Not all bullshit pondered is tossed: Reflection decreases receptivity to some types of misinformation but not others

Across four studies (N = 818), we present evidence that engaging in guided, explanatory reflection reduces receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit but not scientific bullshit or fake news. We also found robust effects of source credibility, in that ratings for pseudo-profound and scientific bullshit attributed to authoritative sources were significantly inflated compared to bullshit attributed to anonymous sources. However, these effects did not extend to accuracy ratings of fake news headlines. These findings provide initial evidence that an illusion of understanding may underlie receptivity to some types of misinformation but not others and that the appeal of misinformation spread by perceived experts may be largely immune to the putative benefits of interventions that rely solely on reflective thinking. Taken together, our results suggest that while encouraging the public to be more reflective can certainly be helpful as a general rule, the effectiveness of this strategy in reducing the persuasiveness of misinformation is limited by the type of misinformation one is exposed to as well as the perceived credibility of the source spreading it.