Economic subjects | Studies, essays, thesises » Shane Littrell - The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale, Development, validation, and associations with workplace outcomes

CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale: Development, validation, and associations with workplace outcomes Shane Littrell1,2 1 2 Department of Government, Cornell University Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto This is the pre-print version of a peer-reviewed article published by Elsevier in Personality and Individual Differences, available online at: https://doi.org/101016/jpaid2026113699 When citing, please cite the published version: Littrell, S. (2026) The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale: Development, validation, and associations with workplace outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 255, 113699 https://doi.org/101016/jpaid2026113699 Author Note Shane Littrell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8440-7742 Shane Littrell is now at the Department of Government, Cornell University. Data, analysis code, and additional study materials are available on the Open Science Framework page associated with

this project: VIEW ONLY LINK FOR REVIEW. The author declares no known conflict of interest. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shane Littrell, Cornell University, 214 White Hall, 123 Central Ave, Ithaca, NY 14850. Email: shanelittrell@cornelledu, shanelittrell@utorontoca CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE Abstract From boardrooms and brown bags to emails and earnings calls, business culture often seems overrun by “corporate bullshit,” a semantically empty and often confusing style of communication in organizational contexts that leverages abstruse corporate buzzwords and jargon in a functionally misleading way. At best, corporate bullshit can sometimes seem harmless. At worst, it can disrupt organizational and employee effectiveness in numerous ways including obstructing clear communication, increasing employee disengagement, tarnishing a company’s reputation, and exposing businesses to potential financial and legal risks. Here, results from four

studies (total N = 1018) report the construction and validation of the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), a novel measure of individual differences in susceptibility to corporate bullshit. Results show that corporate bullshit receptivity is distinct from a general affinity for corporate speech, negatively associated with measures of analytic thinking, and positively related with other bullshit-related constructs in theoretically-consistent ways. Importantly, corporate bullshit receptivity is positively associated with several workplace perception variables and is a robust negative predictor of work-related decision-making. Overall, the findings establish the CBSR as a valid and reliable tool to aid researchers and practitioners in examining the causes, correlates, and consequences of receptivity to bullshit in organizations. Keywords: Corporate Bullshit; Bullshit Receptivity; Organizational Communication; Impression management; Job Performance CORPORATE BULLSHIT

RECEPTIVITY SCALE 3 The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale: Development, validation, and associations with workplace outcomes “The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished.” 1 With its reliance on inscrutable neologisms such as “growth-hacking,” “thought showers,” and “customer-differentiated value proposition,” modern business culture often seems saturated with a unique style of seemingly incoherent, buzzword-heavy speech that impedes clear communication and disrupts operations. Although terms like twaddle, “corporate claptrap,” and “jargon monoxide” have previously been used to describe this mode of speech (Clark, 2024; Kellaway, 2017; Sutton, 2010), it is arguably best characterized as a specific category of bullshit. Some may view this jargon-heavy “corporate bullshit” as harmless or even occasionally advantageous, but preliminary work suggests that it often negatively impacts organizations in numerous ways

including hindering effective communication, increasing employee disengagement, tarnishing a company’s reputation and, in more extreme cases, potentially exposing businesses to legitimate financial and legal risks (Christensen et al., 2019; McCarthy et al., 2020; Pontefract, 2023; Spicer, 2020) Consequently, it is vital that researchers, practitioners, and business leaders become better able to identify and assess the extent that corporate bullshit exists within organizations and understand the ways in which susceptibility to its influence can negatively impact organizational outcomes. What bullshit is Broadly defined, bullshit is a type of semantically, logically, or epistemically dubious information that is misleadingly impressive, important, informative, or otherwise engaging. In recent years, the nature, prevalence, and consequences of bullshit have emerged from philosophical and linguistic debate to become topics of rigorous scientific inquiry (e.g, Littrell et al, 2021a, 2024;

Pennycook et al, 2015; 1 Though this quote is often attributed online to George Bernard Shaw, there appears to be no substantive evidence that he ever said it (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/08/31/illusion/) CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 4 Petrocelli, 2018). For example, Frankfurt (2005, 2006) offered a process-oriented account of bullshitting (the act), describing it as an attempt to manipulate others that is characterized by indifference to truth (contrasted with lying, which typically requires tracking the truth to subvert it). Alternatively, Cohen’s (2002) output-oriented model identified a type of obfuscatory, “unclarifiably unclear” bullshit (the type of information) intended to impress or persuade that is excessively jargony, pretentious, and difficult to understand (e.g, Fabrizio & Kim, 2019; Kellaway, 2013) More recently, Cova (2024) highlighted “truthtracking bullshit,” which uses technically (but trivially) true florid embellishments to

create a misleadingly inflated impression of interestingness or relevance. At the core of each of these definitions is the idea that bullshit – no matter the type – superficially and misleadingly seems more impressive, important, or informative than it actually is. Bullshit misleads and obscures with a veneer of smartsounding fluff; it is noise masquerading as insight Bullshit is unique from similar modes of speech (e.g, jargon) in that it is both functionally misleading and epistemically irresponsible. “Functionally misleading” means that bullshit has the practical effect of misleading a significant portion of its audience regardless of its epistemic content or the intentions of its source; it misleads in practice by how it functions when communicated. Bullshit is “epistemically irresponsible” in that it is linguistically constructed (and often delivered) to sound superficially smart, impressive, or otherwise persuasive without genuinely being accurate, meaningful, or

informative. These elements reflect what bullshit does in practice (its effect or role in communication), not what the speaker meant or believed when they communicated it. As such, bullshit can be spread unintentionally (e.g, a person mistakenly believes some health misinformation on social media and then reposts it out of concern for others) or intentionally (e.g, via bullshitting2) to further a covert goal like increasing one’s status among peers, managing social impressions, avoiding harm, or 2 Bullshitting is the intentional, goal-oriented leveraging of bullshit to manipulate or otherwise mislead others in a way that falls short of lying (Littrell et al., 2021a) CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 5 influencing attitudes and opinions in a preferred direction (Blötner & Bergold, 2023; Littrell et al., 2021a, 2021b; Petrocelli et al., 2024) Bullshit versus jargon Bullshit should not be confused with jargon, which refers to socially-learned words, expressions, or

acronyms used purposefully in a particular industry or professional group that may be difficult for outsiders to understand (Brown et al., 2020, 2021) Though sometimes confusing to out-group members, jargon can often facilitate communication and social bonding, increase fluency, and help reinforce a shared identity among in-group members when used appropriately (Brown et al., 2020, 2021; Fiset et al., 2024; Weirup & Taylor, 2024) Bullshit in the workplace is often constructed to mimic an organization’s jargon-forward communication style but in an epistemically irresponsible, functionally misleading way (e.g, “You have to appreciate that the milestones we have set in these swim lanes provide a road map for this flow chart”; Kellaway, 2013). As such, corporate bullshit represents a specific type of bullshit formally defined here as a semantically empty and often confusing style of communication in organizational contexts that leverages abstruse corporate buzzwords and jargon in

a functionally misleading way. Bullshit in organizations Organizational environments provide fertile ground for the spread of bullshit such as: 1) performance feedback where vague or obscure language might be used to navigate uncomfortable conversations, 2) group meetings where individuals feel obligated to share an opinion despite lacking knowledge, 3) individual attempts to impress supervisors and/or coworkers, 4) hazy corporate mission statements designed to craft a noble public image, 5) and routine organizational messaging such as shareholder calls and jargon-heavy annual reports (Alegre et al., 2018; Kiazad et al, 2025; Littrell et al, 2021b; McCarthy et al., 2020; Spicer, 2017; Whitman, 2025) People are more likely to spread bullshit (e.g, bullshitting) at work when they believe it will benefit them, the organization, or both (Kiazad et al, CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 6 2025; McCarthy et al., 2020; Whitman, 2025) As such, corporate bullshit is often used for

persuasion and impression management purposes, specifically to create inflated perceptions of the knowledge, skills, status, accomplishments, ideas, or agenda of oneself or the organization (Brown et al., 2020, 2021; Kiazad et al., 2025; Littrell et al, 2021a; Spicer, 2017; Whitman, 2025) In organizational settings, bullshit can function as a false signal of knowledge, competence, status, and/or authority (Brown et al., 2020; Connelly et al, 2010; Turpin et al, 2021; Whitman, 2025) For example, an employee hoping to move up the corporate ladder may attempt to create misleadingly positive and inflated impressions of his business acumen by frequently using impressive-sounding – but largely incomprehensible – buzzwords and jargon in conversations and meetings (e.g, Brown et al, 2020, 2021; Christensen et al., 2019; Kiazad et al, 2025; Spicer, 2017, 2020) In other situations, bullshit can be used to deflect, distract, or shift blame and/or attention in an advantageous direction

