Bullshitting Beats Lying: New Experiments Show Repetition Makes Indifferent Talk More Persuasive

Researchers led by John V. Petrocelli of Wake Forest University published a paper in *Current Psychology* that demonstrates people judge statements from a “bullshitter” as more truthful than identical statements from a known liar. Across three experiments with a total of 815 undergraduate participants, the team found that repeated exposure to false claims labeled as coming from a source indifferent to truth produced a robust illusory-truth effect, whereas the same repetition had little impact when the source was identified as a liar.

Psypost

The work tests philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s 1986 “insidious bullshit hypothesis,” which argues that society’s tolerance for truth-indifferent communication may erode public knowledge more than outright deception. Prior research had shown a “sleeper effect” in consumer attitudes toward a fictitious gluten-free pizza when the advertiser was labeled a bullshitter rather than a liar, suggesting that indifference to facts can have delayed persuasive power.

Psypost

• John V. Petrocelli – Psychology professor, Wake Forest University; principal investigator and author of the book *The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit*.

Psypost

• Elijah N. Rice – Co-author, contributed to experimental design and data analysis.

Psypost

• Joseph M. Curran – Co-author, assisted with methodology and manuscript preparation.

Psypost

1. Experiment 1 (N = 204) – Participants rated 42 statements (half true, half false) attributed to an “average person,” a “liar,” or a “bullshitter.” Statements from the bullshitter received higher truth ratings than the same statements from the liar.

Psypost

2. Experiment 2 (N = 293) – After an initial exposure phase (some statements shown once, others twice), participants received either a pre-exposure warning or a post-exposure warning about the source’s intent. Post-exposure warnings failed to diminish the illusory-truth effect for bullshitter-labeled statements, while they neutralized the effect for liar-labeled statements.

Psypost

3. Experiment 3 (N = 318) – Identical to Experiment 2 but with an explicit 50 % false-statement rate across all conditions. The same pattern persisted, confirming that equal deception frequencies do not eliminate the advantage of truth-indifferent sources.

Psypost

The findings suggest that conventional fact-checking strategies, which often focus on detecting outright lies, may be insufficient against communication that simply disregards accuracy. In digital environments where content is repeatedly shared, bullshitting can silently amplify falsehoods, posing a distinct challenge for media-literacy programs and platform moderation policies.

Psypost

Petrocelli emphasized that the results capture a specific cognitive mechanism—repetition-driven belief formation—rather than a full validation of Frankfurt’s broader philosophical claim. He noted the study’s reliance on neutral trivia statements and highlighted the need to test emotionally charged, real-world misinformation.

Psypost

The authors acknowledge two primary caveats: (1) the operational definition of “bullshitter” was limited to a label rather than observable truth-indifferent behavior, and (2) the experimental material consisted of low-stakes trivia, which may not generalize to politically or health-related misinformation. No external critiques were presented in the source material.

Psypost

• “We’d already found that people evaluate bullshitting less harshly than lying, consistent with Frankfurt’s (1986) essay,” — John V. Petrocelli, psychology professor, Wake Forest University

Psypost

• “Just that the labels themselves turned out to matter less than we expected, it wasn’t simply that ‘bullshitter’ sounds better than ‘liar’,” — John V. Petrocelli

Psypost

• “When people were warned before exposure that some information might be bullshit or lies, the illusory truth effect was largely neutralized across the board.” — John V. Petrocelli

Psypost

• “The instinct to relax your guard around someone who’s ‘just talking out of their hat’ rather than deliberately lying to you is exactly backwards,” — John V. Petrocelli

Psypost

• “Our manipulation relied on labeling someone a ‘bullshitter’ or ‘liar’ via source instructions, not on demonstrably truth-indifferent behavior itself,” — John V. Petrocelli

Psypost

Petrocelli’s team plans to extend the paradigm to emotionally salient political and health claims, examine longer-term belief retention, and explore interventions—such as platform-level cues or targeted media-literacy training—that specifically address truth-indifferent communication.

Psypost