IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v14y2019i2p109-119_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Finding meaning in the clouds: Illusory pattern perception predicts receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit

Author

Listed:
  • Walker, Alexander C.
  • Turpin, Martin Harry
  • Stolz, Jennifer A.
  • Fugelsang, Jonathan A.
  • Koehler, Derek J.

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated a link between illusory pattern perception and various irrational beliefs. On this basis, we hypothesized that participants who displayed greater degrees of illusory pattern perception would also be more likely to rate pseudo-profound bullshit statements as profound. We find support for this prediction across three experiments (N = 627) and four distinct measures of pattern perception. We further demonstrate that this observed relation is restricted to illusory pattern perception, with participants displaying greater endorsement of non-illusory patterns being no more likely to rate pseudo-profound bullshit statements as profound. Additionally, this relation is not a product of a general proclivity to rate all statements as profound and is not accounted for by individual differences in analytic thinking. Overall, we demonstrate that individuals with a tendency to go beyond the available data such that they uncritically endorse patterns where no patterns exist are also more likely to create and endorse false-meaning in meaningless pseudo-profound statements. These findings are discussed in the context of a proposed framework that views individuals’ receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit as, in part, an unfortunate consequence of an otherwise adaptive process: that of pattern perception.

Suggested Citation

  • Walker, Alexander C. & Turpin, Martin Harry & Stolz, Jennifer A. & Fugelsang, Jonathan A. & Koehler, Derek J., 2019. "Finding meaning in the clouds: Illusory pattern perception predicts receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 109-119, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:109-119_1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029750000334X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:109-119_1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.