Cornell study finds link between susceptibility to corporate jargon and weaker analytical thinking

A new academic study has introduced a tool to measure how easily employees are swayed by jargon-filled corporate language that sounds meaningful but lacks substance.

Research published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences by Cornell University scholar Shane Littrell outlines the “Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale,” developed through four studies involving more than 1,000 workers in the United States and Canada.

The study defines “corporate bullshit” as workplace communication that relies on obscure buzzwords and jargon in ways that appear insightful but are ultimately misleading — distinct from legitimate professional terminology that can aid clarity and coordination.

To test the concept, researchers generated realistic-sounding corporate statements by algorithmically remixing language from Fortune 500 executive communications. Participants were asked to rate how much “business savvy” each statement conveyed, allowing researchers to gauge how persuasive they found content designed to be semantically empty.

The findings suggest that receptivity to such language is a measurable trait. Higher scores on the scale were associated with weaker performance on measures of analytic thinking and fluid intelligence, as well as poorer results on a simulated workplace decision-making test.

Even after accounting for factors such as job satisfaction and trust in supervisors, corporate bullshit receptivity remained a significant negative predictor of decision-making performance. It also proved more predictive in that context than an existing, widely used measure of general “bullshit” susceptibility.

The study further found that individuals more receptive to corporate buzzword-heavy language were also more likely to report using similar rhetoric themselves.