Effects of online advertisements on processing and evaluating scientific explanations

Abstract

According to the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), message-based persuasion can occur via the central or peripheral route. If a receiver lacks prior knowledge of a subject or is distracted, they may be less likely to engage in elaboration of the message and are more likely to rely on the peripheral route of persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Petty & Cacioppo, 1984; O’Keefe, 2013). Previous studies (e.g., Weisberg et al., 2008; 2015) support this notion of the ELM, as previous studies have found that novices in an area of science (e.g., neuroscience) potentially engage in lower levels of elaboration and rely on peripheral cues (e.g., the inclusion of superfluous neuroscience evidence) when judging how satisfying scientific explanations are. However, it is important to consider that most scientific information is consumed through science news websites, where additional distractors (e.g., advertisements) are common. In the current study, scientific novices rated direct explanations as higher quality than circular explanations, but showed no significant difference in satisfaction with explanations presented without advertisements. Participants then rated explanations with visually central advertisements as lower in quality and satisfaction compared to explanations with no advertisements or advertisements in the visual periphery. The relationship between advertisement placement and satisfaction and quality ratings of explanations was mediated by processing fluency, but not mediated by eye gaze towards advertisements or recall for advertisements. Therefore, results suggest that visually central advertisements (i.e., embedded within the text), interrupted processing of explanations, leading to lower quality and satisfaction ratings.