(Fabrizio & Kim, 2019; Kiazad et al., 2025; Littrell et al, 2021a, 2021b; McCarthy et al, 2020; Spicer, 2017) For instance, an anxious CEO might try to divert stakeholder attention away from upcoming layoffs or disappointing revenue figures with exaggerated or disingenuous claims of future growth steeped in vague and convoluted corporate language (e.g, Prately, 2014; Roose, 2014) Such behavior may eventually lead to reputational and financial harm to the company and, in extreme cases, legal penalties (e.g, Healy & Palepu, 2003; McCarthy et al, 2020; Williams, 2022) Receptivity to bullshit Corporate bullshit can only thrive in organizational environments where at least some people are receptive to it. Bullshit receptivity refers to a person’s tendency to evaluate bullshit in an inflated, positive way, such as finding it especially profound, important, informative, etc. (Evans et al, 2020; Littrell et al., 2024; Pennycook et al, 2015; Petrocelli et al, 2024) Put another way, it

reflects the extent a person overvalues (i.e, “falls for”) some particular type of bullshit Validated measures of receptivity exist for various types of bullshit including pseudo-profound, pseudo-scientific, and political (e.g, Evans CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 7 et al., 2020; Gligorić et al, 2022; Pennycook et al, 2015) Previous research suggests that various forms of bullshit receptivity are supported – at least in part – by “reflexive open-mindedness,” a sort of credulous gullibility toward a wide variety of claims, particularly weak ones (Pennycook & Rand, 2020). As such, bullshit receptivity is often regarded as playing an important role in reasoning and decisionmaking in certain contexts. Bullshit receptivity is linked to a lower analytic thinking, insight, verbal ability, general knowledge, metacognition, and intelligence (Littrell & Fugelsang, 2024; Littrell et al., 2021b; Pennycook et al., 2015; Salvi et al, 2023) It also predicts certain

types of poor decision-making and a greater proclivity to both endorse and spread fake news, conspiracy theories, and other epistemically-suspect claims (Čavojová et al., 2019; Iacobucci & De Cicco, 2022; Littrell et al, 2024; Pennycook & Rand, 2020) Because cognitive and decisional deficits are also tied to problematic workplace performance (Anseel et al., 2009; Sackett et al, 2022; Webster et al, 2020), employees higher in corporate bullshit receptivity may individually or collectively undermine organizational effectiveness (Spicer, 2013, 2020; Whitman, 2025). Individual differences in bullshit receptivity can sometimes be highly sensitive to contextual influences. For example, Turpin and colleagues (2019) found that undergraduate students rated paintings with randomly generated pseudo-profound “bullshit” titles as more profound and appealing than those with mundane titles. In contrast, Urbanek et al (2025) found that bullshit titles had little effect on the perceptions

of regular art gallery visitors at a real exhibit. Moreover, Littrell et al (2024) showed that people are significantly more receptive to bullshit when it comes from subject-matter authorities. Finally, Majima et al (2022) showed that the underlying mechanisms influencing receptivity to various types of bullshit appear to differ across cultures. These cumulative findings show that bullshit receptivity often depends on both individual and contextual factors like the type of bullshit, the setting, topic familiarity, prior exposure, and source. Thus, a person’s receptivity to one type of bullshit in one CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 8 context (e.g, pseudo-profound bullshit in a high-end art exhibit) may not reliably predict their receptivity to a different type of bullshit in another context (e.g, corporate bullshit in an office environment). In conclusion, while corporate bullshit may sometimes seem useful for managing professional or organizational reputations, boosting

confidence in oneself or others, or persuading reluctant employees or stakeholders to pursue some course of action (Christensen et al., 2019; Fabrizio & Kim, 2019; Littrell et al., 2021b; Spicer, 2020; Walker, 2022), it can also harm leaders’ credibility, lower employee morale, and expose organizations to financial, reputational, or legal risks (Christensen et al., 2019; McCarthy et al., 2020; Pontefract, 2023; Spicer, 2013) As such, identifying its prevalence and appeal within an organization is crucial for minimizing these threats and promoting employee and company success. Therefore, the present investigation aims to construct and validate a novel measure of individual differences in corporate bullshit receptivity and demonstrate its utility for predicting workplace outcomes. Present investigation The following sections report results focused on the construction and validation of the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), a new tool designed to measure individual

differences in receptivity to corporate bullshit. Methodological and statistical approaches in each study are based on “best practice” recommendations from the extensive literature on scale development (e.g, Boateng et al., 2018; Colquitt et al, 2019; Furr, 2011) All studies received ethics clearance from Cornell University (Protocol #IRB0149267) except study 4, which received committee review and approval from the Research Ethics Board (REB) at the University of Toronto (Protocol #46549). All surveys were hosted online using Qualtrics survey management software. All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 17 with the exception of the factor analyses which were conducted using Jamovi v2.75 Analyses were CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 9 not preregistered; however, all materials, data, and reproducible analysis code for all studies are publicly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/jtm5x/overview Study 1 – Scale Construction Method

Participants Responses were collected from 329 English-speaking adult participants in the United States and Canada using Cloudresearch Connect’s online participant recruitment service (Hartman et al., 2023) Recruitment was restricted to individuals who: 1) are currently employed full or part time, 2) report to a direct supervisor, and 3) have been in the workforce for at least 1 year. Data from 26 participants was removed for not completing the survey and two more were removed because Google’s reCAPTCHA v3 bot detection protocols flagged them as potential non-human respondents. This left responses from 301 participants for analysis3 (151 men, 144 women, 6 another gender; Mage = 38.07, SDage = 1094, MINage = 18, MAXage = 80, bachelor’s degree or higher = 59.47%) Participants were paid USD $175 for the approximately 10-minute survey. Procedure After reading an informed consent letter, those who agreed to participate answered demographic questions (e.g, age, gender, education,

income) followed by the remainder of the survey Materials Construct Validity The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale was developed using design principles from Pennycook and colleagues (2015). To maximize construct validity, the statements needed to closely mimic the structure, rhythm, and stylistic conventions of real corporate language (Boateng et al., 2018; Colquitt et 3 Nunally (1978) suggested that a sample size of 300 participants is adequate for factor analysis, while Bryant and Yarnold (1995) proposed a subject-to-variable ratio of 5. CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 10 al., 2019) Therefore, a “corporate bullshit generator” was created in Microsoft Excel to algorithmically produce statements modeled on actual quotes from Fortune 500 business executives. Each template sentence was stripped of its original nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbial phrases and replaced with randomly selected equivalents from a word bank derived from terms found in business leader

quotes, annual reports, and industry publications (see Supplementary Materials). This process yielded statements that were syntactically coherent but semantically empty (e.g, “Working at the intersection of cross-collateralization and blue-sky thinking, we will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing and end-state vision”). Because the statements were built using real corporate vocabulary and sentence structures and algorithmically assembled without regard for truth, meaning, or semantic clarity, they exhibit strong content and construct validity in that they are composed of “unclarifiably unclear” buzzwords and jargon and potentially capable of appearing impressive, important, or informative in a superficial and functionally misleading way (Cohen, 2002; Frankfurt, 2006; Littrell et al., 2021a, 2024; Pennycook et al., 2015, 2016) Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Bullshit can be reliably evaluated across several characteristics including, perceived profoundness

(Pennycook et al., 2015), truthfulness (Evans et al, 2020), persuasiveness (Gligorić et al, 2022), and accuracy (Pennycook & Rand, 2020). Although these qualities differ superficially, each tap into the same underlying appeal of bullshit (i.e, how impressive or persuasive the content seems) and they all function similarly in terms of psychometric utility. For example, Čavojová et al (2022) had participants rate pseudo-profound and general bullshit on truthfulness, profoundness, and likeability, and found strong average intercorrelations across the categories (pseudo-profound: ravg = .83; general: ravg = .74), suggesting the dimensions are largely interchangeable Likewise, Turpin et al (2021) found a correlation of r = .95 between ratings of how “satisfying” and “intelligent” bullshit statements seemed, and subsequent work (Turpin, 2023) showed no meaningful mean differences when bullshit statements CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 11 were rated separately on

“truth,” “clarity,” “beauty,” or “profoundness.” Taken together, these findings indicate that a variety of impressionistic features can be used to capture the underlying core of what makes bullshit appealing to certain people. As one of the main goals of corporate bullshit/bullshitting is creating inflated impressions of business-relevant characteristics and ideas such as a speaker’s (or organization’s) knowledge, skills, status, accomplishments, ideas, and/or agenda (e.g, Kiazad et al, 2025; Littrell et al, 2021a; McCarthy et al., 2020; Spicer, 2017), and given past work showing psychometric equivalence for various qualities of bullshit (Čavojová et al., 2022; Turpin, 2023; Turpin et al, 2021), it was decided that “business savvy” (broadly defined) would sufficiently capture the impressive and persuasive aspects specific to corporate bullshit. Participants were provided with a specific definition of “business savvy” and asked to rate 30 statements

