Schiztoypy, Pseudo-Profound Bullshit, and the expression of Science Scepticism

The current study investigated how individual differences in schizotypy and the endorsement of pseudo-profound bullshit predict scepticism of scientific research reported in the media. In two samples (N= 330, and N= 320) we used a planned missing design, where participants were presented with three of nine media summaries reporting on a piece of scientific research. Participants were asked to report if they were sceptical about each story and the reasons why they were sceptical (or not). They also completed the Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences (OLIFE-B) measuring schizotypy and the Pseudo-profound bullshit scale (PPBS), measuring the endorsement of statements that sound profound but are meaningless. In our preregistered analysis, we found no evidence to suggest that the OLIFE-B or PPBS predict variance in decisions about scepticism. We did find evidence that high scorers on the Unusual Experiences subscale of the OLIFE-B and scores on the PPBS predicted a willingness to change behaviour in response to the stories presented. In the open responses low scores in Unusual Experiences predicted a theme of needing more information before judging scepticism. Our findings highlighted the diverse ways in which participants express scepticism or not and future work should consider how reasoning offers insight to scepticism forming processes.