REFF - Faculty of Philosophy Repository
University of Belgrade - Faculty of Philosophy
    • English
    • Српски
    • Српски (Serbia)
  • English 
    • English
    • Serbian (Cyrillic)
    • Serbian (Latin)
  • Login
View Item 
  •   REFF
  • Psihologija / Psychology
  • Radovi istraživača / Researcher's publications - Odeljenje za psihologiju
  • View Item
  •   REFF
  • Psihologija / Psychology
  • Radovi istraživača / Researcher's publications - Odeljenje za psihologiju
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

The influence of authorship on receptivity to pseudo-profound bs: who talks and who believes in nonsense?

Authorized Users Only
2019
Authors
Ilić, Sandra
Damnjanović, Kaja
Article (Published version)
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
Pseudoprofound bullshit (PPB) pertains to gramatically and syntactically correct sentences comprised of randomly selected words, designed to impress and not to inform. Research shows that participants deem PPB as profound, and it is assumed that there are two underlying mechanisms: response bias and lesser pronneness to cognitive reflection. However, receptivity to PPB can be influenced by the source of the statement, that is - participants might assume that statements presented in a psychological study have profound meaning which they don't register but presume present. The aim of this study was triple: 1) to investigate the PPB phenomenon in serbian language, 2) replicate findings regarding mechanisms underlying receptivity and sensitivity to (ability to differentiate between PPB and truly profound statements) PPB, and to 3) test the influence which source of the statement has on those measures. Participants rated profundity of proverbs, mundane statements and PPB without and with as...signed authors of different levels of trustworthiness. They solved 16 categorical syllogisms (CS) which differed by congruency between the conclusion plausibility and whether it was supported by premises, numerical (CRT) and non-numerical Cognitive Reflection Test (nCRT), and they completed Actively Open-minded Thinking Beliefs scale (AOT). Participants rated PPB as more profound than mundane statements, and less profound than proverbs. Correlations between CRT, nCRT, AOT, CS and receptivity and sensitivity to PPB were non-significant. When made up and authors of questionable trustworthiness are assigned to PPB, profundity ratings remain statistically unchanged, while they significantly rise when a trustworthy author is assigned. Findings regarding response bias and cognitive reflection as underlying mechanisms of receptivity and sensitivity to PPB were not replicated. Results show that the source as a contextual factor influences receptivity and sensitivity to PPB.

Keywords:
pseudo-profound bullshit / cognitive reflection / belief bias / authorship effect / actively open-minded thinking
Source:
Primenjena psihologija, 2019, 12, 2, 183-204
Publisher:
  • Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Filozofski fakultet - Odsek za psihologiju, Novi Sad
Funding / projects:
  • Fundamental cognitive processes and functions (RS-179033)

