The peer-reviewed science behind the Bullshit Scale
About this page
The Bullshit Scale is not a vibes-based classifier. Every detection dimension — and its relative weight in the final score — is grounded in peer-reviewed cognitive science research on pseudo-profound bullshit detection.
The seven papers below are the direct sources for our methodology. Each listing includes a DOI link (stable academic reference) and, where available, an open-access link so you can read the full paper without a journal subscription.
How dimensions map to papers
Each paper entry lists the detection dimensions it informs. The coloured tags below correspond directly to the dimension breakdown shown on your analysis results.
2015
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A.
Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), pp. 549–563
Abstract
The foundational empirical study on pseudo-profound bullshit. The authors introduced the Bullshit Receptivity (BSR) scale and demonstrated that randomly generated but syntactically correct statements (e.g., "Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena") can be rated as profound. Propensity to accept bullshit correlates with intuitive thinking, supernatural belief, and lower cognitive reflection.
Why it's in the scale
Established the empirical framework for this field. Defines pseudo-profound bullshit as "seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous." Provides the conceptual anchor for our Semantic Coherence and Pseudo-Profundity dimensions.
2016
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A.
Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), pp. 123–125
Abstract
A reply extending the 2015 framework to address scientific bullshit specifically — the misuse of scientific and technical terminology to create a false appearance of credibility. Shows that the same individuals susceptible to pseudo-profound bullshit are also susceptible to scientific bullshit.
Why it's in the scale
Grounds our Jargon Misuse dimension. Identifies how borrowed scientific vocabulary ("quantum," "energy," "frequency") functions to signal unearned authority, and why misuse of domain terminology is a reliable bullshit marker.
2021
Littrell, S., Risko, E. F., & Fugelsang, J. A.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(4), pp. 1484–1514
Abstract
Develops and validates the Bullshitting Frequency Scale (BFS), distinguishing two types of bullshitting: persuasive (attempting to impress) and evasive (attempting to avoid truth). Frequent bullshitters are more receptive to bullshit. Grounds bullshitting in Frankfurt's (1986) concept of truth-indifference.
Why it's in the scale
Provides the empirical basis for our Truth Orientation dimension. The persuasive/evasive distinction maps directly onto detectable language patterns: evasive bullshit uses strategic vagueness; persuasive bullshit makes bold, unsubstantiated claims.
2024
Nilsson, A., Erlandsson, A., & Västfjäll, D.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Abstract
Two pre-registered studies (N = 150; N = 986) investigating the relationship between political ideology and bullshit receptivity across New Age, financial, corporate, postmodern, and ideological domains. Social conservative values show robust associations with higher receptivity. Ideologically congenial bullshit is accepted more readily across the political spectrum.
Why it's in the scale
Demonstrates that bullshit receptivity is domain-spanning and ideologically inflected. Informs our understanding of how ideologically framed but vacuous claims (tribal signaling without substance) operate — relevant context for our Vagueness and Truth Orientation scoring.
2019
Bainbridge, T. G., Quinlan, J. A., Mar, R. A., & Smillie, L. D.
European Journal of Personality, 33(1), pp. 72–88
Abstract
A replication and extension examining personality correlates of bullshit receptivity, focusing on Openness/Intellect. Finds that the Intellect facet (cognitive engagement, analytical reasoning) strongly predicts lower bullshit receptivity, while intuitive thinking style increases susceptibility. Confirms that analytical thinking is a protective factor.
Why it's in the scale
Grounds our Logical Consistency dimension. Text that is designed to bypass analytical scrutiny — relying on fallacies, circular reasoning, or emotional resonance over logical structure — exploits exactly the intuitive-thinking vulnerability this research identifies.
2021
Turpin, M. H., Walker, A. C., Kara-Yakoubian, M., Gabert, N. N., Fugelsang, J. A., & Stolz, J. A.
Evolutionary Psychology, 19(2)
Abstract
Demonstrates that the ability to produce convincing bullshit correlates positively with general cognitive ability — paradoxically, smarter people are better at constructing convincing bullshit even though they are less receptive to it. This "honest signal" finding distinguishes production ability from receptivity.
Why it's in the scale
Contextualises our scoring calibration: sophisticated, high-quality bullshit is harder to detect. The detector is designed to identify structural markers (semantic vacuity, jargon misuse, vagueness) that remain detectable even in well-constructed bullshit.
1986
Frankfurt, H. G.
Raritan Quarterly Review, 6(2), pp. 81–100
Abstract
The foundational philosophical treatise distinguishing bullshit from lying. A liar opposes the truth; a bullshitter is indifferent to it. This truth-indifference — not caring whether claims are true or false, only whether they achieve a desired effect — is the defining characteristic of bullshit.
Why it's in the scale
Provides the philosophical backbone of the entire framework. Frankfurt's truth-indifference concept directly grounds our Truth Orientation dimension and explains why bullshit detection is a distinct problem from lie detection.
Citation format
If you use this tool in academic work, the relevant citations are listed above. The foundational reference for our overall framework is: