Liberals Are on Their Bullshit Again

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Misperceiving Bullshit as Profound Is Associated with Favorable Views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Conservatism

• Simon Schindler

Misperceiving Bullshit equally Profound Is Associated with Favorable Views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Conservatism

• Stefan Pfattheicher,
• Simon Schindler

x

• Published: April 29, 2016
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153419

Figures

Abstract

The present inquiry investigates the associations betwixt holding favorable views of potential Democratic or Republican candidates for the Usa presidency 2016 and seeing profoundness in bullshit statements. In this contribution, bullshit is used as a technical term which is divers as communicative expression that lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science. We used the Bullshit Receptivity calibration (BSR) to mensurate seeing profoundness in bullshit statements. The BSR calibration contains statements that have a correct syntactic structure and seem to be audio and meaningful on offset reading but are actually vacuous. Participants (N = 196; obtained via Amazon Mechanical Turk) rated the profoundness of bullshit statements (using the BSR) and provided favorability ratings of three Democratic (Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders) and three Republican candidates for US president (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump). Participants also completed a measure of political liberalism/conservatism. Results revealed that favorable views of all three Republican candidates were positively related to judging bullshit statements equally profound. The smallest correlation was institute for Donald Trump. Although we observe a positive association betwixt bullshit and back up for the three Democrat candidates, this relationship is both substantively small and statistically insignificant. The general measure of political liberalism/conservatism was likewise related to judging bullshit statements as profound in that individuals who were more politically conservative had a college trend to meet profoundness in bullshit statements. Of annotation, these results were not due to a general tendency amid conservatives to run across profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were non significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. In contrast, this was the case for Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley. Overall, modest-to-medium sized correlations were found, indicating that far from all conservatives see profoundness in bullshit statements.

Citation: Pfattheicher S, Schindler S (2016) Misperceiving Bullshit as Profound Is Associated with Favorable Views of Cruz, Rubio, Trump and Conservatism. PLoS ONE 11(4): e0153419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153419

Editor: Mark Andrew Runco, University of Georgia, Usa

Received: Jan 25, 2016; Accepted: April 17, 2016; Published: April 29, 2016

Copyright: © 2016 Pfattheicher, Schindler. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted utilize, distribution, and reproduction in whatever medium, provided the original writer and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors have no back up or funding to report.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Bullshit is prevalent in all our lives. Yet, individuals differ in their sensitivity to bullshit, or in the style they see profoundness in bullshit statements [one]. The present inquiry examines the relations between judging bullshit statements equally profound and individuals' favorable views of potential Democratic or Republican candidates for the US presidency 2016, as well as their general political liberal/conservative attitude.

Various forms of bullshit exist [2]. The reader might think of sincere or insincere exaggerations, nonsense statements, or breathy lies. In this work nosotros focus on a specific form of bullshit, namely, pseudo-profound bullshit. In doing so, we build on the seminal piece of work of Pennycook and colleagues [1] who provide a detailed conceptual and empirical analysis of pseudo-profound bullshit. Consider the following judgement, which appears to be sound and accept a deep meaning on beginning reading but is really vacuous: "Subconscious meaning transforms unparalleled abstruse beauty." (p. 549, [1]) As shown in this instance, pseudo-profound bullshit statements accept a correct syntactic construction and are not trivial. Even so, they lack content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science (for real world examples, encounter [1]). As such, and in line with Pennycook and colleagues [i], bullshit is used as a technical term, defined equally chatty expression that lacks plausibility and truth. Of annotation, we do not examine bullshit in a vernacular sense, such as when blatant lies or exaggerated stories are told. The present work focuses on pseudo-profound bullshit statements, that is, communicative expressions that announced to be sound and take a deep meaning on beginning reading only actually lack plausibility and truth from the perspective of natural scientific discipline.

In full general, rather than focusing on who talks bullshit, the nowadays enquiry takes a look at who considers pseudo-profound bullshit every bit profound. We predict that conservatives (in contrast to liberals) take a higher trend for pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity. This prediction is based on the post-obit two assumptions: First, given that pseudo-profound bullshit statements are not easy to read and to understand, individuals need the ability to detect that bullshit statements are ultimately meaningless and lack truth [1]. As Pennycook and colleagues demonstrated, the ability increases the more individuals employ reflective and critical thinking [one]. Congruently, accepting information as true rather than simulated increases when the intuitive, automated thinking mode is stimulated [3,four]. In social club to detect pseudo-profound bullshit, withal, individuals need to process statements using a reflective and critical thinking mode [1]. Second, research has shown that conservative attitudes are related to relying on intuitive thinking styles [5] while cognitive complexity (i.e., the tendency to construct a variety of perspectives for viewing an issue) is avoided [6,7]. These findings stand for to results showing a negative relation betwixt conservatism and need for noesis [viii] and cognitive power [9].

