The Pseudoscience Claim: The Hawaii Chair

The chosen pseudoscience claim is an infomercial featuring the ‘Hawaii Chair’. This infomercial claims that it takes the “work out of your workout.” This is a chair supposedly works out your abs, whether at home or at work. There is a 2800 RPM motor that causes the seat to move in the circular motion - similar to using a hula hoop. There are actors and actresses demonstrating the chair with Tamara Henry, Miss. Arkansas in 1997 and a personal trainer, endorsing this product. Although Tamara is never seen trying the product, she claims that the “repetitive circular movements of the hula that specifically target the core abdominal muscles” create the perfect abs.
Those who have never taken a psychology course would likely view this as an intriguing
product - “takes the work out of your workout” which is known to be the worst part of working out. The viewers are drawn to this pseudoscientific claim because “our brains are predisposed to make order out of disorder and find sense in nonsense” (Alcok, 1995; Pinker, 1997). One believes what one wants to believe; in this case, the viewer wishes to be fit like the actresses in this infomercial so they will believe that this product will be successful for them. Many pseudoscientific claims “offer us a sense of control over an often unpredictable world;” one may not be able to control their weight so products like this will allow them to feel as if they attempted to lose weight. (Shermer, 2002) The infomercial presents the options of doing it at work or home and being able to work your abs as you sit. Native realism is a key aspect of why the viewers are so keen to believe this product will work. Native realism is “the belief that we see the world precisely as it is” (Lilienfeld, Lohr & Olatunji, 2008; Ross & Ward, 1996). Based on the fact that the actresses are all stereotypically beautiful with “fit and trim abs” in this infomercial, the viewers will believe that the product the actresses are endorsing will be successful because they desire to look like the actresses.
The evidence given throughout the ‘Hawaii Chair’ infomercial lacks the evidence to prove its validity, proving it to be a pseudo-scientific claim.
Throughout the infomercial, there is an over-reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence - there are no facts found and only informal personal evidence is used to validate the claims of the advertisement. “The plural of anecdote isn’t fact” (Park, 2003) and there are far too many anecdotes found within this infomercial. An anecdote can be defined as an unreliable account or hearsay, an example found within this commercial is “slimmer and sexier looking waistline right at home, without ever driving to the gym, picking up a weight, or doing a single crunch or sit up.” Although anecdotal evidence is useful to companies pseudo-scientifically claiming products, it is wrongfully leading for the viewers - this type of evidence is “superficially persuasive” (Lilienfeld, Landfield, 2008) because it is exactly what the audience desires to
hear.
This is related to the “hasty generalization fallacy” (Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy, Woolf, Cramer, Schmaltz, 2017). This is when one draws conclusions with insufficient evidence, the viewers of this infomercial are partaking in this logical fallacy when viewing. There are no facts, so they are not capable to draw conclusions about the success of this product.
Extravagant claims are extreme claims that greatly outstrip scientific evidence” (Lilienfeld, Landfield, 2008). The Hawaii Chair promises to “take the work out of your workout” for a “slimmer, sexier you,” this is an example of an extravagant claim. This company claims that one will be able to achieve abs while sitting on this chair, without working out - there is no evidence to prove this, making this an extravagant claim. Like most pseudoscientific claims, the creators of this infomercial were “careful not to overstate assertions in the absence of compelling data” (Sagan, 1995). Extravagant claims are related to the absence of connectivity, pseudoscientific claims “do not build on the existing corpus of evidence” (Bunge, 1983; Stanovich, 2007). This is relevant as only anecdotal and personal evidence is used throughout the infomercial.
The creator of the infomercial uses the “appeal to authority fallacy” (Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy, Woolf, Cramer, Schmaltz, 2017) by using Tamara Henry, a stereotypically beautiful; fit women who have won beauty contests and pageants, and other beautiful actresses to endorse this product.
This appeals to the desires of the viewers, those watching this infomercial wish to be fit so by showing ‘possible’ final results (the actresses), it encourages the viewer to buy this product. This correlates with the old saying “hope springs eternal,” the audience hopes to achieve this body and people tend to believe what they wish to
believe.
Overall, the chosen pseudoscientific claim is an infomercial featuring the ‘Hawaii Chair,’ based on its lack of evidence, it lacks the ability and validity to be labeled anything but a pseudoscientific claim.

I.. (2008, February 01). (EXTENDED) Hawaii Chair Infomercial. Retrieved October 30, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26MpC_NFrBU
Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Namy, L. L. (2018). Psychology: from inquiry to understanding. NY, NY: Pearson
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Landfield, K. (2008). Science and Pseudoscience in Law Enforcement (Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, 2008) (pp. 1215-1228). Criminal Justice and Behaviour.