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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe