Study Claiming That Internet Explorer Users Had Low IQs Was a Hoax

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


A consulting company named AptiQuant published an intriguing press release late last week. "Is Internet Explorer For The Dumb? A New Study Suggests Exactly That" inspired many legitimate news organizations to report the story just as the press release suggested, often decorated with comments along the lines of, "Is anyone really surprised?" The online community often perceives Internet Explorer users as less technologically adept than those who use more recently launched browsers, so Firefox and Chrome fans exchanged cyber high-fives about this apparent validation.

But the joke turned out to be on those who repeated the story without first looking into AptiQuant. After BBC News published its initial report (now removed from its Web site), some readers pointed out that the AptiQuant domain had only been registered on July 14. Further investigation showed that much of the material on the AptiQuant site, including employee photos, had been stolen from Central Test, a French company that administers personality and aptitude tests.

Apparently, AptiQuant was created for the sole purpose of publishing this false report, a fact the site now confirms. "Ok, now that the cat is out of the bag, I agree that this study was a total hoax," a recent post to the site admitted, "But what's really funny is that everybody took the report so seriously."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Computer programmer Tarandeep Gill, creator of a comparison shopping web site, has claimed responsibility for the hoax. The motivation: when trying to add features to the site, Gill uncovered incompatibilities with IE6 and became annoyed. Setting up the hoax, he claims, was not only funny but also served a purpose: "to create awareness about the incompatibilities of IE6 and how it is pulling back innovation." (Of course, the fact that uncovering the prank will direct more traffic to his real site—which is now mentioned all over AptiQuant's pages—is entirely incidental.)

The hoax may have been light-hearted, but it raises a serious point: No matter how fact-oriented we think we are, we only really question reports that challenge our preconceived notions. Because the false finding reinforced my own anti-IE prejudice, I confess that I accepted it without a doubt. (Disclaimer: I do know intelligent people who use Internet Explorer, but because I only ever used it in those halcyon days before I knew what a browser was*, I associate it with lack of computer knowledge.) As Gill said in an article posted to the AptiQuant web site, "I guess what I said was exactly what people wanted to hear."

*I used to think that the IE icon was "the internet button."

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Sophie Bushwick was formerly the technology editor at Scientific American. She makes frequent appearances on radio shows such as Science Friday and television networks, including CBS, MSNBC and National Geographic. She has more than a decade of experience as a science journalist based in New York City and previously worked at outlets such as Popular Science,Discover and Gizmodo. Follow Bushwick on X (formerly Twitter) @sophiebushwick

More by Sophie Bushwick

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe