A study of 10,000 individuals from 24 countries has revealed that pseudo-profound bullshit statements attributed to scientific authorities are deemed more credible compared to the same statements attributed to spiritual gurus. This research was published in Nature Human Behaviour.
Prior studies have demonstrated that statement credibility is influenced by the perceived credibility of the person who shares it. This makes evolutionary sense, given that deferring to credible authorities (e.g., teachers, doctors, scientists) has proven effective in cultural learning and knowledge transmission. People are more likely to believe claims that come from trusted experts. Suzanne Hoogeveen and colleagues call this the Einstein effect, writing “people simply accept that E = mc2 and that antibiotics can help cure pneumonia because credible authorities such as Einstein and their doctor say so, without actually understanding what these statements truly entail.”
Combining a credible source with intangible information (i.e., pseudo-profound bullshit or ‘gobbledegook’) can increase the likelihood that obscure information is accepted by enhancing readers’ reliance on the source. Some studies suggest there are individual differences in perceived credibility of both content and source (e.g., political ideology, religion). For example, if it is not possible to rationally evaluate a claim, but there is reliable source information, one can infer the credibility of the statement based on their beliefs about the group the source belongs to (e.g., conservatives, scientists). “In this process, similarities between one’s own worldview and that of the source’s group may serve as a proxy for being a benevolent and reliable source,” write the authors.
The current study examined whether 1) trust in scientific authorities (vs. spiritual gurus) is a general heuristic, and 2) the extent to which one’s religiosity predicts their confidence in the truth of pseudo-profound bullshit statements from both types of sources.
A total of 10,195 participants from 24 countries were included in this work. Countries were selected to cover six continents, as well as different ethnic and religious majorities, and highly secular societies. The experimental stimuli included two pseudo-profound bullshit statements (generated via the New Age Bullshit Generator) that were attributed to either a scientist or spiritual guru. The researchers created two versions of the statement, by manipulating 1) the background of the statement (i.e., new age purple galaxy background vs. dark green chalkboard with physics equations), 2) the accompanying grey-scale photo of the alleged source (i.e., José Argüelles in robes vs. Enrico Fermi in a suit), and 3) the profession of the source (i.e., spiritual leader vs. scientist).
In the introductory text, the sources were presented with fictitious names, either “‘Saul J. Adrian—a spiritual authority in world religions’” or “‘Edward K. Leal—a scientific authority in the field of particle physics’”. Participants provided ratings of their perceived importance and credibility of the pseudo-profound bullshit, on a 7-point scale ranging from not at all important/credible to extremely important/credible. Participants also responded to questions about religiosity (e.g., church attendance, prayer), body-mind dualism, quality of life, and demographics.
Hoogeveen and colleagues found that across all 24 countries and all levels of religiosity, pseudo-profound bullshit attributed to a scientist was rated as more credible compared to the same statement attributed to a spiritual guru. Participants’ background beliefs predicted these evaluations, such that those scoring lower on religiosity rated the statement attributed to a guru (vs. scientist) as less credible; however, this difference was smaller for highly religious participants.
This pattern was consistent with independent data of over 100,000 individuals from 143 countries, where people indicated greater trust in scientists than traditional healers; likewise, there was a larger difference for non-religious (vs. religious) individuals. Importantly, these findings were robust against various inclusion criteria (e.g., attention checks) and analytic choices.
The researchers conclude, “By systematically quantifying the difference between acceptance of statements by a scientific and spiritual authority in a global sample, this work addresses the fundamental question of how people trust what others say about the world.”
The study, “The Einstein effect provides global evidence for scientific source credibility effects and the influence of religiosity”, was authored by Suzanne Hoogeveen, Julia M. Haaf, Joseph A. Bulbulia, Robert M. Ross, Ryan McKay, Sacha Altay, Theiss Bendixen, Renatas Berniūnas, Arik Cheshin, Claudio Gentili, Raluca Georgescu, Will M. Gervais, Kristin Hage, Christopher Kavanagh, Neil Levy, Alejandra Neely, Lin Qiu, André Rabelo, Jonathan E. Ramsay, Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Hugh Turpin, Filip Uzarevic, Robin Wuyts, Dimitris Xygalatas and Michiel van Elk.
