People who frequently tell lies to mislead others are less able to distinguish fact from fiction themselves, a new study reveals.
Canadian experts found people who frequently engage in ‘persuasive bulls**tting’ – lies intended to impress or persuade others – were poor at identifying it.
The participants were tested with pseudo-scientific statements and fake news headlines, and had trouble distinguishing profound or scientifically accurate fact from the ‘impressive but meaningless fiction’.
Frequent liars – what the experts frequently refer to ‘bulls**tters in their peer-reviewed paper – were also much more likely to fall for fake news headlines.
People who frequently engage in ‘persuasive bulls**tting’ – lies intended to impress or persuade others – were poor at identifying it (stock image)
‘It probably seems intuitive to believe that you can’t bulls**t a bulls**tter, but our research suggests that this isn’t actually the case,’ said study author Shane Littrell at the University of Waterloo in Canada.
‘In fact, it appears that the biggest purveyors of persuasive BS are ironically some of the ones most likely to fall for it.’
The study authors wanted to find out whether ‘those who frequently produce ‘BS’ are inoculated from its influence’.
Studies prior to this have been split – BS frequency has been negatively related to cognitive ability, suggesting that those who frequently engage in spouting BS may be more likely to fall for it.
However, separate research suggests individuals who frequently engage in deception are better at detecting it – suggesting frequent BSers may be less likely to fall for BS.
The researchers define BS as ‘information designed to impress, persuade or otherwise mislead people that is often constructed without concern for the truth’.
They also identify two types of bulls**tting – persuasive and evasive.
‘Persuasive’ uses misleading exaggerations and embellishments to impress, persuade or fit in with others.
‘Evasive’ involves giving irrelevant, evasive responses in situations where frankness might result in hurt feelings or reputational harm.
‘Persuasive’ bulls**tting is therefore more deliberate, cynical and arguably less forgivable than ‘evasive’ bulls**tting.
Littrell and his two colleagues conducted a series of studies with 826 participants from the US and Canada.
The team tested self-reported engagement in persuasive and evasive bulls**tting and their ratings of how profound, truthful, or accurate they found pseudo-profound and pseudo-scientific statements and fake news headlines.
It has been unclear whether those who frequently produce bullsh*t are ‘inoculated from its influence’
Participants rated the profundity of 10 randomly generated, grammatically correct, sentences that were constructed from abstract pseudo-profound buzzwords.
One such sentence was ‘We are in the midst of a high‐frequency blossoming of interconnectedness that will give us access to the quantum soup itself!’
Additionally, participants rated 10 items that represent intentionally profound or motivational quotes (such as ‘A river cuts through a rock, not because of its power but its persistence’).
‘Fake news!’ is one of Donald Trump’s favourite phrases. Frequent bullsh*tters are much more likely to fall for fake news headlines (file photo)
Participants also rated 10 statements that convey actual scientific truths such as ‘In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases’.
Finally, the volunteers completed measures of cognitive ability, metacognitive insight, intellectual overconfidence and reflective thinking.
The results revealed that persuasive bulls**tting was positively related to susceptibility to various types of misleading information.
‘We found that the more frequently someone engages in persuasive bulls**tting, the more likely they are to be duped by various types of misleading information regardless of their cognitive ability, engagement in reflective thinking, or metacognitive skills,’ Littrell said.
‘Persuasive BSers seem to mistake superficial profoundness for actual profoundness.
‘So, if something simply sounds profound, truthful, or accurate to them that means it really is. But evasive BSers were much better at making this distinction.’
The research may help shed light on the processes underlying the spread of some types of misinformation, which is especially proliferating on social media during the pandemic.
The study – delightfully entitled ‘You can’t bulls**t a bullsh*tter’ (or can you?): Bulls**tting frequency predicts receptivity to various types of misleading information’ – has been published in the British Journal of Social Psychology.