(presented in a randomized order) according to these instructions: Business savvy or “business acumen” is a combination of knowledge, skills, and experience that enables individuals to understand business situations, make sound decisions, and drive successful outcomes for an organization. It reflects a person who excels at strategic thinking, problem-solving, financial planning, and communicating their vision to others. On the following pages, you will read several statements from successful business leaders and other relevant sources. Please rate how much "business savvy" is expressed by each statement on a scale from "No business savvy at all" to "A great deal of business savvy.” Participants rated each statement using a 5-point scale: “No business savvy at all”, “A little”, “A moderate amount”, “A good amount”, and “A great deal of business savvy” (higher scores represent greater receptivity to that statement). Twenty statements

created using the algorithmic “corporate bullshit” generator were intermingled with 10 actual quotes from Fortune 500 business leaders taken CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 12 from various annual reports, interviews, and other relevant online sources. Given that actual corporate speech has a reputation for ranging from relatable to ridiculous, the included real quotes were intended to represent a mixture of buzzword-heavy corporate “guff” (e.g, “You have to appreciate that the milestones we have set in these swim lanes provide a road map for this flow chart”; Kellaway, 2013, 2017) and business-related statements that still contain jargon or buzzwords but are arguably more straightforward (e.g, “In order to reinvigorate our company, we must continually analyze and review every part of our operations”). Average word counts were compared to ensure that the bullshit statements (26.2 words) and real quotes (25 words) were of overall similar length All 30

statements were presented to participants in a randomized order. Study 1 Results and discussion Exploratory Factor Analysis A skew analysis was conducted to compare all statements according to their absolute z-score skew, calculated by dividing the item’s skew by the standard error of skew (Clark & Watson, 2019; Kim, 2013). Scales with highly skewed items are more likely to have unstable factor structures across samples, poor internal reliability, misleading (e.g, spuriously high or low) mean scores and correlations, and may offer little useful information due to limited variability in response patterns (Clark & Watson, 2019; Greer et al., 2006) Therefore, based on recommendations from Kim (2013), four statements were removed from further analysis for having high absolute z-score skewness (i.e, z(skew) > 21) Data for the remaining 26 statements were reduced using exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring) and applying an oblique rotation. Sampling adequacy was

confirmed via a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) score of .96, which exceeds the “marvelous” threshold of 90 suggested by Hutcheson and Sofroniou (1999). The number of factors was evaluated using Horn’s parallel analysis and Velicer’s minimum average partial (MAP) criterion, both of which supported retaining two factors (Hayton et al., 2004) Five CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 13 of the real statements cross-loaded on both factors and an additional statement did not strongly load on either factor (factor loading < .300) Upon closer inspection, the five cross-loading items appeared to closely resemble some of the fake computer-generated BS statements in terms of their structure, jargon content, and ambiguity. Similar results were found by Pennycook and colleagues (2015) when creating the Pseudo-profound Bullshit Receptivity Scale (PP-BSR), as some participants were unable to discern real statements made by popular New Age author Deepak Chopra from computer-generated,

pseudoprofound bullshit statements. The present results suggest that, for many people, some instances of elite corporate speech (e.g, “Drilling down one more click on services, we actually think of multiple swim lanes of opportunity around business”) are virtually indistinguishable from semantically meaningless, algorithmically-generated bullshit. Consequently, these six statements were removed, and the remaining items coalesced into a clear two-factor solution (TLI = .95; RMSEA = 06), with 16 items loading onto Factor 1 and four items composing Factor 2. Further inspection of the scree plot justified a two-factor solution as best representing the data (Zwick & Velicer, 1982). To reduce scale length, only the 10 highest loading statements in Factor 1 were retained, which accounted for 43% of the variance in this model. The four items of Factor 2 accounted for 15% of the total variance Factor labeling and differentiation The 10 items clustering around Factor 1 were the fake,

corporate bullshit statements constructed by the algorithmic generator. Overall inter-item reliability for the final 10 corporate BS items was excellent (McDonald’s ω = .94) Factor 2 was composed only of actual quotes from business leaders and displayed good inter-item reliability (ω = .80) Table 1 lists all statements, factor loadings, and uniqueness scores. Finally, results of a pairwise t-test confirmed that mean “business savvy” ratings for the corporate bullshit statements (M = 1.82, SD = 97) and real corporate speech quotes (M = 254, SD = .85) were significantly different, t(300) = -1159, p < 001 These results provide initial evidence that receptivity to corporate bullshit is a unique factor distinct from mere affinity for real corporate speech. CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE Table 1 Component loadings after rotation for bullshit statements (Factor 1) and real quotes (Factor 2) Factor loadings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 Working at the

intersection of cross-collateralization and blue-sky thinking, we will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing and endstate vision in a world defined by architecting to potentiate on a vertical landscape. This synergistic look at our thought leadership will ensure that we are decontenting and avoiding reputational deficits with our key takeaways as effectively as we can in order to sunset our resonating focus. By getting our friends in the tent with our best practices, we will pressuretest a renewed level of adaptive coherence and culture fit in the market between us and others who are solutioning to download on a similar, valuecentered strategic intent. Our goal is to engage our capabilities by focusing our efforts on executing the current transmission of our empowerment, driving an innovative growthmindset with our change drivers, and coaching energetic frameworks to our resonating focus. Our bandwidth comes from the visionary culture-shifting of several new

growth-based, integrated networks that capitalize on our heritage to engage our future when building bridges to success. 1 .843 Uniqueness 2 0.339 .811 0.360 .797 0.382 .795 0.336 .762 0.375 We will cover all the bases of our low hanging fruit by joining with our bleeding-edge, results-driven global partners to better growth hack our backend architecture. Our goal is to engage our conversations by focusing our efforts on architecting the current vector of our balanced scorecard. As an emerging leader grounded in a mission to benchmark and nurture the human spirit, we have always aspired to make upstream connections, drilling down one more click on people and communities around the world. .750 0.430 .731 0.447 .728 0.454 This scalable look at our company will ensure that we are executing and minimizing cross-back impact with our conversations as effectively as we can in order to fundamentally disrupt our ecosystem. By solving the pain point of customers with our

conversations, we will ideate a renewed level of end-state vision and growth-mindset in the market between us and others who are architecting to download on a similar balanced scorecard. By focusing again on the customer experience, we will create a renewed level of meaningful differentiation and separation in the market between us and our competitors. In order to reinvigorate our company, we must continually analyze and review every part of our company operations. This rigorous look at our business will ensure that we are managing and optimizing our resources as effectively as we can in order to improve the brand experience. Our success comes from the rigorous execution of several new strategic initiatives that capitalize on our heritage to drive our successful future. Doubling down on our humanness will be the magic in how we drive better outcomes (Excluded from further analyses due to poor factor loading) .716 0.464 .706 0.479 .773 0.362 .771 0.455 .687 0.488 .547 0.546

Note. Principal Axis Factoring with oblimin rotation Retained components determined using Horn's parallel analysis. Factor loadings <300 not shown CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 15 Study 2 – Scale Validation Study 2 establishes the nomological convergent and discriminant validity of the CBSR through its associations with relevant cognitive and bullshit-related variables. Analytic thinking skills are critically important to employee performance and organizational success (Alaybek et al., 2022; Aneel et al, 2009; Sackett et al., 2022) and previous research has shown that higher bullshit receptivity is linked to poorer performance on measures of intelligence, logical reasoning, and decision-making as well as overconfidence in one’s intellectual and analytic abilities (Ilić & Damnjanović, 2021; Littrell & Fugelsang, 2024; Littrell et al, 2024; Pennycook et al., 2015; Pennycook & Rand, 2020) Therefore, given the results from prior work in these areas,

it is hypothesized that Corporate Bullshit Receptivity will be negatively associated with measures of analytic thinking and intelligence. CBSR scores will also be compared to scores on other bullshit-related measures, including receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit, receptivity to intentionally profound/inspirational statements from notable historical figures, receptivity to real corporate statements from actual business leaders, proclivity for bullshitting others, and perceptions of bullshit in the workplace. Specifically, CBSR is expected to positively correlate with pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity and persuasive bullshitting and negatively correlate with organizational bullshit perception (Littrell et al., 2021b) Finally, to construct a contrastive inventory of real corporate speech that is approximately equal in length to the list of bullshit statements, we will test a collection of real corporate statements taken from a variety of online sources. This will allow researchers

to estimate the extent that participants can identify and discern corporate bullshit from intentionally meaningful, real corporate language; a metacognitive skill known as (bullshit) “discernment” (Pennycook et al., 2015) CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 16 Method Participants Using the same recruitment and sampling procedures as Study 1, 264 English-speaking adult participants were recruited from the United States and Canada. This sample size was based on a power analysis conducted using G*Power with a goal of achieving at least .80 power to detect a small-tomedium-sized effect at α = 05 while allowing for possible exclusions (g*power; Faul et al., 2009) Thirteen participants were removed from the data set for failing to complete the survey while 10 were removed because Google’s reCAPTCHA v3 bot detection protocols flagged them as potential non-human respondents, leaving data for 241 participants (103 men, 136 women, 2 another gender; Mage = 37.20, SDage = 10.83,

