Executive Function
Profound Statements Task
Also called: pseudo-profound statements task, profundity rating task, bullshit receptivity task, bullshit sensitivity task
Measure how profound empty statements seem beside meaningful reflections, using ratings of original sentences.
3-5 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 92
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures how profound empty statements seem beside meaningful reflections. Participants rate 24 original sentences on a five-point scale. Scores report the mean rating of empty statements and the difference between the two kinds.
Constructs
- Receptivity to empty profundity
- Reflective judgment
- Profundity discernment
Research uses
- Judgment and reasoning research
- Language and belief research
- Within-study comparisons
How the paradigm works
The Profound Statements Task measures receptivity to empty profundity. Participants rate how profound a sentence seems on a five-point scale. Empty sentences combine abstract words without a definite proposition; meaningful reflections express a clear idea. The primary score is the mean empty-statement rating. Meaningful ratings and their difference from empty ratings help separate this response from a tendency to rate every statement highly.
More about the paradigm
The session mixes 12 original statements of each kind, or eight of each in the shorter setting. The seed selects their order, with no more than three of a kind in succession. One instructed practice rating checks the buttons and gives feedback without showing how to judge the sentences. All sentences are written in each of the eight app languages. The final screen explains the two kinds of sentence, so each person takes the task once.
Scores
- Empty-statement profunditypoints
- Mean rating of empty statements, from 1 to 5.
- Higher means the empty statements seemed more profound
- Meaningful-statement profunditypoints
- Mean rating of meaningful reflections, from 1 to 5.
- Compare with the empty statements
- Profundity differencepoints
- Mean meaningful rating minus mean empty rating.
- Positive means meaningful statements seemed more profound
- Empty statements rated high%
- Share of empty statements rated 4 or 5.
- Context for the primary score
- Ratings givencount
- Usable scored ratings in the selected run.
- Fewer than 90% of the planned ratings invalidates
- Ratings plannedcount
- Number of scored statements planned.
- 16 or 24
- Scale points usedcount
- Number of different ratings used.
- Uniform ratings are flagged for review
- Median rating timems
- Median rating time excluding responses under 100 ms.
- Descriptive timing
- Ratings under 100 mscount
- Ratings under 100 ms; retained in rating means.
- Context for response speed
- Practice rating correct%
- 1 if the instructed rating was selected, 0 otherwise.
- A wrong practice answer is flagged
- Earlier sessionscount
- Earlier sessions for this person, when known.
- An earlier session is flagged
Use and evidence
92 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 104% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 257 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 34 |
| 2024 | 11 |
| 2023 | 18 |
| 2022 | 16 |
| 2021 | 13 |
| 2020 | 11 |
| 2019 | 13 |
| 2018 | 9 |
| 2017 | 7 |
| 2016 | 5 |
| 2015 | 3 |
| 2014 | 0 |
| 2013 | 0 |
| 2012 | 0 |
| 2011 | 0 |
| 2010 | 0 |
| 2009 | 0 |
| 2008 | 0 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 4
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 25
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Statements
- 24 original sentences by default: 12 empty combinations of abstract words and 12 meaningful reflections. The shorter setting draws 16, eight of each kind. All items are written in the session’s language.
- Order
- The session seed draws and mixes the statements, with no more than 3 of either kind in a row.
- Practice
- One instructed rating of 3, with feedback about using the scale. Practice does not teach which statements to find profound.
- Ratings
- From 1 (not at all profound) to 5 (very profound), with no time limit and a 300 ms pause after each answer. A 500 ms blank starts the scored part.
- Scores
- Mean empty-statement profundity is primary. Mean meaningful-statement profundity, meaningful minus empty ratings and the share of empty statements rated 4 or 5 provide context.
- Last screen
- Explains that some sentences combined abstract words without a clear meaning. Each person takes the task once.
These original sentences follow the published rating method. Their meaning and profundity have not been calibrated in a participant sample. Use raw ratings and within-study comparisons; no personality label or percentile is returned.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: profound_statements_rating from one run, ratings from 1 to 5 of original empty and meaningful statements. Ratings are untimed judgments with no correct option. Fewer than 90% of the planned ratings invalidate. The same rating on every item (at least four), a wrong practice answer and an earlier session are flagged for review. Ratings under 200 ms on at least half of four or more items invalidate. A hidden tab is flagged.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Uniform ratings can be sincere and are flagged, never treated as wrong. The 90% completion threshold is a ConductScience choice. Practice checks use of the scale, not the content of a judgment. An earlier debrief can change how a later session is answered. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Statements | 24 statements (standard) | 16 statements, 24 statements (standard) |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Profound Statements Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Pennycook et al., 2015), with the standard settings (statements: 24 statements). The main score was empty-statement profundity (mean rating of empty statements, from 1 to 5).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 549-563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006999Five-point profundity ratings, mean empty-statement rating and comparison with meaningful statements.
Source papers
- Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(6), 549-563.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Profound Statements Task take?
About 3 to 5 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Empty-statement profundity, Meaningful-statement profundity, Profundity difference, Empty statements rated high, Ratings given, Ratings planned, Scale points used, Median rating time, Ratings under 100 ms, Practice rating correct and Earlier sessions. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Profound Statements Task used in research?
92 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 104% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 257 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Profound Statements Task have?
In the published research, 4 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Statements (16 statements, 24 statements (standard)). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.