Pseudo-profound bullshit pertains to grammatically and syntactically correct but meaningless sentences, that, due to syntactical correctness appear as made to communicate something and research shows that people deem them profound. However, the effect of differing source credibility on bullshit profoundness evaluations has, to our knowledge, not yet been tested. We presented participants with pseudo-profound bullshit alone and with authors of different credibility. In order to partly replicate and extend on the findings regarding mechanisms of receptivity and sensitivity to bullshit we collected profoundness evaluations for mundane statements and proverbs, and different measures of analytic thinking. Ascribing credible authors leads to an increase while ascribing uncredible authors leads to a decrease in profoundness evaluations. Cognitive reflection protects against the tendency to evaluate any type of statement as profound and drives better differentiation between pseudo- and conventionally truly profound, while positive views about actively open-minded thinking enable stronger effects of uncredible authorship.

中文翻译：

---

来源可信度对废话接受度的影响

伪深刻废话与语法和句法正确但毫无意义的句子有关，由于句法正确，它似乎是为了传达某种东西，研究表明人们认为它们是深刻的。然而，据我们所知，不同来源可信度对废话深度评估的影响尚未经过测试。我们单独向参与者展示了伪深刻的废话和不同可信度的作者。为了部分复制和扩展关于对废话的接受度和敏感性机制的发现，我们收集了对世俗陈述和谚语的深度评估，以及分析思维的不同衡量标准。归因于可信作者导致增加，而归因于不可信作者导致深度评估下降。