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-placement; and (c) lowest among right-of-center social liberal voters and highest among left-wing green voters. Most of the results held up when we controlled for the perceived profundity of genuine aphorisms, cognitive reflection, numeracy, information processing bias, gender, age, education, religiosity, and spirituality. The results are supportive of theoretical accounts that posit ideological asymmetries in cognitive orientation, while also pointing to the existence of bullshit receptivity among both right- and left-wingers.
AdornoT. W.Frenkel-BrunswikE.LevinsonD.SanfordN. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
2.
AspelundA.LindemanM.VerkasaloM. (2013). Political conservatism and left-right orientation in 28 eastern and western countries. Political Psychology, 34, 409-417. doi:10.1111/pops.12000
3.
CochraneC.NevitteN. (2009). Policy disagreement in advanced industrial states: The content and structure of left/right opinions. In EsmerY.KlingemannH-DPuranenB. (Eds.), Religion, democratic values, and political conflict (pp. 119-145). Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
4.
CokelyE. T.GalesicM.SchulzE.GhazalS.Garcia-RetameroR. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin numeracy test. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 25-47.
5.
ConwayL. G.IIIGornickL. J.HouckS. C.AnderosnC.StockertJ.SessomsD.McCueK. (2016). Are conservatives really more simple-minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking. Political Psychology, 37, 777-798. doi:10.1111/pops.12304
6.
DeYoungC. G.GraziopleneR. G.PetersonJ. B. (2012). From madness to genius: The Openness/Intellect trait domain as a paradoxical simplex. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 63-78. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.003
7.
DittoP. H.LiuB.ClarkC.WojcikS. P.ChenE.GradyR.ZingerJ. (2018). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1745691617746796
8.
EidelmanS.CrandallC. S.GoodmanJ. A.BlancharJ. C. (2012). Low-effort thought promotes social conservatism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 808-820. doi:10.1177/0146167212439213
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
11.
FedericoC. M.MalkaA. (2018). The contingent, contextual nature of the relationship between needs for security and certainty and political preferences: Evidence and implications. Political Psychology, 39(Suppl. 1), 3-48. doi:10.1111/pops.12477
12.
FeldmanS.JohnstonC. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35, 337-358. doi:10.1111/pops.12055
13.
FrankfurtH. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
FrederickS. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42. doi:10.1257/089533005775196732
15.
FrimerJ.SkitkaL. J.MotylM. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1-12. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003
16.
GignacG. E.SzodoraiE. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74-78. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
17.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
18.
GreenbergJ.JonasE. (2003). Psychological motives and political orientation—The left, the right, and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129, 376-382. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.376
19.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
20.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ.JosephC. (2009). Above and below left-right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 110-119. doi:10.1080/10478400903028573
21.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65-70.
22.
JohnstonC. D.LavineH. G.FedericoC. M. (2017). Open versus closed: Personality, identity, and the politics of redistribution. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
23.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
24.
JostJ. T.KrochikM. (2014). Ideological differences in epistemic motivation: Implications for attitude structure, depth of information processing, susceptibility to persuasion, and stereotyping. In ElliotA. J. (Ed.), Advances in Motivation Science (pp. 181-231). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/bs.adms.2014.08.005
25.
JostJ. T.SterlingJ.SternC. (2016). Getting closure on conservatism, or the politics of epistemic and existential motivation. In KopetzC. E.FishbachA. (Eds.), The motivation-cognition interface: From the lab to the real world: A Festschrift in honor of Arie W. Kruglanski (pp. 56-87). New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
JostJ. T.van der LindenS.PanagopoulosC.HardinC. D. (2018). Ideological asymmetries in conformity, desire for shared reality, and the spread of misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 77-83. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.01.003
27.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407-424.
28.
KahanD. M.PetersE.DawsonE. C.SlovicP. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54-86. doi:10.1017/bpp.2016.2
29.
LammersJ.KochA.ConwayP.BrandtM. J. (2017). The political domain appears simpler to the politically extreme than to political moderates. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 612-622. doi:10.1177/1948550616678456
30.
LindT.ErlandssonA.VästfjällD.TinghögG. (2018). Motivated reasoning when assessing the effects of refugee intake. Behavioral Public Policy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/bpp.2018.41
31.