MINage = 18, MAXage = 71; bachelor’s degree or higher = 6473%) Participants were paid USD $3.00 for the roughly 17-minute survey Procedure Consent procedures and demographics questions were identical to Study 1. To minimize potential item-level and order effects, each measure/scale was presented as a separate survey block, all survey blocks were presented in randomized order, and the order of each item within each block was also randomized. Materials Receptivity to Corporate BS Participants completed the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (McDonald’s ω = .92; CBSR) created in Study 1, rating the perceived “business savvy” of 10 corporate bullshit statements on a 5point scale. To assess general receptivity to everyday corporate speech, participants also rated 12 real statements from actual business leaders according to the same 5-point criteria. Higher mean scores on both measures indicate greater receptivity to that type of information. CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY

SCALE 17 Analytic Thinking Participants also completed: 1) A 10-item Actively Open-Minded Thinking Scale (ω = .82) which measures a person’s prescriptive beliefs in the value that open-minded, analytic thinking has for oneself and others (Baron, 2019); 2) the 6-item Open-Minded Cognition Scale (ω = .79; Price et al, 2015), a twofactor scale measuring a person’s “willingness to engage with” and “willingness to reflect on” diverse perspectives, including those that are at odds with one’s own views, and 3) a 5-item version of the Cognitive Reflection Test (ω = .77; Frederick, 2005), a collection of “brain teasers” used here to measure conflict detection, a person’s ability to quickly detect conflict (e.g, logical, factual, etc) within information they are evaluating (see Franssens & De Neys, 2009) and; 4) a 5-item measure of fluid intelligence using progressive matrix puzzles from the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR; https://icar-project.com/)

Mean scores were calculated for both open-mindedness scales whereas sum scores were calculated for the CRT and ICAR items. BS-related Variables Pseudo-profound BS receptivity was measured using a short form version of the Bullshit Receptivity Scale (Pennycook et al., 2015) Participants rated the profoundness (from “not at all profound” to “very profound”) of five pseudo-profound bullshit statements (ω = .85) and five real inspirational quotes (ω = .76) from historically significant figures such as poets, authors, and political leaders (to assess “general profoundness receptivity”). Additionally, following methods from Pennycook et al., (2015), a “pseudo-profound bullshit discernment” score was calculated by subtracting each participant’s mean pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity from their mean general profoundness receptivity. Higher “bullshit discernment” scores indicate that a person possesses a greater ability to discern bullshit from non-bullshit. The

tendency to engage in “everyday bullshitting” was measured using the 12-item Bullshitting Frequency Scale (Littrell et al., 2021a) which measures the frequency that a person engages in two types CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 18 of bullshitting across various social contexts: 1) persuasive bullshitting, which describes attempts to impress, persuade, or fit in with others by favorably exaggerating or embellishing the qualities, ideas, and/or accomplishments of oneself or one’s ingroup (ω = .90) and, 2) evasive bullshitting, a diversionary rhetorical strategy used to avoid incurring reputational, social, or emotional harm to oneself or others that might result from giving frank answers to some undesirable inquiry (ω = .81) Finally, the extent a person perceives that bullshit permeates various aspects of their workplace or organization was measured using the 15-item Organizational Bullshit Perception Scale (OBPS; ω = .89; Ferreira et al, 2022). Mean scores were

calculated for each scale Table 2 lists descriptive statistics for all variables of interest. Table 2 Means, medians, and standard deviations for all Study 2 variables of interest Variables N Mean Median SD Corporate bullshit receptivity (CBSR) 241 1.72 1.80 0.963 General corporate speech receptivity (GCSR) 241 2.47 2.50 0.651 Pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity 241 1.45 1.40 0.936 General profoundness receptivity 241 2.29 2.40 0.761 Persuasive bullshitting frequency 241 1.48 1.50 0.860 Evasive bullshitting frequency 241 2.10 2.00 0.806 Organizational bullshit perception (OBPS) 241 2.48 2.40 0.757 Actively open-minded thinking (AOT) 241 5.42 5.56 0.799 Willingness to engage (open-minded cognition) 241 4.77 5.00 1.351 Willingness to reflect (open-minded cognition) 241 5.66 5.67 0.847 Cognitive Reflection Test (conflict detection) 241 3.17 3.00 1.842 Fluid intelligence 241 2.52 3.00 1.414 CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY

SCALE 19 Results An Exploratory Factor Analysis (using the same procedures as Study 1) was conducted on a combined list of the 10 corporate bullshit statements and the 12 real corporate statements to a) ensure that both types of statements represent distinct factors and b) determine which of the real quotes might be suitable for inclusion in a contrastive inventory of receptivity to genuine corporate speech. The analysis yielded a distinct two-factor solution. Two items were eliminated for weakly cross-loading on both factors. The remaining 10 real corporate statements were retained as representing individual differences in one’s “receptivity to general corporate speech.” The final two-factor, 20-item solution (TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 003) contained 10 corporate bullshit statements in Factor 1 (ω = 92) and 10 real corporate speech quotes in Factor 2 (ω = .82) Given that the length of the overall scale may be lessthan-ideal for some applications, a 10-item version was also created

(five corporate bullshit statements and five real corporate speech quotes) which showed good model fit and reliability (see Supplementary Materials for details). Table 3 lists factor loadings for all 20 statements CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 20 Table 3 Factor loadings after rotation for all corporate bullshit statements (Factor 1) and real corporate speech quotes (Factor 2) of the full Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale 1 2 Working at the intersection of cross-collateralization and blue-sky thinking, we will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing and endstate vision in a world defined by architecting to potentiate on a vertical landscape. Our goal is to engage our capabilities by focusing our efforts on executing the current transmission of our empowerment, driving an innovative liquidity with our change drivers, and coaching energetic frameworks to our shovelready alignment. Factor loadings 1 2 .837

Uniqueness 0.328 .827 0.348 3 This synergistic look at our thought leadership will ensure that we are decontenting and avoiding reputational deficits with our key takeaways as effectively as we can in order to sunset our resonating focus. .798 0.380 4 This scalable look at our company will ensure that we are executing and minimizing cross-back impact with our conversations as effectively as we can in order to fundamentally disrupt our ecosystem. .731 0.466 5 We will fundamentally disrupt our conversations in delivering upstream transformational performance-focused key learnings like no other company anywhere in the world. .716 0.506 6 By solving the pain point of customers with our conversations, we will ideate a renewed level of end-state vision and growth-mindset in the market between us and others who are architecting to download on a similar balanced scorecard. .700 0.475 7 Our bandwidth comes from the visionary culture-shifting of several new growth-hacked,

integrated networks that capitalize on our heritage to engage our future when building bridges to success. .694 0.470 8 We will cover all the bases of our low hanging fruit by joining with our bleeding-edge, results-driven global partners to better grasp our back-end architecture. .692 0.461 9 By getting our friends in the tent with our best practices, we will pressuretest a renewed level of adaptive coherence and culture fit in the market between us and others who are solutioning to download on a similar, valuecentered strategic intent. .679 0.532 10 As an emerging leader grounded in a mission to benchmark and nurture the human spirit, we have always aspired to make upstream connections, drilling down one more click on people and communities around the world. .644 0.555 1 This rigorous look at our business will ensure that we are managing and optimizing our resources as effectively as we can in order to improve the brand experience. .734 0.496 2 We will leverage

our extensive business networks, market knowledge, and logistical expertise to produce high-value, bundled products for an increasing number of global customers. .636 0.621 CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 21 3 By focusing again on the customer experience, we will create a renewed level of meaningful differentiation and separation in the market between us and our competitors. .583 0.670 4 In order to reinvigorate our company, we must continually analyze and review every part of our company operations. .564 0.715 5 Our performance and capabilities cannot be compared to our peers. We have a proven business concept that is eminently scalable in our existing businesses and adaptable enough to extend to new markets. .526 0.712 6 Our success comes from the rigorous execution of several new strategic initiatives that capitalize on our heritage to drive our successful future. .519 0.565 7 We plan to right-size our manufacturing operations to align to the new

strategy and take advantage of integration opportunities. .517 0.581 8 We have robust networks of strategic assets that we own or have contractual access to, which give us greater flexibility and speed to reliably deliver widespread logistical solutions. .485 0.695 9 In this ever-changing society, the most powerful and enduring brands are built from the heart. Their foundations are stronger because they are built with the strength of the human spirit, not an ad campaign. The companies that are lasting are those that are authentic. Because of our iconic brands, our unending commitment to premium content, and the innovation of our teams, we have permission from the market to be a world-class, tier-one partner. .438 0.806 .437 0.654 10 Note. Principal Axis Factoring with oblimin rotation Retained components determined using Horn's parallel analysis. Correlations with Analytic Thinking Measures Corporate bullshit receptivity (CBSR) was significantly and negatively

