, and Arielle Janger. "The Impact of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit Titles on Memory for Artist-Created and AI-Generated Art." Empirical Studies of the Arts, January 29, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374251314402.

Full text

Abstract:

Research has shown that pseudo-profound bullshit titles increase the perceived profundity of art. The current study asks whether this effect extends to memory. Participants rated the liking and perceived profundity of artist-created and AI-generated paintings, paired with mundane or pseudo-profound bullshit titles. Approximately 24 h later, participants completed an old/new recognition test, including both old and new AI-generated and artist-created images. Pseudo-profound bullshit titles increased perceived profundity. However, recognition performance was neither affected by titles nor rated

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Turpin, M. H., Alexander C. Walker, J. A. Stolz, J. A. Fugelsang, and D. J. Koehler. "Finding meaning in the clouds: Illusory pattern perception predicts receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit." January 1, 2019. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5743993.

Full text

Abstract:

Previous research has demonstrated a link between illusory pattern perception and various irrational beliefs. On this basis, we hypothesized that participants who displayed greater degrees of illusory pattern perception would also be more likely to rate pseudo-profound bullshit statements as profound. We find support for this prediction across three experiments (N = 627) and four distinct measures of pattern perception. We further demonstrate that this observed relation is restricted to illusory pattern perception, with participants displaying greater endorsement of non-illusory patterns being

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Littrell, Shane, Ethan A. Meyers, and Jonathan A. Fugelsang. "Not all bullshit pondered is tossed: Reflection decreases receptivity to some types of misleading information but not others." Applied Cognitive Psychology, November 20, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.4154.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractAcross three studies (N = 659), we present evidence that engaging in explanatory reflection reduces receptivity to pseudo‐profound bullshit but not scientific bullshit or fake news. Additionally, ratings for pseudo‐profound and scientific bullshit attributed to authoritative sources were significantly inflated compared to bullshit from anonymous sources. These findings provide initial evidence that asking people to reflect on why they find certain statements meaningful (or not) helps reduce receptivity to some types of misinformation but not others. Moreover, the appeal of misleading c

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Braida, Barbara, Javier Rodríguez-Ferreiro, and Mireia Hernández. "The foreign language effect on motivational quotes." Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, August 12, 2022, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1366728922000505.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract According to the “reduced emotionality hypothesis”, we are less emotionally driven when reasoning in a foreign language (FL) than in a native language (NL). We examined whether this foreign language effect (FLe) extends to the way we perceive motivational quotes (i.e., encouraging slogans conveying a profound and inspirational message): we expected FL participants to rate motivational quotes as less profound than NL participants. Strikingly, we observed the opposite: FL participants found motivational quotes more profound than NL participants, even after controlling for potential conf

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Rachev, Nikolay R., Sandra J. Geiger, Jáchym Vintr, Desislava Kirilova, Anna Nabutovsky, and Joakim Nelsson. "Actively Open-Minded Thinking, Bullshit Receptivity, and Susceptibility to Framing." European Journal of Psychological Assessment, February 10, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000685.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract. The framing effect occurs when different presentations of the same problem lead to predictably different preferences. The dual-process framework of higher cognition assumes that the effect violates rational principles, but alternative accounts and recent evidence have contested this interpretation. Contributing to this debate, we tested the dual-process assumption by investigating associations between susceptibility to framing and the willingness and ability to think in line with rational norms, conceptualized as actively open-minded thinking and pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Stamenkovic, Philippe. "The contradictions and dangers of Bruno Latour's conception of climate science [Las contradicciones y peligros de la concepción de la climatología de Bruno Latour]." Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin 9, no. 13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3567196.

Full text

Abstract:

This article debunks Bruno Latour’s seemingly pro-scientific and well-intentioned (in particular, environment-friendly) posture. I briefly summarize Latour’s constructivist, relativist, hybridist, and mystic philosophy, insisting on his radicalization in his last two books (<em>Face à Gaïa</em> and <em>Où atterrir?</em>). I show that Latour’s conception is akin to “pseudo-profound bullshit” (Frankfurt, Pennycook et al.), inasmuch as he tries to hide his mysticism behind the invocation of scientific facts. I then concentrate on Latour’s pol

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Salvi, Carola, Paola Iannello, Alice Cancer, et al. "Going Viral: How Fear, Socio-Cognitive Polarization and Problem-Solving Influence Fake News Detection and Proliferation During COVID-19 Pandemic." Frontiers in Communication 5 (January 12, 2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.562588.

Full text

Abstract:

In times of uncertainty, people often seek out information to help alleviate fear, possibly leaving them vulnerable to false information. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we attended to a viral spread of incorrect and misleading information that compromised collective actions and public health measures to contain the spread of the disease. We investigated the influence of fear of COVID-19 on social and cognitive factors including believing in fake news, bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, and problem-solving—within two of the populations that have been severely hit by COVID-19: Italy and the Unit

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!