Ever scroll through social media and come across a post that sounds incredibly profound, only to read it again and realize it makes absolutely no sense? You’re not alone. These are examples of what researchers call “pseudo-profound bullshit.” (like a quote over a mountain covered in fog?)

It’s a topic that’s been on my mind lately, fueled by some recent online interactions (seriously, I have to remember to just stick to talking about my dog and the Gators!).

These social interactions reminded me of a study by Pennycook and colleagues I read some time ago investigating why certain people are more receptive to these seemingly wise but ultimately empty statements.

Methodology

Researchers presented participants with statements that appeared meaningful but were actually random buzzwords strung together.  For example, one statement was, “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena.” Participants rated how profound they found each statement.  Researchers then analyzed these ratings alongside measures of cognitive style, beliefs, and intelligence.

Results and Findings

• People vary in their ability to detect bullshit.
• Those who easily fall for bullshit tend to be less reflective thinkers.
• People who are more gullible also tend to have lower cognitive ability and believe in the paranormal.
• A bias toward accepting statements as true may contribute to bullshit receptivity.

Deep Dive: Discerning Deceptive Vagueness

The study suggests that detecting bullshit involves more than just skepticism.  It requires the ability to recognize vague language that seems impressive but lacks real substance. Some people may have a stronger tendency to accept things at face value.  This can make them more susceptible to bullshit.

The researchers also found that people who are more reflective and have higher cognitive abilities are better at spotting bullshit.  This suggests that critical thinking skills play a role in bullshit detection.

Why It Matters: Bullshit in the Real World

Pseudo-profound bullshit is common.

You likley encounter it in everyday conversations (especially those taking place on social media), political rhetoric, marketing, and even academia.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current Secretary of Health and Human Services, has made pseudo-profound claims. For instance:

He said, “By September, we will know what has caused the autism epidemic and we will be able to eliminate those exposures.” 

This statement contains all the hallmarks of pseudo-profound language – it sounds momentous and offers a dramatic promise while being scientifically implausible.

Understanding bullshit like this and how people perceive and process bullshit can help us become more discerning consumers of information.

Limitations/Caveats

The study focused on pseudo-profound bullshit, but there are other kinds.   For example, “conversational bullshit” occurs when people speak without concern for the truth, such as in a casual bull session with friends. Also, partisanship and polarization is likely to affect how people rate the profundity of statements.

Final Thoughts / Conclusion

Bullshit is widespread (especially online without any editors), but we can learn to identify and resist it.

Critical thinking skills should be mandatory so that we call can better navigate the sea of information and avoid falling for deceptive vagueness.

Ever shared a post only to realize later it was fake news? You’re not alone, and psychology explains why. The “sleeper effect,” a phenomenon where a message’s influence grows over time as its source fades from memory, has gained new relevance in the age of social media misinformation. A foundational 2004 meta-analysis by Kumkale and Albarracín unpacks the mechanics of sleeper effects in persuasion.  (and who doesn’t love a meta study?), while a 2023 study by Ruggieri et al. examines how this effect applies to fake news about COVID-19 workplace safety. Together, these studies reveal why false claims stick in our minds and what makes them so hard to correct.

Methodology

Kumkale and Albarracín (2004)

This meta-analysis compiled data from 72 experiments to examine the sleeper effect across multiple contexts. The study investigated conditions influencing delayed persuasion, including the timing of discounting cues and the audience’s ability and motivation to process messages. The researchers analyzed the persistence of message impact when the source’s credibility faded from memory, thus isolating key factors that contribute to the sleeper effect.

Ruggieri et al. (2023)

This study involved 324 Italian white-collar workers who viewed Facebook posts about COVID-19 workplace safety. Participants were exposed to three types of posts: real news, real news with a discounting cue, and fake news. Researchers measured participants’ perceptions immediately and one week later, focusing on memory recall and belief in the information. They categorized participants as either “believers” or “nonbelievers” of the fake news to analyze differences in perception and memory retention over time.

