CONSIDERING THE SOURCE OF DECEPTION: THE EFFECT OF GROUP AFFILIATION ON JUDGMENTS OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF DECEPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Abstract

The insidious bullshit hypothesis is the idea that although bullshitting (i.e., communication without regard for the truth) is socially perceived as less harmful and entails fewer social consequences relative to lying (i.e., false communication with regard for the truth), the consequences of bullshitting communication itself can be just as bad, if not worse, than lying (Frankfurt, 1986; Petrocelli et al., 2021). Earlier research supports the idea that group affiliation plays a significant role in the perceived accuracy, harm, and social consequences of false information, with individuals preferring their in-group versus their out-group (Pereira et al., 2023; Petrocelli, 2022). Further research analyzed how online social media networks (SMNs) facilitate for the spread of false information, and how the spread of false information on SMNs is affected by these platforms effectively categorizing individuals into in-group and out-group members (Braun & Eklund, 2019; Cinelli et al., 2021; Criss et al., 2021; Martens et al., 2018; Persily et al., 2020; Wood & Ravel, 2017). In light of the insidious bullshit hypothesis, the current investigation tested the effect of group-affiliation on beliefs in the accuracy, perceived harm, and social consequences of lying and bullshitting within the context of social media communication. Within the two studies (N = 238 and N = 512), significant support was found for the insidious bullshit hypothesis. However, no statistically significant support emerged for the main effect of group affiliation, nor was statistically significant support found for the interaction effect of group affiliation and source. The implications and limitations of these results are also discussed.