(RETRACTED) THE INFLUENCE OF AUTHORSHIP ON RECEPTIVITY TO PSEUDO-PROFOUND BS: WHO TALKS AND WHO BELIEVES IN NONSENSE?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19090/pp.2019.2.183-204Keywords:
actively open-minded thinking, authorship effect, belief bias, cognitive reflection, pseudo-profound bullshitAbstract
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.
Metrics
References
Baron, J. (1993). Why Teach Thinking? An Essay. Applied Psychology, 42(3), 191–214. doi:10.1111/j.1464–0597.1993.tb00731.x
Böckenholt, U. (2012). The cognitive–miser response model: Testing for intuitive and deliberate reasoning. Psychometrika, 77(2), 388–399. doi:10.1007/ s11336–012–9251–y
Bučević, A. (2015). U Vorteksu ostvarenih želja. Zagreb: Kapurović.
Campitelli, G., & Gerrans, P. (2014). Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 434–447. doi:10.3758/s13421–013–0367–9
Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244– 260. doi:10.1177/0361684315622645
De Araujo, I. E., Rolls, E. T., Velazco, M. I., Margot, C., & Cayeux, I. (2005). Cognitive modulation of olfactory processing. Neuron, 46(4), 671–679. doi:10.1016/j. neuron.2005.04.021
Damnjanović, K., Novković, V., Pavlović, I., Ilić, S., & Pantelić, S. (2019). A cue for rational reasoning: Introducing a reference point in cognitive reflection tasks. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 25–40. doi:10.5964/ejop.v15i1.1701
Del Missier, F., Mäntylä, T., & De Bruin, W. B. (2012). Decision making competence, executive functioning, and general cognitive abilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(4), 331–351. doi:10.1002/bdm.731
Evans, J. S. B., Barston, J. L., & Pollard, P. (1983). On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning. Memory & Cognition, 11(3), 295–306. doi:10.3758/bf03196976
Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. New Your: Princeton University Press.
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. doi:10.1257/089533005775196732
Fritz, C., Curtin, J., Poitevineau, J., Morrel–Samuels, P., & Tao, F. C. (2012). Player preferences among new and old violins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(3), 760–763. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114999109
Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Society, 5(5), 28–30. doi:10.1007/bf03180445
Hopkin, J., & Rosamond, B. (2018). Post–truth politics, bullshit and bad ideas:‘Deficit Fetishism’in the UK. New Political Economy, 23(6), 641–655. do i:10.1080/13563467.2017.1373757
Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 115–127. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.05.003
Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open–source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. doi:10.3758/s13428–011–0168–7
Najkraći test inteligencije: 3 pitanja otkrivaju da li ste genije. (2017). Preuzeto sa: www.b92.net/zivot/vesti.php?yyyy=2017&mm=09&dd=27&nav_ id=1307725
New Age Bullshit Generator [online computer application]. (2019). Preuzeto sa: http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/
Paludi, M. A., & Bauer, W. D. (1983). Goldberg revisited: What’s in an author’s name. Sex Roles, 9(3), 387–390. doi:10.1007/bf00289673
Pennycook, G. (2018). A perspective on the theoretical foundation of dual–process models. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual process theory 2.0 (pp. 5–22). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315204550–2
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo–profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 549–563. Preuzeto sa: http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/ jdm15923a.html
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Preuzeto sa: https://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3023545
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. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153419
Plassmann, H., O’Doherty, J., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(3), 1050–1054. doi:10.1073/ pnas.0706929105
Realism in American Literature, 1860–1890, Washington State University. (n. d.). Preuzeto sa: public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/realism.htm
Sá, W. C., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational psychology, 91(3), 497–510. doi:10.1037//0022–0663.91.3.497 Sinayev, A., & Peters, E. (2015). Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making. Frontiersin Psychology, 6, Article 532. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00532 Stanovich, K. E. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341140.001.0001 Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(2), 161–188. doi:10.1037/0096–3445.127.2.161
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–726. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00003435
Sterling, J., Jost, J. T., & Pennycook, G. (2016). Are neoliberals more susceptible to bullshit?. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 352–361. Preuzeto sa: http://journal.sjdm.org/16/16305/jdm16305.html
Thomson, K. S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99–113. Preuzeto sa: www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/journal/15/151029/jdm151029. pdf
Valsesia, F., Nunes, J., & Ordanini, A. (2014). The Impact of Artistic Ownership on Aesthetic Judgment and Preference. In J. Cotte & S. Wood (Eds.), North American Advances (pp. 189–193). Preuzeto sa: http://www.acrwebsite.org/ volumes/v42/acr_v42_17747.pdf
Welsh, M., Burns, N., & Delfabbro, P. (2013). The cognitive reflection test: how much more than numerical ability?. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1587–1592). Preuzeto sa: cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/ content/qt68n012fh/qt68n012fh.pdf