Findings

Kumkale and Albarracín (2004)

The meta-analysis confirmed the sleeper effect’s occurrence under specific conditions: when discounting cues followed persuasive arguments and when recipients had high motivation or ability to process the message. Persuasion increased over time as memory of the noncredible source decayed. The review emphasized the importance of the timing of discounting cues and the cognitive engagement of the audience, suggesting that motivated audiences are more susceptible to the sleeper effect.

Ruggieri et al. (2023)

Participants remembered fake news better than real news, even when they initially recognized it as false. Fake news is often more emotionally provocative, novel, or sensational, making it more memorable. The study also posits that the narrative structure and vividness of fake news stories can enhance recall.  In the end, memory of the message persisted, but memory of the source diminished over time, suggesting a sleeper effect. Those who initially believed the fake news maintained or increased their positive impression of the content over time. Conversely, nonbelievers showed a slight increase in acceptance but to a lesser extent. The study highlights how fake news influences perception long after the source is forgotten.

Critiques of the Research or Additional Areas of Potential Study

Kumkale and Albarracín (2004)
The meta-analysis provides robust evidence for the sleeper effect but relies on aggregated data from diverse studies with varying methodologies. As with all meta studies, the lack of uniformity across experiments presents a challenge in isolating causal mechanisms. Further research should explore real-world applications (as in Ruggieri), such as political messaging or health communication, to test the sleeper effect outside controlled environments. Investigating long-term behavioral changes could also deepen understanding of its societal impact.

Additionally, the meta study was published in 2004 –  predating social media’s rise.

Ruggieri et al. (2023)
The study effectively demonstrates the sleeper effect in the context of workplace safety perceptions but is limited by its sample of educated white-collar workers.  In addition, Ruggieri’s study tested memory after one week—what happens after months?  Future research should explore different demographic groups to determine if educational background affects susceptibility to misinformation.   Future research should explore media diets to determine if media mode affects the sleeper effect.  Memes and now deepfake pictures or video are likely to stick around a lot more than a text based message. Additionally, the study focuses on COVID-19-related content, which may limit generalizability due to potential confounding factors. Examining other controversial topics could provide a broader understanding of the sleeper effect’s impact.   I may as so bold as to suggest UFO’s?

Comparative Analysis
Kumkale and Albarracín offer a foundational, theoretical perspective on the sleeper effect, establishing cognitive mechanisms and general conditions for delayed persuasion.
In contrast, Ruggieri et al. apply these principles to a specific real-world context, highlighting how emotionally charged and vivid fake news influences memory. The former provides broad insights into persuasion dynamics, while the latter demonstrates practical implications in digital misinformation.  Future studies should integrate both approaches, combining theoretical rigor with real-world relevance to better understand and combat misinformation.

Neither study offers much on how to combat the sleeper effect, merely suggest implications for countering misinformation. Kumkale and Albarracín (2004) highlight the importance of disrupting the dissociation process by ensuring the credibility of the source remains linked to the message. Ruggieri et al. (2023) imply that repeated corrections and reminders of the source’s noncredibility could mitigate the sleeper effect. Future research should explore these mitigation strategies more systematically, particularly in digital environments where misinformation spreads rapidly.

Conclusion: Why This Matters

The sleeper effect isn’t just an academic curiosity—it’s a weapon in the misinformation playbook.

Kumkale and Albarracín (2004) provide a theoretical framework for the sleeper effect, showing its occurrence when discounting cues follow persuasive arguments and when audiences engage cognitively. Their meta-analysis emphasizes cognitive mechanisms and general conditions for delayed persuasion.

Ruggieri et al. (2023) apply this framework to real-world misinformation about COVID-19, revealing that fake news persists in memory even when initially identified as false. Their findings demonstrate how emotional and vivid content enhances recall, highlighting practical implications in the context of social media.

In a world barrelling towards deep fakes, and where where misinformation spreads faster than facts, understanding the sleeper effect isn’t just smart—it’s survival!

Introduction: Why Fast Results Aren’t Always Realistic

A potential client reached out a few months ago with a challenging request: they wanted us to “change minds… fast.”

