↓ Skip to main content

Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
454 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
5 Google+ users
reddit
11 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0201474
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arvid Erlandsson, Artur Nilsson, Gustav Tinghög, Daniel Västfjäll

Abstract

Bullshit-sensitivity is the ability to distinguish pseudo-profound bullshit sentences (e.g. "Your movement transforms universal observations") from genuinely profound sentences (e.g. "The person who never made a mistake never tried something new"). Although bullshit-sensitivity has been linked to other individual difference measures, it has not yet been shown to predict any actual behavior. We therefore conducted a survey study with over a thousand participants from a general sample of the Swedish population and assessed participants' bullshit-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven bullshit sentences) and profoundness-receptivity (i.e. their perceived meaningfulness of seven genuinely profound sentences), and used these variables to predict two types of prosocial behavior (self-reported donations and a decision to volunteer for charity). Despite bullshit-receptivity and profoundness-receptivity being positively correlated with each other, logistic regression analyses showed that profoundness-receptivity had a positive association whereas bullshit-receptivity had a negative association with both types of prosocial behavior. These relations held up for the most part when controlling for potentially intermediating factors such as cognitive ability, time spent completing the survey, sex, age, level of education, and religiosity. The results suggest that people who are better at distinguishing the pseudo-profound from the actually profound are more prosocial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 454 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 12%
Researcher 11 10%
Lecturer 7 6%
Other 27 24%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 34%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 33 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 400. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2023.
All research outputs
#76,405
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#1,271
of 224,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,500
of 341,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#19
of 3,312 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,312 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.