Thus, based on the assumptions that individuals need to process pseudo-profound bullshit statements in a reflective and critical thinking mode to discover their vacuous content whereas conservatives compared to liberals are less likely to engage in the reflective and critical thinking fashion just are more likely to use the (in this example maladaptive) intuitive thinking style, nosotros expect that political conservatism is related to judging bullshit statements equally profound. Congruently, we expect that the more than individuals have favorable views of persons talked about equally potential Republican (conservative) candidates for US president the more they meet profoundness in bullshit statements. These assumptions are tested in the study reported beneath. To exclude the possibility that conservatives are more probable to encounter profoundness in statements in general, we additionally include simple, mundane statements in our study. That is, conservatism should not be significantly related to seeing profoundness in mundane statements.

Materials and Method

Participants

We obtained consummate data from 196 U.s.-American individuals (43.four% women; M _{historic period} = 36.iv) who participated in an online study via Amazon Mechanical Turk, a service where researchers tin post jobs (such as responding to a questionnaire) which can exist completed by users of Amazon Mechanical Turk (cf. [10]). Ane participant began the survey but did not complete it; results did non change when this individual was excluded from the analyses. No participant was removed from the reported analyses. Just demographic information virtually sex, historic period, and in what country participants alive was nerveless. The data set tin be found in S1 File.

In line with [11] the report was conducted in total accordance with the Ethical Guidelines of the German Association of Psychologists (DGPs) and the American Psychological Association (APA). Moreover, past the fourth dimension the information were acquired in Jan of 2016 it was also not customary at Ulm Academy, Kassel University, nor at most other German universities to seek ethics approval for simple studies on personality and attitudes. The report exclusively makes utilize of anonymous questionnaires. No identifying information was obtained from participants. The participants were explicitly informed that the data are treated confidentially. Every participant had to agree to the following statements: "I sympathise that my participation is voluntary and that I may withdraw from the study at whatsoever fourth dimension without explanation;" and "I hereby confirm that I am at to the lowest degree 18 years old, and that I hold to take part in this study." Moreover, it was possible to hands withdraw from the written report at whatsoever time by closing the internet browser.

Pseudo-profound bullshit

The Bullshit Receptivity scale (BSR) by Pennycook and colleagues [1] was used to assess pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity. The BSR includes 10 sentences that have a right syntactic structure and seem to exist profound and meaningful on kickoff reading but are actually vacuous. Participants were asked how profound (in terms of deep meaning and of great and broadly inclusive significance) they consider each sentence to be (cf. [1]). A sample item reads: "Imagination is inside exponential infinite time events." Open up access to all items is provided by Pennycook and colleagues (see [1]). Participants rated the profoundness of each statement on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 = non at all profound, through 2 = somewhat profound, 3 = fairly profound, 4 = definitely profound, to 5 = very profound. The BSR had skillful reliability (Cronbach's α = .87), a mean of 2.66, and an acceptable standard departure of 0.85.

Simple mundane statements

These statements were assessed using the items provided by Pennycook and colleagues (see [1]). Participants were once again asked how profound they considered each sentence. A sample item reads: "A wet person does not fearfulness the rain." Participants rated profoundness on the aforementioned Likert-scale every bit was used for the BSR. The mundane statements scale had good reliability (Cronbach's α = .87), a hateful of 3.16, and an acceptable standard difference of 0.83. The Pearson correlation of the BSR and mundane statements was .52 (p < .001), suggesting an underlying gene reflecting seeing profoundness in something.

Favorability ratings of candidates

Participants were asked to rate the favorableness of three potential Democratic candidates and three Republican candidates for US president. The selection of the candidates was based on election possibility, that is, the three candidates from each political party who polled highest nationwide (as of January 20, 2016) based on the HuffPost Pollster database were selected. For the Democratic Political party these were Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders. For the Republican Party these were Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump.

To obtain the favorability ratings of the vi candidates, participants read: "Next, you will look at the names of people discussed as potential Democratic [Republican] candidates for US president." Whether a participant started with the Democratic or Republican candidates was determined at random. Participants rated the candidates on a v-betoken Likert calibration ranging from 1 = very unfavorable, through two = somewhat unfavorable, 3 = neither unfavorable nor favorable, 4 = somewhat favorable, to 5 = very favorable. If participants had not heard of a particular candidate or did non have an opinion they were asked to non mark anything. Means and standard deviations were equally follows: Hillary Clinton (M = 2.76, SD = one.43), Martin O'Malley (M = two.54, SD = 1.03), Bernie Sanders (Yard = 3.53, SD = one.47), Ted Cruz (M = 2.13, SD = 1.29), Marco Rubio (M = ii.42, SD = 1.24), Donald Trump (Chiliad = 1.94, SD = 1.39).