associated with actively open-minded thinking (AOT), fluid intelligence, and conflict detection (CRT), though this latter association failed to reach significance. Conversely, general corporate speech receptivity (GCSR) was unrelated to these variables. Open-minded “willingness to engage” and “willingness to reflect” were significantly, positively correlated with GCSR but were not related to corporate bullshit receptivity. Intercorrelations between corporate bullshit receptivity and all analytic thinking variables are displayed in Figure 1. Intercorrelations with demographics variables are listed in the Supplementary Materials CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 22 Figure 1 Bivariate correlations between Corporate Bullshit Receptivity and analytic thinking style variables Note. A heat plot displaying Pearson’s correlation coefficients (larger, top number) and p-values (smaller, bottom number) for the associations between Corporate Bullshit Receptivity and analytic

thinking style variables. Correlations with BS-related Measures CBSR scores were positively correlated with a general receptivity to corporate speech, receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit, and frequency of persuasive bullshitting and negatively correlated with pseudo-profound bullshit discernment (Figure 2). Interestingly, Organizational Bullshit Perception scores (OBPS) were not significantly related with either type of bullshit receptivity but were positively correlated with frequency of persuasive and evasive bullshitting. Intercorrelations with OBPS subscales can be found in the supplementary materials. CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 23 Figure 2 Bivariate correlations between Corporate Bullshit Receptivity and other BS-related variables Note. A heat plot displaying Pearson’s correlation coefficients (larger, top number) and p-values (smaller, bottom number) for the associations between Corporate Bullshit Receptivity and each BSrelated variable. Exploratory OLS

Linear Regression Finally, an exploratory multiple linear regression model (ordinary least squares) was created to determine which variables were effective predictors of corporate bullshit receptivity (Figure 3). All variables from the correlational analyses were included in the regression model except the pseudoprofound bullshit receptivity scale (to avoid the redundancy, in terms of overlapping variance, of using “bullshit receptivity” to predict “bullshit receptivity”). Corporate bullshit receptivity was positively predicted by general receptivity to corporate speech, β = .34, p < 001, and persuasive bullshitting CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 24 frequency, β = .16, p = 024, and negatively by actively open-minded thinking (AOT), β = -26, p < 001, and fluid intelligence, β = -.18, p = 002 Figure 3 Multiple linear regression predicting Corporate Bullshit Receptivity from analytic thinking and BS-related variables Note. A forest plot displaying

standardized beta coefficients for each predictor of Corporate Bullshit Receptivity. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals Adjusted R2 = 292 Study 2 Discussion Study 2 demonstrated that corporate bullshit receptivity (CBSR) is associated with analytic thinking and other bullshit-related constructs in theoretically consistent ways. Indeed, CBSR is positively predicted by a general receptivity to corporate speech and frequency of persuasive bullshitting and negatively predicted by actively open-minded thinking and fluid intelligence, both of which are crucial for effective analytic thinking. This aligns with past research showing that pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity is strongly, positively associated with persuasive bullshitting and negatively associated with various measures of analytic thinking style (e.g, Littrell et al, 2021b; Pennycook et al, 2015; Sepúlveda‐ CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 25 Páez et al., 2025) The positive association between

receptivity to corporate bullshit and general corporate speech is unsurprising given that employees must be receptive to a certain amount of diverse corporate speech to successfully navigate various workplace cultures in the first place (Brown et al., 2021; McCarthy et al., 2020; Spicer, 2013) Overall, these analyses suggest that more cognitively sophisticated workers are not simply less receptive to corporate speech overall. Instead, they are specifically less impressed by corporate bullshit, even after accounting for their evaluations of genuine corporate statements. Finally, the fact that Organizational Bullshit Perception (OBPS) was unrelated to either type of bullshit receptivity was unexpected, as was its positive correlations with both types of bullshitting. Indeed, the results suggest – somewhat ironically – that workers who report higher amounts of bullshit in their organizations not only struggle to accurately identify/detect bullshit but also engage more frequently in

spreading it in their daily lives. These results contradict theoretical expectations, as one might reasonably assume that people who dislike workplace bullshit would not only be able to accurately identify it but would also be less likely to intentionally spread it. One possible explanation is that the OBPS assesses a construct altogether different from “bullshit” as it is usually conceptualized and measured in much of the prevailing literature. For example, the OBPS may tap more into employee cynicism, frustration, or adaptation/rejection of workplace norms rather than actual bullshit perception, specifically. Alternatively, people who believe they work in an organization that is full of bullshit may feel pressured to contribute to that culture by producing it themselves. Regardless, further research is needed to elucidate what the OBPS actually measures and how best to use it in organizational research. Study 3 – Associations with Workplace Outcomes Study 2 confirmed that the

CBSR is a statistically reliable and valid measure of individual differences in receptivity to corporate bullshit and demonstrated its convergent and discriminant CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 26 validity through its associations with a variety of conceptually-related constructs. The goal of Study 3 is to expand the CBSR’s nomological network and establish its scientific and practical utility by comparing CBSR scores to key work-relevant outcomes thought to be sensitive to the influence of real-world corporate bullshit. Additionally, these results were fully replicated with the short version of the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR-10) in a separate, highly-educated sample of corporate professionals specializing in the areas of business administration and management, accounting and finance, marketing, and human resources. In the interest of manuscript length, only the linear regression results from the replication will be presented here (after Study 3’s main

results), though the full results are provided in the Supplementary Materials (Study S4). Method Participants Using identical procedures to Study 2 for recruitment, exclusions, and sample size, data was analyzed from 249 adult participants from the United States and Canada (116 men, 130 women, 3 another gender; Mage = 37.60, SDage = 1094, MINage = 19, MAXage = 71; bachelor’s degree or higher = 62.47%) Participants were paid USD $325 for the roughly 20-minute survey Materials All survey administration, consent, and randomization procedures were identical to Study 2. Receptivity to BS Participants completed the 20-item Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (corporate bullshit statements, ω = .93; real corporate statements, ω = 80) and a 10-item version of Pennycook and colleague’s (2015) Pseudo-profound Bullshit Receptivity Scale (bullshit statements, ω = .87; intentionally profound quotes, ω = .68) according to the criteria described in Study 2 CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY

SCALE 27 Work-related Variables Participants completed a battery of items intended to measure various work-relevant and job performance variables theorized to be especially vulnerable to corporate bullshit, including: 1) a 7-item measure of perceived supervisor charismatic/inspirational “vision” (ω = .93; Avolio et al, 1999; Griffin et al., 2010); 2) the 7-item Global Transformational Leadership Scale which measures perceptions that one’s direct supervisor (or key organizational figure) is a “transformational leader” (ω = .95; Carless et al., 2000); 3) a 5-item measure of job satisfaction (ω = 90; Judge et al, 1998); 4) a single-item assessing “intent to stay” (in months/years) at one’s current job; 5) a single-item measuring trust in one’s supervisor (“I trust my supervisor”); 6) a single-item measuring the extent that workers understand their job responsibilities (“I have a clear understanding of what is expected of me at work”); and 7) a singleitem

measuring perceived feedback clarity (“The feedback that I receive at work is clear and easy-tounderstand”). Responses to the multi-item scales were converted to mean scores It was hypothesized that individuals who are more receptive to corporate bullshit would also express greater affinity for corporate mission statements, which are conceptually “bullshit-adjacent” and have been previously criticized for being vague, overly jargony, and arguably nonsensical in some cases (e.g, Braun et al, 2012; Lepore, 2021; Spicer, 2017) Therefore, participants read real mission statements from five companies (Disney, Starbucks, Albertson’s, Barnes & Noble, and Volvo) in randomized order and rated each on a 5-point scale from “Not at all inspirational” to “Very inspirational.” A mean score representing “appeal of corporate mission statements” was calculated from all five ratings (ω = .73) Finally, to assess each person’s work-related decision-making abilities,

participants completed a 4-item situational judgment test (SJT) adapted from a set of validated items available from the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR; https://icar-project.com/) Previous studies have consistently found SJTs to be reliable predictors of actual job performance, and they are a commonly CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 28 used tool in many organizations for selection, hiring, and promotions (Christian et al., 2010; Sackett et al., 2022; Webster et al, 2020) For each SJT item, participants read a short vignette describing a typical workplace scenario that requires an insightful leadership decision to resolve (see Supplementary Materials for an example). They were then asked to select the best course of action from a list of four possible options representing optimal (2 points), average but acceptable (1 point), and poor (0 points) decisions. Scores were calculated by summing responses across all four SJT items Results Confirmatory Factor

