In this episode of Stuff You Should Know, hosts Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant delve into the complexities of gullibility. They explore factors that contribute to one's susceptibility to deception, including personality and cognitive traits, as well as situational influences.
The blurb highlights how researchers study gullibility through self-reported scales and by examining how even scientists can fall victim to flawed data or overconfidence in their expertise. However, the hosts also present recent research suggesting that people may not be as gullible as assumed. They examine alternative perspectives on gullibility, such as the role of motivation in verifying information and the nuanced relationship between trust and discernment.
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
Josh Clark notes those with low social intelligence, self-confidence or high needs for independence may be more prone to scams. Monica T. Witte says impulsive, sensation-seeking individuals are susceptible to romance scams. Clark suggests cynicism, relying on intuition over facts, ironically increases gullibility.
Chuck Bryant explains positive moods or distraction can make one receptive to persuasive messages, per a study by Gregory Razran. Negative emotional states make people more skeptical. Childhood trauma can impair judgment, increasing adult gullibility.
Researchers use self-reported "gullibility scales" which correlate with phishing scam susceptibility. However, self-assessment may not fully capture gullibility's complexities.
Clark and Bryant note scientists can be overconfident, applying skills from their expertise to unrelated areas, making them vulnerable to deception. They also have incentives to find positive results, accepting flawed or fraudulent data.
Social psychologists define gullibility as accepting false premises despite untrustworthy clues, per Clark. But he says trust links to social intelligence, not gullibility - cynics distance themselves due to lower discernment. Toshio Yamagishi found highly trusting people weigh negative info more.
Chuck Bryant cites Hugo Mercier's view that propaganda reinforces existing beliefs more than creating new ones. Bryant questions if susceptibility differs or if "gullibility" reflects not verifying information. The Better Business Bureau found young adults were scammed more, likely due to more online exposure.
1-Page Summary
Gullibility can be affected by a variety of factors, including personality and cognitive traits, environmental influences, and early life experiences.
Josh Clark notes that individuals with high social intelligence, which encompasses conversation skills, effective listening, and awareness of social roles, are less likely to get scammed. Alternatively, people with low social intelligence and self-confidence or those with a high need for independence can be more prone to scams. These individuals may be overconfident, failing to seek advice or ignore warnings from others.
People who have low conscientiousness or are less honest/humble, along with those who are impulsive or sensation-seeking, might not take the time to thoroughly investigate dubious opportunities, making them more susceptible. Monica T. Witte’s study points out that impulsivity and sensation-seeking behavior can lead to falling for romance scams.
Impulsive individuals are more likely to be scammed due to their preference for quick decision-making over thorough investigation. Clark goes further to suggest that cynicism increases gullibility because cynics rely on intuition rather than factual assessment, making it easier for scammers to manipulate them by appealing to their cynical worldview.
Chuck Bryant emphasizes that one's mood can influence their susceptibility to being duped, which can change depending on factors like mood, fatigue, or distraction. He references a study by Gregory Razran, indicating that individuals in a positive mood—such as after receiving a free lunch—are more receptive t ...
Factors Contributing To Gullibility
The concept of gullibility, often associated with being easily deceived or duped, is the subject of academic study with scales developed to measure susceptibility to scams. However, these scales and the scientists studying them can be affected by gullibility as well.
Researchers have created a 'gullibility scale' as a self-reported measure where participants rate their own gullibility and their perception of others' opinions on their gullibility.
The gullibility scale has shown a correlation between a person's score and the likelihood of clicking a link in a phishing email. Steven Greenspan, author of "Annals of Gullibility: Why We Are Duped and How to Avoid It," makes a distinction between credulity, which is believing something without sufficient evidence, and gullibility, which involves action in response to being conned. Although no further specifics about this correlation are provided, those with higher gullibility ratings are generally more prone to falling for phishing scams.
Despite the success of the gullibility scale in correlating with susceptibility to phishing, self-reported studies like these may not fully capture the complexities of gullibility. Because gullibility involves a range of psychological and contextual factors, its measurement isn't straightforward and can be subject to the limitations of self-assessment.
The scientific community is not immune to gullibility, often because of overconfidence or the incentive to find positive research findings.
Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant discuss that scientists, due to their deep expertise in a specific field, may overextend this skill set to unrelated fields, making them vulnerable to acce ...
Measuring and Studying Gullibility
Recent discussions and research suggest that the concept of gullibility is more nuanced than previously thought, with several factors influencing why people may accept false information.
Josh Clark and Chuck Bryant unpack the concept of gullibility and trust, discussing findings that challenge the notion of gullibility as it is generally perceived.
Social psychologists from Macquarie University offer a definition of gullibility as "the propensity to accept a false premise in the presence of untrustworthy clues." This implies that one does not need to act on false information to be considered gullible. Clarifying further, Josh Clark points out that trust is often linked to social intelligence, not gullibility. Cynics may keep others at a distance to protect themselves due to lower discernment, while being highly trusting and highly discerning often occur together. For instance, Toshio Yamagishi found that high-trust individuals put more weight on negative information about a person, indicating that they are more discerning and take into account additional information when forming judgments.
Chuck Bryant references Hugo Mercier's book "Not Born Yesterday," which suggests that propaganda is typically effective at reinforcing and intensifying existing beliefs rather than completely altering someone's principles. Nazi propaganda, for example, wouldn't necessarily convert people to anti-Semitism, but it might make existing anti-Semitic beliefs stronger.
Gullibility is associated not just with misplaced trust but also with a lack of motivation to verify information, a reluctance to think independently, or simply confirming one’s own biased beliefs.
On the topic of gullibility, Chuck Bryant points out that while ...
People May Not Be as Gullible as Assumed
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser