Explaining the alluring influence of neuroscience information on scientific reasoning.

Previous studies have investigated the influence of neuroscience information or images on ratings of scientific evidence quality but have yielded mixed results. We examined the influence of neuroscience information on evaluations of flawed scientific studies after taking into account individual differences in scientific reasoning skills, thinking dispositions, and prior beliefs about a claim. We found that neuroscience information, even though irrelevant, made people believe they had a better understanding of the mechanism underlying a behavioral phenomenon. Neuroscience information had a smaller effect on ratings of article quality and scientist quality. Our study suggests that neuroscience information may provide an illusion of explanatory depth.

[1]  Kimmo Eriksson.  The nonsense math effect , 2012, Judgment and Decision Making.

[2]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. , 1997 .

[3]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Problem solving in judgment under uncertainty. , 1987 .

[4]  K. Stanovich,et al.  The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristicsandbiases heuristicsandbiases heuristicsandbiases andbiases andbiases tasks , 2011 .

[5]  S. Frederick.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .

[6]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[7]  Alan D. Castel,et al.  Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning , 2008, Cognition.

[8]  Cayce J. Hook,et al.  The Seductive Allure of “Seductive Allure” , 2013, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[9]  R. Mayer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage: A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 1998 .

[10]  Deena Skolnick Weisberg,et al.  The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  David R. Gruber,et al.  Persuasive images in popular science: Testing judgments of scientific reasoning and credibility , 2012, Public understanding of science.

[12]  R. Tallis.  Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity , 2011 .

[13]  K. Scherer,et al.  How Seductive Details Do Their Damage : A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning , 2004 .

[14]  P. Klaczynski,et al.  Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: a two-process approach to adolescent cognition. , 2000, Child development.

[15]  Martha J. Farah,et al.  Look Again: Effects of Brain Images and Mind–Brain Dualism on Lay Evaluations of Research , 2013, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  Jonathan Evans.  In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  Geoff Cumming,et al.  On the (non)persuasive power of a brain image , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  L. Ross,et al.  Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence , 1979 .

[19]  Z. Kunda,et al.  Ducking the collection of costly evidence: Motivated use of statistical heuristics , 1991 .

[20]  C. Morris,et al.  Psychology : An Introduction , 1968 .

[21]  Günter Daniel Rey.  A Review of Research and a Meta-Analysis of the Seductive Detail Effect. , 2012 .

[22]  Z. Kunda,et al.  The case for motivated reasoning. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  Peter H. Ditto,et al.  Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions , 1992 .

[24]  F. Keil,et al.  Explanation and understanding , 2015 .

[25]  E. Greene,et al.  Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making. , 2012, Behavioral sciences & the law.