University of Windsor: Pseudoscience Claims in Advertising Analysis

This assignment analyzes pseudoscience claims, focusing on an advertisement for L'Oreal Revitalift. The assignment explores the definition of pseudoscience, contrasting it with scientific methods, and identifies how the product's claims of anti-wrinkle effectiveness within eight weeks, supported by celebrity endorsements and potentially photoshopped images, exemplify pseudoscience. It highlights the lack of falsifiability, absence of evidence, and over-reliance on anecdotal evidence as indicators of pseudoscience. The assignment also discusses the common fallacies, such as appeal to authority and appeal to popularity, that make individuals susceptible to these claims, ultimately hindering their critical thinking skills. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of awareness and critical thinking to avoid being misled by dishonest marketing practices. The assignment references key indicators to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, and the impact of these fallacies on consumer behavior.

Running head: PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS
PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

2PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS
Part 1:
Pseudoscience is a belief that certain practices are both scientific as well as factual
(Tavris, 2014). However, the methods that are involved in those practices are incompatible with
the existing scientific methods. They are often backed by contradictory and unfalsifiable claims.
Various advertisements are available in the media that claim different potential benefits of the
products however, in reality they are not the way they claim to be. One such advertisement that
made such false claims was L’Oreal Revitalift (Zafar, 2020). The product promised that it was
effective on curing the deep-set wrinkles and that the results were visible in just 8 weeks. The
L’Oreal Company also claimed that they had conducted numerous clinical trials and the results
had proved the product’s claims. They were represented as “anti-wrinkle” products and that they
used certain technology in the creams that helped reduce wrinkles. There are other 17 products in
the Revitalift skincare and they were marketed as “firming” or being able to repair the skin
barrier. The advertisements of the products were run on television and many Hollywood female
actors like Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watt and many others endorsed the brands, claiming to have
benefitted by the product.
However, despite such claims made by the product, a plaintiff Nataliya Borchenko
reported that L’Oreal made false promises, which were not reflected in the product. Borchenko
stated that L’Oreal did not specify that Revitalift guaranteed changes to the skin. It was also
reported that the pictures of Rachel Weisz were photoshopped in order to make her look
younger. Therefore, there arises a question that if the product was an effective treatment to anti-
wrinkle then why photoshop was used to smoothen out the actor’s skin.
The common people who have no idea about pseudoscience would fall into the trap of
advertisements of the product. Females would be lured into the belief that the product really

3PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS
works and that the product will improve the structure as well as the function of the skin by
firming and lifting their skin. They would believe that their existing wrinkles would diminish.
There has been a rise in the urge of looking a certain way that are beyond the conventional
beauty standards set by the society. Everybody wants to look young and pretty like the way the
female actors are portrayed on the screen. People forget that an army of people gets behind an
actor’s look and that just by simply applying a cream would not make them look like them. As a
result, they get attracted to the false promises and waste their money on such products that would
not provide any benefits to them.
Part 2:
The evidence given does not convince the validity of the claim. There are many
indicators that differentiate between science and pseudoscience. Some of these indicators are
lack of falsibility, lack of self-correction, the absence of safeguards against any kind of
confirmation bias (Lilienfeld & Landfield, 2008). Evasion of peer review and overreliance on
anecdotal evidence are another signs that the product endorses pseudoscience instead of science.
There are certain signs in the advertisements of L’Oreal Revitalift that show that the claims made
by it are evidence of pseudoscience. Firstly, the advertisements made exaggerated claims that the
cream had certain technology that could minimize the wrinkles or rather eliminate them within 8
weeks. Such kinds of claims are usually signs of pseudoscience. It is scientifically not possible to
alter the layers of skin and reduce wrinkles that have formed over the years in just 8 weeks.
Secondly, when the products talks about proofs instead of evidences then it is another sign that
the product is manipulating the customers through such claims (Travers, 2017). Revitalift
advertised that its technology had been proven to reduce wrinkles and did not provide any
evidence supporting the claim. When Rachel Weisz endorsed the brand, her face had been

4PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS
smoothened out technically to reduce the wrinkles. This led to filing of lawsuit against the brand
and the advertisement was banned after the incident. Another sign is over-reliance on anecdotes.
Revitalift advertised that with the regular usage of the product, women could see their wrinkles
diminishing within 8 weeks. When there is a lack of review by the other scholars, it sends a sign
that the product is the symbol of pseudoscience. The product Revitalift did not give any evidence
that the technologies that it claimed to have that enhanced the benefit of the cream was backed
by any research of the sort. It had an extremely vague description of the product’s technologies
that cured the wrinkles of the skin and therefore it provides a clear sign that the product was an
example of pseudoscience.
Common fallacies that are certain psychological obstacles that prevent an individual from
thinking logically and critically (Bennett, 2017). These fallacies make the individuals put down
their guard and fall for the claims that are hardly true. One such fallacy is appeal to authority.
Here the person views the opinion of the authority and believes them to be true. As in the case of
Revitalift, the endorsements by the popular Hollywood female actors filled the minds of the
women who watched those advertisements that they could also achieve their dream of having a
smooth skin by using the creams since the top actors did so. Accepting a belief just because a
superior authority says so diminishes the critical thinking skills of the person and affects their
cognitive biases (Sjoberg, 2017). Another fallacy that hampers the logical skills of an individual
is appeal to popularity. Here people believe a claim to be true because many people believe it. As
the advertisements showed that many women believe that the product worked, therefore it
attracted more and more women into buying the product.
Therefore, it can be said that such common fallacies are responsible for obstructing the
critical thinking skills of the people that lure them into doing something that ultimately harms

5PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS
them in the end. Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience becomes difficult. However,
if people are aware of how the companies can be dishonest in order to increase their sales, they
can prevent themselves from falling into the traps and save their time, energy and money.

6PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS
References
Bennett, B. (2017). Logically fallacious: the ultimate collection of over 300 logical fallacies
(Academic Edition). EBookIt. com.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Landfield, K. (2008). Science and pseudoscience in law enforcement: A
user-friendly primer. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(10), 1215-1230.
Sjoberg, E. A. (2017). Logical fallacies in animal model research. Behavioral and Brain
Functions, 13(1), 3.
Tavris, C. (2014). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. Guilford Publications.
Travers, J. C. (2017). Evaluating claims to avoid pseudoscientific and unproven practices in
special education. Intervention in school and clinic, 52(4), 195-203.
Zafar, A. (2020). Too Perfect? Rachel Weisz's L'Oréal Ad Banned in Britain For Being
'Misleading'. Retrieved 27 February 2020, from
https://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/03/too-perfect-rachel-weiszs-loreal-ad-banned-in-
britain-for-being-misleading/