Russian versions of measures for assessing core knowledge confusions and bullshit receptivity: Adaptation and validation

Le résumé fourni par la source

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.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.