Russian versions of measures for assessing core knowledge confusions and bullshit receptivity: Adaptation and validation
- 作者: Komyaginskaya E.S.1, Gallyamova A.A.1, Ocheret A.Y.1, Grigoryev D.S.1
-
隶属关系:
- HSE University
- 期: 卷 22, 编号 2 (2025)
- 页面: 268-288
- 栏目: CURRENT TRENDS IN PERSONALITY RESEARCH
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2313-1683/article/view/365328
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2025-22-2-268-288
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/VLBPOO
- ID: 365328
如何引用文章
全文:
详细
In the context of information overload and the spread of disinformation, the ability to discern truth and meaning becomes especially important. This study focuses on two reasoning errors — ontological confusion and receptivity to bullshit — that influence the formation of beliefs. The aim of the study was to adapt and validate Russian-language versions of two measurement instruments: Core Knowledge Confusions Scale developed by M. Lindeman and K. Aarnio, which assesses the ability to correctly distinguish between different ontological categories (such as physical objects, mental phenomena, and biological entities), and Bullshit Receptivity Scale created by A. Erlandsson and colleagues, which measures receptivity to pseudo-profound statements lacking real content. Their associations with cognitive abilities, motivational factors, and personality traits were examined. To ensure cultural appropriateness of the items, cognitive interviews were conducted. The study involved 1,268 respondents. Data analysis using Item Response Theory models and multiple regression demonstrated the reliability and validity of both instruments in the Russian context. The results revealed that core knowledge confusions were positively associated with receptivity to bullshit, as well as with belief in the paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. Verbal intelligence negatively predicted both reasoning errors, whereas extraversion was a positive predictor. Need for structure was positively related to core knowledge confusions, while need for meaning was positively related to receptivity to bullshit. Among sociodemographic factors, educational level was negatively associated with core knowledge confusions, whereas older age and male gender were negatively associated with receptivity to bullshit. These findings highlight the significant role of cognitive and motivational factors in information processing and belief formation, and may have practical implications for developing educational strategies aimed at enhancing critical thinking and information literacy.
作者简介
Elizaveta Komyaginskaya
HSE University
编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: ekomyaginskaya@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8841-1722
SPIN 代码: 4854-0374
Researcher ID: HII-5216-2022
Research Intern, Center for Sociocultural Research
20 Myasnitskaya St, Moscow, 101000, Russian FederationAlbina Gallyamova
HSE University
Email: aagallyamova@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8775-7289
SPIN 代码: 6639-2529
Scopus 作者 ID: 58182813400
Researcher ID: GLV-6876-2022
Junior Research Fellow, Center for Sociocultural Research
20 Myasnitskaya St, Moscow, 101000, Russian FederationAnna Ocheret
HSE University
Email: ayuocheret@edu.hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0000-6540-5322
Researcher ID: JPL-1952-2023
Student, Faculty of Social Sciences
20 Myasnitskaya St, Moscow, 101000, Russian FederationDmitry Grigoryev
HSE University
Email: dgrigoryev@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4511-7942
SPIN 代码: 1807-9739
Scopus 作者 ID: 57191706675
Researcher ID: K-3338-2015
PhD, Research Fellow, Center for Sociocultural Research
20 Myasnitskaya St, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation参考
- Akimova, M.K., Borisova, E.M., Kozlova, V.T., Loginova, G.P., & Gurevich, K.M. (1993). Guide to using the R. Amthauer Intelligenz-Struktur-Test. Obninsk: Obninsk Psychological and Physiological Center “Detstvo”. (In Russ.)
