The aim of this research was to explore the predictors of gullibility and to develop a self-report measure of the construct. In Studies 1 to 3, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on a large pool of items resulting in a 12-item scale with two factors: Persuadability and Insensitivity to cues of untrustworthiness. Study 4 confirmed the criterion validity of the scale using two distinct samples: scam victims and members of the Skeptics Society. Study 5 demonstrated positive relationships between gullibility and the self-reported persuasiveness of, and likelihood of responding to, unsolicited emails. Throughout the article, analyses of a variety of measures expected to converge with the scale provided evidence for its construct validity. Overall, these studies demonstrate that the construct of gullibility is distinct from trust, negatively related to social intelligence, and that the Gullibility Scale is a reliable and valid measure of gullibility.
ArthurW.DayD. V. (1994). Development of a short form for the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 394-403. doi:10.1177/0013164494054002013
2.
Baron-CohenS.RingH. A.WheelwrightS.BullmoreE. T.BrammerM. J.SimmonsA.WilliamsS. C. R. (1999). Social intelligence in the normal and autistic brain: An fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 11, 1891-1898. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.1999.00621.x
3.
BègueL.BeauvoisJ.-L.CourbetD.OberléD.LepageJ.DukeA. A. (2015). Personality predicts obedience in a Milgram Paradigm. Journal of Personality, 83, 299-306. doi:10.1111/jopy.12104
4.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
5.
CarterN. L.WeberJ. M. (2010). Not Pollyannas: Higher generalized trust predicts lie detection ability. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 274-279. doi:10.1177/1948550609360261
6.
CaseT. I.FitnessJ.CairnsD. R.StevensonR. J. (2004). Coping with uncertainty: Superstitious strategies and secondary control. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 848-871. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02574.x
7.
CharltonB. G. (2009). Clever sillies: Why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense. Medical Hypotheses, 73, 867-870. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.08.016
8.
ChristieR.GeisF. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.
9.
CialdiniR. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
10.
ConklinE. S. (1919). Superstitious belief and practice among college students. The American Journal of Psychology, 30, 83-102. doi:10.2307/1413662
11.
CrowneD. P.MarloweD. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. doi:10.1037/h0047358
12.
DahlingJ. J.WhitakerB. G.LevyP. E. (2008). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism Scale. Journal of Management, 35, 219-257. doi:10.1177/0149206308318618
13.
DicksonD. H.KellyI. W. (1985). The “Barnum effect” in personality assessment: A review of the literature. Psychological Reports, 57, 367-382. doi:10.2466/pr0.1985.57.2.367
14.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Internet Crime Complaint Center. (2017). 2017 Internet crime report. Retrieved from https://pdf.ic3.gov/2017_IC3Report.pdf
15.
FischerP.LeaS. E. G.EvansK. M. (2013). Why do individuals respond to fraudulent scam communications and lose money? The psychological determinants of scam compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2060-2072. doi:10.1111/jasp.12158
16.
ForgasJ. P.EastR. (2008). On being happy and gullible: Mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1362-1367. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.010
17.
FrederickS. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42. doi:10.1257/089533005775196732
18.
GilovichT. (1991). How we know what isn’t so. New York, NY: Free Press.
19.
GoldbergL. R.JohnsonJ. A.EberH. W.HoganR.AshtonM. C.CloningerC. R.GoughH. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
20.
GreenspanS. (2009a). Annals of gullibility: Why we get duped and how to avoid it. Westport, CT: Praeger.
21.
GreenspanS. (2009b). Foolish action in adults with intellectual disabilities: The forgotten problem of risk-unawareness. In GliddenL. M (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 36, pp. 145-194). New York, NY: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S0074-7750(08)00005-0
22.
GreenspanS.LoughlinG.BlackR. (2001). Credulity and gullibility in people with developmental disorders: A framework for future research. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 24, 101-135. doi:10.1016/S0074-7750(01)80007-0
23.
