Blinded with science: Trivial graphs and formulas increase ad persuasiveness and belief in product efficacy

Public Understanding of Science

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 117-125

  Tal, Aner ^a   Wansink, Brian ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Media and science; Medication; Persuasion; Public understanding of science; Rhetoric of science and technology; Science and pop culture; Science communications; Scientific ethos; Scientific literacy

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE; COMPREHENSION; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MARKETING; MIDDLE AGED; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PUBLIC OPINION; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE; COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; MALE; MARKETING; MIDDLE AGED; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PUBLIC OPINION; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84943309564     PISSN: 09636625     EISSN: 13616609     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963662514549688     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Abelson RP (1995) Statistics as Principled Argument. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.
2. Aristotle (1926) Rhetoric. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Childers TL, Houston MJ and Heckler SE (1985) Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research 12(2): 125-134.
4. Constantinides H (2001) The duality of scientific ethos: Deep and surface structures. Quarterly Journal of Speech 87(1): 61-72.
5. Dahlstrom MF (2010) The role of causality in information acceptance in narratives: An example from science communication. Communication Research 37(6): 857-875.
6. Edell J and Staelin R (1983) The information processing of pictures in print advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research 10(1): 45-61.
7. Fahnestock J (1998) Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication 15(3): 330-350.
8. Gastel B (1983) Presenting Science to the Public. Philadelphia, PA: ISI Press.
9. Gross AG (1990) The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Haard J, Slater MD and Long M (2004) Scientese and ambiguous citations in the selling of unproven medical treatments. Health Communication 16(4): 411-426.
11. McCabe DP and Castel AD (2008) Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107: 343-352.
12. MacInnis DJ and Price LL (1987) The role of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research 13(4): 473-491.
13. Merton RK (1942) The normative structure of science. In: Merton RK (ed.) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267-415.
14. Miller CR (2003) The presumptions of expertise: The role of ethos in risk analysis. Configurations 11(2): 163-202.
15. Miller S (2001) Public understanding of science at a crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10: 115-120.
16. Mitchell AA and Olson JC (1981) Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research 18(3): 318-332.
17. Prelli LJ (1989) A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
18. Scott L (1994) Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research 21(2): 252-273.
19. Segal J and Richardson AW (2003) Introduction. Scientific ethos: Authority, authorship, and trust in the sciences. Configurations 11(2): 137-144.
20. Tufte ER (2001) The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 2nd edn. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Pr.
21. Weisberg DS, Keil FC, Goodstein J, Rawson E and Gray JR (2008) The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20(3): 470-477.
22. Wu C and Shaffer DR (1987) Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(4): 677-688.