Trivial Scientific Information Can Increase Our Sense of Trust in Products
Tools & Resources
Feel free to download and use any of the graphics, illustrations, videos, and resources on this page for educational purposes. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Do you believe in science? Your faith in science may actually make you more likely to trust information that appears scientific but really doesn’t tell you much. According to a new Cornell Food and Brand Lab study, published in the Public Understanding of Science, trivial elements such as graphs or formulas can lead consumers to believe products are more effective. “Anything that looks scientific can make information you read a lot more convincing,” says the study’s lead author Aner Tal, PhD, “The scientific halo of graphs, formulas, and other trivial elements that look scientific may lead to misplaced belief."
In one study, Tal and co-author Brian Wansink, PhD (author of Slim by Design: Mindless Eating Solutions for Everyday Life ) recruited 61 individuals to read information about a new medication. Half of the participants read a paragraph about the medication and the other half read the same paragraph with an accompanying graph. The graph did not provide any new information. Afterwards participants were asked: “Does the medication really reduce illness?” Graphs helped convince almost all of the participants that the medication worked: 96.6% of those who saw the graph believed that the medication would effectively reduce illness, whereas only 67.7% of those who saw only the text believed that that it would reduce illness.
Two additional studies supported the researchers’ hypotheses that individuals are influenced by “scientific looking” elements not because they help with understanding or information retention, but because “scientific looking” information is perceived as true. In the second study 56 participants were presented with either the paragraph and graph from the first study or just with the paragraph with an added sentence repeating that the medication reduced illness by 20%. Afterwards all participants were asked to estimate how much the medication reduced illness and their level of agreement with the statement: “I believe in science.” Retention of information was the same for both groups - graphs did not appear to increase their understanding of the information or their recall of the percentage by which it reduced illness. Those who indicated a belief in science and who were shown the graph expressed the strongest confidence in the effectiveness of the medication. This shows that belief in science can make individuals more likely to be persuaded by trivial, “scientific looking” graphs.“ A general faith in science may lead people to believe things that just look scientific, but aren’t," explains Tal.
In the third study the paragraph was shown to participants as in the two prior studies. This time, instead of a graph, half of the 57 participants in this study were given the chemical formula of the drug’s active ingredient. Those who were shown the chemical formula believed the medication would work for 2 hours longer than those who were given its text description: 5.9 hours vs. 3.8 hours, an increase of 56.8%. These results support the idea that increased confidence was due to participants’ trust in information that appears to add scientific validity.
Researchers concluded that presenting consumers with “scientific looking” information increases product confidence because individuals believe that science denotes truth. Dr. Tal cautions consumers, “What this means is that when you read claims about new products, whether it’s a medication or a new technology, you should ask yourself, ‘what’s the actual scientific support for the claims being made?’ Don’t let things that look scientific but don’t really tell you much fool you. Sometimes a graph is just a graph! Scrutinize what you read so that you’re not blinded by what looks like science, but might not be!”
• Download paper from the SSRN (the Social Science Research Network)
Tal, Aner, and Brian Wansink (2014). Blinded with science: Trivial graphs and formulas increase ad persuasiveness and belief in product efficacy. Public Understanding of Science. doi: 10.1177/0963662514549688.
Other Interesting Articles on Compensation
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think Different: The Merits of Unconscious Thought in Preference Development and Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 586-598.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & Van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On Making the Right Choice: The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect. Science, 311, 1005-1007.
Fillingim, R. B., Roth, D. L., & Haley, W. E. (1989). The effects of distraction on the perception of exercise-induced symptoms. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 33, 241-248.
Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as Excuses or Guides: The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370-377.
Karageorghis, C. I., & Terry, P. C. (1997). The psychophysical effects of music in sport and exercise: A review. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 54.
Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing Effect in Consumer Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 259-266.
King, N. A. (1999). What processes are involved in the appetite response to moderate increases in exercise-induced energy expenditure? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 58, 107-113.
King, N. A., Snell, L., Smith, R. D., & Blundell, J. E. (1996). Effects of short-term exercise on appetite responses in unrestrained females. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50, 663-667.
Kivetz, R., & Zheng, Y. (2006). Determinants of justification and self-control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 572-587.
Lerouge, D. (2009). Evaluating the Benefits of Distraction on Product Evaluations: The Mind-Set Effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 367-379.
Lichtman, S.W., Pisarska, K., Berman, E.R., Pestone, M., Dowling, H., Offenbacher, E., Weisel, H., Heshka, S., Matthews, D.E., & Heymsfield, S.B. (1992). Discreptency between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. New England Journal of Medicine, 327 (27), 1893-1898.
Martins, C., Morgan, L. M., Bloom, S. R., & Robertson, M. D. (2007). Effects of exercise on gut peptides, energy intake and appetite. Journal of Endocrinology, 193, 251-258.
Nowlis, S. M., & Shiv, B. (2005). The Influence of Consumer Distractions on the Effectiveness of Food-Sampling Programs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 42 (2), 157-168.
Okada, E.M. (2005). Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 42, 43-53.
Learn more . . .