DOI: 10.19090/pp.2019.2.183-204

ISSN: 1821-0147

WoS: 000473217000004

Scopus: 2-s2.0-85076003425
[ Google Scholar ]
URI
http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2958
Collections
  • Radovi istraživača / Researcher's publications - Odeljenje za psihologiju
Institution/Community
Psihologija / Psychology
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Ilić, Sandra
AU  - Damnjanović, Kaja
PY  - 2019
UR  - http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2958
AB  - Pseudoprofound bullshit (PPB) pertains to gramatically and syntactically correct sentences comprised of randomly selected words, designed to impress and not to inform. Research shows that participants deem PPB as profound, and it is assumed that there are two underlying mechanisms: response bias and lesser pronneness to cognitive reflection. However, receptivity to PPB can be influenced by the source of the statement, that is - participants might assume that statements presented in a psychological study have profound meaning which they don't register but presume present. The aim of this study was triple: 1) to investigate the PPB phenomenon in serbian language, 2) replicate findings regarding mechanisms underlying receptivity and sensitivity to (ability to differentiate between PPB and truly profound statements) PPB, and to 3) test the influence which source of the statement has on those measures. Participants rated profundity of proverbs, mundane statements and PPB without and with assigned authors of different levels of trustworthiness. They solved 16 categorical syllogisms (CS) which differed by congruency between the conclusion plausibility and whether it was supported by premises, numerical (CRT) and non-numerical Cognitive Reflection Test (nCRT), and they completed Actively Open-minded Thinking Beliefs scale (AOT). Participants rated PPB as more profound than mundane statements, and less profound than proverbs. Correlations between CRT, nCRT, AOT, CS and receptivity and sensitivity to PPB were non-significant. When made up and authors of questionable trustworthiness are assigned to PPB, profundity ratings remain statistically unchanged, while they significantly rise when a trustworthy author is assigned. Findings regarding response bias and cognitive reflection as underlying mechanisms of receptivity and sensitivity to PPB were not replicated. Results show that the source as a contextual factor influences receptivity and sensitivity to PPB.
PB  - Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Filozofski fakultet - Odsek za psihologiju, Novi Sad
T2  - Primenjena psihologija
T1  - The influence of authorship on receptivity to pseudo-profound bs: who talks and who believes in nonsense?
EP  - 204
IS  - 2
SP  - 183
VL  - 12
DO  - 10.19090/pp.2019.2.183-204
ER  - 
@article{
author = "Ilić, Sandra and Damnjanović, Kaja",
year = "2019",
abstract = "Pseudoprofound bullshit (PPB) pertains to gramatically and syntactically correct sentences comprised of randomly selected words, designed to impress and not to inform. Research shows that participants deem PPB as profound, and it is assumed that there are two underlying mechanisms: response bias and lesser pronneness to cognitive reflection. However, receptivity to PPB can be influenced by the source of the statement, that is - participants might assume that statements presented in a psychological study have profound meaning which they don't register but presume present. The aim of this study was triple: 1) to investigate the PPB phenomenon in serbian language, 2) replicate findings regarding mechanisms underlying receptivity and sensitivity to (ability to differentiate between PPB and truly profound statements) PPB, and to 3) test the influence which source of the statement has on those measures. Participants rated profundity of proverbs, mundane statements and PPB without and with assigned authors of different levels of trustworthiness. They solved 16 categorical syllogisms (CS) which differed by congruency between the conclusion plausibility and whether it was supported by premises, numerical (CRT) and non-numerical Cognitive Reflection Test (nCRT), and they completed Actively Open-minded Thinking Beliefs scale (AOT). Participants rated PPB as more profound than mundane statements, and less profound than proverbs. Correlations between CRT, nCRT, AOT, CS and receptivity and sensitivity to PPB were non-significant. When made up and authors of questionable trustworthiness are assigned to PPB, profundity ratings remain statistically unchanged, while they significantly rise when a trustworthy author is assigned. Findings regarding response bias and cognitive reflection as underlying mechanisms of receptivity and sensitivity to PPB were not replicated. Results show that the source as a contextual factor influences receptivity and sensitivity to PPB.",
publisher = "Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Filozofski fakultet - Odsek za psihologiju, Novi Sad",
journal = "Primenjena psihologija",
title = "The influence of authorship on receptivity to pseudo-profound bs: who talks and who believes in nonsense?",
pages = "204-183",
number = "2",
volume = "12",
doi = "10.19090/pp.2019.2.183-204"
}
Ilić, S.,& Damnjanović, K.. (2019). The influence of authorship on receptivity to pseudo-profound bs: who talks and who believes in nonsense?. in Primenjena psihologija
Univerzitet u Novom Sadu - Filozofski fakultet - Odsek za psihologiju, Novi Sad., 12(2), 183-204.
https://doi.org/10.19090/pp.2019.2.183-204
Ilić S, Damnjanović K. The influence of authorship on receptivity to pseudo-profound bs: who talks and who believes in nonsense?. in Primenjena psihologija. 2019;12(2):183-204.
doi:10.19090/pp.2019.2.183-204 .
Ilić, Sandra, Damnjanović, Kaja, "The influence of authorship on receptivity to pseudo-profound bs: who talks and who believes in nonsense?" in Primenjena psihologija, 12, no. 2 (2019):183-204,
https://doi.org/10.19090/pp.2019.2.183-204 . .

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
About REFF | Send Feedback

OpenAIRERCUB
 

 

All of DSpaceInstitutions/communitiesAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis institutionAuthorsTitlesSubjects

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
About REFF | Send Feedback

OpenAIRERCUB