MalkaA.OsborneD.SotoC. J.GreavesL. M.SibleyC. G.LelkesY. (2016). Binding moral foundations and the narrowing of ideological conflict to the traditional morality domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1243-1257. doi:10.1177/0146167216653936
32.
MalkaA.SotoC. J. (2015). Rigidity of the economic right? Menu-independent and menu-dependent influences of psychological dispositions on political attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 137-142. doi:10.1177/0963721414556340
33.
MalkaA.SotoC. J.InzlichtM.LelkesY. (2014). Do needs for security and certainty predict cultural and economic conservatism? A cross-national analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 1031-1051. doi:10.1037/a0036170
34.
NilssonA.ErlandssonA. (2015). The moral foundations taxonomy: Structural validity and relation to political ideology in Sweden. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 28-32. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.049
35.
NilssonA.ErlandssonA.VästfjällD. (2018, July2). Moral foundations theory and the psychology of charitable giving. doi:10.31234/osf.io/wcsq6
36.
NilssonA.JostJ. T. (2017, November4). Rediscovering Tomkins’ polarity theory: Humanism, normativism, and the bipolar structure of left-right ideology in the U.S. and Sweden. doi:10.31234/osf.io/9zbq3
37.
NilssonA.Strupp-LevitskyM. (2016). Humanistic and normativistic metaphysics, epistemology, and conative orientation: Two fundamental systems of meaning. Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 85-94. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.050
38.
PennycookG.CheyneJ. A.BarrN.KoehlerD. J.FugelsangJ. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 549-563.
39.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2018a). Cognitive reflection and the 2016 US presidential election. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0146167218783192
40.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2018b, May23). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3023545
41.
PetrocelliJ. V. (2018). Antecedents of bullshitting. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 249-258. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.004
42.
PfattheicherS.SchindlerS. (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
43.
PiedmontR. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcendence and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67, 985-1013. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00080
44.
RevelleW. (2018). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
45.
SchwartzL. M.WoloshinS.BlackW. C.WelchH. G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 966-972. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-11-199712010-00003
46.
SchwartzS. H.CapraraG. V.VecchioneM. (2010). Basic personal values, core political values, and voting: A longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology, 31, 421-452. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00764.x
47.
SidaniusJ. (1988). Political sophistication and political deviance: A structural equation examination of context theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 37-51. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.37
48.
SimonsohnU. (2018). Two-lines: A valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-shaped relationships with quadratic regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2515245918805755
49.
StåhlT.van ProoijenJ.-W. (2018). Epistemic rationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 155-163. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.026
50.
StennerK. (2009). Three kinds of “conservatism.”Psychological Inquiry, 20, 142-159. doi:10.1080/10478400903028615
51.
SterlingJ.JostJ. T.PennycookG. (2016). Are neoliberals more susceptible to bullshit?Judgment and Decision Making, 11, 352-360.
52.
Swedish Skeptics Association. (2015, October29). In IngemyrM. (Ed.), VoF-undersökningen 2015 [The VoF-survey 2015]. Retrieved from http://www.vof.se/undersokningen-2015
53.
TetlockP. E. (1984). Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British House of commons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 363-375. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.2.365
54.
TetlockP. E.ArmorD.PetersonR. S. (1994). The slavery debate in antebellum America: Cognitive style, value conflict, and the limits of compromise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 115-126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.115
55.
Van HielA.MervieldeI. (2003). The measurement of cognitive complexity and its relationship with political extremism. Political Psychology, 24, 781-801. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9221.2003.00354.x
56.
van ProoijenJ.-W.KrouwelA. P. M. (2017). Extreme political beliefs predict dogmatic intolerance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 292-300. doi:10.1177/1948550616671403
57.
WeberC. R.FedericoC. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34, 107-126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00922.x
58.
YilmazO.SaribayS. A. (2018). Lower levels of resistance to change (but not opposition to equality) is related to analytic cognitive style. Social Psychology, 49, 65-75. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000328
59.
ZmigrodL.RentfrowP. J.RobbinsT. W. (2018). Cognitive underpinnings of nationalistic ideology in the context of the Brexit. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, E4532-E4540. doi:10.1073/pnas.1708960115
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