Political liberalism/conservatism

The normally used single item of "Where would you put yourself on a continuum from liberal to conservative?" was used to assess political liberalism/conservatism. A seven-betoken Likert scale was used. The scale end-points read (ane) liberal and (seven) bourgeois (G = 3.33, SD = 1.83).

Results

Given that some of the variables were correct-skewed (e.1000., the majority of participants had rather an unfavourable view of Donald Trump) Spearman'southward rho was used to produce nonparametric correlations.

Equally shown in Fig i, favorable views of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump were positively related to judging bullshit statements every bit profound. The strongest correlation was found for Ted Cruz. No meaning relations were observed for the three Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders). The general measure of political conservatism was also positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. Of notation, all relations held in terms of associations and significance levels when mundane statements were controlled (see Fig 1).

Fig 1. Spearman's rho correlations among favorability ratings of the vi candidates, conservatism, and seeing profoundness in bullshit and mundane statements.

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two-tailed).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153419.g001

In dissimilarity, favorable views of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump were not significantly related to judging mundane statements every bit profound. This also holds for Bernie Sanders. The picture was different for Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley. The more favorable views participants had of Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley, the more they saw profoundness in mundane statements.

Discussion

Individuals differ in their tendency to see profoundness in bullshit [1]. The present enquiry examined who is likely to estimate pseudo-profound bullshit equally profound by focusing on political attitudes and favorability ratings of potential Democratic and Republican candidates for US president. Nosotros considered it possible that conservatives are more receptive to pseudo-profound bullshit than liberals. In fact, the results revealed that belongings favorable views of three potential Republican candidates for U.s.a. president (Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump) was positively related to judging bullshit statements as profound. In contrast, non-significant relations were observed for the three Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders). A general mensurate of political liberalism/conservatism was also related to judging bullshit statements as profound. Specifically, the more than individuals considered themselves to be politically bourgeois, the stronger their tendency to see profoundness in the bullshit statements presented. Of notation, these results were not due to a general tendency among conservatives to run across profoundness in everything: Favorable views of Republican candidates and conservatism were not significantly related to profoundness ratings of mundane statements. Withal, this was the example for 2 Democratic candidates: Favorable views of Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley were positively related to seeing profoundness in mundane sentences.

Recently, Pennycook and colleagues established a conceptual and empirical basis for the study of pseudo-profound bullshit [1]. Notwithstanding, research on bullshit is nonetheless in its infancy, likely considering little fourth dimension has passed since this seminal newspaper was published just certainly not because of its insignificance. Indeed, bullshit seems to exist prevalent in all our lives [two], so it is reasonable to argue for scientific investigation into bullshit. Every bit such, and given that piddling is known about who sees profoundness in bullshit, the present inquiry extends knowledge in this field of study.

In the following paragraphs, we emphasize what tin and what cannot be deduced from the written report. Showtime of all, we found small-to-medium sized correlations between holding favorable views of Republican candidates, conservatism, and bullshit receptivity. Given these issue sizes, information technology must exist noted that far from all conservatives see profoundness in pseudo-profound bullshit statements. Certainly, some liberals also come across profoundness in bullshit statements, while some conservatives may conspicuously turn down profoundness in bullshit statements. Nevertheless, in that location is an overall tendency for conservatives relative to liberals to see profoundness in bullshit statements.

Second, we want to note that the sample of the present study probably is not representative of the US every bit our written report is restricted to the specific sample of Amazon Mechanical Turk workers and has a relatively small sample size for an online survey. Thus, 1 cannot brand inferences near the entire population of the Usa (or other populations of other countries). Yet, this does not undermine the significance of the present enquiry. As is usual in psychological studies, associations between constructs are tested. Whether these associations hold for different populations is surely interesting, but beyond the scope of most psychological studies, including the present inquiry. In this context, we also desire to note that some participants might be non-naïve or trustworthy, as some participants regularly and systematically participate in online studies via the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform [12]. All the same, research shows that valid results in psychological research can exist obtained using Amazon Mechanical Turk [10,13].

Third, we want to emphasize that the present study is correlational in nature. Thus, no causal inferences can be drawn. One cannot conclude that conservatism leads to bullshit receptivity. What can be concluded is that conservatism is positively associated with seeing profoundness in bullshit statements and that those who have favorable views of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio are more likely to judge bullshit statements every bit profound compared with individuals who have less favorable views of these candidates.