Analysis Following best practice recommendations for scale development (e.g, Colquitt et al, 2019; Furr, 2011), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the CBSR’s 10 corporate bullshit statements and the 10 real corporate speech statements using data from the current sample. Results confirmed that the CBSR reflects a two-factor structure that represents a good fit for the data (CFI = .95; TLI = .94; SRMR = 06; RMSEA = 05) (Hu & Bentler, 1999) A CFA for the 10-item version of the scale (five bullshit items, five real quotes) showed an excellent fit for the data (χ2(34) = 42.70, p = 145; CFI = 99; TLI = .98; SRMR = 04; RMSEA = 03) Correlations with Work-related Measures As shown in Figure 4, corporate bullshit receptivity (CBSR) scores were positively correlated with general corporate speech receptivity, an affinity for corporate mission statements, perceptions that one’s supervisor is trustworthy, “transformational,” and communicates an “inspirational

vision.” Crucially, CBSR was negatively related to performance on the decision-making situational judgment test (SJT). CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 29 Figure 4 Bivariate correlations between Corporate Bullshit Receptivity and job-related variables Note. A heat plot displaying Pearson’s correlation coefficients (larger, top number) and p-values (smaller, bottom number) for the associations between Corporate Bullshit Receptivity and each jobrelated variable. Linear Regression Predicting Work-related Decision Making An OLS multiple linear regression model was created to predict work-related decision-making performance (i.e, SJT scores) from corporate bullshit receptivity, general receptivity to corporate speech, and all other organizational variables from the correlational analysis. Corporate bullshit receptivity (CBSR) emerged as the only significant predictor (negative) of decision-making performance, β = -.29, p < 001 (Figure 5) CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY

SCALE 30 Figure 5 Multiple linear regression predicting workplace decision-making performance (SJT scores) from corporate bullshit receptivity and job-related variables Note. A forest plot displaying standardized beta coefficients for each predictor of Situational Judgment Test (SJT) performance. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals Adjusted R2 = 08 Incremental Validity Previous research shows that Pennycook and colleagues’ (2015) widely used Pseudo-profound Bullshit Receptivity scale (PP-BSR) significantly predicts several important outcomes such as problemsolving, health-related decisions, and prosocial behaviors (Ackerman & Chopik, 2020; Erlandsson et al., 2018; Petrocelli et al., 2024) However, as reported in the introduction, the extent that a person is receptive to a specific type of bullshit varies across different contexts (e.g, Littrell et al, 2024; Urbanek et al., 2025) As such, it remains unclear whether the CBSR scale would have a measurable advantage in

CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 31 organizational research and applications over the more widely used PP-BSR scale. To answer this question, a second OLS multiple linear regression – with PP-BSR as an additional predictor – was created to determine which type of receptivity was superior for predicting work-related decision-making (Figure 6). Pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity failed to significantly predict SJT performance, β = -15, p = 096 whereas corporate bullshit receptivity remained a robust negative predictor, β = -.21, p = 018 Figure 6 Multiple linear regression predicting SJT scores from corporate bullshit receptivity, pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity, and job-related variables. Note. A forest plot displaying standardized beta coefficients for each predictor of Situational Judgment Test (SJT) performance. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals Adjusted R2 = 09 Replication using short form CBSR-10 Data for 227 adult participants from the United

States and Canada was analyzed for the replication (134 men, 91 women, 2 another gender; Mage = 37.10, SDage = 989, MINage = 19, MAXage = 74; bachelor’s degree or higher = 73.13%) Given that corporate bullshit is likely more common in elite CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 32 corporate office environments (compared to non-office settings like factories or privately-owned shops), recruitment for the replication study was specifically targeted to participants who work in or have a 4year university degree (or higher) in the areas of business management/administration, accounting, finance, marketing, or human resources (see supplementary materials). An OLS multiple linear regression analysis (Figure 7) found that job-related decision-making performance was significantly, negatively predicted by CBSR-10 scores, β = -.26, p < 001, and positively predicted by receptivity to real corporate statements, β = .16, p = 036, and the extent that a person understands job expectations,

β = .21, p = 008 Full results and discussion for the replication are listed in the supplementary materials (Study S4). Figure 7 Multiple linear regression results from replication study predicting workplace decision-making performance (SJT scores) from the CBSR-10 and all other job-related variables Note. A forest plot displaying standardized beta coefficients for each predictor of Situational Judgment Test (SJT) performance using the CBSR-10. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals Adjusted R2 =.10 CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 33 Study 3 Discussion The results from Study 3 expand the CBSR’s nomological network and provide strong evidence of the CBSR’s predictive validity for certain work-related outcomes. Indeed, CBSR scores were shown to be positively associated with a diverse set of work-relevant variables including job satisfaction, trust in one’s supervisor, and the degree to which an employee is inspired by official corporate mission statements and

perceives their organizational supervisors/leaders to be visionary and transformational. Moreover, not only was corporate bullshit receptivity a strong, negative predictor of work-related decision-making, it was also a superior and more robust predictor than the current most widely-used measure of bullshit receptivity from the extant literature. This highlights the contextual nature of bullshit receptivity, supporting previous research showing that one’s receptivity to specific types of bullshit can vary due to both individual and contextual factors (e.g, Littrell et al, 2024; Majima et al, 2022; Urbanek et al., 2025) Additionally, a potential limitation is that transformational leadership was assessed using the Global Transformational Leadership Scale (GTL) as a unidimensional indicator. Although the GTL was developed as a short single-factor measure (Carless et al., 2000), this choice prevents tests of facet-specific effects and may partially overlap with broader follower

evaluations of the leader. Therefore, future research should examine the associations of corporate bullshit receptivity with multidimensional models of leadership and incorporate designs that better disentangle perceived leader behaviors from general leader favorability (see Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Finally, though the full 20-item version of the CBSR is well-suited for more in-depth studies and analyses, its length may be less-than-ideal for situations where time or survey space are more limited. Crucially, all major results from Study 3 were replicated using the short form CBSR-10 in a separate, more educated worker sample (73% with a 4-year degree or higher compared to Study 3’s 62%) from highly relevant corporate career fields (e.g, HR, accounting, finance, marketing, and business administration). Overall, these results not only support the effectiveness of the CBSR across diverse CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 34 worker samples but confirm that the

CBSR-10 is an excellent option for use in research and applied settings where the full 20-item version would be less ideal. General Discussion The four studies (N = 1018) presented here report the construction and validation of the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), a new measure of individual differences in receptivity to corporate bullshit, a semantically empty and often confusing style of communication in organizational contexts that leverages abstruse corporate buzzwords and jargon in a functionally misleading way. Study 1 detailed the creation and testing of 10 statements generated from randomly-selected corporate buzzwords and designed to mimic authentic corporate speech in a way that is syntactically valid but lacks intentional semantic value. Study 2 showed that receptivity to corporate bullshit statements is distinct from an affinity for general corporate speech and is significantly associated with a less analytic thinking style and a greater tendency to

persuasively bullshit others. Studies 3 and its replication established that corporate bullshit receptivity is positively associated with key work-relevant attitudes and perceptions and that the full CBSR and short-form CBSR-10 both reliably negatively predict workrelated decision-making. Importantly, the CBSR proved to be a more effective and robust predictor of SJT performance than the current most widely-used bullshit receptivity scale. What Corporate Bullshit Comes Around, Goes Around (theoretical and practical implications) The unfettered spread of corporate bullshit in an organization can backfire in several ways. For instance, high-quality workers may choose to leave companies with misleadingly abstruse, buzzwordheavy speech norms and the remaining employees may misinterpret important directives or feedback delivered in an overly stylized or “bullshitty” manner (e.g, Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; McCarthy et al, 2020; Pratley, 2014; Roose, 2014). Future research should

investigate how corporate bullshit and receptivity to it might negatively impact key aspects of workplace culture such as performance feedback, employee “coachability,” organizational trust, perceptions of organizational justice, leadership CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 35 styles, etc. Given the CBSR’s associations with analytic thinking style and work-related decision-making, it may also be fruitful to examine its utility as a tool in selection, hiring, or promotion or as a way of identifying issues in the effectiveness of organizational communication strategies. Longitudinal work may also prove insightful for designing and testing interventions to attenuate corporate bullshit receptivity among supervisors and employees. The present results also show that workers who are more receptive to corporate bullshit may be more likely to spread it. This aligns with past work showing that persuasive bullshitting frequency predicts receptivity to other types of bullshit, such

as pseudo-profound, pseudo-scientific, and fake news (Littrell et al., 2021b) It is also important to note that the CBSR scale measures receptivity to corporate bullshit statements without respect to the source or delivery method. As such, the true extent of a person’s receptivity to all forms of organizational bullshit is likely somewhat underestimated by their CBSR scores alone. For example, it is reasonable to expect that the misleading effects of corporate bullshit will be amplified when experienced through instances of interpersonal and intra-organizational persuasive bullshitting. Persuasive bullshitting often involves using boastful exaggerations, embellishments, and other forms of impressive-sounding, epistemically-dubious speech in situations where a person lacks sufficient confidence and knowledge in what they are saying (Littrell et al., 2021a, 2021b; Petrocelli, 2018, 2024). This mirrors several of the uses and functions of corporate bullshit discussed earlier (Kiazad et