After a deeper dive, it became clear they were really hoping to quickly alter a specific, public behavior.

Their ask? Develop a plan to make it happen. NOW.

In our first meeting, the client (who, let’s be honest, had zero patience for a long process) and I spent some time unpacking the factors at play with their target audience. Here’s what we agreed on:

• • • Motivation? Pretty low. This audience had a lot going on, and the client’s issue wasn’t exactly top of mind.
    • Partisanship? Through the roof. This issue had become a political flashpoint, not something easily shifted.
    • Strength of Beliefs? A mixed bag—likely low overall—but most were sticking hard to their partisan lines.
    • Target Audience? The masses. We weren’t dealing with individuals but a collective mindset.

Through some honest conversation (and a few tough pills to swallow), the client started to grasp the limitations. Coercion? Not happening.

It became clear: expecting a quick, dramatic behavioral shift wasn’t realistic. (The client didn’t love hearing that.)

Eventually, we shifted the goal. Instead of “changing minds fast,” we landed on something more feasible: Mitigating resistance and opening the door to considering new information.

Understanding the Challenge: Low Motivation and High Partisanship

Here’s the thing: if you want to influence public opinion, you have to understand who you’re dealing with.

In this case, the audience’s motivation was rock-bottom. People were juggling a million priorities, and this issue wasn’t even on their radar.

Then there was the partisanship. When people tie their identity to a political party or movement, changing their opinion feels like threatening their sense of self. Political polarization? It’s a fortress. Trying to break through? Like turning a battleship with a canoe paddle.

Strength of beliefs was another layer. Most weren’t deeply invested in the issue itself, but they leaned heavily on partisan cues. Their engagement wasn’t critical or thoughtful; it was reflexive. To move the needle, we’d first have to untangle those layers of identity and affiliation.

Why Coercion Doesn’t Work: The Limits of Influence

Here’s a truth bomb: coercion doesn’t work. Sure, you can force compliance in the short term, but it doesn’t change minds. In fact, it often entrenches resistance even deeper. Push too hard, and people dig in. Throw partisanship into the mix, and you’re not just meeting resistance—you’re fueling it. Coercion can break trust and destroy relationships, which is exactly what you don’t want when trying to create lasting change. And in this case, the client had no real leverage. Instead of forcing the issue, we took a different approach: reducing resistance and creating space for people to choose to engage with new perspectives.

Reframing the Objective: Mitigation and Openness

Once we let go of the “change minds fast” fantasy, we could focus on a realistic goal: mitigating resistance and fostering openness.

The idea wasn’t to flip opinions overnight. Instead, we aimed to soften the ground—to create an environment where new information could take root.

Think of it like planting a seed. Growth takes time, but with the right conditions, it happens.

Blunt force wasn’t going to work here.

The Power of Incremental Change: Fostering Open-Mindedness

Big, dramatic changes don’t stick, especially in a politically charged climate. So we went small. Real small. The goal became about introducing little bits of new information—no overwhelming data dumps, no aggressive pitches. Just tiny nudges that gently challenged existing views without triggering defensiveness. It’s like getting someone to try a new food. Offer a small taste, and they might be curious. Force-feed them? They’ll spit it out—and maybe even puke on you.

Strategies for Influencing Low-Motivation, Partisan Audiences

When dealing with low-motivation, partisan audiences, success isn’t about sweeping changes. It’s about crafting strategies that meet them where they are.

 

1. 1. • Appeal to Shared Values
        Tap into the universal concerns that unify people: family, security, fairness, community pride. Frame your message to align with these priorities—it’s harder to dismiss what feels familiar and relevant.

      • Leverage Trusted Messengers
        The messenger matters. Use individuals or institutions the audience already respects—community leaders, influential peers, or trusted organizations.

      • Deploy Narrative Framing
        Facts don’t persuade; stories do. Develop narratives that reflect the audience’s experiences or aspirations. A compelling story can cut through defensiveness and make the message relatable.