GrieveR.MaharD. (2013). Can social intelligence be measured? Psychometric properties of the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale—English version. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 34, 1-12. doi:10.1080/03033910.2012.737758
24.
HardinR. (2001). Conceptions and explanations of trust. In CookK. (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 3-39). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
HoekstraR. A.VinkhuyzenA. A. E.WheelwrightS.BartelsM.BoomsmaD. I.Baron-CohenS.. . . van der SluisS. (2011). The construction and validation of an abridged version of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ-Short). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41, 589-596. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1073-0
26.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
27.
JohnsonN. D.MislinA. (2012). How much should we trust the World Values Survey trust question?Economics Letters, 116, 210-212. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2012.02.010
28.
KosmitzkiC.JohnO. P. (1993). The implicit use of explicit conceptions of social intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 11-23. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90037-4
29.
LangenderferJ.ShimpT. A. (2001). Consumer vulnerability to scams, swindles, and fraud: A new theory of visceral influences on persuasion. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 763-783. doi:10.1002/mar.1029
30.
LayneC. (1979). The Barnum effect: Rationality versus gullibility?Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 219-221. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.47.1.219
31.
MayerJ. D.SaloveyP.CarusoD. R.SitareniosG. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97
32.
MercierH. (2017). How gullible are we? A review of the evidence from psychology and social science. Review of General Psychology, 21, 103-122. doi:10.1037/gpr0000111
33.
MikolajczakM.GrossJ. J.LaneA.CorneilleO.de TimaryP.LuminetO. (2010). Oxytocin makes people trusting, not gullible. Psychological Science, 21, 1072-1074. doi:10.1177/0956797610377343
34.
MillerA. S.MitamuraT. (2003). Are surveys on trust trustworthy?Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 62-70. doi:10.2307/3090141
35.
ObermillerC.SpangenbergE. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 159-186. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03
36.
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. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279
37.
PinskerD. M.McFarlandK.StoneV. E. (2011). The Social Vulnerability Scale for older adults: An exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic study. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 23, 246-272. doi:10.1080/08946566.2011.584049
38.
PinskerD. M.StoneV.PachanaN.GreenspanS. (2006). Social Vulnerability Scale for older adults: Validation study*. Clinical Psychologist, 10, 109-119. doi:10.1080/13284200600939918
39.
Piper-TerryM. L.DowneyJ. L. (1998). Sex, gullibility, and the Barnum effect. Psychological Reports, 82, 571-576. doi:10.2466/pr0.1998.82.2.571
40.
PrimiC.MorsanyiK.ChiesiF.DonatiM. A.HamiltonJ. (2016). The development and testing of a new version of the Cognitive Reflection Test applying Item Response Theory (IRT). Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 453-469. doi:10.1002/bdm.1883
41.
RotterJ. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651-665. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x
42.
RotterJ. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35, 1-7. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.1.1
43.
SilveraD.MartinussenM.DahlT. I. (2001). The Tromso Social Intelligence Scale, a self-report measure of social intelligence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 313-319. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00242
44.
SturgisP.SmithP. (2010). Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: What kind of trust are we measuring?International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 74-92. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq003
45.
TobacykJ. J. (2004). A revised Paranormal Belief Scale. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 23, 94-98. doi:10.1037/t14015-000
46.
VyseS. A. (2013). Believing in magic: The psychology of superstition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
47.
WheatonB.MuthenB.AlwinD. F.SummersG. F. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84-136. doi:10.2307/270754
48.
WhittyM. T. (2018). Do you love me? Psychological characteristics of romance scam victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21, 105-109. doi:10.1089/cyber.2016.0729
49.
WilliamsE. J.PolageD. (2018). How persuasive is phishing email? The role of authentic design, influence and current events in email judgements. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38, 184-197. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2018.1519599
50.
YamagishiT.KikuchiM.KosugiM. (1999). Trust, gullibility, and social intelligence. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 145-161. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00030
51.
ZusneL.JonesW. H. (1989). Anomalistic psychology: A study of magical thinking. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