al., 2025; McCarthy et al, 2020; Spicer, 2020; Walker, 2022) It also supports past research showing that some people will use more impressive-sounding jargon and buzzwords in situations where they perceive that they have lower status (Brown et al., 2020, 2021) This may help explain why corporate bullshit persists in some organizations despite desires to stamp out its influence, as the need to positively manage the impressions of others will likely always exist for people hungry to “climb the corporate ladder” (Christensen et al., 2019; McCarthy et al, 2020; Spicer, 2020) Crucially, CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 36 certain behavioral norms and other social pressures within an organization’s culture may exacerbate these issues (Whitman, 2025). Additionally, it may be beneficial to use corporate bullshit in certain situations. For example, shareholders or employees may be placated by a CEO’s persuasive corporate bullshitting about a major upcoming action if they can

be convinced that it will benefit them financially (e.g, Durbin, 2025; Kiazad et al., 2025) In other situations, corporate bullshit/bullshitting might be used persuasively to provide motivation or a positive disruption to spur employee or consumer engagement. Indeed, although the current work was largely focused on corporate bullshit (the type of information), examining the antecedents, motivations, and consequences of “corporate bullshitting” (the intentional behavior) may prove to be a productive area for future research. Limitations While situational judgment tests (SJTs) are well-established proxies for work-related decisionmaking, future work would benefit from testing the CBSR’s associations with actual supervisor ratings or other objective employee performance metrics. Regarding the CBSR’s broader incremental utility, future studies should also examine whether corporate bullshit receptivity predicts work-related performance (e.g SJT) above and beyond cognitive ability

using designs that include other independent ability measures. The present results are also based on data collected from Western, English-speaking participants and contextualized for Western work environments. Cultural differences may meaningfully influence the ways in which workers conceptualize, detect, interpret, and respond to corporate bullshit (e.g, Taylor et al, 2015) As such, until the present results are cross-culturally replicated, they should not be assumed to generalize beyond Western, English-speaking contexts. Finally, because corporate jargon is dynamic, the specific buzzwords reflected in the current CBSR items may change in salience over time. Future work should periodically refresh the item word bank while preserving the same generative templates and psychometric validation procedures. CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 37 Conclusion The effects of corporate bullshit on organizational and employee outcomes can range from benign to ruinous yet, despite its

seeming pervasiveness, it has only recently begun to attract attention in empirical literature (e.g, Clark, 2024; Kellaway, 2017; McCarthy et al, 2020; Spicer 2013, 2020; Walker, 2022). The results presented here demonstrate that the CBSR can serve a useful and important role in future research focused on important organizational processes and outcomes, especially those where clear communication is crucial. Moreover, given its associations with key variables related to job performance and other work-relevant outcomes, the CBSR may eventually be useful as a brief supplementary indicator in organizational contexts (e.g, selection or promotion), insofar as it provides a resource-efficient signal related to reflexive open-mindedness and analytic thinking. However, the CBSR is not intended as a substitute for validated measures of cognitive ability or thinking dispositions, and any high-stakes use would require further validation (e.g, predictive/incremental validity) Future research should

examine other work-relevant constructs that are potentially vulnerable to the influences of corporate bullshit to further refine the CBSR for scientific and practical applications. Acknowledgements This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or notfor-profit sectors. CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE References Ackerman, L. S, & Chopik, W J (2020) Individual differences in personality predict the use and perceived effectiveness of essential oils. PLOS One, 15(3), e0229779 https://doi.org/101371/journalpone0229779 Alaybek, B., Wang, Y, Dalal, R S, Dubrow, S, & Boemerman, L S (2022) The relations of reflective and intuitive thinking styles with task performance: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 75(2), 295-319. https://doiorg/101111/peps12443 Alegre, I., Berbegal-Mirabent, J, Guerrero, A, & Mas-Machuca, M (2018) The real mission of the mission statement: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of

Management & Organization, 24(4), 456-473. https://doiorg/101017/jmo201782 Avolio, B.J, Bass, BM and Jung, DI (1999), Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462. https://doiorg/101348/096317999166789 Anseel, F., Lievens, F, & Schollaert, E (2009) Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 23-35. https://doiorg/101016/jobhdp200905003 Baron, J. (2019) Actively open-minded thinking in politics Cognition, 188, 8-18 https://doi.org/101016/jcognition201810004 Blötner, C., & Bergold, S (2023) It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver: Machiavellianism is associated with producing but not necessarily with falling for bullshit. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(1), 467-485. https://doiorg/101111/bjso12559 Boateng, G. O, Neilands, T B, Frongillo, E A,

Melgar-Quiñonez, H R, & Young, S L (2018) Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149 https://doiorg/103389/fpubh201800149 CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 39 Braun, S., Wesche, J S, Frey, D, Weisweiler, S, & Peus, C (2012) Effectiveness of mission statements in organizations–A review. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(4), 430-444. https://doiorg/105172/jmo2012184430 Brown, Z. C, Anicich, E M, & Galinsky, A D (2020) Compensatory conspicuous communication: Low status increases jargon use. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 274290 https://doiorg/101016/jobhdp202007001 Brown, Z. C, Anicich, E M, & Galinsky, A D (2021, March 19) Does your office have a jargon problem? Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2021/03/do-you-have-a-jargon-problem Bryant, F. B, & Yarnold, P R (1995) Principal-components analysis and exploratory

and confirmatory factor analysis. In L G Grimm & P R Yarnold (Eds), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 99-136) Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association Carless, S. A, Wearing, A J, & Mann, L (2000) A short measure of transformational leadership Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 389-405. https://doiorg/101023/A:1022991115523 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/101002/acp3486 Čavojová, V., Brezina, I, & Jurkovič, M (2022) Expanding the bullshit research out of pseudotranscendental domain Current Psychology, 41(2), 827-836 https://doi.org/101007/s12144-020-00617-3 Christensen, L. T, Kärreman, D, & Rasche, A (2019) Bullshit and organization studies Organization Studies, 40(10),

1587-1600. https://doiorg/101177/0170840618820072 CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 40 Christian, M. S, Edwards, B D, & Bradley, J C (2010) Situational judgment tests: Constructs assessed and a meta‐analysis of their criterion‐related validities. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 83-117 https://doi.org/101111/j1744-6570200901163x Clark, L. A, & Watson, D (2019) Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412-1427 https://psycnet.apaorg/doi/101037/pas0000626 Clark, P. (2024, July 24) “How we stopped caring about corporate twaddle” Financial Times https://www.ftcom/content/0acf6834-a745-4102-a2f9-e530aeb22ffa Cohen, G. (2002) Deeper into bullshit In Buss, S, & Overton, L (Ed), The Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt (pp. 318-339) MIT Press Retrieved from https://doi.org/107551/mitpress/21430010001 Colquitt, J. A, Sabey, T B, Rodell, J B, & Hill, E T (2019) Content

validation guidelines: Evaluation criteria for definitional correspondence and definitional distinctiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 1243-1265. https://psycnetapaorg/doi/101037/apl0000406 Connelly, B. L, Certo, S T, Ireland, R D, & Reutzel, C R (2010) Signaling Theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67 https://doiorg/101177/0149206310388419 Cova, F. (2024) What's Wrong with Bullshit? Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 11 https://doi.org/103998/ergo6162 Durbin, D. (2025, August 27) Cracker Barrel had good reasons to rebrand But after its new logo misfired, here’s what’s next. Associated Press https://apnewscom/article/cracker-barrel-newlogo-why-ceo-stock-c64a8ae259cc1bcaa27aae89df56c961 Erlandsson, A., Nilsson, A, Tinghög, G, & Västfjäll, D (2018) Bullshit-sensitivity predicts prosocial behavior. PloS One, 13(7), e0201474 https://doiorg/101371/journalpone0201474 CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 41 Evans, A. M,

Sleegers, W, & Mlakar, Ž (2020) Individual differences in receptivity to scientific bullshit Judgment and Decision-Making, 15(3), 401-412. http://journal.sjdmorg/20/200221/jdm200221pdf Fabrizio, K. R, & Kim, E H (2019) Reluctant disclosure and transparency: Evidence from environmental disclosures. Organization Science, 30(6), 1207-1231 https://doiorg/101287/orsc20191298 Ferreira, C., Hannah, D, McCarthy, I, Pitt, L, & Lord Ferguson, S (2022) This place is full of it: Towards an organizational bullshit perception scale. Psychological Reports, 125(1), 448-463 https://doi.org/101177/0033294120978162 Fiset, J., Bhave, D P, & Jha, N (2024) The effects of language-related misunderstanding at work Journal of Management, 50(1), 347-379. https://doiorg/101177/01492063231181651 Frankfurt, H. G (2005) On bullshit Princeton University Press Frankfurt, H. G (2006) On truth New York: Alfred A Knopf Franssens, S., & De Neys, W (2009) The effortless nature of conflict detection

during thinking Thinking & Reasoning, 15(2), 105-128. https://doiorg/101080/13546780802711185 Furr, M. (2011) Scale Construction and Psychometrics for Social and Personality Psychology SAGE Publications Ltd. Gligorić, V., Feddes, A, & Doosje, B (2022) Political bullshit receptivity and its correlates: A crosscountry validation of the concept Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 10(2), 411-429 https://doi.org/105964/jspp6565 Greer, T., Dunlap, W P, Hunter, S T, & Berman, M E (2006) Skew and internal consistency Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1351–1358. https://doiorg/101037/0021-90109161351 Griffin, M. A, Parker, S K, & Mason, C M (2010) Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 174–182 https://doi.org/101037/a0017263 CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 42 Hartman, R., Moss, A J, Jaffe, S N, Rosenzweig, C, Litman, L, & Robinson, J (2023) Introducing