Quaternary, the present research remains empirically silent regarding the explanatory variable of why conservatism is positively associated with seeing profoundness in bullshit statements. We base of operations our study on the empirically supported assumption plant in other research that conservatives (vs. liberals) are less likely to use a reflective and critical thinking mode [8,9], a mode that is necessary to observe the vacuity of pseudo-profound bullshit statements [1]. Withal, reflective and disquisitional thinking is not measured in the nowadays study. The assumption that reflective and critical thinking tin explain the found effects needs to be tested in hereafter research. Additionally, as bullshit receptivity is related to religiousness [1], and while information technology is likely that religiousness is positively related to favorable views of Cruz, it could be that religiousness might explain (function of) the constitute relations. Since religiousness is not assessed in the present study (which also holds true for other demographic variables such equally social form, income, and education) in that location is room for time to come research to examination variables that might explicate the establish relations.

5th, it is likely that conservatives are specifically receptive to pseudo-profound bullshit but not to others forms of bullshit. To observe pseudo-profound bullshit, a disquisitional thinking style is necessary, a mode that is less likely to exist found in conservatives [v,eight,9]. Another thinking mode may be required to detect other forms of bullshit, for instance, when people tell sincere exaggerations that are detectable without critical thinking [14]. Equally such, it seems possible that conservatism is not related to seeing whatever form of bullshit every bit profound.

Notably, information technology has recently been discussed whether the items of the Bullshit Receptivity scale actually reverberate pseudo-profound bullshit [15,xvi]. Dalton [fifteen] argues that some items (e.g., "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena.") might reflect meaningful, profound sentences from a transcendent Buddhist perspective, and thus do not represent pseudo-profound bullshit (or fifty-fifty true) statements in the optics of some perceivers. Although this might well be the case, according to Pennycook and colleagues [1,16], bullshit is not divers past the perceiver just by the sender. Given that the bullshit statements used consist of randomly selected buzzwords, they fulfil the definition of a chatty expression that lacks plausibility and truth from the perspective of natural science. Thus, as Pennycook and colleagues ([16], p. 123) put it, "[b]ullshit that is viewed as profound is however bullshit."

To conclude, the nowadays work shows that political conservatism is positively related to seeing profoundness in pseudo-profound bullshit statements. It may exist that this finding and the present research in full general has an impact on some conservatives in that they might evaluate statements more critically. We invite individuals to start with the nowadays contribution.

Supporting Data

Writer Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: SP SS. Performed the experiments: SP. Analyzed the information: SP. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SP. Wrote the paper: SP SS.

References

1. 1. Pennycook Chiliad, Cheyne JA, Barr N, Koehler DJ, Fugelsang JA. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgm Decis Mak. 2015;10: 549–563.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. Frankfurt HG. On bullshit: Cambridge Academy Press; 2005.
3. 3. Gilbert DT, Krull DS, Malone PS. Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of imitation data. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;59: 601–613.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Vrij A. Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
5. 5. Kemmelmeier K. Authoritarianism and its relationship with intuitive-experiential cognitive way and heuristic processing. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;48: 44–48.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Jost JT, Glaser J, Kruglanski AW, Sulloway FJ. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychol Bull. 2003;129: 339. pmid:12784934
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Hinze T, Doster J, Joe VC. The relationship of conservatism and cognitive-complexity. Pers Individ Dif. 1997;22: 297–298.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Sargent MJ. Less thought, more punishment: demand for cognition predicts back up for punitive responses to offense. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004;30: 1485–1493. pmid:15448311
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Onraet E, Van Hiel A, Dhont K, Hodson G, Schittekatte M, De Pauw Southward. The association of cognitive ability with right‐wing ideological attitudes and prejudice: A meta‐analytic review. Eur J Pers. 2015;29: 599–621.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
10. ten. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon'south Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, notwithstanding high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6: iii–5. pmid:26162106
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Menninghaus W, Wagner V, Hanich J, Wassiliwizky E, Kuehnast M, Jacobsen T. Towards a psychological construct of being moved. PloS one. 2015;10: e0128451. pmid:26042816
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Chandler J, Mueller P, Paolacci M. Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behav Res Methods. 2014;46: 112–130. pmid:23835650
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Crump MJ, McDonnell JV, Gureckis TM. Evaluating Amazon'due south Mechanical Turk equally a tool for experimental behavioral research. PloS 1. 2013;8: e57410. pmid:23516406
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Reinhard M, Sporer SL. Content versus source cue information as a basis for credibility judgments. Soc Psychol. 2010: 93–104.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. fifteen. Dalton C. Bullshit for you; transcendence for me. A commentary on "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit". Judgm Decis Mak. 2016;eleven: 121–122.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
16. sixteen. Pennycook G, Cheyne JA, Barr N, Koehler DJ, Fugelsang JA. It's still bullshit: Respond to Dalton (2016). Judgm Decis Mak. 2016;eleven: 123–125.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

murillomagicittake1993.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0153419

Share this post