A new meta-analysis published in Applied Cognitive Psychology offers insight into why some people are more likely than others to be taken in by pseudo-profound statements—sentences that sound deep and meaningful but are essentially meaningless. The study found that receptivity to this type of language is more common among individuals with lower cognitive abilities and greater faith in intuition, and is also linked to stronger belief in the paranormal, conspiracy theories, and religion.
Pseudo-profound bullshit refers to statements that appear meaningful but don’t actually convey any real substance. These phrases are often grammatically correct and filled with abstract, inspirational words, but upon closer examination, they lack any concrete or verifiable content.
For example, the sentence “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty” might sound insightful, but it doesn’t actually say anything meaningful. The term gained attention after a 2015 study by Gordon Pennycook and colleagues, which found that some people consistently rate such statements as profound—even though they were generated using random buzzwords.
Since then, researchers have become increasingly interested in what makes someone more susceptible to these kinds of statements. In an age of information overload, distinguishing truth from nonsense is more important than ever. Pseudo-profound bullshit may seem harmless on the surface, but it can shape people’s beliefs in ways that promote misinformation, influence political attitudes, and even affect health behaviors.
To better understand who is most likely to fall for pseudo-profound bullshit, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis—a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies to identify patterns across a larger body of evidence. They analyzed 46 separate experiments drawn from 26 articles published between 2015 and 2023. The studies included more than 13,600 participants in total, with most of the data coming from Canada and the United States.
All of the included studies used variations of the Bullshit Receptivity Scale, which presents people with meaningless but syntactically correct statements and asks them to rate how profound they find each one. The researchers then looked at how responses on this scale were related to other variables, such as cognitive reflection, verbal intelligence, belief systems, and thinking styles.
The analysis revealed a consistent pattern: people who scored higher in receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, religious and paranormal claims, and had greater faith in intuition. These individuals also tended to score lower on measures of cognitive reflection, verbal intelligence, and mathematical ability.
Cognitive reflection, which refers to the ability to override intuitive but incorrect answers in favor of more deliberate reasoning, showed the strongest negative correlation with bullshit receptivity. In other words, people who are more reflective and analytical are less likely to fall for nonsense that sounds deep. Verbal intelligence and arithmetic skills also showed negative correlations, although these effects were somewhat smaller.
On the other hand, individuals who expressed stronger intuitive thinking tendencies—such as relying on gut feelings—were more likely to find pseudo-profound statements meaningful. They also tended to find mundane or motivational quotes more profound. These findings support the idea that some people have a general tendency to see depth and wisdom in all kinds of statements, regardless of their actual content.
Interestingly, people who were more prone to ontological confusions—such as believing that thoughts can influence physical objects—also rated pseudo-profound statements as more meaningful. This suggests that a blurry distinction between abstract and concrete concepts might play a role in how people assess meaning.
The researchers found that these relationships were generally consistent across the studies, though the strength of the effects varied. One of the most robust findings was the link between bullshit receptivity and motivational quotes. People who were more receptive to pseudo-profound bullshit were also more likely to find depth in simple, inspirational phrases, even if those phrases lacked substance.
Although the findings paint a fairly consistent picture, the authors caution that the data come with some limitations. Most of the studies were conducted in Western countries, primarily the United States and Canada, which means the results might not generalize to other cultural contexts. Additionally, the studies used slightly different versions of the bullshit receptivity measure, which could introduce inconsistencies.
Another limitation involves the measurement tools themselves. While widely used, the Bullshit Receptivity Scale and the Cognitive Reflection Test have been criticized for their reliability and for overlapping with other cognitive traits, such as numeracy. These concerns suggest that future research should aim to refine these tools and develop more precise ways to assess how people process ambiguous or misleading information.
Despite these limitations, the meta-analysis offers a comprehensive overview of what is currently known about bullshit receptivity and provides a foundation for future work. It shows that bullshit receptivity is not random but is meaningfully connected to individual cognitive differences and belief systems.
The authors suggest that future research could explore how different cultural, educational, or political environments shape bullshit receptivity. They also recommend that future studies look into whether interventions aimed at improving critical thinking skills could reduce susceptibility to pseudo-profound nonsense.
The study, “Relationship Between Bullshit, Cognitive Skills, and Belief Systems: A Meta-Analytic Review,” was authored by Geraldy Sepúlveda-Páez, Marcelo Leiva-Bianchi, Rodrigo Ferrer-Urbina, Javier Escudero-Pastén, and Fabiola Salas.