      • Demonstrate Social Proof
        People follow the crowd. Highlighting others within their social circles who are engaging with the issue normalizes new ideas. Multiple touchpoints matter here—one voice isn’t enough.

      • Focus on Incremental Change
        Aim for small wins. A petition signature, a webinar click, or even a casual conversation can build momentum over time.

Managing Expectations: Setting Realistic Goals

Let’s be real: shifting deeply held beliefs is a marathon, not a sprint.

Instead of aiming for instant results, focus on small, measurable wins. Over time, these steps add up, creating meaningful progress.

Every little nudge moves the needle.

Conclusion: The Long Road to Influence

The lesson? Sometime, you gotta slow down and examine if the goal is realistic and proper. And in our case of dealing with low-motivation, partisan audiences, realistic goals are essential. By reducing resistance and gently opening the door to new perspectives, you can lay the groundwork for long-term change. Changing minds doesn’t happen overnight. It’s slow, deliberate, and frustratingly incremental—but it’s also the only way to achieve lasting influence. Frankly, most don’t want to hear there are no silver bullets – only work and resources.

There are dumb moves, and then there are really dumb moves.  

This past weekend, in a fit of smart-alecness I announced on social media that I was going to sponsor a “Most Politically Punchable Face” tournament.   It was going to be bracket style and include seeds for each region.  It was an open call for nominations.  

Yeah, terrible idea.  What I put up in a smart-alec way, quickly turned…well scary.

No kidding I had every intention of putting up a ‘who has the most punchable face in politics bracket’, excluding myself to allow others to have a chance to win.

In fact, I had gone as far as starting to program it, had seeding for east, west, south and north divisions completed, written the “rules” and had selected an equal number of members of both parties.

It was going to be a riot.  I thought in today’s media environment, it would be an eye-catching, silly stunt to drive some PR and “engagement.”

Instead, it was a total and complete lack of judgment on my part, and I apologize.

I have since deleted the social media posts and will issue a variation of this post on those channels.   

At times, today’s politics veers into actual political violence because norms are eroding and people are … upset.

Upon seeing some of the comments and DMs, I quickly realized I want no part in contributing to this environment or erosion of norms.

Violence is not acceptable in politics, and I can’t ask for civility and then engage in nonsense.

I am sorry.

My father and I have started meeting for breakfast once a week.  No agenda, just eggs and chatter.

We were chewing the fat about it being busy at work, and he looks at me and asks “What is it that you guys do?”

That hit hard – my own father doesn’t know what we do.

Now, in fairness “what we do” has changed over the years – mostly morphing on the type of clients.

But I gave him my best elevator speech, one that we worked on for a bit – “Ozean is a political affairs firm providing strategic consulting using research, data, messaging, and media that drives messages beyond the bounds of only the political elite.”

Yeah, I could tell that didn’t land.

“Dad, Ozean is a public relations firm for political clients.”  AH-HA.  That was a bit better.  “We conduct research and create political campaigns, not so much for candidates any more but more for other political actors.”

“But we don’t use the term public relations…..”

“Why?”

Political Public Relations

The term “public relations” when involving government work is frowned upon and suspect.

There is a weariness of formally acknowledging that the government would have an interest in molding public opinion about issues.    Therefore, in 1913, the Gillett Amendment was tacked on to the Interstate Commerce Commission’s enabling act.  While it doesn’t ban government public relations per se, it does state “Appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.”  Huh?  Yeah, I find it confusing too.

So, like with most laws and regulations, we go out of our way to find a loophole : We call ‘public relations’ by any other name.

The government employees and spends money, lots of money, on ‘information specialists’ and ‘community relationship managers.’

Firms that contract with the government go out of the way to call themselves “public affairs firms”, “strategic communication firms” – just not “public relations.”  We like the term “political affairs.”

This obfuscation brings to mind the old saying “the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”

In the end, call it what you want, but Ozean identifies audiences (“stakeholders”), attempts to understand who they trust and how and what they are thinking so that our clients can influence them on political matters.

Clear as mud right?  It’s just not public relations.