Recently a study was published in the journal, Nutrition and Cancer, which established a negative correlation between coffee consumption and breast cancer. Specifically, it was found that women consuming more than 5 cups of coffee a day were less likely to develop breast cancer than women who never consumed coffee (Lowcock, Cotterchio, Anderson, Boucher, & El-Sohemy, 2013). Imagine you see a newspaper story about this research that says, "Coffee Protects Against Cancer." Why is this headline misleading and why would a more accurate headline draw less interest?

The headline "Coffee Protects Against Cancer" is misleading because it uses the word "protects," suggesting causation as a function of correlation. According to the studies, there is a correlation between drinking coffee and having a lower chance of developing breast cancer. However, that is different than proving that coffee does prevent cancer. The way the headline is structured makes it seem there is a cause and effect relationship where there is not.

Why would a more accurate headline draw less interest?

A more accurate headline would draw less interest because it would indicate the realistic relationship of correlation. Indicating that two things are associated is less powerful than indicating that doing one thing causes a change in the other. People are drawn to the misleading headline because it is much more exciting to believe there is in fact a way to protect oneself against cancer.