The Roles of Expert Power and Legitimate Power in Bullshitting Behavior

Abstract

Increasing research attention has been given to the social phenomenon of bullshitting (i.e., communicating with little to no concern for evidence or truth; Frankfurt, 1986). Studies have found accountability (i.e., the expectation one may be called on to justify their beliefs, feelings, and actions to others; Pitesa & Thau, 2013) to decrease bullshitting behavior (Petrocelli, 2018). Although there are reasons to expect bullshitting behavior to be associated with power, the relationship between power and bullshitting remains unexamined. An earlier study (Connolly & Petrocelli, 2020) found that accountability reduced bullshitting behavior, but only for participants with high power. The current study investigated the roles that different types of power (i.e., legitimate and expert power) play in bullshitting behavior. Participants were 208 Wake Forest University students randomly assigned to either an accountability or a control condition, and crossed with one power condition (i.e., legitimate power, expert power, or control). Participants then reported their own levels of bullshit in response to specific questions. Contrary to the hypotheses, it was found that legitimate power condition participants showed greater rates of bullshitting behavior while under conditions of accountability as opposed to when not under accountability. Expert power condition participants did not change bullshitting behavior when they were held accountable. However, control condition participants’ bullshit levels did decrease under conditions of accountability. These findings, while surprising, should further our understanding of bullshitting behavior and its relationship with power.