- Bainbridge, T.F., Quinlan, J.A., Mar, R.A., & Smillie, L.D. (2019). Openness/intellect and susceptibility to pseudo–profound bullshit: A replication and extension. European Journal of Personality, 33(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2176
- Barber, J. (2014). Believing in a purpose of events: Cross-cultural evidence of confusions in core knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 432–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3003
- Betsch, T., Aßmann, L., & Glöckner, A. (2020). Paranormal beliefs and individual differences: Story seeking without reasoned review. Heliyon, 6(6), e04259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04259
- Čavojová, V., Brezina, I., & Jurkovič, M. (2022). Expanding the bullshit research out of pseudo-transcendental domain. Current Psychology, 41(2), 827–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00617-3
- Čavojová, V., Secară, E., Jurkovič, M., & Šrol, J. (2019). Reception and willingness to share pseudo-profound bullshit and their relation to other epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive ability in Slovakia and Romania. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3486
- Chalmers, R.P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
- Cronbach, L.J., & Gleser, G.C. (1964). The signal/noise ratio in the comparison of reliability coefficients. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(3), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446402400303
- Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A., Tinghög, G., & Västfjäll, D. (2018). Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE, 13(7), e0201474. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201474
- Fasce, A., Avendaño, D., & Adrián-Ventura, J. (2021). Revised and short versions of the pseudoscientific belief scale. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(3), 828–832. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3811
- Grigoryev, D.S. (2015). Russian adaptation and validation of Tobacyk’s revised Paranormal Belief Scale. Social Psychology and Society, 6(2), 132–145. (In Russ.)
- Grigoryev, D., & Gallyamova, A. (2023). Social worldviews predict the general factor of paranormal and generic conspiracist beliefs. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 26, e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2023.18
- Lindeman, M. (2011). Biases in intuitive reasoning and belief in complementary and alternative medicine. Psychology & Health, 26(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440903440707
- Lindeman, M., & Aarnio, K. (2007). Superstitious, magical, and paranormal beliefs: An integrative model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.009
- Lindeman, M., & Svedholm-Häkkinen, A.M. (2016). Does poor understanding of physical world predict religious and paranormal beliefs? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(5), 736–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3248
- Lindeman, M., Cederstrom, S., Simola, P., Simula, A., Ollikainen, S., & Riekki, T. (2008). Sentences with core knowledge violations increase the size of N400 among paranormal believers. Cortex, 44(10), 1307–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2007.07.010
- Lindeman, M., Svedholm, A.M., Takada, M., Lönnqvist, J.-E., & Verkasalo, M. (2009). Core knowledge confusions among university students. Science & Education, 20(5–6), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9210-x
- Lindeman, M., Svedholm-Häkkinen, A.M., & Lipsanen, J. (2015). Ontological confusions but not mentalizing abilities predict religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in supernatural purpose. Cognition, 134, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.09.008
- Lindeman, M., Svedholm-Häkkinen, A.M., & Riekki, T.J.J. (2023). Searching for the cognitive basis of anti-vaccination attitudes. Thinking & Reasoning, 29(1), 111–136. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2022.2046158
- Lobato, E., Mendoza, J., Sims, V., & Chin, M. (2014). Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3042
- Mishkevich A., Shchebetenko S., Kalugin A., Soto C., & John O.P. (2022). The short and extra-short forms of the Russian version of the Big Five Inventory-2: BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 43(1), 95–108. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S020595920017744-4
- Neuberg, S.L., & Newsom, J.T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simpler structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.113
- Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J.A., Barr, N., Koehler, D.J., & Fugelsang, J.A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500006999
- Riekki, T., Lindeman, M., & Lipsanen, J. (2013). Conceptions about the mind-body problem and their relations to afterlife beliefs, paranormal beliefs, religiosity, and ontological confusions. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0138-5
- Schöpfer, C., Abatista, A.G.F., Fuhrer, J., & Cova, F. (2023). ‘Where there are villains, there will be heroes’: Belief in conspiracy theories as an existential tool to fulfill need for meaning. Personality and Individual Differences, 200, 111900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111900
- Svedholm, A.M., & Lindeman, M. (2013). The separate roles of the reflective mind and involuntary inhibitory control in gatekeeping paranormal beliefs and the underlying intuitive confusions. British Journal of Psychology, 104(3), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02118.x
- Willis, G.B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983655
补充文件

