Browsing by Author "Fugelsang, Jonathan A."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

The Bullshitting Frequency Scale: Development and psychometric properties
(The British Psychological Society, 2020) Littrell, Shane; Risko, Evan F.; Fugelsang, Jonathan A.
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.
Verbal Working Memory Load Dissociates Common Indices of the Numerical Distance Effect: Implications for the Study of Numerical Cognition.
(PsychOpen, 2019) Maloney, Erin A.; Barr, Nathaniel; Risko, Evan F.; Fugelsang, Jonathan A.
In four experiments, we explore the role that verbal WM plays in numerical comparison. Experiment 1 demonstrates that verbal WM load differentially impacts the two most common variants of numerical comparison tasks, evidenced by distinct modulation of the size of the numerical distance effect (NDE). Specifically, when comparing one Arabic digit to a standard, the size of the NDE increases as a function of increased verbal WM load; however, when comparing two simultaneously presented Arabic digits, the size of the NDE decreases (and here is eliminated) as a function of an increased verbal WM load. Experiment 2, using the same task structure but different stimuli (physical size judgments), provides support for the notion that this pattern of results is unique to tasks employing numerical stimuli. Experiment 3 demonstrates that the patterns observed in Experiment 1 are not an artifact of the stimulus pairs used. Experiment 4 provides evidence that the differing pattern of results observed between Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 are due to differences in stimuli (numerical vs. nonnumerical) rather than to other differences between tasks. These results are discussed in terms of current theories of numerical comparison.
You can’t bullshit a bullshitter (or can you?): Bullshitting frequency predicts receptivity to various types of misleading information
(British Psychological Society, 2021) Littrell, Shane; Risko, Evan F.; Fugelsang, Jonathan A.
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.