Connect by CloudResearch: Advancing online participant recruitment in the digital age. PsyArxiv, https://doi.org/1031234/osfio/ksgyr Hayton, J. C, Allen, D G, & Scarpello, V (2004) Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191-205 https://doi.org/101177/1094428104263675 Healy, P. M, & Palepu, K G (2003) The fall of Enron Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(2), 3-26 https://doi.org/101257/089533003765888403 Hu, L. T, & Bentler, P M (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doiorg/101080/10705519909540118 Hutcheson G., & Sofroniou N (1999) The multivariate social scientist: introductory statistics using generalized linear models. London: Sage Publication Ilić, S., & Damnjanović, K (2021) The effect of source credibility on

bullshit receptivity Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(5), 1193-1205. https://doiorg/101002/acp3852 Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N W (2004) Employees' goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368-384. https://doiorg/105465/20159587 Judge, T. A, Locke, E A, Durham, C C, & Kluger, A N (1998) Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17-34 https://doi.org/101037/0021-901083117 Kellaway, L. (2013, January 10) “Say what? Corporate obfuscation at its finest” The Globe and Mail. https://wwwtheglobeandmailcom/report-on-business/careers/careers-leadership/saywhat-corporate-obfuscation-at-its-finest/article7131805/ CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 43 Kellaway, L. (2017, July 18) “How I lost my 25-year battle against corporate claptrap” Financial Times

https://www.ftcom/content/86ab5c9c-2498-48d1-aba3-b554d0f0dbec Kiazad, K., Chen, F X, & Restubog, S L D (2025) Workplace bullshitting: A multidimensional analysis of motives. Group & Organization Management, Advance online publication, 10596011251348757 https://doi.org/101177/10596011251348757 Kim, H. Y (2013) Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52-54 https://doi.org/105395/rde201338152 Lepore, J. (2021, July 26) “Facebook’s broken vows: How the company’s pledge to bring us together would up pulling us apart.” The New Yorker https://www.newyorkercom/magazine/2021/08/02/facebooks-broken-vows Littrell, S., Risko, E F, & Fugelsang, J A (2021a) The Bullshitting Frequency Scale: Development and psychometric properties. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(1), 248-270 https://doi.org/101111/bjso12379 Littrell, S., Risko, E F, & Fugelsang, J A

(2021b) “You can’t bullshit a bullshitter” (or can you?): Bullshitting frequency predicts receptivity to various types of misleading information. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(4), 1484-1505. https://doiorg/101111/bjso12447 Littrell, S., & Fugelsang, J A (2024) Bullshit blind spots: The roles of miscalibration and information processing in bullshit detection. Thinking & Reasoning, 1-30 Advance online publication, https://doi.org/101080/1354678320232189163 Littrell, S., Meyers, E A, & Fugelsang, J A (2024) Not all bullshit pondered is tossed: Reflection decreases receptivity to some types of misleading information but not others. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 38(1), e4154. https://doiorg/101002/acp4154 CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 44 Majima, Y., Walker, A C, Turpin, M H, & Fugelsang, J A (2022) Culture as a moderator of epistemically suspect beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 745580 https://doi.org/103389/fpsyg2022745580 McCarthy, I. P,

Hannah, D, Pitt, L F, & McCarthy, J M (2020) Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit. Business Horizons, 63(3), 253-263 https://doi.org/101016/jbushor202001001 Nunally, J. C (1978) Psychometric theory (2nd ed) New York: McGraw-Hill 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 http://journal.sjdmorg/15/15923a/jdm15923apdf Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J A, Barr, N, Koehler, D J, & Fugelsang, J A (2016) It’s still bullshit: Reply to Dalton (2016). Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 123-125 https://www.doiorg/101017/S1930297500007658 Pennycook, G., & Rand, D G (2020) Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality, 88(2), 185-200 https://doi.org/101111/jopy12476 Petrocelli, J. V (2018) Antecedents of bullshitting Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 249258 https://doiorg/101016/jjesp201803004 Petrocelli, J. V, Curran, J M, & Stall, L M (2024) Bullshit can be harmful to your health: Bullibility as a precursor to poor decision making. Current Opinion in Psychology, 101769 https://doi.org/101016/jcopsyc2023101769 Pontefract, D. (2023, May 25) Corporate nonsense continues to harm productivity and corporate culture. Forbes https://wwwforbescom/sites/danpontefract/2023/03/25/corporate-nonsensecontinues-to-harm-productivity-and-corporate-culture/ CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 45 Pratley, N. (2014, July 17) How not to cut 12,500 jobs: a lesson from Microsoft's Stephen Elop The Guardian. https://wwwtheguardiancom/technology/blog/2014/jul/17/microsoft-stephen-elopemail-how-not-to-fire-staff Price, E., Ottati, V, Wilson, C, & Kim, S (2015) Open-minded cognition Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(11), 1488-1504. https://doiorg/101177/0146167215600528 Roose, K. (2014,

July 17) Microsoft just laid off thousands of employees with a hilariously bad memo. New York Magazine: Intelligencer https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/07/microsoft-lays-off-thousands-with-bad-memohtml Sackett, P. R, Zhang, C, Berry, C M, & Lievens, F (2022) Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2068. https://doiorg/101037/apl0000994 Salvi, C., Barr, N, Dunsmoor, J E, & Grafman, J (2023) Insight problem solving ability predicts reduced susceptibility to fake news, bullshit, and overclaiming. Thinking and Reasoning, 29(4), 760-784 https://doi.org/101080/1354678320222146191 Sepúlveda‐Páez, G., Leiva‐Bianchi, M, Ferrer‐Urbina, R, Escudero‐Pastén, J, & Salas, F (2025) Relationship between bullshit, cognitive skills, and belief systems: A meta‐analytic review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 39(1), e70029.

https://doiorg/101002/acp70029 Spicer, A. (2013) Shooting the shit: the role of bullshit in organisations M@n@gement, (16)5, 653-666 https://doi.org/103917/mana1650653 Spicer, A. (2017) Business bullshit Routledge Spicer, A. (2020) Playing the bullshit game: How empty and misleading communication takes over organizations. Organization Theory, 1(2), 2631787720929704 https://doi.org/101177/2631787720929704 CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 46 Sutton, R. I (2010, October 12) “Sociomateriality: More Academic Jargon Monoxide” Fast Company https://www.fastcompanycom/1694541/sociomateriality-more-academic-jargon-monoxide Taylor, P. J, Larner, S, Conchie, S M, & van der Zee, S (2015) Cross-cultural deception detection In P A. Granhag, A Vrij, & B Verschuere (Eds), Wiley series in the psychology of crime, policing and law. Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches (p 175–201) WileyBlackwell Turpin, M. H, Walker, A C, Kara-Yakoubian, M, Gabert, N N,

Fugelsang, J A, & Stolz, J (2019) Bullshit makes the art grow profounder. Judgment and Decision making, 14(6), 658-670 https://doi.org/101017/S1930297500005386 Turpin, M. H, Kara-Yakoubian, M, Walker, A C, Walker, H E, Fugelsang, J A, & Stolz, J (2021) Bullshit ability as an honest signal of intelligence. Evolutionary Psychology, 19(2), 14747049211000317 https://doi.org/101177/14747049211000317 Turpin, M.H (2023) Dazzled and Confused: Bullshitting as a Strategic Behaviour) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo]. UWSpace https://uwspaceuwaterlooca/items/64164d70-2f93-497aaba9-ddb8d971b05e Urbanek, A., Borkowska, A, Milczarski, W, Zagrobelny, J, Luty, J, & Białek, M (2025) Bullshit (sometimes) makes the art (slightly) more attractive: A field study in gallery-goers. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 43(1), 385-401. https://doiorg/101177/02762374241237981 Walker, R. (2022, March 12) CEOs are slammed for BS’ingbut it might actually be a brilliant strategy Fortune.

https://fortunecom/2022/03/12/ceos-are-slammed-for-bsing-but-it-might-actually-bea-brilliant-strategy/ Webster, E. S, Paton, L W, Crampton, P E, & Tiffin, P A (2020) Situational judgement test validity for selection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Medical Education, 54(10), 888-902 https://doi.org/101111/medu14201 CORPORATE BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY SCALE 47 Whitman, D. S (2025) A Commentary on Kiazad et al (2025): Moving from the individual to the herd. Group & Organization Management, 0(0) https://doiorg/101177/10596011251405029 Williams, M. (2022) Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos: A play on more than just ethical failures Business Information Review, 39(1), 23-31. https://doiorg/101177/02663821221088899